Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
01/22/2024 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB60 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 22, 2024
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Löki Tobin
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Wielechowski
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 60
"An Act repealing the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission;
relating to decisions and orders of the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; relating to superior court jurisdiction over
appeals from Alaska Workers' Compensation Board decisions;
repealing Rules 201.1, 401.1, and 501.1, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and amending Rules 202(a), 204(a) - (c),
210(e), 601(b), 602(c) and (h), and 603(a), Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 60
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
02/06/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/23 (S) L&C, JUD
02/27/23 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/27/23 (S) Heard & Held
02/27/23 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
05/10/23 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/10/23 (S) Moved SB 60 Out of Committee
05/10/23 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
05/11/23 (S) L&C RPT 2DP 1NR
05/11/23 (S) NR: BJORKMAN
05/11/23 (S) DP: DUNBAR, GRAY-JACKSON
01/22/24 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 60 on behalf of the sponsor,
explained the differences between versions A and B of the bill,
and answered questions.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Offices
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
SB 60.
MARTHA TANSIK, Attorney
Meshke Paddock & Budzinski, P.C.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony in opposition to
SB 60.
LYN ELLIOTT, Assistant Vice President
State Government Relations
American Property Casualty Insurance Association
Longmont, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony in opposition to
SB 60.
CHRISTY THIEMS, Assistant Vice President
American Property Casualty Insurance Association
Chicago, Illinois
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 60.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:35:33 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kiehl, Tobin, Kaufman, Giessel, and Chair Claman.
SB 60-REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION
1:36:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 60
"An Act repealing the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission;
relating to decisions and orders of the Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission; relating to superior court jurisdiction over
appeals from Alaska Workers' Compensation Board decisions;
repealing Rules 201.1, 401.1, and 501.1, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and amending Rules 202(a), 204(a) - (c),
210(e), 601(b), 602(c) and (h), and 603(a), Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
This is the first hearing of this bill in the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
CHAIR CLAMAN solicited a motion to adopt committee substitute
version B as the working document.
1:36:35 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 60, work order 33-LS0330\B, as the working document.
1:36:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Dunsmore to explain the changes between
versions A and B.
1:36:57 PM
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff, Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said that version B updates all the
dates from 2023 to 2024.
1:37:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if there were objections to adopting version
B; finding none, CSSB 60 was adopted as the working document. He
invited Mr. Dunsmore to present version B of the bill.
1:37:33 PM
MR. DUNSMORE said Senator Wielechowski had another commitment
and would join the hearing later. He delivered a slideshow
titled "Senate Bill 60, Repeal Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission."
MR. DUNSMORE said slide 2 addresses four major points of the
bill:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Senate Bill 60
Repeals the Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals
Commission (AWCAC)
Returns jurisdiction over Workers' Compensation
appeals to the Superior Court
Saves $482,400 per year
Helps fill the Workers' Compensation budget deficit
and make Alaska's Workers' Compensation system more
solvent
1:38:17 PM
MR. DUNSMORE reviewed the workers' compensation adjudication
system flowchart, which contrasts the current flow against the
proposed flow under SB 60. The flow is the same until a claimant
appeals a Board decision. Currently, the Alaska Workers'
Compensation Appeals Commission (AWCAC) hears Board appeals.
Under SB 60, the Alaska Superior Court would hear them. In
either case, the Alaska Supreme Court hears final appeals. Slide
3 reads:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Worker Files Workers'
Compensation Claim
Workers' Compensation Board
(Hearing Panel of Labor member, Management member and
Hearing Officer)
If a Party Appeals the Board Decision
CURRENT SYSTEM SENATE BILL 60
Workers' Compensation Superior Court
Appeals Commission
(Hearing Panel of Labor member,
Management member, and Full-Time
Attorney Chair)
ALASKA SUPREME COURT ALASKA SUPREME COURT
MR. DUNSMORE noted the Workers' Compensation Board hearing panel
consists of a hearing officer who chairs the panel, one labor
member, and one management member. The Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission hearing panel consists of an attorney who
chairs the panel, one labor member, and one management member.
MR. DUNSMORE explained that SB 60 returns the appeals process to
the pre-2005 system, where the Superior Court heard workers'
compensation appeals. He noted the Alaska Supreme Court hears
all final appeals, whether under the current system or SB 60.
1:39:31 PM
MR. DUNSMORE moved to slide 4 to compare the cost of doing
business under the current system versus the cost of doing
business under SB 60:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 60 Will Save $482,400 Per Year
Currently the Commission has 2 full-time employees and
pays for commissioners' travel and per diem
MR. DUNSMORE said the two full-time positions are an attorney,
who is the chair, and a clerk. Travel and per diem are
compensated.
Previously, the Court System testified that they can
absorb these cases with a zero fiscal note
MR. DUNSMORE said the Alaska Court System (ACS) estimates that
SB 60 could increase the courts workload by 30 cases per year
and that it can handle the extra workload with a zero fiscal
note. The actual number of cases filed with the Commission last
year was four. He surmised that the zero fiscal note would be
appropriate even if ACS saw an abnormally high number of cases.
1:40:21 PM
MR. DUNSMORE summarized a graph on slide 5 titled "WCAC Workload
has Fallen Dramatically," extracted from Legislative Research
Services Report 24-077. The graph shows that cases and decisions
have fallen dramatically between 2007 and 2023. Forty-nine cases
were filed in 2007 with 42 published decisions, whereas four
were filed in 2023 with five published decisions.
1:40:41 PM
MR. DUNSMORE moved to slide 6, stating the legislature evaluated
this issue previously in 2015. He reviewed a quote from the 29th
Legislature, House Finance, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development Budget Subcommittee, FY2016 Narrative Report dated
February 25, 2015. It identified AWCAC as an ineffective
division and recommended its elimination. He pointed out the
AWCAC workload was significantly higher at that time than it is
today. The quote reads:
"The Worker's Compensation Appeals Commission is an
ineffective division? The Commission during the
calendar year of 2013 closed 30 cases for a closure
rate of 67 percent with an average time from filing to
closure of seven months. This closure rate and average
time for closure is not demonstrably better than the
process was before the establishment of the
commission."
1:41:09 PM
MR. DUNSMORE said one of the goals of creating the Commission
was to reach final decisions faster than the court system. He
reviewed facts on slide 7, which substantiated the Commission
had not achieved this goal:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission Has Not
Closed Cases Faster than the Courts
• The Superior Court took "8 to 18 months" to decide
Workers' Compensation Appeals.
• When it was created, it was estimated that the
Commission could decide cases in 6 months.
• Instead, in 2018 it averaged 371 days (12.2 months)
to decide cases.
• Even as their workload decreased, in 2021 they still
averaged 282 days (9.3 months) to decide cases.
• More Commission decisions are appealed to the
Supreme Court, adding months to years before final
resolution.
Sources: Testimony of Paul Lisankie, Director,
Division of Workers' Compensation, Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee, March 10, 2005.
Alaska Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission Annual
Report for Calendar Year 2021.
1:42:36 PM
MR. DUNSMORE reviewed the number of Superior Court and
Commission decisions appealed to the Supreme Court on slide 8:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 60 Will Reduce Appeals to the Supreme Court
When the Superior Court handled appeals approximately
25% of their decisions were appealed to the Supreme
Court.
Since the Commission was created in 2005, 37% of its
decisions have been appealed to the Supreme Court.
Since 2011, 50% of Commission decisions have been
appealed.
Sources: Testimony of Doug Wooliver, administrative
attorney, Alaska Court System, Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee, March 10, 2005.
Legislative Research Services Report 19-175.
MR. DUNSMORE said that an increasing number of Commission
decisions are appealed to the Supreme Court.
1:43:07 PM
MR. DUNSMORE reviewed slide 9:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The Office of Management and Budget has identified
potential staff turnover as a key component challenge
"The WCAC is challenged to provide timely decisions
and orders. WCAC is supported by two staff. While no
immediate staff turnover is anticipated, any attrition
could result in less support for the commission,
making it more difficult to provide timely decisions
and orders."
MR. DUNSMORE pointed out that with its dozens of judges, the
Alaska Superior Court would not face the same challenges as the
Commission with losing a staff member.
1:43:40 PM
MR. DUNSMORE reviewed slide 10, which examines the decline in
Alaska Workers' Compensation and Safety Program income. A tax on
workers' compensation claims funds these programs. The tax
revenue collected has fallen significantly in recent years. Tax
revenues are projected to continue falling. Senator Bishop
pointed out, in a previous bill hearing, that the decline in
revenue is a good thing. On the upside, the decline means
Alaska's workplaces are getting safer and have fewer workers'
compensation claims. On the downside, it creates a revenue
shortage. SB 60 would save the state $482,300 and help close the
growing budget gap.
1:44:30 PM
MR. DUNSMORE summarized slide 11, stating SB 60 would remove
unnecessary bureaucracy, making state government more efficient:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Bottom Line
SB 60 saves $433,000 annually
Preserves parties' right to have their cases heard in
timely manner
Will reduce appeals to the Supreme Court
Makes Alaska's Workers' Compensation system more
solvent
1:45:03 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN sought assurance that ACS could absorb the
additional workload with a zero fiscal note, and he asked if
there were any hidden costs with enacting SB 60.
MR. DUNSMORE replied that ACS could better address the zero
fiscal note. He stated that ACS testified that it could absorb
the extra workload with a zero fiscal note. He said that while
judges have a busy docket and may not like an increased
workload, there were only four claimant appeals last year. He
calculated that with an estimated rate of four appeals per year,
each judge's workload would increase by one case every seven
years.
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked about the trends that drove the decline in
appeals.
MR. DUNSMORE said he could provide the annual reports from the
Workers' Compensation Division which contain details about the
trends. The general reason for the downward trend is that fewer
workplace injuries have resulted in fewer workers' compensation
claims.
1:47:29 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked whether any legal fees are involved with
the transfer of appeals to ACS and who would bear the burden of
those fees.
MR. DUNSMORE replied that the Commission currently charges
filing fees, observing that both AWCAC and ACS offer ways for
indigent defendants to get waivers.
1:48:14 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked whether the Alaska Workers' Compensation
Appeals Commission is subject to legislative audit and whether
it has been audited.
MR. DUNSMORE replied no. He said AWCAC is not subject to the
sunset audit, probably largely due to the Commission's complex
statutory structure.
1:48:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that four does not seem like a lot of
cases; by the same token, backlogs challenge ACS on all fronts.
He wondered about the timeframe for completing an appeal, asking
whether there is data to suggest that ACS will process an appeal
faster than the nine months it takes the Commission.
MR. DUNSMORE answered that he does not necessarily believe the
courts can decide these cases in under nine months. He referred
to testimony from 2005 before the Commission's establishment,
stating one case took the courts between 8 and 18 months to
resolve and fewer decisions were appealed to the Alaska Supreme
Court. The sponsor expects the same trend under SB 60 with
significant savings due to fewer appeals.
1:50:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Ms. Meade to come forward and testify.
1:50:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said that a zero fiscal note is reasonable because
there do not appear to be many cases. He asked for details about
the timeline to resolution with the ACS backlogs.
1:50:40 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System, Anchorage, Alaska, answered that the time-to-
disposition was 8 to 18 months in 2005, according to the
testimony of her ACS predecessors. The resolution of agency
appeals is currently taking longer. She does not know exactly
how long but said she might be able to find that data. She
explained that parties often agree to extensions, which is
largely why it takes a long time. She surmised that 18 months is
a fairly routine timeframe for agency appeals. She announced her
availability to take fiscal note questions.
1:51:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed his understanding that the number of
cases would not affect the court fiscally. He expressed concern
about the time-to-disposition because 18 months is a long time.
MS. MEADE replied yes, but a zero fiscal note does not mean no
workload impact. She said a fiscal note would mean hiring a
person and clarified that ACS does not just hire a person due to
a judge's increased workload unless circumstances are severe.
The same number of judges will have more work if SB 60 is
enacted.
MS. MEADE said the number of cases appealed to the Superior
Court last year may not be an indication of the number of future
cases. She explained the number of cases spiked to 49 when the
jurisdiction changed from the Superior Court to AWCAC in 2005.
She expressed that it is not an unreasonable conclusion that
there is more uncertainty when there is a change. More people
might try to get a different result out of the change. She
conjectured that although four might have been the number of
appeals last year, the number could be greater in the near term
until the situation stabilizes.
MS. MEADE said that whether it is 30 or 4 cases, the fiscal
impact would be zero, and the workload impact would be
substantial. These cases are very difficult for judges who do
not have expertise in workers' compensation adjudication. She
said that is one of the main reasons why, in 2005, these cases
went from the courts, without subject matter expertise, to a
panel with experience in the area.
1:53:36 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked about the qualifications to sit on the
Commission.
MR. DUNSMORE listed the qualifications, stating the chair:
- is a full-time state employee;
- serves on every panel;
- is an attorney;
- is required to have experience in workers' compensation
matters.
The labor and management panelists require:
- a background in either labor or management;
- previous experience serving on the Workers' Compensation
Board.
MR. DUNSMORE said the Commission has subject matter experts in
adjudicating the facts of workers' compensation cases. However,
the Commission does not have subject matter experts in
adjudicating legal matters which is the role of the Commission.
For instance, they are not experts in adjudicating whether
standards of evidence were viewed correctly. Two-thirds of the
panel are lay members with Workers' Compensation Board
experience, and one-third is an attorney.
1:54:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN brought up invited testimony. He asked Ms. Tansik
to put herself on the record.
1:55:21 PM
MARTHA TANSIK, Attorney, Meshke Paddock & Budzinski, P.C.,
Anchorage, Alaska, gave invited testimony in opposition to SB
60, stating the majority of her practice is workers'
compensation defense. She has experience with the Workers'
Compensation Board, the Commission, and the Alaska Supreme
Court. The issue of AWCAC is a challenge for all those involved.
She has been on the recipient end of precedent-changing
decisions from the Commission. She is under no illusion that it
is a perfect system. She expressed her belief that there is no
perfect system.
MS. TANSIK listed the following major concerns related to
repealing the Commission and returning the first layer of
appeals to the [Superior] Court:
- Subject matter complexity
- Lack of Superior Court resources
- Failure to meet the intent of the Act
1:56:19 PM
MS. TANSIK provided historical context to the concern of subject
matter complexity. Appeals shifted from the Superior Court to
the Commission in 2005; simultaneously, there was a major shift
in Alaska's workers' compensation law. Alaska shifted from a
settled body of law discussing legal and "but-for" standards to
substantial cause. She explained the shift in the law allowed
for a lot of nuances that did not necessarily exist before 2005.
She expressed her belief that this might explain some
differences in the number of appeals and a downward trend as the
law has become more settled since 2005.
1:57:20 PM
MS. TANSIK said that Superior Court judges are generalists. They
are not subject matter experts, but the Commission is. At the
center of a Commission hearing is an attorney who is a subject
matter expert. The lay members of the Commission have more
experience with workers' compensation cases than many Superior
Court judges. It is important to have an individual who is
familiar with the Workers' Compensation Act adjudicating
appeals. This familiarity reduces the likelihood of an appeal to
the Supreme Court. The Commission has precedential value. Its
decisions must be adhered to as law, whereas the Superior Court
decisions do not. So, there is little to no incentive to accept
a ruling of the Superior Court except to reduce future
litigation costs. Subject matter expertise promotes efficiency
and predictability. There is no indication that in the post-2005
law change that the Superior Court would be any more correct
than the Commission. Futhermore, as the Commission is
precedential, it helps keep cases from arising on appeal because
all parties are clearer on the rules, reducing the workload for
the Supreme Court, rather than increasing it.
1:58:35 PM
MS. TANSIK brought up a concern regarding a lack of resources at
the Superior Court.
1:58:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected to mention that he was struck by the
resources AWCAC requires to handle a fairly light caseload.
Especially compared to the number of opinions issued by the
Alaska Supreme Court or Court of Appeals.
MS. TANSIK agreed. She said that four appeals in a year is a
light caseload; however, there have been two already this year.
She said the trend appears to be changing in 2024.
MS. TANSIK said that there is another point of consideration.
Sometimes the numbers that are reflected on appeal correlate
with the number of Board decisions issued within a given year.
Fewer hearings at the Board level means fewer opportunities for
appeal. Since there are often fewer hearings at the Board level,
there is a corresponding smaller number of cases appealed to
AWCAC.
1:59:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited her to continue with the second point.
MS. TANSIK said the second point is that it will take a
considerable amount of time for the Superior Court to render a
decision. The court has important cases to adjudicate in a more
timely manner than workers' compensation cases. Eight to
eighteen months is much longer than the Commission takes to
render a decision. The timeframe does not support the intent of
the Workers' Compensation Act, which is to deliver injured
individuals or employers quick, efficient, fair, and predictable
benefits at a reasonable cost. She said there is nothing about
appeals through the Superior Court that is quicker, more
efficient, or predictable than the Commission nor more likely to
be at a reasonable cost.
MS. TANSIK said the Commission is funded in part through
earmarked premiums, and it is interesting to think that burden
would shift to the general fund. There is more that goes into
the epidemiology of a drop in cases or workforce development
than whether or not there were merely four cases. Elimination of
the Commission solely based on four cases overlooks the broader
issue. She expressed appreciation for the committee's time to
look at the system as a whole.
2:01:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited committee members to ask questions.
2:01:40 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked whether the Commission has the ability to
set legal precedent.
MS. TANSIK replied yes. The Commission has the legal ability to
set legal precedent, which is a legally binding decision. It is
a decision that helps form the body of law surrounding that
area. She explained that statute, regulations, and precedential
case law comprise the rules governing a given area of law.
2:02:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that AWCAC is bound by prior decisions.
Each time an appeal comes before the Commission it looks to past
decisions to inform its deliberations on new appeals. It
considers how similar subject matter was handled in the past to
resolve the current case. The Commission would look to published
Alaska Supreme Court and Alaska Superior Court decisions, which
might have higher precedential weight than its own decisions. He
asked whether she agreed with this explanation.
MS. TANSIK replied that the portion pertaining to the Alaska
Supreme Court is correct. It has a higher precedential value
until the legislature alters the law through statute and
regulations. However, the Alaska Superior Court decisions do not
hold precedential value.
SENATOR TOBIN expressed curiosity around non-lawyers and non-
judges setting precedent.
2:03:47 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether there is a correlation between the
number of rulings the Commission issues and appeals to the
Supreme Court. He said the numbers seem to vary between 30
percent and the high 60s.
MS. TANSIK agreed that the percentages swing a lot. She
described two cases currently on appeal that shed light on
factors affecting the fluctuation:
1. One case is probably driven more by the particular claimant's
counsel, who is representing the employee, than by the
likelihood that the Appeals Commission would overturn the
decision based on merit.
2. The other case up before the Supreme Court has to do with
attorney's fees and costs, and the desire of the employee's
counsel to have attorney's fees paid at upwards of $600 per
hour.
MS. TANSIK said these are not issues that are settleable at a
Board or Commission level; instead, they go up all the way up to
the Supreme Court on appeal. The difference between these and
some earlier decisions depends on where precedent-setting
decisions fell in the post-2005 legal landscape. The number of
self-represented individuals who move up through the workers'
compensation appeals system varies considerably each year.
2:05:39 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked the next invited testifier to identify
herself for the record.
2:05:57 PM
LYN ELLIOTT, Assistant Vice President, State Government
Relations, American Property Casualty Insurance Association
(APCIA), Longmont, Colorado, stated that APCIA represents 82
percent of Alaska's workers' compensation insurance market,
which is a large footprint in this sector. APCIA is keenly
interested in this legislation and its members have long
supported the work of AWCAC and oppose its repeal. SB 60 is in
direct opposition to the Grand Bargain of workers' compensation
which is to ensure timely payment of benefits without the need
for unnecessary legal system delays. From this perspective,
AWCAC should be considered a model for the nation. She made the
following three points:
1. Workers' compensation is extraordinarily complex. The
Commission members are subject matter experts. She said that
workers' compensation is one of the most complex areas of
law. Alaska's significant case law has extensively modified
Alaska statutes. AWCAC members are knowledgeable of workers'
compensation law and case law. Their knowledge allows them
to adjudicate cases more easily and reduces the likelihood
of a Supreme Court appeal. She said that a drop in cases is
exactly what APCIA wants and expects to see if the
Commission is doing its job properly. She attributes the
drop in cases to "precedential value." The Commission's
rulings are binding as law, guide in making decisions, and
factor into lowering the number of cases brought up on
appeal.
2:09:37 PM
2. The judicial system has the potential for delays in the
resolution of workers' compensation appeals. The Superior
Court has six months from hearing to trial to issue a
decision. In contrast, the Commission has 30 days from
hearing to resolution of an appeal for claimants. She said
that six months violates the Grand Bargain based on the tenet
of timeliness. She expressed her understanding that civil
cases, which include workers' compensation cases, take a back
seat to criminal cases. A workers' compensation case could be
deprioritized in favor of a criminal case before the clock
started to tick.
3. The repeal of the Commission does not support the intent of
the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act. The Act states that the
intent of the legislature is to ensure the quick, efficient,
fair, and predictable delivery of indemnity and medical
benefits to injured workers at a reasonable cost to
employers. She suggested that if the Superior Court can
guarantee workers' compensation appeals are resolved in 30
days, this might be an acceptable policy move. However, APCIA
does not see demonstrable evidence this would occur. She said
that saving less than $480,000 at the expense of a quick
resolution for injured workers does not appear to be a good
trade-off.
MS. ELLIOTT said that APCIA urges a no vote on SB 60.
2:11:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said the budget shows the Commission has two
employees. The staff consists of the office assistant and the
chair of the Commission. He asked her:
- to describe the Commission members who are not paid as subject
matters experts;
- where these members get their expertise;
- why they are not compensated.
CHAIR CLAMAN expressed curiosity at how a volunteer can be
described as a subject matter expert.
2:12:26 PM
MS. ELLIOTT replied that she is not a budget expert and cannot
speak to the budget. She said volunteer commissioners spend a
lot of time and effort to become subject matter experts in
workers' compensation. The Commission's rulings are as binding
as law. She deferred to Ms. Thiems to answer the question.
2:13:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said the budget indicates that four members are
budgeted $400 per day for 13 total days exclusive of the chair.
He said that this compensation probably pales in comparison to
the salary that Ms. Tansik is paid to work on these matters. He
remarked that Commission members do not seem to be paid well
considering their responsibilities.
CHAIR CLAMAN offered Ms. Thiems the opportunity to speak.
2:14:46 PM
CHRISTY THIEMS, Assistant Vice President, American Property
Casualty Insurance Association, Chicago, Illinois, stated the
Commission's lay members generally have more safety expertise
and experience dealing with work injuries and workers'
compensation claims. These members bring value to the
Commission. The Workers' Compensation Act's primary goal is to
ensure benefits to injured workers without delay. Injured
workers could potentially wait longer for benefits if the
jurisdiction of appeals reverts to the Superior Court.
2:16:16 PM
Senator Wielechowski joined the meeting.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for statistics about the number of cases the
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board decides.
MR. DUNSMORE answered that the data is available in the Annual
Report published by the Division of Workers' Compensation. He
said that he would collect the data for the committee.
2:16:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN inquired about the number of decisions the Alaska
Worker's Compensation Board makes and asked whether the four
cases that were appealed last year meant:
- everyone is happy with the Workers' Compensation Board;
- the Commission has a reputation for affirming Board decisions.
He said that he would appreciate receiving this information.
2:17:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN held SB 60 in committee.
2:17:52 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:17 p.m.