Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/08/2000 03:21 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 8, 2000
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Jerry Sanders
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 207
"An Act relating to the registration of persons who perform home
inspections; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 207(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 334
"An Act relating to the establishment of and accounting for an
administrative cost charge for the state's role in the community
development quota program and to the appropriation of receipts
from the charge; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 334(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 422
"An Act relating to workers' compensation benefits for injuries
resulting from consumption of alcohol or use of drugs; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 422 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 419
"An Act relating to the weekly rate of compensation and minimum
and maximum compensation rates for workers' compensation;
specifying components of a workers' compensation reemployment
plan; adjusting workers' compensation benefits for permanent
partial impairment, for reemployment plans, for rehabilitation
benefits, for widows, widowers, and orphans, and for funerals;
relating to permanent total disability of an employee receiving
rehabilitation benefits; relating to calculation of gross weekly
earnings for workers' compensation benefits for seasonal and
temporary workers and for workers with overtime or premium pay;
setting time limits for requesting a hearing on claims for
workers' compensation, for selecting a rehabilitation specialist,
and for payment of medical bills; relating to termination and to
waiver of rehabilitation benefits, obtaining medical releases,
and resolving discovery disputes relating to workers'
compensation; setting an interest rate for late payments of
workers' compensation; providing for updating the workers'
compensation medical fee schedule; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 207
SHORT TITLE: LICENSE HOME INSPECTORS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/21/99 900 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/21/99 900 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
10/21/99 (H) L&C AT 10:00 AM ANCHORAGE LIO
10/21/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
2/18/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
2/18/00 (H) Heard & Held
2/18/00 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
3/03/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/03/00 (H) Heard & Held
3/03/00 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
3/08/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 334
SHORT TITLE: CHARGE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/02/00 2071 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/02/00 2072 (H) CRA, L&C, FIN
2/02/00 2072 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
2/02/00 2072 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/15/00 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
2/15/00 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
2/22/00 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
2/22/00 (H) Moved CSHB 334(CRA) Out of Committee
2/22/00 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
2/23/00 2271 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 4DP 2NR
2/23/00 2271 (H) DP: KOOKESH, MORGAN, HARRIS, DYSON;
2/23/00 2271 (H) NR: JOULE, MURKOWSKI
2/23/00 2271 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED) 2/2/00
3/08/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 422
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS' COMPENSATION:DRUGS & ALCOHOL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/25/00 2309 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/25/00 2309 (H) L&C
3/08/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 419
SHORT TITLE: WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/23/00 2279 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/23/00 2279 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
2/23/00 2279 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
3/08/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF BUSH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Community and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110800
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0800
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 334.
LARRY COTTER, Chief Executive Officer
Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association
234 Gold Street
Juneau, Alaska 98901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 334.
DICK TREMAIN
Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association
16251 Chasewood Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 334.
ROBIN SAMUELSON, President
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation
P.O. Box 1464
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 334.
PAUL GROSSI, Director
Division of Workers' Compensation
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
P.O. Box 25512
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5512
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 422 and HB 419, Version G.
WILLIE VAN HEMERT, Owner, CRW Engineering Group
and Co-chair, Workers' Compensation Committee of Alaska
1633 West 15th
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 419, Version G.
MARY SHIELDS, Member
Workers' Compensation Committee of Alaska
3330 Arctic Boulevard, Suite 201
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 419, Version G.
GENEVA HULSEY
4821 East 104th
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 419, Version
G.
JUDY PETERSON, Member
Workers' Compensation Committee of Alaska
3330 Arctic Boulevard, Suite 201
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 419, Version G.
KEVIN DOUGHERTY, Co-chair
Alaska Labor-Management Ad Hoc Committee on Workers' Compensation
and Alaska State District Council of Laborers
2501 Commercial Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 419, Version G.
VALERIE BUFFONE, Member
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board
10606 Flagship Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 419, Version G.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-28, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Harris and Brice. Representatives Murkowski, Cissna and Sanders
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 207-LICENSE HOME INSPECTORS
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 207, "An Act relating to the registration of
persons who perform home inspections; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to adopt as a work draft the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 207 [Version Y, 1-
LS0132\Y, Lauterbach, 3/8/00]. There being no objection, it was
so ordered.
Number 0144
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG, speaking as the sponsor of HB 207, explained
that Version Y removes the entire licensure on the home
inspection issue. In Section 1, it leaves in that a home
inspector cannot exculpate himself or herself from a cause of
action. It also makes the home inspector report that is issued
good for one year; it includes the other prohibited acts in the
original bill; and it contains definitions. Fundamentally, it
strips all the licensure out; takes the controversy regarding
architects and civil engineers out; and takes licensing fees out.
It puts in to Title 9 - the civil action section - the legal
actions that cannot be exculpated; in other words, the liability
does exist, as a matter of public policy, "and under Title 45,
which is the trade practices title."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move Version Y of HB 207
[1-LS0132\Y, Lauterbach, 3/8/00], out of committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 207(L&C) was moved out of the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 334-CHARGE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 334, "An Act relating to the establishment of and
accounting for an administrative cost charge for the state's role
in the community development quota program and to the
appropriation of receipts from the charge; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 334(CRA).]
Number 0326
JEFF BUSH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Community and
Economic Development, came forward to testify on HB 334. He
stated:
I hope the committee is familiar with the CDQ
[community development quota] program. This is the
program in Western Alaska that allocates federal
fisheries in the Bering Sea at a percentage of the
federally regulated fisheries in the Bering Sea to
Western Alaskan communities...Overseeing the program is
done through the State [of Alaska]. It's been in
operation for approximately eight years now. It's
extremely successful. It has about $30 million in
annual royalties right now, ... received by the
communities in Western Alaska that are organized into
six CDQ groups, as we call them, which are nonprofit
corporations.
The communities all have representatives on the boards
of these nonprofit corporations. The corporations in
turn receive allocations that are recommended by the
state oversight group and then approved by the federal
government through NMFS [National Marine Fisheries
Service]. The current estimates are [that]
approximately 1,300 jobs annually are generated through
the program and it's a growing program because the
corporations are essentially growing exponentially
because of their ongoing profits and the royalties they
receive.
Beginning last summer, the state - recognizing the
budget problems that the legislature and the
Administration in this state was having - met with the
groups and suggested that this was a program that is
very important for them to retain efficient and
adequate state oversight. One of the reasons is ...
that when they want to enter into business deals, by
federal law, they have to have their amendments to
their plans approved. In other words, these business
deals have to go through a review by the State and then
by the federal government. It's in their best interest
to have these things occur as quickly and as rapidly as
possible.
So, as the numbers of business deals and the size of
the business deals grows, it's important for them to
retain at least the current state oversight.
Number 0471
What we suggested was, because this was a program that
receives a great deal of, sort of, subsidies - I
hesitate to use that word, but it's essentially a
federal program that does subsidize these corporations
- that they should in turn pay for the program
themselves. So, what this bill proposes to do is to
take the money that is presently paid for through the
general fund of $250,000 of GF [general fund] and have
instead a fee program set up that the groups would pay
for, through statutory designated program receipts, the
same $250,000, thereby freeing up $250,000 of general
fund. They have come to the table.
This proposal was, in fact, in terms of the allocation
formula, was proposed by the groups as far as I
understand...all six groups have sent in letters to the
Legislature in support of this proposal. It isn't
often that I get to say that it's such a good bill,
that I think everybody, including those who are about
to pay the fees, fully supports. Therefore, it's a
win-win for all parties involved.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated an amendment in the bill packet was
similar to an amendment that the Senate adopted on companion
legislation to HB 334. The written amendment [Amendment 1, which
was later amended and then adopted] read as follows:
Page 3, line 5, insert new subsection (f) as follows:
"(f) The department shall not assess nor collect
administrative charges under this section from CDQ
groups, representing communities not eligible for the
CDQ program as of the effective date established in
section 6 of this Act, for a period of two years from
the actual award of fishery quota to that newly formed
CDQ group."
Re-letter subsequent sections accordingly.
MR. BUSH, in response to Chairman Rokeberg's inquiry, said the
department is neutral on the amendment because it does not affect
the amount collected by the state. The department is aware that
the existing groups are opposed to the amendment. If a new group
is formed, the existing groups would have to cover the expenses
of the new group.
Number 0650
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said that is the reason the House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee did not pass the
amendment. Existing groups felt it was an unfair advantage that
new groups would have. The testimony he heard was in opposition
to this, but he has no personal opinion regarding this matter.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked who covers the costs for the six
CDQs.
MR. BUSH replied that the costs are covered internally by the
groups. The royalties are worth about $30 million annually. The
groups are earning profits more than this amount. He specified
that state oversight is paid for by the general fund (GF).
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked how long the state has paid for
oversight through the general fund.
MR. BUSH responded that it has been since 1991 or 1992.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said, "So, for eight years these six have
been getting a free ride with [regard] to being responsible for
oversight."
MR. BUSH affirmed that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "And that's the idea of the
amendment, that if these people came in, at least they would have
... some theory of equity."
MR. BUSH stressed that he was not here to argue one way or
another.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether Mr. Bush could explain the
House's budget position on this bill.
MR. BUSH responded that it is not presently included in the House
budget. There is a fiscal note associated with the bill.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG surmised that the department would not be able
to fund the program unless HB 334 passed because there would not
be any GF funding available.
MR. BUSH stated that funding is still currently in the budget
bill, and HB 334 is simply an adjustment to the budget bill.
Number 0815
LARRY COTTER, Chief Executive Officer, Aleutian Pribilof Island
Community Development Association [APICDA], came forward to
testify on HB 334. He confirmed that all six current CDQ groups
do support HB 334. He is also aware that the six groups oppose
the amendment. There is opposition to the amendment because a
new CDQ group will be funded with allocations which are currently
shared among the existing groups. The existing groups would lose
allocation, which could easily be measured in the millions of
dollars. The total cost to currently provide oversight is
$250,000, but HB 334 would allow the amount to rise as high as
$400,000. He said it is an equity issue and if considerable
revenues are going to be lost by the addition of new groups,
those groups can pay for their own share of oversight. If the
committee chooses to adopt the amendment, he suggests some "word
smithing." The way it reads now, his group or any other group
picking up a new community as part of their group would not be
required to pay its share of the CDQ fees.
Number 0944
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS wondered if Mr. Cotter believes that his
group and the others received a free ride from having to pay the
administration costs that the state pays from the GF. He also
asked if he feels the groups were given the benefit of developing
a savings account and wondered if the new groups would not have
this advantage.
MR. COTTER said the issue isn't as black and white as that. He
said:
I think somebody could make that argument that we did
not have to pay so why should somebody else have to
pay, but there are, in different cases, extenuating
circumstances. In our particular groups' case, a fair
amount of our allocation was being harvested by factor
trawlers. At that time, factor trawlers were not
required to pay raw fish tax.
What our group did, voluntarily, is we took the raw
fish tax that would have been paid had that fish been
landed ashore, and we wrote a check to the State every
year to voluntarily pay that tax which amounted to, I
think we paid upwards of 70, 80, 90 thousand dollars
during the first three years. Other groups did similar
things in their own way. I'll just be candid. Again,
I don't think the amount of money is the big deal
because if there is a new group, it will be able to
afford to pay that $40,000 to $70,000. I do think that
the equity side of it is important because all the
revenue they're going to be receiving will come from
the existing six groups and that'll be substantial.
Number 1068
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented:
Your testimony was that $40,000 to $70,000 a year isn't
a big nut to swallow and if there is a new CDQ, it
could be able to afford it; but what about the six CDQs
the last eight years? I mean would it be fair to say
the State can go back and collect the yearly
administration or oversight charges? ... Here's my
point: For eight years, we've covered the costs
through general fund dollars of oversight. If - and
that's a big if - if there are new CDQs introduced, two
years is not a long time to allow them to get their
feet on the ground and organize and get their act
together when, in fact, the other six have obviously
had eight years.
MR. COTTER reiterated that he does not believe the amount of
money is the important issue. He pointed out that his group put
millions of dollars in matching funds into infrastructure in
their communities. That was money the state did not have to
spend.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Bush what incremental costs for
the department are associated with the addition of new CDQs.
Number 1182
MR. BUSH stated:
I believe that part of the reason this allocation
formula was come up with where the groups, despite
whatever their respective allocations are, half of the
amount that's going to be charged is based upon a
straight, across the board, every group pays one-sixth
of the half. The reason for that was a recognization
that size of the group did not necessarily reflect the
amount of work that was associated with the groups.
Small groups sometimes generate more work at the
administrative level. Large groups generate less
sometimes. New groups generally are going to require
more State administrative oversight than older groups.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what the additional cost would be to
the department right now if a new group were added.
MR. BUSH said he does not believe the department would ask for
increments if there were a new group. The department is trying
to protect existing administration and not lose GF on a new
program that does not need it.
Number 1297
DICK TREMAIN, Central Bering Sea Fishermen's Association,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. His organization
is one of the six CDQ groups. He explained:
This is a user fee program...When you institute a user
fee, at least in Anchorage here, when we institute a
user fee, as we did last night for fire inspections, we
don't go back six years and charge everybody for the
fire inspections that they had, we charge them in the
future. In fact, we don't even go back to January 1,
we're going forward when we begin the fee charge on
April 1. And that's what this CDQ program thing
basically is. There's mandated state oversight through
federal law. We know that there's a state budget
crunch. The CDQ groups realize that we are receiving
(indisc.) and that it is right and just and moral sense
for us to pay a user fee and that's what this is all
about. In that sense, any new group would also be in
that same position.
I'd point out that I don't have the pleasure of having
the amendment in front of me, but Mr. Cotter said there
are some word changes that need to be made. I fully
believe that. It may be that that amendment speaks to
new communities rather than new groups. There are
communities that become eligible under federal law.
These communities band together by one or more to form
groups. The 60 some communities that are currently in
the program have formed six groups. So, I would make
sure that if you do add an amendment, which I would
recommend against, but if you do add it, it would need
to discuss groups and not communities. I would
recommend that you move this out of committee with a
recommendation that it be passed by the entire the
House.
Number 1423
ROBIN SAMUELSON, President, Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation [BBEDC], testified via teleconference from
Dillingham. He stated:
My board has been very supportive of paying our fair
share to the State. We support HB 334 without the
amendment, Mr. Chairman, and feel that there's been
compromises by the CDQ groups in presenting this
(indisc.) structure. As far as the amended language,
Mr. Chairman, in the Senate the other day, they voted
on the amended language before they took public
testimony which I thought was kind of weird and then
they took public testimony and there was some
discussion about withdrawing the amendment and they
said, "Oh, we've already passed the amendment."
In prior House committee meetings, we were able to give
public testimony and then the committee voted up or
down and they didn't include the amended language.
Apparently, there's a three percent fee structure that
will be implemented by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, up to three percent on the CDQ groups. The
State will get their fair share...for State
oversight,...but because of the budget cuts that you
are all facing down there in Juneau, we entered into
talks with the State of Alaska to pay our fair share.
So, we are picking up that burden willingly, and, as I
said, it's been negotiated out and we'll gladly help
the State out and their budget shortfalls by paying our
fair share.
Number 1544
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 [text
provided earlier].
[There was an objection.]
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said if there are CDQ programs that are
allowed to join the program, they have two years to become
established. He does not think it is a big deal. He pointed out
that the state has carried the existing CDQ groups. He believes
the new CDQs will be contributing partners after two years, and
will invest in infrastructure in their communities just as much
as the existing groups. It is his opinion that a two-year grace
period is totally equitable.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that one-seventh of $250,000 is
$36,000. There would be a fiscal note if the amendment were
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO clarified that Mr. Bush had said there
would not be any additional charges.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stressed that there would not be any charges
because the money will not be obtained. He added, "As a matter
of fact, excuse me very much, if they were exempt, then the state
would lose ... designated program receipts of $36,000."
Number 1636
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he had objections along those same
lines. He does not favor giving new groups an advantage.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE offered a friendly amendment to the second
line of the amendment, adding "new" between "from" and "CDQ
groups".
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. There
being none, the amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained that there had been testimony from
the department that there is no incremental cost for an
additional person and, therefore, there is no fiscal note. He
believes it is a good thing if the intent is to expand the CDQ
groups. But if the intent is to put exclusivity into statute to
forbid the development of new groups, then he thinks the bill
should be passed without the amendment because the amendment
allows for new groups to participate.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he does not think rejecting the amendment
creates a barrier. The new group would simply have to pay the
existing fee, and that would be ongoing cash flow straight into
the department.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that the department just testified
that that is not the case.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS referred to the amendment and stated that
one of the previous testifiers had a concern with the language
"representing communities not eligible for the CDQ program" in
reference to the CDQ groups. He believed, based on previous
testimony, that communities were different than groups. He
wondered if this issue has been addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO interjected:
Mr. Chair, if you look at it, it says ... not eligible
for CDQ programs, so that means everybody outside of
the program as of the effective date established in
Section 6 of this Act, which is 6/30/2000, so anybody
who's not in 6/30/2000, and is awarded a CDQ, or can
form a CDQ group, and join the program, they would get,
basically, what I consider a two-year incentive. If
you're in already, if there's an existing CDQ that
wants to branch out, they're already in before
6/30/2000, so they wouldn't be eligible. ... Everybody
in before 6/30/2000 doesn't get the incentive, doesn't
get the two-year waiver.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Brice,
Sanders and Halcro voted in favor of Amendment 1, as amended.
Representatives Harris and Rokeberg voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CSHB 334(CRA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the
attached fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 334(L&C)
moved from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 422-WORKERS' COMPENSATION:DRUGS & ALCOHOL
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 422, "An Act relating to workers' compensation
benefits for injuries resulting from consumption of alcohol or
use of drugs; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1924
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained that HB 422 is a housekeeping bill
that tightens up definitions in an existing statute pertaining to
the effects of the consumption of alcohol or the use of drugs
with respect to making a claim under workers' compensation
benefits. Under AS 23.30.080(a), the definition of
"intoxication" has been replaced with "consumption of an
alcoholic beverage". He referred to Section 2 of HB 422, which
relates to an injury not being proximately caused by the
consumption of an alcoholic beverage. He commented that it is
difficult to prove intoxication and, therefore, the language
needed to be changed. In addition, in Sections 2 and 3, the
language "employee's use" replaces "employee being under the
influence" of drugs. He said this bill ratifies the zero-drug
policy that has been discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said:
I can see a situation where you're going to be required
to show up on the job, maybe not a construction job,
any type of job, under, say, the influence of Percodan,
and you've had your wisdom teeth, or something,
pulled...
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that type of situation is not included in
the bill. The bill pertains to controlled substances and not
those that are prescribed by a physician.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO pointed out that page 2, line 23, states
"unless the drugs were taken as prescribed by the employee's
physician".
Number 2123
PAUL GROSSI, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, came forward to
testify on HB 422. He said the department does not oppose the
bill because it cleans up the current language.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the issue should not be whether or not the
person is intoxicated. The issue should be whether or not the
person is drinking or using drugs at the time an injury is
claimed.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move HB 422 out of
committee with individual recommendation and the attached fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 422 moved from the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 419-WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 419, "An Act relating to the weekly rate of
compensation and minimum and maximum compensation rates for
workers' compensation; specifying components of a workers'
compensation reemployment plan; adjusting workers' compensation
benefits for permanent partial impairment, for reemployment
plans, for rehabilitation benefits, for widows, widowers, and
orphans, and for funerals; relating to permanent total disability
of an employee receiving rehabilitation benefits; relating to
calculation of gross weekly earnings for workers' compensation
benefits for seasonal and temporary workers and for workers with
overtime or premium pay; setting time limits for requesting a
hearing on claims for workers' compensation, for selecting a
rehabilitation specialist, and for payment of medical bills;
relating to termination and to waiver of rehabilitation benefits,
obtaining medical releases, and resolving discovery disputes
relating to workers' compensation; setting an interest rate for
late payments of workers' compensation; providing for updating
the workers' compensation medical fee schedule; and providing for
an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made of motion to adopt a proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 419, Version G [1-LS1418\G,
Ford, 3/7/00] as a working draft. There being no objection, it
was so ordered.
[Chairman Rokeberg handed the gavel over to Vice Chairman
Halcro.]
Number 2275
PAUL GROSSI, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor, came forward to testify on HB 419, Version
G. He commented that the department supports the bill. He said
it is a compromise bill that was agreed upon by the AFL-CIO and
members of the WCAA [Workers' Compensation Association of
Alaska]. He explained that the bill provides needed increases in
benefits for injured employees. It has been approximately 12
years since there have been any increases in benefits. Version G
provides for an increase in permanent-partial impairment benefits
from $135,000 to $177,000. There would also be an increase in
both the minimum and maximum compensation rates. The amount
available for retraining would be increased from $10,000 to
$13,300. Widows' and orphans' benefits are also increased. The
calculation for overtime payment is included for the
determination of a compensation rate.
MR. GROSSI continued. Version G provides for seasonal and
temporary workers' compensation to be calculated on wages at the
time of injury. Compensation to be repaid during rehabilitation
would be at 70 percent of the expendable wage as opposed to 60
percent. There are also a few provisions for employers. These
provisions help expedite the reemployment benefits process as
well as clarifying some of the benefits and issues in that
process. Included is a simple method for employees to waive
retraining benefits any time during the process. It increases
the time for employees to give notice to employers of the
election of a benefit from 10 days to 15 days.
MR. GROSSI continued. Version G also provides for benefits to
cease if there is a failure to provide that notice. The
provisions clarify that permanent total disabilities are not due
while a person is in the retraining process. They also require
that if a permanent partial impairment is paid in a lump sum then
the employer will obtain a credit for those benefits paid. A two
year statute of limitations is established on the reemployment
claims. There is a two-year time line for the request of a
hearing on a claim. The time line for the payment of medical
bills is increased from 14 days to 30 days. It changes the
interest rate to the court rate, which is 2 percent above the
prime, and establishes a simple summary process for employees to
obtain reasonable medical releases. He further stated:
I don't know whether this is an employer or an employee
issue, but it provides for an annual update of the
usual customary reasonable fee schedule. This
determines the amount that's paid for medical benefits
on each type of treatment and, right now, there's not a
specific requirement for that to be updated yearly, it
will be under this amendment. ... In this bill, there's
something for both sides. There's also something for
both sides to be against ... [ends midspeech because of
tape change].
TAPE 00-28, SIDE B
...diverging interests and it was an agreement among
other employers and the employees...I did include...a
side-by-side sectional [analysis] and it says what the
bill does and what the current law does. I would
suggest that you look at that because it is a pretty
good analysis of what this bill does.
Number 0035
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS referred to page 3, line 30, of Version G,
which read:
(7) the estimated time of medical stability as
predicted by a treating physician or by a physician who
has examined the employee at the request of the
employer or the board, or by referral of the treating
physician;
He said it seems convoluted and asked who makes the decision.
MR. GROSSI answered that it could be any of those which are
listed that make the prediction.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS wondered what happens if all of them make
a different prediction.
MR. GROSSI said if that occurred, the division would handle it.
He explained:
The reason for this is, if a physician makes the
prediction, currently only the treating physician can
make that prediction. And so if there are other
physicians that examine,... you'd have to go back to
the treating [physician].... If any doctor makes that
prediction, then you can start into the process. There
has to be a prediction that there's a permanent
impairment that precludes you from going back to your
job (indisc.).
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if Mr. Grossi would have a problem
with an amendment that said "at the request of the employer and
the board". He is concerned with an employer becoming
inappropriately involved.
MR. GROSSI replied that he would like a little time to consider
that amendment.
Number 0124
VICE CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Grossi whether, in his capacity as
an administrator, he feels this is the fairest compromise that
could have been reached.
MR. GROSSI said he believes it is the best that could be reached
under the current climate. He pointed out that arguments could
be made both ways depending on the perspective. He suggested
that those types of questions be deferred to the Alaska Labor-
Management Ad Hoc Committee on Workers' Compensation.
VICE CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated:
Last week I think we had a ... workers' comp[ensation]
bill, and the testimony was that workers'
comp[ensation] rates have actually gone down or stayed
pretty level, so you're talking about employers taking
a 7 or 8 percent hit, but, as competitive as the
workers' comp[ensation] insurance market is, it's still
going to be okay. You're not going to have people out
there falling off the wagon.
MR. GROSSI said that is correct. Since 1989 the workers'
compensation premium rate has decreased by approximately 40
percent. This would probably add an additional 7 to 9 percent
premium cost. He said he thinks workers' compensation,
considered in its entirety, is still a pretty good deal compared
to the way it was in 1988.
Number 0217
WILLIE VAN HEMERT, Owner, CRW Engineering Group, and Co-chair,
Alaska Labor-Management Ad Hoc Committee on Workers'
Compensation, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
stated:
I'm not an expert on workers' comp[ensation]. As a
matter of fact, I probably know more about workers'
comp[ensation] now than I ever wanted to know. But I'd
like to tell you a couple of things about the, first of
all, about the WCCA as a management group...WCCA
supports this bill. I think Mr. Grossi said it was a
compromise bill. It resolves, from the management
point of view, or the employers' side, it resolves some
potential litigation issues. I think it also brought
some reasonable time frames to keep lingering cases
from extending on. We thought that was important.
From the benefits side for the injured worker,
ironically, we made increases in almost all of the
areas that were identified by the audit. We did not
have that audit [Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, Division of Workers' Compensation, Audit
Report by the Division of Legislative Audit, October
31, 1999] information until actually, I think it was
released just a couple of days ago, but it addressed
increases in PPI [Permanent Parted Impairment]. It
identified increases in the death benefit and also it
increased the maximum wage.
Number 0279
I'd also like to talk to you just a little bit ...
about the process as to how we got to some of these
increases. A couple things that we looked at was the
Consumer Price Index [CPI], which I know has been
referred to in the audit. We also looked at the
average weekly wage of employees in Alaska. That's
gone up about 20 percent during that time frame. We
also looked at what other states have and what we ended
up using as our guideline, is we added up all the
increases, the percentage increases, that was available
in the way of data between 1988 and 1998 which was 31
percent approximately. That was the guide that we
used.
Now, the benefits that you see in the revised bill, to
give you an example or put that in perspective of other
states, the maximum weekly wage, I think there are only
four states that have a higher maximum weekly wage,
once this bill is put into place. The PPI I think is
in the top 25 percent. I think it's even higher than
that, but PPI is calculated in different ways in a
number of states. The death benefits is probably the
highest of any state just because we've gone back up to
the full benefit for the death benefit. Most of them
are in the 66 to 80 percent range. So, we feel good
about the numbers that we utilized. That just gives
you a little basis for where they came from.
Number 0350
We're very much in support of the committee substitute.
We only have one comment and that is, I think it may be
an oversight, but this is on page 9, section 16 at the
bottom of the page, line 29, we need a definition of
"average weekly wage" and what we had recommended be
included there, which is also on the Senate bill, it
would...[mean] that the average annual wage is computed
by the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development.... This also puts the maximum wage with an
index of the average weekly wage that's computed by the
Department of Labor, that number will adjust itself
annually.
I want to talk real briefly about the comment by
Representative Sanders that was made from page 3. I
think that was very worthwhile noting that and I would
be concerned, too, even as an employer. The thing,
however, that this only refers to is the completion of
the reemployment plan a rehabilitation specialist. And
the reason that was added is because often times a
treating physician is not willing for whatever reason,
just by the way he operates,...[to give] information on
medical stability until maybe a year later or two years
later. That prevents the vocational rehabilitation
specialist from completing the plan for the voc-rehab.
And it's kind of one of these real vicious circles.
This has nothing to do with any other benefits, it's
just for the completion of the plan. If you can't
complete the plan, then there's a fine because the
plan's not completed in time and it kind of keeps going
around and around, but it only refers to the vocational
rehabilitation plan itself.
Number 0443
VICE CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that the reason the definition
for an average annual wage calculation is not included because
the bill drafter felt it would be redundant. He referred to page
9, lines 25 through 27, of Version G. He explained that it
specifies how the commissioner determines the average weekly
wage.
MR. VAN HEMERT said:
I see what you're saying, too. It's just that there's
an annual wage that's calculated. I don't know. Not
everyone views that as being done by the department,
but we'll leave that to your discretion at this time.
Number 0483
MARY SHIELDS, Member, Workers' Compensation Committee of Alaska,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said, as the
manager for Northwest Technical Services, that she has had the
opportunity to watch claims come and go. She also sits on the
Denali Safety Council, as well, and has had several discussions
on how claims are handled. One concern revolves around the
lengthy amount of time spent trying to resolve issues. She
explained:
One of the reasons that management, in their
negotiations with Labor [Department of Labor and
Workforce Development], accented those resolutions
including the changes in getting the vocational
rehabilitation program moving forward and getting it
completed and getting it done, is because we were
ending up with claims going on and on with no
resolution. That's detrimental to both the employer
and the employee, and by tightening that down by
setting absolutes, and this is why we were very
concerned about the intent language and very pleased
with it.
By setting absolutes and making it very, very clear to
the courts and to the board that this it really what
you all need, we feel that we can change some of that
and get some of that locked back into place. As you
know, anytime you work a compromised bill you go
through, you have a whole bunch of things come in, you
throw a whole bunch of things out before you get to
the final resolve. I believe we're both pleased with
this. Labor did recognize the fact that they are not
just representing AFL-CIO, but they were also
representing the balance of the employees in Alaska,
and they took that as their charge. So, yes, I
strongly support the bill as presented with this
amendment.
Number 0573
GENEVA HULSEY testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
stated:
I am an injured worker. I urge you, in the strongest
terms, to reject HB 419 because it appears to be to
favor insurance companies and discriminate against
workers at the same time. I endorse the findings
recently released by the Division of Legislative Audit,
which highlights the many shortcomings of the workers'
compensation process. These are the kind of things
that need to be implemented in HB 419, not the ones
that are currently in the bill. The system is already
extremely difficult to deal with and injured workers
don't need additional restrictions or cuts in
benefits.
For example, there has been no cost of living allowance
for many years. Please read the full audit report.
One in eight [who] work in Alaska will be affected by
the legislation.
I am forwarding to you a summary of high points in the
audit report, as well as a letter from attorney Michael
Jensen [letter dated February 18, 2000, included in the
bill packet], who points out some of the legislation's
shortcomings.
A copy of the report is available on the web at
http//www.legislative.state.alaska.us/legaud/web/pages/
digests/2000/4601dig.htm or from [Legislative] Budget
and Audit. Thank you for the opportunity for having me
testify today, and I hope you will implement the
recommendations of Budget and Audit Report by amending
the legislation.
Number 0676
[Representative Rokeberg resumed chairing the committee.]
JUDY PETERSON, Northwest Technical Services, and, Member,
Workers' Compensation Committee of Alaska, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She commented:
I have overseen workers' compensation at Northwest
Technical for the last 15 years, but I have never been
actively involved in a process like the one we went
through on the committee [Ad Hoc Committee]. We met
for several months, at least once a week, and towards
the end, more than that. I think that we came up with
a proposal, with the agreement of management and Labor,
that increases the benefits for the employees because
they certainly haven't had very many of those since
'88, but it also contains the cost for us as employers
because our costs have been reduced which was the whole
point of the '88 bill. I personally support it [HB
419] and it's supported by the WCCA.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Peterson is the proprietor of a
business.
MS. PETERSON indicated she is the personal administrator for
Northwest Technical Services.
Number 0759
KEVIN DOUGHERTY, Co-Chair, Alaska Labor-Management Ad Hoc
Committee on Workers' Compensation, came forward to testify on HB
419, Version G. He also works for the Alaska State District
Council of Laborers. He explained that the committee met in
order to resolve a number of workers' compensation issues. After
working on HB 419 for several months, the committee unanimously
agrees with the content of the bill as well as Version G. He
said it does represent a balanced bill, but does not have all of
the issues for everyone. He thinks it represents a positive move
forward for both the management and the employees. He said:
From the employees' side, we had benefits that we
wanted to increase for widows and dependent children in
the event of a death. For injured workers, we were
able to get the combined agreement from the management
reps for the employers in this state to make some
appreciable benefit increases that would benefit those
injured workers, but yet, within the confines of the
affordability, that the employers at the table voiced
quite well for us. ...
We worked hard on the bill. We appreciate your support
for the bill. We would like to get this done with
respect to something positive to get done this year
that will address both management concerns and
litigation ... but also try to get some of the benefits
improved since we haven't addressed those since 1988.
Number 0900
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if Mr. Dougherty has an opinion on
his suggested amendment.
MR. DOUGHERTY agreed with the testimony by Mr. Van Hemert for two
reasons. He commented:
I honor the employer's issues and have to stick with
that and they likewise do the same thing for them.
This issue was one that the employers came to us with
in the current language, Representative Sanders, and
that current language was to assure that the
voc[ational] rehab[ilitation] plans didn't just get
hung up because sometimes the doctors don't get their
paperwork done. .. and they can't get the voc[ational]
rehab[ilitation] plan to go forward until they get that
medical stability paperwork.
So, if that doctor's not available or doesn't do the
paperwork or they're out of town, we have a fall back
to go to number 2, which would be the employer's
physician ... or, third, the board's physician. ... We
wouldn't want to drop the ability to have a back-up
with the employer and the board. I don't think the
employers would agree, and I would stand with them.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said, "So, there's a sequence to it, it's
not an arbitrary, we're going to pick one of them?"
MR. DOUGHERTY said he believes there is a sequence. He suggested
that it may be worthwhile to confer with Mr. Van Hemert on that
subject.
Number 1010
VALERIE BUFFONE, Member, Alaska Workers' Compensation Board, came
forward to testify in favor of HB 419, Version G. She thinks the
bill represents the areas of concern from both management and
injured workers that she has heard through the public hearings
the Board has held. It is her opinion the bill goes a long way
towards addressing some of the areas with shortcomings in the
current workers' compensation statute.
MS. HULSEY wondered if the committee took into consideration the
audit report before drafting HB 419.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered, "We're just about to put the Director
of Workers' Compensation on the audit hot seat here?"
MS. HULSEY asked, "Did you say you're just about to, but you
haven't looked into?"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that is not entirely true. He
explained the bill was drafted with the audit report in mind. He
said the committee will be taking those issues up specifically.
He added:
The bill came from the ad hoc committee, but the final
report on the audit was not received until after the
bill was drafted. That's why we're not moving the bill
today...
He asked Mr. Grossi to explain Recommendation 1 [page 41,
Legislative Budget and Audit Report].
Number 1163
MR. GROSSI explained that Recommendation 1 pertains to the
development of a strategic plan and the elimination of a manual
process.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if the issues are mostly
administrative.
MR. GROSSI affirmed this.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested moving on to Recommendation 2.
MR. GROSSI commented that fixed benefit amounts have not kept
pace with inflation and cost of living. He said:
That is one of the areas that is being addressed...with
raising the permanent partial impairment benefits, the
reemployment benefits level, the widows' benefits, the
maximum compensation rate, minimum compensation rate.
It even has an indexing element to the maximum and
minimum compensation rates in that it's adjusted to the
Alaska average weekly wage. I will say this, in here
they have $135,000 would equal $189[,662] and this
bill, for permanent partial impairment, it's $177,000,
but I believe...they use the Anchorage CPI as the
number to adjust the permanent partial impairment.
There's probably other economic indicators that [are]
calculated differently...Second section, overtime and
premium pay is excluded in the determination of
spendable weekly wage. Well, this is including the
overtime and premium pay. It's in there.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this issue is controversial in Alaska.
MR. GROSSI affirmed that. He explained:
I think it was controversial both ways. I don't know
that employers necessarily wanted to back in because,
of course, that could increase the benefit level.
Employees felt that it was unfair because their pay is
based on; a lot of them work regular overtime and their
pays are based on that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered, "But this puts that back in?"
MR. GROSSI replied that it does.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the rationale is, because Alaska has a
large number of seasonal workers that rely on overtime to make a
yearly living wage.
MR. GROSSI answered yes. He pointed out there are seasonal
workers, construction workers and workers on the North Slope who
regularly work overtime.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if Mr. Grossi is familiar with the
Anchorage Police Department who get paid for "overtime and then
they get paid for more overtime". He said, "Apparently they
didn't catch the change in the Wage and Hour Act that this
committee sponsored and passed last year." He indicated some
concerns have been expressed that by including overtime this
would not necessarily be fair. He asked, "From your
understanding, is there any balance made here on this issue about
inclusion of this [overtime] or not?"
MR. GROSSI asked, "Balance in the sense of ...?"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he means a balance in the sense of the
"whole package". He stated, "I mean we have the delicate balance
here of the ad hoc committee. So, is there any trade-offs made
because of that?"
MR. GROSSI explained that one trade-off is that the employee is
not entitled to collect permanent total disability during the
reemployment process. There is also a section which states that
if an employee is paid a lump sum of permanent partial impairment
benefits prior to becoming eligible for reemployment, then the
employer is entitled to a credit for that period of time.
MR. DOUGHERTY referred to a letter date February 1, 2000, from
the Alaska Labor-Management Ad Hoc Committee on Workers'
Compensation [included in the bill packet]. The letter provides
a comparison of management versus labor issues in HB 419.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said Mr. Grossi has provided a side-by-side
analysis of the old bill versus the new bill. He indicated it is
important to understand the perspective on both sides of the
bargaining unit.
MR. DOUGHERTY agreed. He explained that management had some good
points for streamlining and addressing litigation problems that
were costing them money. The ad hoc committee agreed to work
with management because it would keep attorney fees down. He
referred to the comparison of issues in the letter and said that
medical bill payments will be made within 30 days as opposed to
14 days. This allows more deliberation on whether or not an
employer will controvert a medical bill. There is also a
clarification of time limits for bringing a claim under AS
23.30.110(c). He noted there were some unanswered questions
under the current law in this section. HB 419, Version G, gives
some definition to this so that both management and labor have a
time limitation. He stated:
The interest rate will be the same one which is used
for other administrative bodies in the state which is,
I guess, two percent above the prime. So, that's a
concession that the employers requested so that they
weren't paying higher than other parties in a case.
There was a need by employers to have a system of
assuring they got the medical releases so that they can
defend their cases. So, for example, an employer needs
to know the medical status in relation to work comp
claim to find out whether or not it's work-related or
not. There's always been a system in place under
section 107 of the act [AS 23.30.107].
There's always been a system where employees have to
provide that document to release to the employer, but
yet there were "teeth" in that requirement. So, the
law said you had to require it, provide it, but it
didn't say what would happen if you didn't. We have a
system with full notice to the employees and a system
to oppose, if the release is too broad and it's not
fair, there's a system to go to the board and argue
about that, but if it's reasonable to suspend the
benefits until somebody finally signs that release, if
they need that information. In the voc[ational]
rehab[ilitation] process, most of what we did was
update some of the benefits and increase the stipend
that was paid. But there are a couple items, again
employers came to us with that were reasonable and fair
and that we agreed with.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "You kind of looked at this kind of
holistically when I asked about what was the benefit of the trade
off between this one provision. So, you looked at the whole
bargain as a whole."
MR. DOUGHERTY said that is fair to say.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked who the other co-chair was for the ad hoc
committee.
MR. DOUGHERTY replied that it was Mr. Van Hemert.
Number 1844
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Van Hemert to address the overtime
premium pay exclusion provisions.
MR. VAN HEMERT agreed with Mr. Dougherty's analysis of the issue
as being holistic. He said the overtime issue is indeed
controversial on both sides. He stated:
I think where the discrepancies came in is for slope
[North Slope] workers who regularly were paid overtime
and yet that time was only calculated as regular time,
and, yet, their whole basis of whether they were a week
on, week off, or two on, two off, was really predicated
on them getting overtime pay. So, for them, this is a
much more fair proposition.
Some of the employers are opposed to this, obviously,
because maybe they have someone who is in the
relatively short time frame, has a peak experience, we
look back at the last 13 weeks of earnings to determine
the average weekly wage for that individual. So, there
can be some discrepancies. As far as seasonal and
temporary workers, by definition, overtime is already
included in their determination because we have a one-
year look back period for seasonal and temporary so it
has no impact on them.
Number 1942
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked:
The formula is for a 13-week "lookback" now, including
the overtime, and that's the issue, unless they are a
seasonal worker, then you look at the whole year. Is
that kind of the simplistic break down of it?
MR. GROSSI answered that it is a little more complicated, but
that is basically it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred back to Recommendation 1 because he
does not entirely understand the formulation. He asked, "We made
a percentage differential here, would be to increase it from,
what, 60 percent to 70 percent?"
MR. GROSSI said yes. This refers to the weekly payments that are
made to an employee during a reemployment benefits plan.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered, "Which is the typical claimant, isn't
it?"
MR. GROSSI said he was unsure about delving into that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that he would like Mr. Grossi to.
MR. GROSSI explained:
You're injured, and you have medical benefits and also
if you're disabled, you're entitled to what's called
temporary total disability benefits, it's sort of a
wage loss benefit, and that's 80 percent of the
spendable weekly wage. It's calculated on basically
what Norm [Chairman Rokeberg] was talking about on the
13 weeks. You receive that up until the time you
become medically stable.
Once you become medically stable, one of two things
happen, you can receive a permanent partial impairment;
well, if you're medical stable and you're able to go
back to work and you don't have a permanent partial
impairment, you're basically just released to go back
to work and compensation stops. But if you're injured
and you are permanently impaired, you're unable to go
back to work -- let's start with permanent impaired.
You're permanently impaired, you might be entitled to a
permanent partial impairment...say you have a
disability and it causes 10 percent whole person
disability, then that 10 percent becomes the multiplier
on, right now it's $135,000, as proposed it would be
$177,000, so, you'd be entitled to $17,000 in permanent
partial impairment.
If you're unable to return to work and you need
retraining, you may be entitled to this reemployment
benefit program which gives you the $10,000 right now,
but $13,300, in the proposed bill, of retraining
benefits. If you need that, then your permanent
partial impairment benefits are paid out in weekly
increments at your temporary total disability rate or
80 percent of the spendable. If that runs out, then
you're entitled to, right now, 60 percent of your
spendable weekly wage,...
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected and asked if there is a cap for the
payout.
MR. GROSSI replied, "It's for two years."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "We're making ten grand a week, but
you're limited to how much you can get. Is there a ceiling on
the thing?"
MR. GROSSI responded that there is not, with respect to total
benefits. A person can only receive the benefits for two years.
He stated, "The 60 percent of the spendable or the 70 percent as
proposed."
Number 2266
An unidentified speaker interjected and explained:
There is a cap on that weekly wage, however, that you
get reimbursed,... approximately $700, and we're
proposing that that would be based on an index of 120
percent of the average weekly wage.
MR. GROSSI apologized and said he did not initially understand
the question. He said:
You're asking if there's a cap on your temporary total
disability or your various compensation rates, and,
yes, there is. Currently it's $700. It will move to
122 percent of the average weekly wage ... every year
that'll be recalculated. ... I think you were going to
ask this question: how much does that mean? ... It's
approximately $780.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Mr. Grossi provide the committee
with the dollar formula at the next meeting.
MR. GROSSI said he believes the average weekly wage is $644.
This number is multiplied by 120.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered, "You have a 1.2 integer on a
multiplier, so you're paying 20 percent over what they're
making?"
MR. GROSSI replied no and stated that it is simply an average.
He said the average weekly wage is every wage and salary in the
Alaska.
[HB 419 was held over.]
Number 2436
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, Chairman
Rokeberg adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 5:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|