HB 63-REPEAL WORKERS' COMP APPEALS COMMISSION  3:16:17 PM CHAIR SUMNER announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 63, "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." 3:16:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Representative, as prime sponsor, presented HB 63. He began a PowerPoint presentation [hard copy included in the committee packet] on slides 2 and 3 and stated that HB 63 would save the State of Alaska $433,000 per year and return jurisdiction for appeals of workers' compensation to the Alaska Superior Court by repealing the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission has two full time employees and returning those cases to the Alaska Superior Court would not cause an undue burden for it. He said that the commission had 49 cases in 2007, but the number of cases has declined over the years, reaching 14 cases in 2022. In 2015, the House Labor and Workforce Finance Subcommittee found the commission to be "ineffective." 3:18:52 PM RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State Legislature, continued to slide 4 and reiterated that the bill would repeal the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission and move those cases back to the Superior Court. The $433,00 that would be saved would be from the salaries, travel, and per diem of the commission's two full-time employees. He added that the court system has previously testified that it would be able to absorb the cases without fiscal impact. MR. MCKEE continued to slides 5 and 6 and reiterated that there has been a sharp decline in the number of cases handled by the commission since 2007, that the commission was found to be ineffective in 2015. MR. MCKEE continued to slides 7 through 10, stating that although one of the reasons that the commission was created was to reduce the amount of time required to decide cases, that result has not been the case. The proposed legislation would reduce the number of cases sent to the Alaska Supreme Court, as more cases decided by the commission are being appealed than during the time in which cases were being decided by the Superior Court. He said that Workers' Compensation Tax income has declined, causing some of the cost of the commission to be passed onto the general fund. 3:24:32 PM ERIC CROFT, Former State House Representative, stated that he has represented workers before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission and the court system. He echoed the point that the commission has seen a decrease in the number of cases that it sees. He added that he believes the current work load does not "sustain" the need for having the commission rather than having the cases go through the court system. 3:28:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked if the members of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Commission were judges or people with expertise in that area of law. 3:29:28 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff Office, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, answered that she is unsure about the specific composition of the commission. 3:29:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked if it was correct that the court system said it would be able to absorb these cases. MS. MEADE answered that she would submit a zero fiscal note for the bill because the number of cases would likely mean at most a single extra case per judge per year. She added that one case would be the average, with most cases being in more populated areas. In response to a follow-up question, she stated that the cases are challenging and time consuming, but the cases are assigned randomly using a computer system. REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked if there would be a training cost associated with judges needing to review some of the more arcane parts of the law dealing with workers' compensation. MS. MEADE answered that no fiscal cost would be incurred, although there would be a cost in terms of spending time on a workers' compensation case rather than another case. She added that this is something that occurs regardless of a given case. In response to a follow-up question, she said that there are other times in which a judge may have to pay extra attention to a case because it deals with an area of law with which judge has less experience. 3:36:14 PM CHAIR SUMNER asked how much of the $433,000 that the bill would save is dedicated personnel expenses. MR. MCKEE answered that $433,000 is entirely salary and travel costs for the commission. 3:37:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the commissioners are administrative law judges or people with specific expertise in the area of workers' compensation. MR. MCKEE answered that two of the commissioners have no legal background. [HB 63 was held over.]