HB 303-WORKERS' COMP; REHAB/REEMPLOYMENT  3:16:31 PM CHAIR KITO announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 303, "An Act relating to workers' compensation benefits for the rehabilitation and reemployment of injured employees." 3:16:59 PM GREG CASHEN, Acting Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Labor & Workforce Development, stated that HB 303 would improve the process of determining eligibility in developing reemployment plans for workers who cannot return to their former jobs as the result of a work-related injury. The bill proposes services to support injured workers, so these injured workers can return to work quickly. ACTING COMMISSIONER CASHEN stated the reemployment process is meant to provide severely injured workers with new skills to return to work. However, developing workable reemployment plans within the statutory constraints has grown increasingly difficult, he said, noting the reemployment process was last reformed over ten years ago. This bill would update an outdated process with new approaches to provide adequate benefits while controlling costs, and to enhance the system's efficiency and fairness. 3:18:29 PM MARIE MARX, Director, Central Office, Division of Workers' Compensation, Department of Labor & Workforce Development, began her power point presentation titled, "Workers' Compensation Reemployment Benefits: HB 303," and stated that workers' compensation is a social contract [slide 1]. MS. MARX directed attention to slide 2, titled "What is Workers Compensation, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: A system of insurance that protects workers and employers from some of the losses from on-the-job accidents and job-related illnesses. MS. MARX directed attention to slide 3, titled "The Grand Bargain," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: An employer provides prompt, necessary medical and wage loss benefits to an injured worker for a work- related injury. In exchange, the injured worker receives limited benefits and gives up the right to sue the employer 3:18:50 PM MS. MARX elaborated that the employer provides limited benefits, but not compensation for pain and suffering or punitive damages. The benefits employers provide include medical and wage loss benefits, retraining benefits, if eligible and death benefits, in the case of a work-related death. Highlighting the injured workers part of the compromise, she said that the injured worker cannot sue the employer. She explained that workers' compensation programs began during the industrial revolution when large lawsuits would put employers out of business and injured workers either were made whole or got nothing. MS. MARX turned to slide 4, titled "MISSION," which read, in part [original punctuation provided]: To ensure the quick, efficient, fair and predictable delivery of indemnity, medical, and vocational rehabilitation benefits to injured workers at a reasonable cost to employers MS. MARX added that the balancing the five pillars: quick, efficient, fair, predictable, and reasonable cost is what guides the administration of the Workers' Compensation Act [slide 4]. 3:19:54 PM MS. MARX referred to slide 5, titled "Benefits Provided," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Medical Care ? Indemnity (Wage Loss) Benefits ? Death Benefits ? Reemployment (Retraining) Benefits MS. MARX, referred to slide 6, titled "Reemployment Benefits," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Intended to return an injured worker to work when the worker cannot return to the job of injury or to jobs for which the worker has relevant training or experience. MS. MARX turned to slide 7, titled "Current Challenges," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ?Mandatory reemployment benefits eligibility evaluations ?Maximum plan cost of $13,300 ?Retraining plans focus on quickest return to work option, regardless of worker's interest in that vocational goal ?Declining pool of rehabilitation specialists ?No rehabilitation specialist fee schedule MS. MARX highlighted that there has long been a call for reform. She explained that after being off work for 90 days, injured workers are forced into the reemployment system, whether they are interested in retraining, whether they are ready for retraining, or whether they return to work on the 91st day. She characterized these requirements as a waste of time and resources. Further, forcing workers into reemployment training when some do not want to be there often does not lead to good or successful outcomes. MS. MARX elaborating on another challenge, said that the the maximum plan cost of $13,300 was established in 2000 and has not been adjusted since then. This amount is often insufficient to retrain someone. With respect to another challenge, she stated that the retraining plans focus on the quickest return to work option, which, if the employee is not interested, leads to outcomes that are not successful. She pointed out the declining pool of reemployment specialists results in some delays, especially in areas such as Anchorage where demand is high. She said the lack of a specialist fee schedule combined with the declining pool of rehabilitation specialists really limits the effectiveness of the system. 3:22:05 PM MS. MARX directed attention to slide 8, titled "HB 303," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: ? Improves the delivery of reemployment benefits to injured workers ? Provides eligible employees with more choices in reemployment goals and plans ? Encourages injured employees' early return to work ? Helps employers control costs MS. MARX offered her belief that proposed HB 303 would address these challenges. Recently, the Workers' Compensation Board issued a resolution, signed by members of both labor and industry that supported reemployment system changes and specified general areas needing to be addressed. The resolution is listed as a supporting document in members' packets, she stated. In developing the bill, the department met with many stakeholders, including industry, labor, and workers' compensation attorneys. In addition, the department met with specialists and received significant input on crafting changes to the reemployment benefit system. Early in the process, the administration considered the policy of whether to cash out injured workers or to retrain them. She emphasized that the administration decided it wanted to retrain them. 3:23:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if they met with the injured employees. MS. MARX answered that the department met with labor organization representatives, who often represent the interests of injured workers. 3:23:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether anyone represented non-union workers. MS. MARX answered that the department met with the workers' compensation claimants bar, and the claimants' attorneys raised a lot of issues that were aligned with injured workers, as well. MS. MARX, in response to a question for clarification, said she was not aware of an organization of injured workers to meet with, but the department met with the workers' compensation claimants bar, who often represent injured workers and are familiar with the challenges they face. This group brought many concerns and the department incorporated many of the suggestions offered. MS. MARX emphasized that reemployment benefits are meant to provide retraining skills and provide an opportunity for the injured worker to become employable. 3:25:29 PM MS. MARX continued with the section-by-section analysis of HB 303, stating that Sections 1 and 2 [included in members' packets], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1 amends AS 23.30.005(h), by allowing implementation of a fee schedule for rehabilitation specialist services. Section 2 amends AS 23.30.012(a), by no longer permitting employees to settle reemployment benefits with their employers. MS. MARX clarified Section 1, noting that the currently fees are unregulated. Under the change, fees would be adopted as per regulation and this change would help control costs. 3:26:01 PM MS. MARX reiterated the department's goal to retrain for reemployment. She said that in instances when the injured workers have opted for a lump sum, the injured worker will often not use the funds for retraining. For example, injured workers may use the settlement funds to pay their home mortgages and deplete their funds. Once that happens the injured workers often ask the division for retraining; however, the division will advise them that they waived their right to reemployment benefits and nothing further can be done. Currently, injured workers also have an option for job dislocation benefits instead of the reemployment benefit for retraining. She advised that the department is retaining the dislocation benefit but is raising the amount; however, the settlement offers will no longer be an option since only eight percent of injured workers are retrained. 3:28:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered his belief that most of the injured workers take time to heal and return to their jobs. He asked whether the department has statistics for those who return to their jobs and for those who are retrained. MS. MARX answered that to be eligible for the reemployment retraining program, the injured workers must unable to return to their jobs. If the injured workers can return to their jobs, they are not eligible for retraining. She remarked that it is great when injured workers can return to their jobs, but if they cannot, reemployment retraining is available. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for clarification for workers who voluntarily choose not to go back to their old jobs. He related a scenario in which a worker fell off a ladder and was injured. That worker might decide he/she wants a desk job instead. MS. MARX answered that the injured worker would not be eligible to learn a new skill set, but the determination is based on the doctor's recommendation and is not a voluntary decision. She emphasized that parties generally agree to an amount greater than the minimum plan costs, which are $13,300. The proposed bill raises that amount to $19,300 to adjust for inflation. She emphasized that this bill did not limit the parties' flexibility to pay more. They can agree to pay more than the minimum amount; however, the maximum amount covers instances where the parties are not in agreement. 3:30:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for clarification that an employer might pay more than the amount listed. MS. MARX answered that the insurance companies are the ones who pay the benefits and it is quite common for them to pay more since insurance companies are invested in workers getting back to work. She noted that the bill did not change this. 3:32:19 PM MS. MARX then referred to Section 3, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 3 amends AS 23.30.041(b), by allowing the reemployment benefit administrator (RBA) to offer consultation services for employers on early return- to-work policies and programs and providing the RBA greater flexibility to assign and manage specialists and their services. MS. MARX said that Section 3 provides for the "early return-to- work" program. The division would add a position to run a program, based on a pilot program in New Mexico, to create return-to-work materials for employers and offer consultation services for injured workers to help them figure out how to get back to work earlier. In fact, studies have shown the longer injured workers are out of work, the less likely they will ever return. In instances in which employers already have great programs in place, such as the State of Alaska, the program would not interfere with their programs. In fact, the division might turn to some of these larger employers for assistance to work with smaller employers who do not have the resources to implement a solid return-to-work program. 3:33:31 PM MS. MARX turned to Section 4, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 4 amends AS 23.30.041(c), by making eligibility evaluations voluntary instead of mandatory and establishing a deadline for an injured worker to request reemployment benefits. MS. MARX added that Section 4 would also establish a deadline for injured workers to request reemployment benefits. The state tried voluntary system years ago and it did not work, she said. The difference in this voluntary system is that it would establish a deadline by which injured workers must request reemployment benefits. Injured workers must apply 90 days after the temporary disability ends. The second piece, which is new, is that this section establishes a mandatory meeting between the reemployment benefits office and the injured workers to provide them information about their rights and duties and options for retraining. 3:34:32 PM MS. MARX turned to Section 5, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 5 amends AS 23.30.041(d), by extending the deadline for specialists to complete eligibility evaluations to 60 days and allowing reconsideration or modification of the RBA's decision. 3:34:42 PM MS. MARX referred to Section 6, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 6 amends AS 23.30.041(e), by requiring an injured worker's post injury job meet the worker's remunerative wage to be considered in the evaluation for eligibility. MS. MARX explained that currently injured workers are not eligible for reemployment benefits if the workers can return to a job the workers have previously held in the past ten years or any job the injured workers have held after the injury. If an injured worker takes a new job after the injury, the division adds language that requires the job must meet a minimum threshold of 60 percent of their gross wages. She emphasized that 60 percent represents the standard. She reiterated that the division's goal is to incentivize injured workers to return to work; however, not to use a low-paying job against them for reemployment retraining. She related a scenario in which a worker falls off a roof and suffers an injury, and when healed enough to work, takes a desk job and answer phones as an interim job. Since that job would not return the person to the same skilled job level prior to the injury, the injured worker would not be penalized. She reiterated the goal is to incentivize injured workers to return to work. 3:36:08 PM MS. MARX referred to Section 7, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 7 repeals and reenacts AS 23.30.041(f), removing "previously rehabilitated" language and replacing it with more specific language. MS. MARX said this provides language to clarify what it means to be "previously rehabilitated" such that the injured worker accepted a job dislocation benefit, completed a relocation plan, or completed a retraining plan. MS. MARX referred to Section 8, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 8 repeals and reenacts AS 23.30.041(g), allowing injured workers more time to choose the job dislocation benefit over continuing to participate in the reemployment process. MS. MARX explained that right now, an injured worker has 30 days to decide whether to accept a small lump sum or move forward with retraining; however, the injured worker often does not know what an eligibility plan would look like. Thus, this bill would extend that to 150 days from eligibility to decide. That would allow injured workers to take classes at a university and still decide that the new field is not for them. Under the bill, the injured workers would have an option. Under current law, after 30 days these injured workers would not have a choice, she said. 3:37:13 PM MS. MARX referred to Section 9, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 9 amends AS 23.30.041(h), by requiring a rehabilitation specialist progress report at 60 days and allowing an employee in some circumstances to select a desired occupational goal that might result in wages lower than what the law usually allows. MS. MARX explained that Section 9 would allow the division to check in on the process. She stated that a specialist has 90 days to create a plan, but if the plan is not moving forward at 60 days, the reemployment benefit administrator can check in and figure out how to proceed. MS. MARX referred to Section 10, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 10 repeals and reenacts AS 23.30.041(j), requiring the employee and employer within 30 days to either approve and sign a reemployment plan, or deny the plan by providing a specific reason for the denial, and allowing reconsideration or modification of the RBA's decision approving, denying, or changing the plan. MS. MARX explained that Section 10 would require the parties to act on a plan. Currently, a specialist can come with a plan, but the parties may not agree to it. If neither party asks for the administrator to approve or deny it, it remains stagnant, sometimes for years, while stipend benefits are being paid. This proposed change would require some action to be taken within 30 days, either agree or disagree. This provision would also allow parties to ask for reconsideration or modification of the reemployment benefit. 3:38:43 PM MS. MARX referred to Section 11, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 11 amends AS 23.30.041(k), by limiting payment of stipend benefits to not more than one year before a plan is approved and not more than two years after a plan is approved. MS. MARX explained that the two-year limit already exists in statute; however, before a plan is developed the stipend benefit continues. There currently is not any incentive to move forward with a plan. This proposed change would help employers know the amount of the liability and help keep costs reasonable, she said. 3:39:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that he did not see the cost savings for the "rebalancing" reflected in the fiscal note. MS. MARX deferred to Division of Risk Management, Department of Administration to respond. She agreed that the Division of Risk Management's fiscal note was zero. 3:40:19 PM MS. MARX referred to Section 12, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 12 amends AS 23.30.041(l), by increasing the maximum cost for a reemployment plan to $19,300 and providing an annual adjustment based on the consumer price index. MS. MARX reiterated that nothing would prevent parties from paying more than the maximum amount. The amount was increased to adjust for inflation. MS. MARX referred to Section 13, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 13 amends AS 23.30.041(n), by allowing an employer to controvert benefits if an injured worker does not cooperate with the reemployment process. MS. MARX referred to Section 14, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 14 amends AS 23.30.041(o), by allowing reconsideration or modification of the RBA's decision on noncooperation. MS. MARX highlighted that currently, if the administrator missed something or if new evidence or a new doctor's opinion arose, the only option is to go before the board for a full hearing instead of sending it back to the reemployment benefit administrator for review. 3:41:35 PM MS. MARX referred to Section 15, Section 16, and Section 17, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 15 repeals and reenacts AS 23.30.041(q), no longer permitting employees to settle reemployment benefits with their employers. Section 16 amends AS 23.30.041(r)(6), by providing the RBA greater flexibility to assign and manage specialists and their services. Section 17 adds new subsections to AS 23.30.041, allowing an injured worker 150 days after eligibility to choose the job dislocation benefit over continuing to participate in the reemployment process, increasing the job dislocation benefit amount, allowing the RBA to suspend the reemployment process under certain circumstances, allowing parties to request plan modification based on a change in conditions or a factual mistake, permitting an injured worker to voluntarily exit the reemployment process at any time, allowing parties to request reconsideration of certain RBA decisions, and establishing a process for reconsideration. MS. MARX briefly read the sectional analysis and added, as she previously mentioned, that Section 17 would extend the deadline to accept the job relocation benefit amount. It would give the injured worker 150 days after eligibility to choose whether to accept the job dislocation benefit. As previously discussed, the plan needs to be in place within the 90-day period, so this language would provide injured workers additional time to develop a plan or try one out for a few months. 3:42:28 PM MS. MARX referred to Sections 18 and 19, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 18 adds a new subsection to AS 23.30.130, allowing parties to request modification based on a change in conditions or a factual mistake, and establishing a process for modification. Section 19 repeals AS 23.30.041(i), because the language was moved to Section 9. MS. MARX explained that the language in Section 19 was reorganized and was moved to a new section. In addition, the requirement that plans be the shortest amount of time was removed and allows other factors to be considered. 3:43:01 PM MS. MARX referred to Section 20, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 20 amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska, by adding applicability language. 3:43:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked whether the Division of Workers' Compensation currently has reemployment administrator positions on staff. MS. MARX answered that the reemployment benefit administrator position exists in statute. The division seeks to add a position specifically to manage and create materials for the early to work return program. The proposed bill would not add a reemployment benefit administrator. REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD further asked whether there was a fiscal note for the new position. MS. MARX directed attention to the fiscal note from the Division of Workers' Compensation, which is $57,852 for salary and with benefits a total of $95,322. The position would coordinate the early return-to-work program [added in Section 3]. In response to Representative Sullivan-Leonard, she answered that the position is in the attached fiscal note from the Division of Risk Management. In further response, she offered to provide the fiscal note. MS. MARX restated the salary is $57,852 and the total cost with benefits is $95,322. She indicated this person would be responsible for running the early return-to-work program, which is like New Mexico's pilot program. The Workers' Compensation Board requested this position. In fact, many of the stakeholders advised that states which have been successful have had an early-to-work program, a program that is proactive in getting injured workers back to work with their employer. She remarked that it benefits everyone. 3:46:28 PM CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 303. 3:46:57 PM BARBARA WILLIAMS, Certified ADA Advocate, Alaska Injured Workers Alliance, Research and Development Corporation, stated that she has been helping injured workers for the past years with educational information. She offered her belief that none of the injured workers have been contacted. MS. WILLIAMS said that it has been 17 years since she has seen an increase in the benefits for rehabilitation. She offered her belief that the bill does not provide adequate funding for injured workers to retrain. Further, vocational reemployment and stipend benefits were eliminated. In addition, injured workers would receive a voucher based on an impairment rating, yet $19,000 was not enough compensation for workers to retrain; instead, it should start it around $30,000. Under proposed HB 303, workers would be forced to cover costs while out of work, she said. MS. WILLIAMS stated that current reemployment retraining only offers 60 percent of the remunerative wage, which does not include overtime some workers regularly receive. She characterized the bill as unfair to injured workers, who would receive cuts to their benefits and not enough money to support their families. She emphasized the reason for reemployment training is to support injured workers while they are retraining so they have a chance to successfully return to the workplace. Many workers would not receive a voucher for retraining, unless they have a permanent, partial impairment (PPI) rating of at least five percent or more. Under the current guidelines for permanent disability, there are many conditions rated less than five percent. The reemployment process often commences the impairment is even determined, she said. Some payments in the proposed bill would not be allowed, but injured workers often use these monies to retrain on their own, start businesses, and complete their degree. Employers would not have incentives to hire disabled workers, she said. Washington and Oregon offer more options for workers who need to be rehabilitated or retrained. Injured workers need support, rehabilitation, and retraining when these workers cannot return to the jobs that they held at the time of injuries. MS. WILLIAMS said the proposed bill, HB 303, is not only an oppressive plan, but it is unfair. She did not believe the premise of cost savings at the expense of injured workers was the legislature's intent. Other states that have made drastic changes to programs like this have failed, and she reported that these states have subsequently reversed their changes. Injured workers need support and retraining to successfully make it back to the workplace after being injured. Many injured workers do not belong to labor organizations and it is difficult to obtain and interpret the information, particularly for those who lack education. In closing, she said the rehabilitation specialists need to work more closely with the injured workers to obtain input on the current reemployment rehabilitation process instead of making it a more adversarial process. 3:50:35 PM THERESA TOLBERT stated that she is an unemployed injured worker on workers' compensation and her case has not been resolved in four years. She has not been given the tools necessary to return to work, she said. She reported that she has been to two IME's [insurance medical exams]; yet, she is currently being sent out of state for another one. She has animals she cannot leave while she goes out of state, but she cannot obtain reimbursement for pet housing. The board does not want to pay for injured workers' education, but many injured workers who want to work cannot obtain the tools to do so. 3:52:59 PM KAREN DAVIS, Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist, Davis Vocational Services, stated she is currently performing eligibility evaluations to determine whether injured workers are eligible for workers' compensation reemployment benefits. She said she shares concerns raised by a previous testifier, Ms. Williams, about injured workers with PPI [permanent partial impairment] ratings of less than five percent. She remarked that the proposed bill, HB 303, does not seem to provide much protection for those injured workers. Numerous injured workers have PPI ratings less than five percent. She liked some of the changes, she said, but overall the bill has room for improvement. 3:54:02 PM SANDY TRAVIS stated that she is an injured worker who is representing injured workers. In response to Chair Kito's request that she not impugn any testifier, Ms. Travis agreed that everyone including injured workers should be respected. She voiced her opposition to HB 303 because she does not think the voucher system or settlements would work. Further, she did not believe that stripping stipend benefits would work. She offered her belief what would work is to listen to someone who would provide facts; however, she could not give the facts in less than two minutes. She characterized HB 303 as a very bad bill. She emphasized that taking away from injured workers would not get them back to work or provide rehabilitation. She said that when she first started the rehabilitation process, injured workers had more than 90 days to determine whether the injured worker could go back to work. She characterized the new limits as ridiculous as they would not help the injured worker. Instead, she suggested that if the division wants to get injured workers back to work they need to provide them with benefits to do so, not take away benefits or not listen to them. In closing she characterized the bill as a "very bad bill" that should be thrown in the trash and not be considered. CHAIR KITO offered to accept additional written comments by letter or email. 3:57:18 PM MICHAEL J. JENSEN, Attorney, Law Offices of Michael J. Jensen, said he has been representing workers since 1984. In 1995, he opened the Law Offices of Michael J. Jensen. As a sole proprietor, he has continued to predominantly handle claims for benefits under the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act, he stated. Although he has also worked on some longshore and social security cases, his primary effort is on workers' compensation cases. He commented that significant changes have been made to the Workers' Compensation Act since 1984. His intent was not to condemn this bill, HB 303, but he pointed out that it did not give any incentives to hire disabled workers, unlike Oregon and Washington. Instead this bill seeks to further restrict benefits to injured workers, he said. He referred to Section 11, noting the stipend is limited to one year from the date the temporary and permanent benefits end until the start of the plan. Frequently, this is not enough since the plan development may take much longer depending on the circumstances of the injured worker, he explained. Temporary benefits are limited until the injured worker reaches stability. It does not mean the worker is cured, just that the doctor does not believe the patient will get any better. Under the current system, the permanent benefits are very limited with low ratings considering the nature of the injury. Thus, he recommended two years instead of the one year in this provision. 3:59:08 PM MR. JENSEN referred to Section 12, offering that it was a good start to increase the rehabilitation cost maximum from $13,300 to $19,300; however, even that number is insufficient. For example, that does not include modifications for injured workers, such as an ergonomic chair, desk, computer, or tools. Further, $19,300 is insufficient to cover tuition, books, lab fees or other equipment to allow injured workers to return to work. He suggested the figure be increased to reflect realistic costs for retraining and to include additional modifications necessary for them to return to work. He turned to the remunerative wage, stating his belief this is the main reason the rehabilitation process does not work. The remunerative wage goal was too low, he stated, since it represents 60 percent of the gross hourly wage at the time of injury. He highlighted that firemen, policemen, and oil field workers make the bulk of their income in overtime wages, which is not reflected in the remunerative wage goal. For example, he calculated 60 percent of a $20 per hour job equals $12 per hour, which would be much less than the injured workers earned at the time of their injuries. 4:00:47 PM MR. JENSEN directed attention to Section 15, which prevents workers from receiving a lump sum settlement. Thus, if injured workers discover their plans are not suitable, and will not allow them to support their families, they are prohibited from settling the value of their plans. They cannot use the funds to pay off their debts for a fresh start, or for additional education, or to add other funds to obtain additional training, or start their own businesses. He emphasized he has mentioned only a few motivations that exist for injured workers to settle their stipends in a lump sum. He suggested one way to improve the lump sum settlements of their stipends would be for the board to predetermine whether injured workers have good cause to settle and if it is in their best interest to do so. 4:01:59 PM MR. JENSEN directed attention to Section 17, which would increase the job dislocation benefits by $1,000 to $6,500, which is not a significant change or much of an improvement over the current system. Further, the dislocation benefits would only apply to anyone rated at 15 percent or less PPI; however, he has represented workers with 5 percent impairment who cannot go back in construction, oil field work, or work as firemen and in law enforcement. If those injured workers opt out of the vocational rehabilitation system, they would be limited to $6,500 in total settlements, he said. He suggested that provision could be improved by increasing the amount. 4:02:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for clarification of when the proposed $6,500 figure for dislocation was last adjusted. MR. JENSEN offered his belief that the current amount of $5,000 figure was last updated during the Murkowski administration. 4:03:52 PM KAYA T. KADE, LPC, CDMS, TEP, Disability Management Specialist, Kade and Associates, stated she is a vocational rehabilitation specialist. She began her testimony by relating an anecdote about an injured worker. She stated that during the IME process the injured worker was withheld surgery for almost a year until he finally obtained a secondary medical evaluation that allowed him to have surgery. She advised members that because surgery was delayed, the injured worker had suffered additional damage. She said she wrote his reemployment benefits plan. She said he was very upset at his treatment by the insurance company. He finished his plan a year ago and worked for a year yet could not continue to work with his insurance company, so he settled for a lump sum. She considered this plan to be a failure, due to the insurance company's negativity, noting the injured worker needed to be out from under the insurance company. MS. KADE offered her belief that many people settle because they think they are strong enough to proceed on their own. Said has had numerous clients finish their plans, and some who settle because she cannot write a plan to meet the regulations. For example, she currently has an injured worker who is considering settling, that the person has been attending a university to seek a double major; however, a double major fell outside the regulations, she said. MS. KADE said she did not understand why the department wanted to adopt regulations to set fees and establish fines. She could understand establishing qualifications; however, she said the administration does not understand her business and expensive costs, including insurance coverage, and medical coverage. She recalled 20 years ago when the eligibility evaluation process was voluntary, which did not work. She reminded members that injured workers face surgeries, are on pain medications, and are trying to get their lives back together. She did not believe the deadline was appropriate, that 90 days was too soon. She suggested that injured workers with injuries such as broken arms or having surgeries also need physical therapy, that four to six months would be better for reemployment eligibility evaluations. At that point, most injured workers would be better able to determine whether they would need more services. She applauded the increase to $19,300, since the provision allows for annual increases, which would be better. MS. KADE pointed out that many of her clients lack formal education. She emphasized that many peer review articles indicate the importance of vocational rehabilitation, as key aspects for returning workers to the workplace. She stated that the division director met with vocational rehabilitation specialists; however, it was after the Workers' Compensation Board's (WCB) decisions were made. She lamented that the WCB does not have any representation of either vocational rehabilitation specialists or injured workers to provide input. In closing, she reiterated that many injured workers have obtained significant benefit from vocational rehabilitation, she said. She offered her belief that those finishing their plans without insurance company involvement exceeded 80 percent. 4:11:26 PM GREG WEAVER stated that as a disabled worker he has been one of many workers let down by the workers' compensation system in Alaska. Further, he is a disabled U.S. Marine Corps veteran and a second-generation Alaska construction worker. He remarked that workers like him supply all Alaskans with the goods and services they use, perform rig-ups on the North Slope, log, fish, and extract Alaska's natural resources. MR. WEAVER provided chronological details of his injury and subsequent workers' compensation case number, 201320030. At the time, he worked for the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) as a construction worker and had worked for them for five or six years. In 2013, which was a particularly strenuous year for him and his co-worker, he became injured. They had been flying throughout the state, working at remote U.S. Air Force, FAA radar sites, performing maintenance and upgrades to these sites. While working in Kaktovik, he realized he could barely walk and was flown to Anchorage for treatment and his doctor referred to Algone Pain Management in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley (Mat-Su). At that time, he opened a workers' compensation claim and his case was initially handled by a senior workers' compensation adjuster at ASRC, who subsequently assigned a nurse case manager to guide him through the health care and workers' compensation system. After an independent medical examination (IME) his case was controverted, which means he was taken off his workers' compensation claim, and the Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) did not object. MR. WEAVER asked to "fast forward" a bit. He expressed his gratitude for his Veterans' Administration benefits. After having several other IMEs, he was referred to a leading neurological surgeon, [Louis L.] Kralick, M.D. [Anchorage Neurosurgical Association] at Providence Hospital, who eventually performed surgery, fusing three of his vertebrae together and completely replacing two discs in his lower back. After three years of taking opioid pain medication, he has recently been able to wean off opioids, he said. He could not understand why the Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, he said. His attorney, Mr. Jensen, filed a claim for reconsideration on appeal where he cited over 20 instances where the board erred in its judgment; however, those errors were completely ignored in his workers' compensation case. He said that the workers' compensation system is broken and needs to be completely rebuilt. Further, he would like Ms. Marx to review his case. In addition, he has recently spoken to the Ombudsman's office about his case who also agreed the workers' compensation system is broken, he said. He remarked that he has lost everything. He advised members that he has subsequently been awarded disability by the Social Security Administration (SSA), who recognized the 2013 date as the initial date of injury. In closing, he reiterated that he would like Ms. Marx to look at his claim. He thanked members for allowing him to describe his workers' compensation case. 4:18:18 PM [HB 303 was held over.]