MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT
Sixty-seventh Session
April 28, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Labor and Management was called to order by Chairman Chris Giunchigliani at 5:45 p.m., Wednesday, April 28, 1993, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Vice Chairman
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mr. John C. Bonaventura
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. Peter G. Ernaut
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Erin Kenny
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Frank Krajewski, Senior Research Analyst, LCB
Mr. Donald O. Williams, Principal Research Analyst, LCB
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division
Mr. John Orr, Deputy Administrator, Rehabilitation Division
Mr. David Howard, Greater Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Scott Young, General Counsel, State Industrial
Insurance System (SIIS)
Mr. Mathew Dorangricchia, Assistant General Manager, State
Industrial Insurance System (SIIS)
Mr. James Jeppson, Director, Department of Industrial
Relations
Mr. George McNally, Trial Lawyers Association
Mr. Ray Badger, Trial Lawyers Association
Mr. Danny Thompson, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Ms. Marsha Berkbigler, Nevada Association of Rehab
Professionals
Ms. Kathy Sigurdon, KAS Rehabilitation & Counseling
Mr. James Wilcher, NARPPS
Mr. Dominique Morrow, D.G. Morrow and Associates
Chairman Giunchigliani opened the meeting on the sections of SB 316 pertaining to Vocational Rehabilitation.
Senate Bill 316 - Makes various changes to provisions governing industrial insurance.
Mr. Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Rehabilitation Division, explained the Governor's original proposal was for the Rehabilitation Division to take over services for the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS). He supported the Senate's bill concerning rehab, but noted concern with the language removing NRS 616.2223 which would allow SIIS to enter into cooperative agreements with other state agencies. The competition, he believed, would provide for more efficient services than a monopolistic system. Another concern with SB 316 was doctors and chiropractors had their fingers on the rehabilitation trigger, he said. He referenced Minnesota's practice of a joint decision between vocation rehabilitation, physicians/chiropractors and injured workers as a valid option for the early return to work program. With the current limitations of SB 316, Mr. Shaw maintained those previously serviced by SIIS, who were no longer eligible for rehab, would be absorbed by his agency. An "order of selection," as mandated by the federal government, would have to be put in place if his division was not able to handle the caseload. An amendment was suggested prohibiting workers' from taking advantage of the federal program after exiting the SIIS program. Additionally, he pointed out rehab was not one hundred percent successful, yet SIIS did not have provisions in place to finalize services for unsuccessful cases. Mr. Shaw suggested if cash settlements were to be allowed they be offered before rehabilitation instead of after. Another suggestion was to include Oregon's provision which eliminated rehabilitation services to anyone outside the state.
In conclusion, Mr. Shaw reported the Senate accused his agency of being "client advocates," to which he pled guilty. Accordingly, the Rehabilitation Division changed its proposal, it no longer asked to do SIIS rehab. He believed his agency could handle the rural areas on a cooperative agreement, utilizing a bidding process.
Responding to Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. Shaw clarified the Governor had withdrawn his request to transfer rehabilitation services from SIIS to the Rehabilitation Division.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted she wanted to see the cooperative agreement reinstated.
Mr. John Orr, Deputy Administrator, Rehabilitation Division, in response to the Chairman, indicated the cooperative agreement had only been in place since July 1992. Through March, 1993, the division had received roughly 60 referrals and had returned 18 of those individuals to work. The average time was 188 days and the average cost, over and above the administrative service cost to SIIS, was $998.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked the number of referrals by SIIS be tracked for future reference.
In response to Ms. Giunchigliani, Mr. Shaw maintained his agency did perform job development. The steps involved in the rehabilitation process were: determine eligibility, diagnostic planning, provide service, placement and follow up. He explained his division's priorities were the same as the statutory requirements for SIIS. The first priority was same job, same employer. Second, same employer, different job. Third, similar job, different employer.
Mr. Orr said job modification was preferable if the job site could be modified. The cost of modification was part of the rehabilitation budget. In reference to the cooperative agreement with SIIS, he indicated modifications were part of the direct service costs to SIIS. However, he pointed out, the American with Disabilities Act expected employers to absorb those costs.
Mr. Shaw interpreted the provisions of SB 316 prohibited the payment of child care and transportation costs which he resolved would be against federal regulations. He stressed those costs were not routinely paid, but would be if they were the only stumbling block to employment. Additionally, he contended some states had a prohibition to paying vocational rehab costs for illegal aliens and offered this as an area for consideration.
Ms. Giunchigliani wondered if the question of employers sharing in job modification costs had been explored.
Shared cost was the preferred way of operating, replied Mr. Shaw, but the Senate had not explored the issue.
The Rehabilitation Division did provide wage subsidies with on-the-job training, Mr. Shaw stated in response to Ms. Giunchigliani.
Problems had been reported with on-the-job training, Ms. Giunchigliani stated. Employers abused the system by not honoring contracts which indicated the intent to hire the contracted worker at the end of the subsidized period. She questioned what might be done to eliminate the problem.
Mr. Shaw revealed there must be a very good possibility of a job at the end of the training period or the worker would not be entered into an on-the-job training contract.
Expanding on the question, Mr. Orr noted the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation (BVR) recently adopted a formal procedure whereby an agreement between the bureau and the employer was entered into for on-the-job training.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a formal tracking process to verify worker's continued employment after the agency departed the picture.
Under federal regulation, Mr. Orr resolved a case was not closed until the individual had been competitively employed for 60 days and an assessment of both employer and employee satisfaction had been performed. Also, there were post-employment services which were available for 18 months, in addition to retention studies in conjunction with the SB databank to determine the long-term success of placements.
The Chairman asked both the private sector and SIIS for the same type of tracking as that described by Mr. Orr. She suggested perhaps the federal regulations needed to be adopted for guidance. She also requested the dollar amount for wage subsidies be broken out from rehab cost along with the dollar figure by client for modifications of employer businesses.
Mr. Anderson was troubled with the possibility of eliminating Nevada's boarder communities from vocational rehabilitation.
Mr. Shaw indicated his comments should be taken in context of the buy-out in place of rehabilitation. It might be more cost efficient, both for SIIS and for the worker when distance was an issue.
Oregon's language, as referred to by Mr. Orr, was the individual had to be available to participate in the in-state rehabilitation program. Those injured workers Mr. Anderson referred to in boarder areas of Nevada would be available to participate in the program. He opined Oregon tried to avoid situations where parties relocated out of state.
Mr. Bache inquired what types of industries were most often found in need of vocational rehabilitation.
The injuries most often requiring rehabilitation, Mr. Shaw determined, were in the construction trades.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Orr what his agency's success ratio was.
Using the definition of success as gainful employment for not less than 60 days where both the employer and employee were satisfied, the Rehabilitation Division's success rate of those eligible for the state/federal program was approximately 35 percent. Mr. Orr noted, however, using SIIS' positive outcome criteria, the success rate would increase to about 60 percent.
Mr. Shaw regarded the 60 percent referred to by Mr. Orr must be taken in context. He stated his department dealt with an entirely different type of population than SIIS did. Seventy percent of those treated by the Rehabilitation Division were severely disabled.
Mr. Shaw maintained SIIS regarded a positive outcome as any one of the following six cases: return to work, same employer; return to work, different employer; return to work, other; completed training (with no reference to work); buy out; and finally moved or unable to locate.
Mr. Bonaventura related a case he had been told about where an injured worker was provided rehabilitation to become a professional bowler. As rehab was unsuccessful the person was supposedly working on a cash buy out. He asked if Mr. Shaw was aware of such instances.
Mr. Shaw had not heard of such cases within the Rehabilitation Division, but believed they might or might not occur in other systems. He was familiar with a case in which SIIS rejected a person's choice to become an airline pilot, however, the decision was overturned by the hearing's officer.
Mr. Shaw indicated his division had an individualized written rehabilitation plan which was agreed upon between the counselor and the client. He noted the division did not allow what it considered unrealistic plans, they had to be consistent with the clients knowledge, skills, ability and background. If no agreement could be made, the issue was appealed to a hearing officer. He explained of 4,500 cases in 1992, only three had been appealed.
Additionally, Mr. Orr offered the key was the comprehensive vocational assessment done before the rehabilitation plan. The assessment identified the clients residual or post injury skills, capacity and interests.
Recapping Mr. Shaw's concerns, Ms. Giunchigliani noted areas to be addressed were the elimination of the cooperative agreement, issue of the medical model, the eligibility question, individuals who were unsuccessfully rehabilitated or bought out by SIIS who ended up on the Rehabilitation Division's doorsteps, no way to exit the system for those who could not be rehabilitated, and a review of the criteria for buy out.
Mr. David Howard, Vice President Legislative Affairs, Greater Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, provided for consideration amendments to Sections 115 and 116 (Exhibit C).
Voicing what he believed to be significant issues, Mr. Young, General Counsel, State Industrial Insurance System, referenced the question of out-of-state rehabilitation. He indicated regulations had been submitted to the Department of Industrial Relations for review which included a similar proposal to that of Oregon. Another subject of concern was the number of appeals on workers' compensation issues. He stressed any decision within the workers' compensation system regarding benefits was appealable. Additionally, the proposed language of Section 22 was requested to clarify and offer more control in the issuance of benefits such as tools, child care and vehicles.
Ms. Giunchigliani noted the proposed language of Section 22 did allow for decision flexibility by the manager.
Mr. Young stated the language provided for awards in cases where SIIS determined it appropriate. Such decisions could not be appealed by the injured worker, but the employer could appeal to the manager any decisions it deemed inappropriate. He concluded employers' rights had not been cut off as they ultimately paid for all benefits.
Relative to Section 22, Mr. Young explained self-insureds could decide it was in their own best interest to provide child care or tools, however, in response to Ms. Giunchigliani, noted they would have no reason to argue their own decisions.
Mr. Mathew Dorangricchia, Assistant General Manager, State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS), dispelled the myth that SIIS
rehab counselors did not get involved in rehab until claimants were rated, released and declared stable and rateable. The process required persons be released for rehab and declared stable before rehab dollars were actually spent, but he maintained the involvement started much earlier in the case.
Mr. Dorangricchia clarified the reduction in referrals to outside rehab providers was a result of finally becoming adequately staffed and, through early intervention, the elimination of frequent loss-time claims and much of the rehabilitation performed in the past.
There were hundreds of individuals annually who, because of the medical model, were entitled to rehabilitation services who neither needed nor wanted it, Mr. Dorangricchia pointed out. He believed those individuals were good candidates for lump sum payments. Additionally, lump sum payments often made sense to the older individual facing retirement, those out of state and persons in rural areas.
Mr. Dorangricchia deemed the rehabilitation increase from $15 million to the projected estimate in 1993 of $90 million was due to the number of persons being rehabilitated coupled with the lack of resources at SIIS. The early intervention program was showing good results he noted, with dispersements on the verge of turn around. Regardless of where rehabilitation services were planted he believed the key to controlling costs was with limiting access to those in need and establishing reasonable operating regulations/rules for rehab.
Responding to a question by Mr. Carpenter on "limiting access," Mr. Dorangricchia stated SIIS had submitted regulations to Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) for adoption which eliminated the general and permissive 15 year-old language. The prepared specific exclusions offered language restricting access to those who were eligible in hopes of ending the abuse to the system.
Mr. Scott Young, General Counsel, State Industrial Insurance System, asked to make a point, referring to Section 115 of the bill which provided for eligibility criteria. Under the current language of the section, a person with less than a 25 percent permanent partial disability (PPD) would only qualify for six months of rehabilitation. He expressed a problem with such an arbitrary approach. The loss of an entire foot, he believed, would not constitute a 25 percent disability, yet such a loss might prohibit a person from returning to his prior trade. In the regulations submitted to DIR, Mr. Young maintained eligibility would be determined more on the severity of injury. He proposed an individual with a 25 percent or larger PPD due to a loss in range of motion might qualify for longer rehabilitation due to the subjectivity of the rating, where another more clearly disabled person might not.
In answer to an additional question by Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Young stated he thought the regulations had been submitted to DIR in August of 1992. He surmised DIR had been requested to pull the regulations while the issue was being discussed by the legislature. Upon further questioning, Mr. Young indicated regulations dealing with priorities for rehabilitation had been incorporated into statute last legislative session. Therefore, some or all of the proposed provisions in the rehabilitation regulations could be incorporated into statute. However, two drawbacks would be the prohibitive length of the statute and the inability to change statutorily set provisions until the next legislative session, whereas regulations could be changed without delay.
Mr. Carpenter quizzed Mr. Young on the possible cost savings to the system with the adoption of the regulations.
The estimated internal calculation, Mr. Young recollected, was about $10 million annually. However, the proposed regulations did not cover the context of the statutes which took a broader approach to eligibility and time constraints with regard to rehabilitation.
Mr. Young was hesitant to speak on Mr. Jayne's behalf, but believed he found merit with SB 316's language which prohibited from rehabilitation benefits, those individuals able to obtain jobs paying 80 percent of their gross wage. He stressed persons at a minimum earning level prior to injury could probably obtain work at a similar earning capacity without the benefit of retraining.
Mr. Carpenter inquired what the savings impact on the 80 percent wage verses the 25 percent rating might be.
Mr. Dorangricchia explained most of the savings would be in the 25 percent PPD floor. The 80 percent wage referred to by Mr. Young was nebulous and he indicated the "meat" of the section was in limiting rehabilitation benefits to 6 months for those with less than 25 percent PPD. As a wild guess, Mr. Dorangricchia believed 90 percent of the savings would be realized by the 25 percent PPD restriction of rehab benefits.
Regarding intervention techniques before patients were stable and rateable, Mr. Bache inquired what was done and how could it be made more effective.
Many of the following, Mr. Dorangricchia explained, were done before patients were stable and rateable: orientation into rehab, vocational assessment if necessary, occasional development in respect to training, contact with the pre-accident employer to set up a light duty job, job modifications and alterations of the workplace. Additionally, he ascertained employers were offered incentives to limit liability in the case of future injuries. He concluded he would copy the committee the details of SIIS's early intervention program.
Mr. Ernaut asked about the more stringent regulations referred to by Mr. Dorangricchia.
In response, Mr. Dorangricchia stated the regulation had several sections dealing with what was suitable and gainful employment following training to who was eligible. The focus should be returning the injured party back to work as quickly as possible, without requiring rehabilitation.
Mr. James Jeppson, Director, Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), stated the regulations should be in the mail by Monday, May 3rd, and become effective 30 days from that date. Copies would be provided to committee members.
Mr. Ernaut asked the reason "completing training" was referenced as one of six criteria for determining success in SIIS cases. He contended such would be a mark of failure in the private sector.
Mr. Dorangricchia related all but one of the six "positive outcomes" involved employment. He explained the reason was to develop a final outcome or termination in cases which previously continued for years where persons were provided reasonable training, qualified for employment and had been given four weeks of job placement services. Only six percent of cases fell into this category.
In reply to Mr. Ernaut, Mr. Dorangricchia stated SIIS' position was to leave management of the rehab program to the general manager with all outside resources available for his use. Mr. Dorangricchia reported he did not believe SIIS was under statute to provide a ratio of one certified counselor to every four or five team members.
On the Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) issue, Ms. Giunchigliani remarked during the 1991 legislative session the same standards which were enacted for private rehab were to affect SIIS' counselors as well. She requested the number of counselors and supervisors who currently held either the CRC or the Certified Insurance Rehab Specialist (CIRS) certificates be provided for review. Additionally, she asked the number of supervisors not required to have either certificate be provided.
Ms. Giunchigliani maintained the intent of SB 7 of the 1991 legislative session was not to have both a nurse and rehab counselor on each team, but rather provide a pool from which to pull those individuals as necessary.
Mr. Dorangricchia related a memo had been delivered earlier that day to Ms. Giunchigliani on the criteria for lump sum payments.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if SIIS did vocational assessments, as mandated by SB 7 of the 1991 legislative session, prior to every lump sum payment.
Mr. Dorangricchia responded "some form" of assessment was performed.
The Chairman disagreed SIIS had complied with the full diagnostic vocational assessments as mandated. She emphasized the lump sum payoff was to be used narrowly, and its current use by the system was not in line with the intent of SB 7 from the last legislative session.
Ms. Giunchigliani disagreed the six "positive outcomes" as described by Mr. Dorangricchia qualified as success. She asked the system rethink the issue to determine a proper definition of how success could be measured. Additionally, she asked the private sector, as well, to track and follow up on cases to determine what did or did not work.
The problem missed in SB 316 relative to vocational rehab, Ms. Giunchigliani remarked, was the rating had nothing to do with qualifying for rehabilitation. Some individuals rated at 6 percent could be severely hampered and require vocational rehabilitation. She hoped to better define eligibility requirements for rehabilitation.
To clarify an earlier remark on lump sum criteria, Mr. Young stressed there was not an actual formula to calculate the benefit. The document delivered to the Chair's office earlier that day was more of a set of guidelines. He implicated each case would have a different outcome depending upon factors such as age, skill level and wage.
Referencing Table 45, Impairment of the Digits...Due to Amputations, (Exhibit D) which was included in Lynn Grandlund's written testimony, Mr. Ernaut discussed percentages of impairment for various losses. He pointed out certain losses such as loss of a foot, rated at 21 percent, would not qualify for the 25 percent impairment required for rehabilitation in excess of six months. The crux of the issue was while the 25 percent was an indicator of the severity of injury, he believed additional language was necessary referencing the impact of the injury on the individual's occupation.
In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr. Young stated the "25 percent" language was not requested by SIIS. He voiced SIIS' concerns about using such an approach for eligibility criteria.
Mr. George McNally, Trial Lawyers Association, expressed strong opposition with the eligibility requirements set forth in SB 316. As discussed earlier, he recommended the committee make the new regulations part of the statute.
Mr. Ray Badger, Trial Lawyers Association, provided for committee review a Cross-Section of PPD Awards per AMA Guides, (Exhibit E). He explained the original intent of SB 316 was to eliminate voc rehab entirely for impairments of less than 25 percent. He related the impact of a 24 percent impairment, a loss of an eye, to different occupations. While a lawyer could still function without rehabilitation, a safety issue was created for a commercial driver, leaving him in need of rehab. He, too, agreed the percentage of impairment should not be the sole indicator of vocational rehab benefits.
Mr. Badger determined DIR's regulations took a certain class and limited voc rehab benefits to three months instead of the six provided by SB 316, which he said was not a problem. He identified the concern as the determining factor being the 25 percent impairment, which had no bearing on whether or not a person was employable or needed vocational rehab. He clarified if SB 316 was adopted as written, the regulations would be useless as the statute had precedence. Additionally, he argued the irrational elimination of voc rehab buyouts in injury cases but not in occupational disease cases. The language should provide for the same benefits in both cases.
Mr. Hettrick referred to language of SB 316, page 44, noting the last paragraph provided the insurer an option to provide benefits: "if an injured employee has a permanent disability of less than 25 percent, he can not have voc rehab for more than 6 months unless..."
With the current financial condition at SIIS, Mr. Badger believed the option would not be considered in many cases.
A discussion ensued between Mr. Hettrick and Mr. Badger on the insurer's option of rehab benefits provided by the language of SB 316.
Mr. Badger, responding to Mr. Carpenter, noted his concern with the possible interpretation of language regarding the ability of claimants to obtain employment at 80 percent of their gross wage. As written, the insurer could merely state his belief a claimant could obtain employment at this wage and provide no basis for his conclusion. He was asked to work with vocational rehab people to provide language to correct the inequity.
Mr. Danny Thompson, representing Nevada State AFL-CIO, believed SB 316 was merely the result of "crunching some numbers." He was disturbed with Mr. Hettrick's suggestion the language provided for the option of voc rehab in cases of less than 25 percent impairment. As an example, he noted the construction industry hired employees only as needed and, therefore, did not feel as obliged to care for their employees as other industries.
For clarification, Mr. Ernaut pointed out the insurer would make the ultimate decision whether or not to extend rehabilitation services beyond 6 months in cases of less than 25 percent impairment, not the employer.
Ms. Giunchigliani requested SIIS provide information on the number of injured workers who ultimately returned to their pre-injury jobs, and the normal time frame required to do so. The same information was requested of the private sector. Another figure asked for was the time frame of referral from physical therapy to vocational rehabilitation.
To illustrate the severity of a 25 percent impairment, Mr. Badger noted 1991 legislation reduced the subsequent injury threshold from 12 to 6 percent because 12 percent was believed too severe an injury to offer employers much protection.
Ms. Marsha Berkbigler, Nevada Association of Rehab Professionals, provided the requested six-month figures (Exhibit F) indicating significant reductions in both average length of time from referral to closure of claims and money billed for those claims. The reductions, she felt, were a result of the negotiated managed care contracts pursuant to SB 7 of the 1991 legislative session. For the record, Ms. Berkbigler stated it was not their intention to interfere or take over responsibility for the system's early intervention program. Amendments to Sections 115 and 116 were provided for committee review (Exhibit G). In conclusion, she agreed the 25 percent break was a problem, in fact, statistics for private vendors showed less than 4 percent of referred out cases had an injury of 25 percent or greater.
Ms. Kathy Sigurdon, KAS Rehabilitation & Counseling, provided written testimony on eligibility requirements for vocational rehabilitation (Exhibit H). She supported BVR's position that a vocational rehab counselor participate with the physician to determine eligibility. Ms. Sigurdon stated numerous activities could occur before determining a case stable and rateable. She requested SIIS' rehab counselors be required to adhere to the same strict time lines imposed on the private sector relative to benefits being offered to injured workers. She suggested eligibility be based on the ability to return to employment or the ability to participate in occupations related to skill level prior to injury, rather than the random 25 percent figure imposed by SB 316. Strict guidelines needed to be developed outlining criteria relative to lump sum settlements. Ms. Sigurdon supported Mr. Dorangricchia's testimony requesting operating procedures to coordinate services between SIIS and outside agencies to expedite services and cost control.
In response to a request by the Chair, Ms. Sigurdon polled a number of outside vendors to determine areas which hindered progress in plan development. The first area of concern was referral time. Often cases were stable and rateable up to six months before offered any vocational rehab services. Further, plan approval often took between three and six months. Plan and budget development, as part of their contract, were often rewritten by SIIS, duplicating services. Decision-making authority was also a problem. Ms. Sigurdon requested the rehab counselors within SIIS be given authority to grant plan approval. Additionally response times for rehab plans or lump sum settlements needed to be made a priority.
Mr. James Wilcher, NARPPS, asked to go on record noting he advocates for the benefit. He believed the administration and delivery of benefits could be done effectively through the items outlined by Ms. Sigurdon. Further, he noted the federal system had worked effectively utilizing the private sector for the past 70 years. He reported the private sector provided the often needed buffer of neutrality.
Questioning the eligibility requirements presented by Ms. Sigurdon, Mr. Hettrick noted a person making minimum wage prior to injury, who could obtain a minimum wage job after injury should not have to go through a vocational evaluation prior to employment. He stated the intent of voc rehab was to return workers to their prior wage earning capacity.
Questioning Ms. Sigurdon's eligibility requirements, Mr. Hettrick noted vocational evaluations should not be required in cases where injured workers earning minimum wage prior to injury could obtain employment at a comparable wage following injury.
Ms. Berkbigler agreed, stating she believed assessment by SIIS early intervention program would take care of Mr. Hettrick's concern.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated the issue lent itself back to the subject of vocational rehab eligibility.
Specific information requested by the Chair from the private sector was: the time frame to return workers to their original jobs, the cost factors, subsidies and modifications necessary in those cases. Secondly, a report of any businesses who abused the on-the-job training (OJT) program. In addition, she asked for follow-up tracking of OJT cases such as length of program, employer's original expectation of length of employment and actual length of employment. Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if marketing studies had been performed, in addition to the recommended number of lump sum payoffs and criteria utilized in those decisions. And finally, she asked to be provided a definition of success. She asked Linda Doty, State Industrial Insurance System, for feedback on the medical model verses a broader model involving vocational rehab, medical professionals and employers.
Mr. Dominique Morrow, D. G. Morrow and Associates, explained on returning individuals to their former wages, vocational rehab counselors had to deal with the reality of the labor market. Individuals who started over in a new field, usually started from the bottom and worked their way up the ladder. Good counselling entailed placing individuals in jobs with a good future.
Mr. Collins asked for a comparison of vocational rehab between two hypothetical cases. One person was an electric lineman making $50,000 a year who incurred severe burns requiring skin grafts, while the other was a fry person acquiring similar injures and treatment who made minimum wage. He inquired if the person who made $50,000 a year would be more likely to receive training for a job with better potential than the other person.
Responding, Mr. Morrow indicated the job training would be dependent upon a person's motivation, past education and experience. A concrete answer could not be provided, however, he stressed whenever possible the person would be left better off than before the injury.
Ms. Sigurdon responded to a few of Ms. Giunchigliani's earlier questions. She cited time frames to return workers to prior employment were maintained by SIIS with its early intervention program. Relative to employers who abused the on-the-job training program, she noted she worked closely with SIIS who had a list of cautionary employers.
Ms. Giunchigliani remarked those employers should be reported as a fraud potential.
Further, Ms. Sigurdon reported they had 30 to 60 days to follow up with regard to job performance. She also cited SIIS had its own follow-up program and statistical data. Labor market surveys were performed with every plan submitted to SIIS to verify job availability. These, and other questions raised by the Chairperson would be answered in writing.
In conclusion, Ms. Giunchigliani believed everyone involved in vocational rehabilitation was presently competitive, providing workable caseloads could be maintained. However, she noted the cost savings was greatest with the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BARBARA DOKE
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Labor and Management
April 28, 1993
Page: 1