MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
April 27, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:06 a.m., April 27, 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. Ken L. Haller
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. Scott Scherer
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. John B. Regan
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Sheila A. Block, Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Human Resources
Ms. Jeanette Hills, Chief of Eligibility and Payments, Nevada Department of Human Resources, Welfare Division
Mr. Joseph Carpenter, represented Chief Justice Rose
Mr. Michael J. McMahon, Welfare Director, Chruchill County Administration Office
Mr. Henry W. Cavallera, Alzheimers Association
Ms. Patricia Justice, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Ms. Mary Ellen McCarthy, Staff Attorney, Nevada Legal Services
Ms. Frances Doherty, Attorney, Washoe Legal Services
Mr. James M. O'Reilly, Attorney,
After roll call, Chairman Sader opened the hearing on A.B. 520.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 520 Requires court, when entering decree dividing community income, assets and obligations of husband and wife under certain circumstances to make equal division of property.
Chairman Sader noted A.B. 520 had been proposed by the Attorney General's Office on behalf of the Nevada State Welfare Division.
Ms. Sheila Block, Deputy Attorney General, represented the Nevada State Welfare Division. She maintained A.B. 520 proposed to limit court-ordered divisions of community income and assets to equal divisions in cases where one spouse had been admitted to long-term care, unless the courts had made specific findings of extenuating circumstances. If extenuating circumstances existed, divisions of income would not exceed 115 percent of the federal needs allowance. The division of assets would not exceed 150 percent of the federal resource allowance as outlined in the Social Security Act.
Ms. Block proposed the following amendment to A.B. 520, Exhibit C, which stated, "court makes specific findings of exceptional circumstances resulting in significant financial duress. If the court makes..." She discussed the Nevada Medicaid Program and the reasons the limitations were necessary. She pointed out the caseloads were growing in both the state and the counties. The Medicaid budget had been capped. She stated long-term care was an optional program and when long-term care costs exceeded the budgeted amounts, cuts had to be made in other programs.
Ms. Block noted in 1992 the Welfare Board had been faced with making decisions as to which services and/or programs would be decreased as the result of the state budget crisis. Reductions in services had been made to avoid cutting programs entirely. The Welfare Board had eliminated payments for services provided by chiropractors and podiatrists. The number of doctor visits had been decreased without prior authorization, as well as prescriptions.
Ms. Block noted the Medicaid program was one of the fastest growing and most expensive programs in state government. The increase in long-term care had significantly and dramatically impacted the welfare budget. She noted, in 1992, an average of 2,020 long-term care recipients applied for assistance per month. This was 3.2 percent of the average monthly Medicaid caseload in 1992. However, this accounted for $50,653,000 in claim expenditures which was 20.7 percent of all claim expenditures during fiscal year 1992. This had been an increase of 23 percent over FY 1991.
During FY 1993, the projected expenditures were $54,000,000 and in FY 1994, expenditures were projected to be $67,000,000. During FY 1995, the projected expenditures were estimated to be $85,000,000. Ms. Block testified the projections for FY 1994 and FY 1995 were based on the Governor's recommended budget which was projected to entail a 143 percent increase in total costs from FY 1990 to FY 1995. This was projected to continue at similar and greater rates.
Ms. Block stated the Welfare Division was experiencing growing numbers of individuals who qualified for Medicaid through obtaining court orders entered pursuant to NRS 123.259. It was necessary the Medicaid program be protected for those it was designed to benefit. She noted applicants were attempting to meet the eligibility criteria by transferring their assets and resources through trusts, annuities, court orders, gifts, transfers for less than fair market value and other mechanisms.
Ms. Block alleged the extent to which the manipulation of assets was being utilized to gain Medicaid eligibility was unknown. However, nationally, while only 12 percent of senior citizens were considered poor, nearly 66 percent of the elderly in nursing homes were on Medicaid. Medicaid had been intended to be the payer of last resort. She contended individuals with sufficient income and resources should utilize portions of their resources to pay for care before taxpayers should shoulder the costs.
According to Ms. Block, the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 contained provisions designed to protect portions of the incomes and resources of couples for the maintenance of the spouses at home when the other spouse had been institutionalized. These provisos were known as the Spousal Impoverishment provisions and applied regardless of state laws which related to community properties. Federal statutes allowed at-home spouses to retain resources for their maintenance, called the community resource allowance.
The federal statute imposed caps on the resource allowances, currently amounting to $70,740. Ms. Block added this amount could be amended by court order or by fair hearing. In addition, the federal statutes provided for support for the at- home spouse which was called the minimum monthly needs allowance, funded from the community spouses' income. If this was insufficient, portions were allocated from the institutionalized spouses' income.
Ms. Block pointed out the minimum monthly needs allowance could not exceed $1,769 per month which was the federal cap. This amount was also subject to adjustment by fair hearing or by court order. At fair hearings, the resources and income caps could be revised only if there were exceptional circumstances which resulted in significant financial duress. There were no such restrictions on court-ordered transfers of resources, or for income support for the maintenance of the at-home spouses.
Ms. Block noted courts had ordered transfers of income and resources well in excess of the federal caps. As a result of these court orders which were being entered pursuant to NRS 123.259 as it currently existed, institutionalized individuals were receiving Medicaid benefits who would otherwise not be eligible. It had been necessary for the Welfare Division to request the Attorney General's Office to intervene and request the court orders be revised and reserve the Medicaid program for the truly needy.
Ms. Block added her office had experienced transfer of resources from $100,000 to $400,000. In one instance, a transfer in excess of $1.2 million in assets had been lodged with the court. Courts ordered monthly income allowances in excess of $4,000 per month. At the suggestion of private attorneys practicing estate planning for the elderly, the division had informally agreed not to intervene in cases where the transfer of resources was within 150 percent of the federal cap. This allowed married couples to transfer, by court order, up to $106,110 in resources to the at- home spouses as his/her sole or separate property provided exceptional circumstances warranted such transfers. This allowed the institutionalized spouses to become Medicaid eligible.
The Welfare Division had experienced requests for income allowances for the at-home spouses which exceeded the federal cap. According to Ms. Block, these requests were often supported by monthly budgets which included items not considered to be basic needs. The majority of the itemized budgets received by the Welfare Division supported requests for monthly allowances of approximately $2,000, although this was in excess of the federal cap.
Ms. Block maintained the Welfare Division believed these were reasonable amounts and she requested the limit for the minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance be set at 115 percent of the federal cap which amounted to $2,034 per month. A.B. 520 would permit the division of income and assets to be set at reasonable amounts which would exceed the federal cap, and yet limit the discretion of the courts which preserved the integrity of the Medicaid program and the purpose and intent of NRS 123.259.
In conclusion, Ms. Block contended the purpose of the state and federal statutes was not to enrich the at-home spouses but to prevent their impoverishment. It was clear in the federal statute, before the caps were exceeded, there should be exceptional circumstances. With A.B. 520 in place, the Welfare Division could continue to provide Medicaid to those who were genuinely in need.
Chairman Sader noted the proceeding was a complicated area of entitlements and one the committee had dealt with previously. The committee agreed as to the clarity of the information presented.
Mr. Petrak understood there were couples who possessed the financial means to take care of themselves, but these individuals transferred accounts to the other spouses and applied for subsidies to care for the hospitalized spouse. Ms. Block concurred and added, in these instances, these were individuals with sufficient income and assets sufficient to support their own institutionalized care for a period of time. Instead these individuals transferred their assets which were in excess of the federal caps and guidelines to the at-home spouses. The transactions were being done under court order. Ms. Block alleged without the court orders, these individuals would not be Medicaid eligible. She agreed there should be certain amounts at-home spouses should retain for income and resources. They had gone to the point of exceeding the federal limits by 150 percent by taking into account extraordinary circumstances.
Mr. Sader noted A.B. 520 addressed where the line would be drawn. In a community property state, if there were usual circumstances, as with elderly couples where one spouse was admitted to long-term care, the last thing interned spouses wanted was to leave the other spouse destitute. The motivation often was to transfer as much assets as possible into the other spouses name to provide financial security. He noted couples divorced to separate assets.
In response to Mr. Carpenter's concern regarding the $106,000 cap, Ms. Block replied these were considered as excluded resources. Resources such as homes, automobiles, personal assets or household goods, burial plans, were in addition to the $106,000.
Mr. Carpenter asked where bonds, stocks and retirement plans fit into the plan. Ms. Block noted these would fall under a portion of the $106,000. Mr. Carpenter queried retirement plans which paid specific amounts per month. Ms. Block responded by stating income and resources were treated separately. The income cap was $1,769 per month. The provisions suggested the amounts be increased to 115 percent of the income cap which would be $2,034 per month. This would be the at-home spouses' income. Mr. Carpenter noted pension plans and stocks would fall into this category.
Ms. Jeanette Hills, Chief of Eligibility and Payments, Nevada Department of Human Resources, Welfare Division, stated pension plans which had been set up for the at-home spouses would not be considered as part of the cap and the income of the at-home spouses did not determine the eligibility of the institutionalized spouses. She alleged this occurred only when the incomes of the at-home spouses were not sufficient to maintain living standards and meet necessities. Portions of the income of the institutionalized spouse would help fund these.
Chairman Sader clarified the financial aspects of the provisions. He informed the committee there was a certain amount of Medicaid money distributed by the federal government and was matched by the state. When higher caps were set, more revenue would come from the general fund to finance the payments of those individuals in long-term care who qualify for Medicaid as there was a lower cap.
In response to Mr. Sader's clarification, Ms. Hills stated a fifty percent split in income and resources was allowed. Mr. Sader added, in cases where there were unfunded amounts, or amounts individuals could not pay, theses amounts were paid for by combinations of federal and state dollars.
In circumstances where expenditures exceeded revenues, Ms. Block stated the Welfare Division would have to request recommen-dations for additional cuts from the Welfare Board. She noted payments for chiropractic and podiatrist services had been eliminated, including the number of doctor visits without prior authorization which had been decreased from five to three visits. Also, the number of prescriptions without prior authorizations had been decreased from five to three. In an attempt to preserve other viable programs, the Welfare Division attempted to reduce budgets as an alternative to total elimination. These were programs which required funding for the categorically eligible.
In reply to Mr. Haller's inquiry, Ms. Block alleged adult children were not responsible for their parents' medical care although spouses were responsible for their mates' care. Suggested provisions had been made which would conform to the standards set forth in the federal statutes in cases where individuals would proceed to fair hearings where findings of exceptional circumstances of significant financial duress would be found before the caps would be increased. They asked the same standards be applied.
In respect to the federal regulations and their conformity, Ms. Block noted the federal regulations did not place restrictions upon court orders. The courts retained the discretion to transfer whatever amounts they deemed proper. This was the reasoning behind the request that limitations be placed upon the discretion of the courts. Transfers had been seen far in excess of the federal caps.
Ms. Smith inquired as to the annual costs for care in medical facilities. Ms. Hills noted the average annual cost for nursing home care was $3,600 per month for private pay which took into consideration skilled nursing care as well as intermediate care. She noted the proposed provisions asked for an equal division. For example, if the combined resources equaled $400,000, the community spouse was allowed to retain $200,000 and the institutionalized spouse would utilize $200,000 toward his/her cost of care which, under this example, would pay for approximately four and one half years of nursing home care.
Mr. Schneider pointed out in cases where living trusts had been drawn up and family members were the executors of these trusts, the discussed provisions would not come into play. Mr. Porter added these situations depended upon if the trusts were revocable or irrevocable and how they had been structured. Mr. Sader stated most living trusts were not irrevocable and utilized the grantors or the primary beneficiaries of the spouses. He contended the question would be whether the trust were revocable or irrevocable and if individuals could change the assets back into their names. He clarified revokable trusts were considered to be their assets and irrevocable trusts would have given them more.
Ms. Hills explained irrevocable trusts would need to be analyzed under the federal regulations of the Medicaid qualifying trust provisions. Other statutes came into play with trusts including the transfer of assets rules. In cases where individuals attempted to transfer their assets, these rules might apply and would make them ineligible for a period of time. On the other hand, the trusts might be considered available for their benefit depending on the trustees' discretion to invade the principal if the trustees had the discretion to invade.
In reply to Mr. Haller's concern, Ms. Block noted in circumstances where individuals made transfers of assets, there was the possibility they would be ineligible for 30 months. She alleged it depended on the trust documents, how the trusts had been funded, the trustees' discretion to withdraw those funds and how they would apply them. Each trust was unique and had to be viewed individually.
Ms. Mary Ellen McCarthy, staff attorney, Washoe Legal Services, testified as to her concerns in regard to the proposed amendment to A.B. 520. Her specific concern was with the requirement of conformity with federal law, Exhibit D. She contended the suggested provisions did not deal with the truly needy and medically poor. She noted, as part of the Medicare Catastrophic Act, there were provisions which had been applied and were maintained in the act. One provision was designed to protect low and moderate income individuals from becoming destitute as the result of their spouse being institutionalized for long periods of time.
Ms. McCarthy stated her office had processed approximately 300 Medicaid cases over the preceding three years. She noted there had been one or two cases which would have been adversely impacted by A.B. 520 and these cases usually involved specific types of circumstances. For example, the Welfare Division proposed that under no circumstance would the courts have the authority or discretion to extend above 115 percent of the minimal monthly needs allowance. She alleged this would not affect 99 percent of the cases she dealt with. Occasionally, there were cases where spouses of severely disabled individuals would be in situations where the disabled individuals might have opted for pension or annuity plans which paid high amounts for set periods of time.
Ms. McCarthy referenced the federal statute amendments and spoke against the absolute prohibitions placed on courts taking into consideration specific and unique situations of the individual clients. If the caps were put into place the attorneys would support the alternative of divorce. She contended the federal statute did not have an equal division provision. Up to this point, the at-home spouses had been allowed to retain $14,000 and it had been an equal division. Amounts over this were presumed available to the institutionalized spouses. The equal division aspect of the provision was inconsistent with the federal requirements.
Ms. McCarthy noted the other concern was with A.B. 520, Section 1, subsection 6 which stated the Welfare Division was not bound to the provisions whereas the federal statutes maintained the division was bound to the provisos. According to Ms. McCarthy the proposed amendments to the bill would create a conflict between the federal and state statutes. She referred to U.S.C. 42, Section 1396r-5 (d), sub. 5, page 850, Exhibit D, which maintained the minimum monthly allowances must be equal to the court orders. She concurred with providing guidance to the courts in making determinations.
Ms. Frances Doherty, attorney, Washoe Legal Services, stated her concern was with the cap proposed on the judicial system. The purpose of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act was to assure only one spouse received public aid the other spouse did not end up in poverty. She focused her concern with the resource cap of $106,000 which, she noted, could be dwindled down in a matter of two or three years. She contended mandating the courts in this area would cause problems, whereas providing guidance to the courts would be more beneficial.
Mr. James M. O'Reilly, attorney, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments to A.B. 520. He noted federal mandates permitted local judiciary to make determinations. He believed to limit judiciary discretion was not the answer although providing guidance in this area would be worthwhile.
Mr. O'Reilly contended his concern was with forcing families to consider divorce as an option to the issues. He was adamantly opposed to the provisions which mandated couples in these situations could keep only $106,000. He addressed cases of second marriages where spouses brought separate properties into the union. The separate properties were often at risk under the proposed provisions, including the community properties and assets of the impaired spouses.
Mr. O'Reilly noted, if the avowed purpose of A.B. 520 was to prevent fraud or to recapture money under the lien recovery statute, A.B. 503, he had no opposition to these concepts. He recognized the need for judicial guidance and the necessity to create eligibility for one spouse and not place the community spouse into impoverishment. He did not want to formulate circumstances where couples would consider divorce actions as a planning option.
Mr. O'Reilly informed the committee the federal law allowed for the state judiciary to make determinations, assets and income allocation orders. He indicated the possibility of a Part C provision to the Medicare statutes which would address both national and local concerns. The current provisions contained in A.B. 520 were not in compliance with federal regulations. He alleged these same provisions would not be in compliance with the new federal regulations scheduled to be effective June 1, 1993.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. O'Reilly to reflect on his proposals to A.B. 520 which would rectify circumstances where the at-home spouses retained $106,000 and the institutionalized spouses received public assistance. In reply, Mr. O'Reilly believed the answer to these issues was to provide guidance to the judiciary and not create new problems. He concurred with the proposed amendments suggested by the Alzheimer's Association.
Mr. O'Reilly stated he had proposed an algebraic formula to the Attorney General's Office and the Welfare Division which asked the courts to confirm and set aside one-half the community properties, and confirm and set aside the separate properties to eliminate the prospect of divorce. He contended individuals should not be placed into worse economic positions by staying married than by securing divorce. He maintained he did not have a problem with confirming and setting aside 150 percent of the federal spousal resource allowance as long as this was not a cap but simply guidance to the court.
Mr. Sader addressed the statement made in reference to A.B. 520, Section 1, subsection 6, page 2, line 17 which federally prohibited agreements to be binding whereas the suggested amendment was that they not be binding. He noted this might have been a bill drafter change as it read "may not be" and had been changed to "is not binding". In response, Ms. Block stated the state plan had to be in conformance with federal law. She noted if agreements or decrees had been entered by courts and were not in compliance with the state plan or federal law, there was a possibility this might not be binding. As she understood, this might not be binding although it would not be in violation of federal law.
Mr. Henry W. Cavallero, attorney, testified on behalf of the Alzeheimers Association. He alleged agreements would be binding if his proposed amendment to A.B. 520, Exhibit E, was adopted as the suggested provisos complied with federal mandates. The existing statute did not comply with federal regulations and was not binding because they had to conduct reevaluations.
Mr. Cavallero contended he dealt with the presented issues more than any other attorney in the state. His goal was to make certain husbands and wives under these circumstances would remain married and not be forced into divorce. He introduced two clients involved in the same issues brought before the committee. He provided an example where a court developed a minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance. He alleged the amounts should be funded from the spouse at home's income first and the funding would come from the spouse-at-home's share of the resources. The cap, under federal law, was $70,740. If more was required, before going to resources of the husband, they would ascertain how much income would be received if her husband passed away. In these cases, the wives had lower fixed incomes than those of the husbands; when the husbands died, the spouses would receive increases. If these cases were used as building blocks, they would go to the husbands' side of the resources as a last resort. This was what Mr. Cavallero believed his proposed amendment would do.
Mr. Cavallero presented two examples to support his contention. He stated his proposed amendment treated every person in the same manner and gave them the ability to have the same amount of income and eliminated the windfall when one spouse died. He pointed out the cap in the federal statute mandated individuals could not receive more resources than were necessary to generate the required income which was already in the federal statute. He alleged there were situations where potential caps were needed on the amounts of income. In his proposed amendment, page 2, (b), Exhibit E, "If a district court awards a spousal minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance in excess of 115 percent of the maximum cap provided for in 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5 (d) (3) (c) and as adjusted from time to time by the federal government, it may only do so upon a finding of good cause." He added, if the committee desired to substitute the phrase "under extenuating circumstances", he did not have any problem with this.
Mr. Cavallero alleged, of all the cases he had conducted, approximately 4 percent of those cases went over 115 percent or over the cap. In every one of those circumstances, they were situations where the wives had not worked and had been paid minimum social security allowances. He was assured his proposed amendment would be consistent and judges would only make findings over the cap in extenuating circumstances.
Mr. Scherer asked how Mr. Cavallero's proposed amendments would determine the necessary levels of support for surviving spouses in terms of life insurance policies. Mr. Cavallero replied in cases where there were whole life insurance policies and there was cash or under value, if the policy was set aside to the community spouse, the couples could not hold on to the policies for future support. The couples were required to cash those policies in under federal law. They would receive the interest off the cash or under value; they would not obtain the death benefits. Term policies and survivorship annuities would have to be calculated into the formulas.
Ms. McCarthy argued these individuals were not required to cash in the life insurance policies. As a practical matter, she advised individuals to cash these in as one of the problems patients had on Medicaid was they needed to ascertain, on a monthly basis, how many resources they had. In circumstances where individuals had life insurance policies which had fluctuating values, it was complicated to track although the couples could set aside the policies. Mr. Cavallera contended his experiences had been different.
Mr. Sader stated the testimonies presented before the committee were overwhelming. A.B. 520 was too complicated an area and comprised of too many variables to synthesize in a short period of time.
Ms. Block addressed her concerns with Mr. Cavallera's proposed amendments which did not include a cap to the amount of resources which could be transferred. She was concerned with the standard applied which was a finding of good cause by the court. Mr. Sader noted Mr. Cavallero could change the provisions to include exceptional circumstances. Ms. Block contended the proposed provisions would fund the minimum monthly needs allowance. She pointed out he went from the at-home spouses' income to their resources and then to the amount they would receive in the event the other spouse died. She alleged there were no provisions for this in the federal regulations which applied to creative funding.
As Ms. Block understood, the intent of the federal regulations was to utilize the spouses' incomes to support the at-home spouses. If this was not sufficient, they would utilize resources which were income producing. She noted there was a provision in the amendment which allowed for proposed guardians to present the petitions. She disagreed this would be appropriate.
Ms. Block stated it was also important the avenue of fair hearings remained open. If individuals could go to fair hearings and ask for increases in caps without going to court, in extenuating circumstances, then these couples could exceed the caps. According to Ms. Block, under the Social Security provisions, this was still an option.
As Mr. Sader understood A.B. 520 to read, equal divisions were required unless there were extenuating circumstances founded by the courts. When there were extenuating circumstances, couples could go up to 115 percent of the federal monthly needs allowances and 150 percent of the spousal resources. In the proposed amendments, the caps could not be exceeded.
Ms. Block alleged there could be equal divisions unless the equal divisions were greater than the cap. For clarity, Ms. Block exemplified a case in which there was a $400,000 estate. In this case there could be an equal division and the at-home spouse would be permitted to retain the $200,000 in assets. The institutionalized spouse would be required to spend down their $200,000 and apply it toward the cost of care. The at-home spouse was permitted to have equal division, or the cap, whichever was greater.
Mr. Sader noted, in the vast majority of cases, there was a cap. Ms. Block stated in cases of a $150,000 estate, the at-home spouse would be allowed to retain $106,000, and the institu-tionalized spouse would have the balance. The couple would spend this down and apply it toward their cost of care. With respect to comments regarding the Medicaid reimbursement trust or the amounts paid back to the state which had not been approved by the Welfare Division, Ms. Block explained this was because there was no provision in the federal regulations. Medicaid was not an insurance or entitlement program.
Mr. Anderson asked if in the event A.B. 520 passed, would this cause many individuals in these circumstances seek divorce. Ms. Block did not believe this would happen as the provisions had implemented an amount greater than what the federal regulations provided which was 150 percent of what the federal government took into consideration. Ms. Block believed, through the court process, individuals would be allowed to protect enough resources. Through fair hearing processes, as contained in the Social Security Act, couples were permitted to retain enough resources to not seek divorce as an alternative answer to the problems.
In addressing the issue, Mr. Sader noted it depended upon the circumstances as with couples with assets under $200,000 where a large percentage of this was the well spouse's separate property. These couples under the example would come out better with a divorce than if they went through the Medicaid formula. Ms. Block noted this was true because the federal law treated separate properties and community properties the same.
Mr. Sader noted the issues brought before the committee would need to be addressed within a subcommittee. He appointed Mr. Scherer as chairman with Mr. Toomin, Ms. Smith and Mr. Carpenter as subcommittee members.
There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 520.
Chairman Sader presented bill draft requests. He informed the committee this was the last day in which bill draft requests could be presented other than in emergency situations.
Mr. John Sasser, Nevada Legal Services, wanted a concurrent resolution which directed the legislative commission to conduct an interim study on Nevada's eviction procedures which came out of A.B. 325 which had been killed.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO REQUEST THE BILL DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
******
Mr. Whittemore requested three Bill Draft Requests. The first Bill Draft Request pertained to an act which related to gaming, provided for the licensing of certain disseminators of racing information, provided for exemption for licensing for gaming licensees holding a race book license, and for track licensed in other states or jurisdictions. The intent of the bill was to meet the need for Nevada racebooks to use disseminators.
The second Bill Draft Request presented by Mr. Whitmore was a proposed amendment to NRS 463.1605 which would delete the language contained in NRS 463.1605, "other than for the operation of a racebook or sports pool".
The third Bill Draft Request dealt with parimutuel racing associations.
ASSEMBLYMAN PETRAK MOVED TO REQUEST THE THREE BILL DRAFTS FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Scherer asked if the provisions in the Bill Draft Requests would affect only racebooks. Mr. Whittemore replied, this was how it was drafted. The requestor was Caesars Hotel and Casino, the Nevada Resort Association, and Mr. Fess.
******
Chairman Sader presented a Bill Draft Request addressed to Ms. Nancy Becker, Eighth Judicial District Court, from Michael Cohen, Deputy District Attorney, which proposed legislation for the Juvenile Court.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO REQUEST THE BILL DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
******
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 522 Makes various changes regarding program for court-annexed arbitration.
Chairman Sader advised the committee Mr. Porter had worked on the Interim Committee on Arbitration and was familiar with the concepts. Mr. Porter agreed the statutes in arbitration needed to be changed.
Mr. Joe Carpenter testified he appeared before the committee at the request of Chief Justice Rose. He stated the court had requested A.B. 522 which would provide for three minor changes to the court-annexed arbitration program which had taken effect and had been adopted by the court and the legislature during the Sixty-sixth Legislative Session.
Mr. Joe Carpenter stated the first proposed amendment pertained to the two motor vehicle arbitrations which involved vehicles valued under $25,000. Chapter 38 of the Nevada Revised Statutes provided two systems of arbitration. A.B. 522 would consolidate the motor vehicle arbitrations with the court-annexed program.
Mr. Joe Carpenter stated the second proposed change was in reference to the National Judicial College and the statutory language which required the courts to offer training for arbitrators. The current statute allowed the courts to provide the training in conjunction with the National Judicial College. They started utilizing the resources of the Center of Dispute Resolution which had been associated with the National Judicial College. As Mr. Carpenter understood, there was no longer this association. The current resource was the E.L. Cord Foundations for Dispute Resolution. He suggested the committee remove the reference to the National Judicial College from the statutory language.
Mr. Joe Carpenter informed the committee the third provision provided governmental immunity to the arbitrators who served in the program. This was the same governmental immunity provided to all state officials, legislators, and judges in the state. Given the fact the pay for arbitrators was capped at $75 per hour, with a maximum of $500 per arbitration, this made it more attractive for responsible arbitrators to serve within the program.
Chairman Sader noted there had been an Interim Committee in session between the Sixty-fifth and Sixty-sixth Legislative Sessions. Mr. Porter had been a member of this committee on arbitration which had been chaired by Senator Sue Wagner. As the result of the committee's work and a concurrent committee, an extensive arbitration statute had been passed.
Mr. Porter stated the previous threshold had been $3,000 and was increased to $15,000. During the Sixty-sixth Legislative Session, the Supreme Court developed the arbitration rules and two systems developed. One mandate addressed individuals involved in personal injury cases. He noted two bodies of case law had been developed. He concurred with Chief Justice Rose's contentions as the suggested provisions place PI cases in the same category as everyone elses dispute. Under these provisions, there would not be two separate rules.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Porter would handle A.B. 522 on the Assembly Floor.
*******
Chairman Sader noted Bill Draft Request No. 14-1834 had been prepared and requested earlier in the session at the request of the Family Court Judges in Las Vegas.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BILL DRAFT REQUEST NO. 14-1834.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Sader adjourned the meeting at 9:44 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
Jessie A. Caple
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
April 27, 1993
Page: 1