MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      January 25, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 9:15 a.m., Monday, January 25, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman

      Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman

      Mr. Bernie Anderson

      Mr  John C. Bonaventura

      Mr. John C. Carpenter

      Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.

      Mr. James A. Gibbons

      Mr. William D. Gregory

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mr. John B. Regan

      Mr. Scott Scherer

      Ms. Stephanie Smith

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Mr. Ken L. Haller

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. David D. Nicholas, Former Assemblyman

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, State of          Nevada

      Mr. L. Timothy Terry, Sr. Deputy, Office of the Attorney        General, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit

      Mr. David F. Sarnowski, Chief, Office of the Attorney        General, Criminal Justice Division

 

      Mr. Jerry J. Zadny, Ph.D., Administrator, Department of       Human Resources, Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental

            Retardation

      Ms. Sharon M. Ezell, Chief, Department of Human Resources,

            Bureau of Licensure and Certification

      Ms. Mary Liveratti, Deputy Administrator, Department of       Human Resources, Division for Aging Services

      Mr. C. Edwin Fend, American Association of Retired Persons,           Nevada Capital City Task Force

      Mr. David D. Nicholas, Executive Director, Nevada Health             Care Association

      Ms. Mary E. McCarthy, Senior Attorney, Nevada Legal        Services

 

 

 

Following roll call, Chairman Sader opened the hearing on A.B. 73.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 73 - Provides for reporting and punishment of                        abuse of patients.

 

Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, testified in favor of A.B. 73.  Ms. Del Papa informed the committee that over 2100 complaints of elder abuse had been filed in Nevada in 1992; many complaints went unreported.  Ms. Del Papa reported that according to the House Select Committee on Aging, one out of every twenty elderly Americans this year would become victims of neglect, physical, psychological or financial abuse.  According to the Attorney General, at present, no law exists which defines, and/or punishes patient abuse or neglect.  A.B. 73 addressed these concerns.  She reported the 1991 legislature approved legislation creating the Medicaid Fraud and Patient Abuse Unit  (MFPAU) which is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General's office.  One of the primary responsibilities of the MFPAU was to investigate and prosecute the abuse or neglect of patients in facilities receiving payments from the Medicaid program, and Senior Deputy Timothy Terry was the director of the MFPAU.  However, Ms. Del Papa stated, at the time legislation was approved, legislators did not contemporaneously enact legislation defining and punishing patient abuse or neglect.  A.B. 73 would establish the necessary definitions, reporting requirements and penalties necessary to attack this problem.

 

Ms. Del Papa explained the difficulties currently existing without the  specific laws needed in this area.  According to the Attorney General, when the MFPAU received a complaint of patient abuse or neglect, the unit turned to the closest statutory scheme available, which was the Elder Abuse and Neglect statute, NRS 200.5092, to evaluate the case.  However, Ms. Del Papa added, this law had shortcomings when considered in the context of patient abuse or neglect.

 

First, the law pertained only to individuals over the age of 60.  In effect, the Attorney General pointed out, a patient younger than 60 and older than 18 was unprotected from abuse or neglect.  Secondly, the penalty for causing substantial bodily harm to an elder person by reason of abuse or neglect had to be considered.  NRS 200.5099, Subsection 3 specified a term of imprisonment from one to six years.  Since no provision existed for the application of a monetary penalty, a corporate owner of a nursing facility was completely insulated from liability.  According to Ms. Del Papa, this was due to the universal rule that  stated corporations could not be punished by imprisonment.

 

The Attorney General highlighted the final point, and stated the penalties under the Elder Abuse statute were tied to conduct which causes "unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering."  According to Ms. Del Papa, this phrase had been held unconstitutionally vague as applied in at least one Nevada District Court decision.  The Attorney General declared A.B. 73 would provide strong, clear definitions of "emotional abuse, mistreatment, neglect and physical abuse," definitions deemed necessary to protect a vulnerable population and guarantee proper care and treatment.  A.B. 73 would also compel the suspension or revocation of licensed professionals, or facilities, which have abused, neglected or mistreated patients, or have failed to properly report such conduct.  Attorney General Del Papa asked that the Sr. Deputy Attorney General, Tim Terry, present additional remarks and walk the committee through the administrative aspects of A.B. 73,  fine-tuning the amendments recommended to the committee.

 

First, Mr. Terry brought attention to A.B. 73, page two, Section 12, line 23, which stated that the caretaker "shall immediately report such abuse."  This type of language, according to Mr. Terry, was found unconstitutional by the Nevada Supreme Court in the Sferrazza case with respect to child abuse reporting.  He suggested the phrase "shall immediately report;"  Mr. Terry suggested insertion of a 24 hour time period.

 

The Sr. Deputy Attorney General continued with the review of the suggested amendments and referred to A.B. 73, page five, Section 20, Subsection (b), which referenced the term  "serious physical injury."  According to Mr. Terry, the term was unconstitutionally vague.  He suggested the phrase be substituted with "substantial bodily harm."  The replacement phrase was statutorily defined in Nevada and had been the subject of Nevada Supreme Court decisions, therefore, upholding the constitutionality of the phrase.

 

Mr. Terry also suggested NRS 629.061, Subsection 1, Subpart (b), (not contained in the Bill Draft), be amended.  The section, as written, mandated health providers to release to investigators and the Attorney General's Office, patient information whenever incidents of provider fraud were investigated.  This, according to Mr. Terry, was the other main scope of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit's activities.

 

Mr. Terry noted that a representative from the American Association of Retired Persons would testify in reference to the penalty provisions in Section 20.  According to Mr. Terry, only felony violations occurred in the event of a death.  He asked the committee to consider whether other injuries would fall into the gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor categories.  Mr. Terry stated the Attorney General's Office would support any recommendation to strengthen the penalties. 

 

In conclusion, Mr. Terry stated representatives from the Nevada Department of Human Resources would discuss the requirements in A.B. 73, Section 12 and Section 13, which dealt with the departmental requirements to investigate and report incidents of abuse or neglect. 

 

A final comment presented by Mr. Terry in reference to A.B. 73 included an item in Section 5 which pertained to emotional abuse; this was an item of neglect and abuse among the elderly not addressed in the statutes, but which took place in a number of environments.  According to the Sr. Deputy Attorney General, this particular language was based on a statute which had been tested by the Delaware Supreme Court and had passed constitutional muster. 

 

Chairman Sader declared A.B. 73 would be assigned to a subcommittee to resolve language issues and to deal further with policy matters raised by the bill.

 

Mr. Porter referenced A.B. 73, Section 5, which stated: "Emotional abuse includes, without limitation, ridiculing or demeaning a patient, making derogatory remarks to a patient, cursing directed toward a patient, or threatening to inflict physical or emotional harm on a patient."  He brought to the attention of Mr. Terry that cursing at a patient was not a misdemeanor offense as stated in Section 5.

 

Mr. Terry explained the language used in A.B. 73 was the result of a policy decision; this was a problem the unit had as it has been directed to investigate all reports of patient abuse or neglect, and prosecute.  He expressed his desire to work with the committee as well as other state agencies to solve the problems.

 

Mr. Porter concurred with Mr. Terry's comments and complimented him on the expended efforts.  Discussion followed.

 

Mr. Gibbons addressed the Chairman of the committee, and noted Mr. Sader had made a request earlier in the hearing to change NRS 629.061, Subsection (b), in reference to the release of information of a patient's records for the purpose of fraud investigations. Mr. Terry stated the provision currently existed and suggested the records could be amended so  patient abuse and neglect information would be released to investigators from  the Attorney General's Office.  Mr. Gibbons asked if this action would require a patient's permission for the release of medical records?  Mr. Terry stated that in the case of Medicaid patients, permission to release medical information would not be required as Medicaid applicants waived any confidentiality protection.  According to Mr. Terry, the provisions would be expanded from what was currently in place with respect to Medicaid recipients.  Mr. Terry noted in the area of non-Medicaid recipients, the scope would be broadened.  Mr. Gibbons requested confirmation on his understanding that if MFCU wanted to investigate an abuse, a patient's permission to release medical information would not be required.  Mr. Terry confirmed this.

 

Mr. Gibbons referenced A.B. 73, page 4, Section 16, which read: "A person who makes an oral or written report pursuant to Sections 2 to 20, inclusive, of this act is not liable in any civil or criminal action by reason of the report if the report was made in good faith or under the reasonable belief that the abuse, mistreatment or neglect has taken place."  Mr. Gibbons asked Mr. Terry whether an individual would be subject to any charge of libel?  Mr. Terry stated an individual was not subject to any charge of libel.  Mr. Gibbons asked if the individual made a formal report, was this action not categorized as slander?  Mr. Terry stated that an oral report could be used as slander, although,  due to other reporting provisions in the law, it was the MFCU's intent to insulate those individuals reporting in good faith, from any kind of legal liability.  Mr. Terry noted previous public policy determinations had been made during past legislative sessions.  According to Mr. Terry, it was the intent of the MFCU to guarantee safety to any individuals coming forward with information of abuse or neglect.  Mr. Terry stated in such a case an individual would be described as a whistleblower.

 

Mr. Toomin voiced concern in regard to employees, other than those who are of a  technical status, indicating his father had been a patient at UMC Medical Center and had been abused on at least three or four occasions.  Mr. Toomin stated he would like to see the problem of elder abuse addressed.  Mr. Terry acknowledged the request.

 

Mr. Scherer questioned the language of A.B. 73, page 4, Section 16, Subsection 2, and queried Mr. Terry as to how he envisioned this law to be enforced.  Although not a problem the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit would be concerned with,  Mr. Terry explained the MFCU was trying to afford some statutory protection to an individual who acted in the capacity of a whistleblower.  Mr. Scherer stated the intent would be to create a private right of action for someone's pursuit of wrongful discharge claim.  Mr. Terry confirmed Mr. Scherer's statement. 

 

Mr. Anderson directed his concerns to A.B. 73, page 2, Section 9, Subsection (1)  asking if "reasonable and necessary" (line 7), "without limitations" (line 8),  and "personal care and shelter" (line 9) pertained to home care.  Mr. Terry confirmed Section 9 did pertain to home care as well.

 

Mr. Anderson also queried the limitation foreseen on expenditures to provide home care to individuals.    Mr. Terry stated the questions would be addressed by representatives of state agencies testifying at the hearing.

 

Mr. Petrak indicated that 39 percent of his district was composed of senior citizens, of which hundreds of seniors and spouses were confined to both long-term and short-term nursing facilities.  Mr. Petrak questioned if the law would require shutting down the facility, or the elimination of the perpetrator as a caretaker?

 

Mr. Terry stated some of the penalty provisions might be insubstantial.  The Attorney General's office would be supportive in working with the committee to strengthen penalties or impose more severe penalties, if that was the committee's desire.

Mr. Bonanventura queried Mr. Terry on the definition of the word "promptly" used on page 5, Section 20, Subsection 3.  Mr. Terry stated the phrase might need to be definitively categorized in terms of a time period and not subject for debate as to what was required.

 

Referring to A.B. 73, Section 5 Mr. Sader alluded to the wording which made it a crime to curse and make derogatory comments. This would be difficult to prosecute or report.  Chairman Sader questioned whether it was an advantage to have that kind of definition. 

 

In reference to Section 12 regarding reporting requirements, Mr. Sader noted that should the bill pass, there would be two reporting requirements.  Mr. Sader felt this would be a problem.  He suggested the committee should look at the reporting requirements in order to condense.   

 

Mr. Sader questioned the language in Sections 17, 18, 19 and 29, after which discussion followed.

 

Following the discussion, Mr. Terry stated these were problems not addressed in the state of Nevada previously so new ground was being forged.  A consensus would have to be developed, not just within the subcommittee, but within the committee as well, and probably within the legislature as a whole, to address how this issue would be tackled.  Mr. Terry stated the best his office could do was work with the committee and come to a consensus, and achieve a bill everyone would be satisfied with.

 

Chairman Sader requested from Mr. Terry, a written memorandum outlining the amendments (Exhibit C).

 

Chairman Sader announced the subcommittee composition.  He appointed Mr. Gibbons as Chairman of the subcommittee and Mr. Petrak and Mr. Scherer as subcommittee members.

 

Chairman Sader opened the floor for additional testimony to be heard regarding A.B. 73.  Mr. C. Edwin Fend, Member of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) stepped forward in support of A.B. 73, and testified on behalf of the Nevada Capital City Task Force (Exhibit D).  According to Mr. Fend, members of AARP felt strongly in support of A.B. 73 and its passage.  The wording should be expanded to cover all elderly citizens.  The statistics quoted by government, according to Mr. Fend, indicated that one in twenty  elderly citizens had been subjected to abuse, either emotionally or physically.  Mr. Fend questioned what was wrong with a society which mistreated the young and elderly citizens in such a non-civilized manner.  Mr. Fend alluded to excuses used such as lack of funding and extended families.  Mr. Fend further discussed the plight of senior citizens and stated if the penalties provided for in A.B. 73 were stronger, it would help contain the problem.  Mr. Fend stated he had problems with the penalty provisions, as was indicated by the committee.  Mr. Fend noted that overall, most elderly providers did an excellent job in providing services, although one bad employee, gone unchecked could cost a life.  AARP, according to Mr. Fend, strongly supported the passage of A.B. 73.

 

Mr. Sader asked Mr. Fend to voice his concerns as to what he would like to see changed in the penalty provisions.   Mr. Fend stated he felt the penalties in Section 20 appeared to be inappropriate for the seriousness of the crimes.

 

Mr. Jerry J. Zadney, Ph.D., Administrator for the State of Nevada, Department of Human Resources, Division of Mental Hygiene and Mental Retardation spoke before the assemblage in favor of A.B. 73 and sought to endorse efforts to curb abuse and neglect.  He noted the practical problems with the language in the bill.  According to Mr. Zadney, there were three separate statutes on the books governing, 1) the abuse of the elderly, 2) the abuse of children, and 3) the abuse of clients of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.  Each of the statutes defined abuse and neglect differently, subscribed to different reporting procedures and described different penalties.  All statutes would apply to division clients and division facilities, according to Mr. Zadney.  A fourth version would make the matter incomprehensible to the average worker.  Mr. Zadney encouraged the committee to streamline and integrate the different definitions, as well as exempt some of the facilities the measure was not intended to cover, which, according to Mr. Zadney, would encompass 19 funded facilities.  The language in section 6, he added, covered many facilities which did not have Title IX funding.

 

Mr. Sader commented on a point Mr. Zadney raised in reference to the issue of desperate reporting requirements.   Chairman Sader suggested Mr. Zadney meet with the Subcommittee and officers of the Attorney General's office to satisfy the issues.  Mr. Sader requested Mr. Zadney submit the suggestions to Mr. Gibbons, Chairman of the subcommittee, as well as a copy to Mr. Sader.

 

Ms. Sharon Ezell, Chief of the Bureau of Licensure and Certification Division, State Health Division stood before the committee in favor of A.B. 73.  Ms. Ezell was responsible for the licensing of health care facilities and facilities for dependents, as well as the certification of the facilities involved with Medicare and Medicaid payment.  NRS 449.150, she said,  provided the State Health Division to investigate complaints regarding the care and treatment in health care facilities.  In this statute, there were no reporting requirements.   Ms. Ezell requested consideration of an amendment to the bill, Exhibit E which would clarify and strengthen the purpose of the legislation.  A.B. 73, Section 14, page 3, line 32 through page 4, line 18 addressed the confidentiality of the report, as well as the persons and agencies to whom they may be released.  According to Ms. Ezell, in this section the Bureau of Licensure and Certification was not one of the agencies entitled to these reports of investigative findings.  Time and effort would be saved if the agencies worked collaboratively on the investigations, and if the findings could be used as part of the Bureau's work in the facilities and surveys.  Chief Ezell stated as the bill currently stood, the Bureau of Licensure and Certification had to conduct a complete second investigation.  Chief Ezell proposed the bill be amended to read as follows in Section 14, Subsection 2 (discrepant), add: "(k) or the Bureau of Licensure and Certification, State Health Division."

 

Ms. Mary Ellen McCarthy, Senior Attorney for Nevada legal Services stated she frequently worked with senior citizens and persons who had family members in nursing homes.  Ms. McCarthy stated the concern with A.B. 73 was the bill did not address the fact nursing care facilities, hospitals and physicians were effectively using patients to approve cash flow.

 

Following the discussion of her concerns, Chairman Sader stated Ms. McCarthy had brought up an issue which was extraneous to the bill, but said he would leave it to the committee members, the subcommittee and the subcommittee chairman, whether they wished to deal with this issue in this bill.  Mr. Sader requested  Ms. McCarthy write a memo to Mr. Gibbons outlining what she felt needed to be done in regards to this issue.  Ms. McCarthy stated she would comply with the request.

 

Continuing, Ms. McCarthy voiced her concerns in reference to  A.B. 73, Section 22, Subpart (i), page 7, line 34.  In rural areas of the state clients might not have opportunity or flexibility in moving a patient from one place to another.  Ms. McCarthy believed an attorney should be allowed to look at the situation without the mandatory reporting requirements.  Reporting did hamper the attorney's ability to counsel clients, according to Ms. McCarthy.

 

Mary Liveratti, Deputy Administrator, State of Nevada, Department of Human Resources, Division of Aging Services stated she would read from the position paper Steve Empy, Chief of Elder Right had drafted, Exhibit F.   According to Ms. Liveratti, the division supported the intent of A.B. 73, however, concern was voiced in regard to the potential for creating serious implementation and coordination problems by establishing three separate protective service reporting systems: (1) the existing Elder Abuse Reporting system, NRS 200.5091 through 200.5099; (2) the existing Child Abuse Reporting system, NRS 432 B.220 through NRS 432 B.320; (3) and the proposed A.B. 73 system.  Ms. McCarthy further recommended the subcommittee add an amendment and consider the following questions as outlined in Exhibit F.  In conclusion, Ms. Liveratti stated the Division of Aging Services did support the intent of A.B. 73 and realized the seriousness of the issues.  However, according to Ms. Liveratti, modification was in order.

 

Ms. Liveratti stated a fiscal note had been submitted and added the department did not have a 24 hour availability system which could be used for reporting purposes.  Under the current Elder Abuse Reporting Law, or the Aging Services Division (being Welfare Division), a law enforcement agency might receive a report of elder abuse.  If A.B. 73 were to be enacted, the division did not have that reporting ability.  The fiscal note submitted would not be enough and would have to be embellished.  Ms. Liveratti submitted written comments to the subcommittee Exhibit F.  Ms. Liveratti confirmed fiscal notes had been prepared and would need to be amended if the division was required to accept 24 hour reports as there was nothing currently in place to do that. 

 

Mr. David D. Nicholas, Executive Director for the Nevada Health Care Association, presented a dissertation during which time questions were put before the committee.  The first question posed by Mr. Nicholas asked how the licensed nursing home industry in the state felt about the widening of jurisdiction which would be granted to the agency eventually chosen to fulfill the assignment.  According to Mr. Nicholas, existing laws currently covered this issue. The persons exposed to additional laws, more than the licensed nursing home industry, would be those who were not children and not over 60 years of age.  Mr. Nicholas predicted fiscal impact problems if another agency was to be involved with a situation already in law.  Also, what would the fiscal impact be if there was some streamlining and consolidation?  Mr. Nicholas requested the committee keep Aging Services involved as it was a viable group established to deal with these problems and had health care experts in it.  Mr. Nicholas stated there might be different interpretations of the results. 

 

Chairman Sader commented it was the intention of the committee to keep the health care providers active in the subcommittee's work.  Mr. Nicholas' assistance would be needed in amending the provisions in A.B. 73. 

 

Chairman Sader closed testimony on A.B. 73 and referred the bill to the subcommittee for further action.  Those individuals who needed to be apprised of the subcommittee's activities were requested to contact the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Gibbons.  Ms. Denice Miller, Committee Research Analyst, was requested to assist the subcommittee and provide staff support due to the issues raised and the question of consolidation of reporting requirements.  Mr. Gibbons was ordered to report back to the committee on the actions taken by the subcommittee in regard to A.B. 73.

 

 

 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 74  -       Imposes additional penalty for                                criminal violation of certain                                   provisions governing securities                                   and commodities if victim is 65

                                    years of age or older.

 

David F. Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Nevada Attorney General's office, testified in support of A.B. 74.  Effective  January 4, 1993, the prosecutorial function for securities fraud and commodities fraud was reassigned to Mr. Sarnowski's division.  The Attorney General's Office recommended the penalty enhancement also be extended to the commodities fraud provision in Chapter 91.  According to Mr. Sarnowski, the majority of victims of securities fraud in Nevada were persons over the age of 65.  A general statute authorized enhanced punishment for specified crimes, such as assaults and batteries, but the general enhancement provision did not include crimes of securities or commodities fraud.  Some victims had been bilked of their life savings or of other investments.  These victims had encountered people who had conducted fraudulent transactions in other jurisdictions, and in some instances had been prohibited by regulatory bodies in other jurisdictions (such as the Commodities Futures Trading Exchange in Chicago) from performing activities in which they defrauded elderly victims of their assets.  In essence, orders in one jurisdiction did not necessarily stop fraudulent activities from occurring.   In many instances seniors forgot what they had been told, what they had been shown, and what had occurred during the transactions leading up to the investigation.  The cases were complex, involved several factors and extended over several years in certain cases.  Because of the time element involved in some of these cases, sources and witnesses had died during the interim, according to Mr. Sarnowski.

 

Mr. Sader noted one reason the Securities and Fraud Abuse statute was passed was to address the abuses occurring to elderly persons.  Why should there be a double penalty?  Was the penalty sufficient now, Chairman Sader questioned, and what was the penalty?  Did this really provide good public policy to increase the penalty?  Secondly, the law already provided for persons over 65, Sader noted, and asked why this should not be included too.

 

Mr. Sarnowski stated that reading penal statutes, they could not use the enhancement provisions presently existing to enhance violations for failing to register, and then conduct business with elderly victims or attempt to sell them securities.  The penalty was one to six years in both chapters with a fine provision, or both, depending on the act. Mr. Sarnowski used as an example a co-defendant who entered into plea negotiations with the Attorney General's office and received a term of imprisonment which was not suspended.  That individual had been previously involved in similar dealings in another jurisdiction.  A number of people engaged in those types of activities seemed unrepentant, or believed what they did was not fraudulent.  In many cases, the perpetrators claimed the elderly victims knew what they were entering into and got what they deserved.  Because of the monies obtained from the customers and the able counsel procured to defend them, it appeared to be worth the effort to go to trial and face the one-to-six year imprisonment penalty, which often was not a deterrent.

 

Mr. Sarnowski specified provisions out of the commodities chapter which needed to be specified and added into the bill, those being NRS 91.190, the sale or purchase of commodities; NRS 91.220, engaging in transactions identified in that particular provision; and NRS 91.230, fraudulent conduct.  Mr. Sarnowski finalized his testimony by stating that in a great majority of these cases, although statutes provide for fines and there are civil monetary remedies available both to the administrator and the individual victims, if transactions were not caught in the early stages,  the assets were expended by the persons who became the subject of the criminal prosecution.  Mr. Sarnowski suggested an alternative punishment in the form of incarceration would be a more appropriate form of punishment for those types of individuals who expend all the assets.

 

Mr. Sader questioned Mr. Sarnowski in reference to A.B.74, page 1, Section 1, Subsection 2, asking whether the provisions on line 18 through line 20 now provide that criminal violations of Chapter 91 were included in this enhancement.  Mr. Sarnowski confirmed Mr. Sader's comment.

 

Ms. Mary Liveratti, Deputy Administrator for the Department of Human Resources, Division for Aging Services, stated the agency supported the expansion of the enhanced penalty provision of NRS 193.167 to include criminal violations of the securities and commodities statutes, NRS Chapters 90 and 91 for victims 65 years or older, Exhibit G.

 

No further comments came before the committee on A.B. 74.  Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B.74.  

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA MOVED DO PASS ON AB 74.

 

      ASSEMBLYWOMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Mr. Sader asked if further discussion was needed on the floor.

Mr. Sherer noted the penalties for violations in Chapters 90 and 91 were already different in a number of respects.  Penalties for violations in Chapter 91 were more severe, including a term of incarceration up to ten years and a fine of $20,000, instead of a fine of $10,000.  Mr. Sherer suggested the committee consider this bill further and discuss whether the penalties should be made more consistent and possibly to increase the penalty for violations of Chapter 90 to coincide with those of Chapter 91.

 

Mr. Sader requested Mr. Sherer make a recommendation.  Mr. Sherer stated this crime was a serious one whether it was committed against an individual over the age of 65 or not.  Mr. Sherer's inclination was to increase the penalties in Chapter 90 to match those in Chapter 91.  The penalty of one-to-six years imprisonment and $10,000 fine of Chapter 90 was sufficient, in Mr. Sherer's assessment.  Mr. Sader stated the discussion was phrased as a condition precedent issue.  Could the question of reconciling penalties in Chapter 90 and Chapter 91 separate from this consideration, or should it be tied together?  Should a Bill Draft be considered on this?  Mr. Sherer stated they could be reconciled separately if needed.  Mr. Sherer's feeling about the bill would depend upon which way they were reconciled, whether it was reconciled under the lower penalty or the higher penalty.  Mr. Sader stated Mr. Sherer had raised a legitimate issue but it was one that needed more work and additional testimony. 

 

Mr. Sader asked for additional discussion on the bill.  None was made. 

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Carpenter voted no, all others                                                                 

      voted yes.)

 

Mr. Bonaventura was asked to handle A.B. 74 on the Assembly floor. 

 

A Bill Draft Request was approved by the committee to reconcile the provisions.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED FOR A BILL DRAFT REQUEST.

 

      MR. COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Mr. Sader requested a committee introduction on BDR 14-1031, a bill that expanded circumstances under which recording or interception of wire or oral communications was permissible. This was a one-party consent bill specifically relating to wire taps for sexual offenses against children.  The consideration was requested by a local child abuse group.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 14-1031.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

No other matters came before the committee.  The meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m.

 

 

                                   RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                                         

      Jessie A. Caple            

                                   Committee Secretary

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Judiciary

January 25, 1993

Page: 1