MINUTES OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT
Sixty-seventh Session
May 15, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Labor and Management was called to order by Chairman Christina R. Giunchigliani, at 9:00 a.m., on May 15, 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. Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Vice Chairman
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mr. John C. Bonaventura
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. Peter G. Ernaut
Ms. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Erin Kenny
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. John C. Carpenter, excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Kimberly Morgan, Bill Draft Advisor
Mr. Donald O. Williams, Principal Research Analyst
Ms. Leigh C. O'Neill, Deputy Legislative Counsel
Ms. Vivian McClay, Senior Research Technician
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Scott Young, General Counsel, the State Industrial
Insurance System (SIIS)
Mr. Larry Zimmerman, CDS of Nevada
Ms. Lynn Grandlund, Grandlund, Watson, Clark, EON, NAIB, AFA
Mr. Jack Jeffrey, Southern Nevada Building & Construction
Trades Council
Mr. Jim Jeppson, Acting Administration, Department of
Industrial Insurance Relations (DIIR)
Mr. Don Jayne, General Manager, the State Industrial Insurance
System (SIIS)
Mr. Martin Bibb, National Federation of Independent Business
Mr. Scott Craigie, Chief of Staff, Governor's Office
Mr. Raymond Badger, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Mr. Mark Balen, Professional Firefighters of Nevada
Ms. Carol Jackson, Director, Department of Industrial
Relations
Chairman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on SB-316 work session relating to technical amendments.
SENATE BILL 316 -Makes various changes to provisions governing industrial insurance. (BDR 53-1764)
Mr. Scott Young, General Counsel, the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS), testified. Mr. Young referred to memo from Donald Williams (Exhibit C) and explained why Section 5 was amended.
Mr. Anderson asked if Section 5 was the only section in SB-316 which addressed incarceration. Mr. Young responded when the Temporary Total Disability, Rehabilitation and Temporary Partial Disability were discussed, reference was made to persons being incarcerated, and they were not eligible for benefits. Mr. Young explained a person had to be found guilty or plead guilty to be ineligible for benefits.
Mr. Anderson questioned if it was a paperwork burden to stop benefits for a person who was incarcerated for a short period of time. Mr. Young explained it was not a work load burden because as soon as SIIS found out an individual was incarcerated, they stopped his compensation. If he was still eligible when released, his compensation would start again. Mr. Anderson queried how SIIS found out an individual was incarcerated. Mr. Young responded since SIIS had on-going contact with the injured worker, they would find out if he became incarcerated. He also explained the incarcerated individual would only lose benefits for the days he was incarcerated.
Mr. Ernaut asked how many cases of this type SIIS handled last year. Mr. Young responded approximately 10-12. Mr. Ernaut asked if there were provisions for notification in SB-316 if a person was convicted and went to jail. Mr. Young responded negatively. Mr. Ernaut voiced it would be extremely easy to get around the system and still collect benefits while incarcerated if it was for a short period of time, and maybe it would be a good idea to put some requirements into SB-316 to have an individual notify the system of his incarceration. Mr. Young ascertained he did not object to inserting this language into SB-316, but most individuals while on temporary total disability were required to see a doctor at least once a month, and while on rehabilitation were required to submit job search information on a bi-monthly basis.
Mr. Larry Zimmerman, CDS of Nevada, testified. Mr. Zimmerman noted generally, if an injured worker was off work for an extended period of time the employer received progress notes from his doctor which would state if an appointment was missed.
Mr. Regan noted he did not approve of a non-funded mandate to local governments for them to inform the system when putting someone in prison. Mr. Young agreed the individual should notify the system when incarcerated and a penalty should be imposed if they did not.
The Chair suggested putting language on the C-3 to the effect of, "If you wind up being incarcerated, it was the responsibility of the individual to notify the system."
Chairman Giunchigliani questioned how sure the way the committee was moving to deal with the incarceration issue in SB-316. Mr. Regan noted if an individual was under house arrest he was still under the prison system. After committee discussion Mr. Young outlined the provision was drafted to address confinement in a local detention facility, and a house arrest situation would not be covered by this provision. He noted it would be appropriate to add a home confinement provision to SB-316.
Mr. Ernaut suggested adding, "Any local detention facility or program."
Ms. Leigh C. O'Neill, Deputy Legislative Counsel, responded the proper language could be drafted if it was the intention of the committee to make it clear anyone who was unable to look for work as the result of some sort of penal action would not be eligible for benefits. At present SB-316 did not cover all the situations the committee had suggested.
Mr. Anderson asked if the responsibility of providing medical treatment to incarcerated persons ceased. Mr. Young noted when a person was incarcerated and was treated for his industrial injury, the prison would bill SIIS for the services.
Chairman Giunchigliani asked Mr. Young to clarify if someone was convicted of a crime and pleaded mentally insane. Mr. Young stated if someone was mentally ill and went into a non-criminal facility, he would not be covered by SIIS.
Mr. Bonaventura commented there was no difference between a house arrest and being incarcerated.
Ms. Lynn Grandlund, Grandlund, Watson, Clark, EON, NAIB, AFA, testified. She explained a scenario where a gentleman was convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison for 15 years. At the time of conviction he was in vocational rehabilitation. His employer offered him a light duty position which he was not able to accept because of his incarceration. After entering the prison system he immediately started complaining of his physical problems. He was then treated under his claim, brought out of prison, went through new medical treatment and it was determined he needed surgery. However, he had turned down the surgery previously. He was emphatic about wanting one particular doctor, but the doctor was booked way in advance so he chose another doctor. In the interim he was paroled for four years to the state of Indiana, not to return to the state of Nevada. The employer had paid his lost time benefits throughout this entire situation. This past week he finally had surgery in the state of Indiana. The employer did not have the right to bring this man back to the state of Nevada for four years because it would violate his parole. For this whole entire period of time the employer was paying his lost time benefits as well as his medical. Ms. Grandlund emphasized the employer should not be responsible for maintaining a person who disregarded the laws of Nevada.
Mr. Jack Jeffrey, Southern Nevada Building & Construction Trades Council, testified. Mr. Jeffrey agreed a person should not be able to draw benefits while incarcerated, but there was no reason why a person under house arrest should not be able to draw benefits. He noted a person under house arrest could make medical appointments and search for work.
Mr. Hettrick noted he agreed with the existing language, and suggested language could be added stating, "or home detention, as long as it didn't interfere with his ability to accept work."
Following committee discussion Chairman Giunchigliani stated Section 5 of SB-316 would be recommended as submitted (Exhibit C).
Chairman Giunchigliani explained amendment to Section 14, subsection 4 (Exhibit C).
Mr. Hettrick questioned if there would be a problem with subsection (a), and if SIIS had to use the same form as Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Chairman Giunchigliani noted this dealt with the medical benefits area, and at some point the committee would take up this issue. She noted the OSHA form was passed out last week and it was very cumbersome and did not work well.
Ms. Kim Morgan, Bill Drafting Advisor noted if there was an actual form the committee chose to use, it should be noted in SB-316.
Mr. Jim Jeppson, Acting Administration, Department of Industrial Insurance Relations (DIIR), testified. He noted DIIR did not conduct payroll audits as the amendment in Section 4, subsection (b) noted. Mr. Jeppson explained DIIR only audited the claim files of insurers to determine proper claims practices were followed in accordance with the statutes and regulations.
Mr. Young explained when working on Section 14 SIIS was asked to look at the whole reporting scheme of the notice of injury and the claim for compensation and try to make it more comprehensible. What SIIS did was take Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 73 and 166 and put them all in one section (Exhibit D). What was suggested on the $200 deductible was if the system had contracted with a managed care organization pursuant to Sections 74-76, SIIS would have those managed care organizations bill the employer directly for the first $200. If they did not pay within 60 days, the system would make the payment and the system would have to go after the employer. In the rural areas where managed care might not exist, the system would make the payment and bill the employer on a quarterly basis. The $200 deductible was designed to save the system money and paperwork, even though all claims would still go through the system. Mr. Young stated he would leave Exhibit D for the committee to review along with LCB to make additional revisions.
Chairman Giunchigliani questioned were self-insureds required to use the notice of injury form if it was created. Mr. Young replied a self-insured was not required to use the form, but might want to as a record keeping procedure.
Mr. Ernaut questioned how the paperwork flow would be decreased if all claims would go through the system, including claims under $200. Mr. Young explained it was simpler for all claims to go through the system than to have them transferred when the claim went over $200. He noted the notice of injury situations which were over $10,000 per year would not go through the system. Mr. Young noted it was most critical for the insurer to keep strong control over the compensability issue.
Mr. Don Jayne, General Manager, the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS), testified. Mr. Jayne explained the savings projected in the fiscal note came from the $200 amount, not from any savings from paperwork flow. He further concurred with Mr. Young insofar as the insurance had to make the compensability decision up-front.
Chairman Giunchigliani questioned if the committee were to explore more of an optional issue or a scale how would the system be affected by this. Mr. Jayne explained if additional levels of deductibles were created for the employers to select from above the $200 deductible, which to date was a mandatory deductible, their rates would be reduced.
Ms. Kenny questioned if the same problem of compensability existed with the higher deductible. Mr. Jayne explained compensability was an issue with every claim received and it would be no different with the higher deductible.
Mr. Martin Bibb, National Federation of Independent Business, testified. Mr. Bibb noted he understood the claims determination issue which needed to be made by the system and acknowledged what had to be done. He noted small business did not support the $200 mandatory deductible. Chairman Giunchigliani suggested an optional sliding scale for employers to chose from which would allow them the opportunity for a reduction in premium, instead of the mandatory $200 deductible.
Ms. Grandlund also noted she did not support the $200 mandatory deductible. She further stressed whatever the committee decided regarding the deductible, the insurer must decide the compensability of the claim.
Mr. Scott Craigie, Chief of Staff, Governor's Office, testified. Mr. Craigie concurred with Ms. Grandlund and the proposals submitted by the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) (Exhibit D). Mr. Craigie noted SIIS had done an exceptional job designing an efficient system. He also noted Honorable Bob Miller's support of the plan on the table.
Chairman Giunchigliani moved on to item #3 (Exhibit C).
Mr. Donald O. Williams, Principal Research Analyst, noted Section 52 should be included in this amendment.
Chairman Giunchigliani explained amendment to Section 167, subsection 2 (Exhibit C) and noted "physician or chiropractor" should be changed to "health care provider."
Ms. Kenny noted "medical and health care provider" would be the correct wording since medical did not necessarily cover chiropractors or other disciplines which were not considered medical. Chairman Giunchigliani explained Section 167 referred to the removal from the panel and only physicians or chiropractors would be on the panel.
Chairman Giunchigliani asked if there was any objection to amendment to item #6 (Exhibit C), Section 198, page 91, line 30. The committee responded no objection.
Mr. Regan questioned if the word "primarily" should be added to Section 200, subsection 2, line 42 after "injury or disability that." The Chair responded this was correct and should be added to amendment.
Mr. Bache queried if "or is any manner related to" should be deleted from Section 200, subsection 2. The Chair responded affirmatively, but questioned if it would affect the Anderson case.
Mr. Young clarified if the language was changed in Section 200, subsection 2 to what was discussed today it would begin to affect the Anderson case.
Mr. Collins outlined a scenario of a 25 year old who was seriously injured on the job, but returned to work after recovery, and then 20 years later had a reoccurrence of his previous injury. Would the injured worker then be compensated at the old rate.
Mr. Young explained if his doctor declared he was capable of some gainful employment he had to go back to work. Because Nevada had lifetime reopening of a claim when someone was injured, the system had to design a way to reserve for the claim. If the present wage rate from the date of the injury was not adhered to, there was no way of effectively reserving for the claim. He further explained the revision to NRS 625 would help reserve for lifetime benefits with a fixed benefit.
Mr. Young explained by adding "primarily" to Section 200, subsection 2 would help address the concern the Committee had with the Harrison case, making sure present difficulties were primarily traceable to an old injury would restrict compensation to the previous rate. Mr. Young then corrected his previous statement that "primarily" would affect the Anderson case and now stated it would not.
The Chair noted "primarily" would be inserted to Section 200, subsection 2.
After discussion it was decided #8 (Exhibit C), Section 211 should be removed from SB-316.
Mr. Young noted Section 215 should also be removed from SB-316. He explained Section 215 was designed to make the same changes as in the heart, lung statute regarding reopening of a claim. The Committee approved removal of Section 215.
Ms. O'Neill noted if Section 215 was removed there would be no reopening provision in NRS 617 for other occupational diseases. The Chair questioned if instead of only referencing NRS 616.545 should NRS 617 also be referenced in Section 187. Ms. Morgan noted she would work something out.
Chairman Giunchigliani called attention to item #10 (Exhibit C), Section 228, subsection 2, amending "willful" to "knowing." Mr. Young explained sometimes an individual would know they were being exposed, but they did not intend to be injured.
Mr. Raymond Badger, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, testified. Mr. Badger noted Section 228 covered when a person lied about an preexisting condition on his application.
Mr. Mark Balen, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, testified. Mr. Balen noted the Firefighters problem with Section 228 was sometimes a person knew he was being exposed to an infectious disease, but certainly did not expose himself intentionally.
Mr. Young noted what Mr. Badger explained was covered in subsection 1 of Section 228. Subsection 2 covered when an employee was exposed to something on the job site. Mr. Young noted in subsection 2 the word "willful" was more appropriate and should be left in. Mr. Young explained "willful" meant a person intentionally injured himself, and "knowing" meant a person knew he could get injured, but had no intent to injure himself.
Chairman Giunchigliani concluded "knowing" would be omitted from Section 228, subsection 2 and "willful" would be inserted.
Mr. Zimmerman suggested Section 194, subsections 8 and 9, page 86, were redundant, and subsection 9 and 9(a) should be deleted. Subsection 9(b) should be added as subsection 8(c). Since the committee had no objections, the Chair noted these amendments would be made.
Chairman Giunchigliani called the committee's attention to Consensus Legislation (Exhibit E).
Mr. Williams explained the changes in Exhibit E went along with a letter from Mr. Young (Exhibit F). Mr. Young went through the Consensus Proposals submitted to the Interim Study Committee and identified the proposals which were not incorporated in SB-316 by the Senate. The letter (Exhibit F) explained each of the proposals identified.
Mr. Young defined another section allowed for temporary physical restrictions and defined when the normal procedures did not have to be gone though to put an injured worker on light duty, as when the injury was permanent. He added the word "permanent" was needed in NRS 616.222 (Exhibit G) to make sure all the additional requirements were met when an injury was permanent.
Ms. Morgan referred to Exhibit G and explained the only change in NRS 616.222 was the insertion of "permanent" in Section 3(a).
Chairman Giunchigliani noted the only change in NRS 616.226 (Exhibit G) was to delete Section 3.
Mr. Zimmerman explained Section 3 only caused additional paperwork and was unnecessary. There being no further questions on NRS 616.226, Chairman Giunchigliani noted the committee's acceptance to delete Section 3.
Chairman Giunchigliani called attention to the next item, NRS 616.380 (Exhibit G) and amendments to Section 3(c). Mr. Young explained under NRS 616.380 the insurance commissioner had the authority to review the rates and review overall classifications. He noted if there was a classification for steel construction and it was decided a classification was needed for both steel construction and high-rise steel construction, this would affect the entire industry. NRS 616.380 clarified which issues would go to the insurance commissioner and which would go to the manager. There being no further questions, Chairman Giunchigliani noted approval of amendments to NRS 616.380, Section 3(c) (Exhibit G).
The Chair stated item #16 (Exhibit G), NRS 616.540 was all new language. Mr. Young noted this item might not be necessary if hearing officers were made mediators in SB-316. Appeals officers served a term, and the Governor had the option to replace them. The hearing officers were presently in the classified service and short of misconduct they could never be replaced. Mr. Young explained, administrative judges which hearing officers actually were, had tremendous power since they made the decision as well as conducted the case. Therefore, the hearing officers should be made more accountable which was why NRS 616.540 was necessary.
Mr. Bache queried if there was a problem with the hearing officers at present. Mr. Young responded there was some concern at times as to the application of the law by hearing officers. He mentioned a story which was related to him where a hearing officer had awarded benefits and made a statement acknowledging the claimant was not entitled to those benefits, but expressed sympathy for their economic plight. He related the hearing officer's statement was, "I know I'll be turned over on appeal and this will allow the person to get two or three more months of benefits which will help them through this difficult time." Under the present structure there was no way to remove the hearing officer and he could continue to conduct business in this manner.
Mr. Bache questioned if the supervisor was doing his job properly and documented situations of this type, he could move to terminate employees not doing their job. Mr. Bache noted he did not feel Section 1 of NRS 616.540 was necessary.
Mr. Craigie noted this was an important policy issue for the committee to look at. Changing employees from classified to unclassified was already an issue up for discussion. An employee would be either exempt or exempt merit. The policy issue for this committee would be to decide if the exempt merit status or exempt status would be the one chosen. The exempt status was for employees appointed to a position which was generally done by the Governor. Exempt merit was similar to classified or unclassified, but gave the employee less rights for overtime and less protection.
Chairman Giunchigliani concurred with Mr. Craigie about this being a policy issue and the hearing officers should be treated the same as appeals officers.
Mr. Collins emphasized there were procedures to discipline and fire employees in any organization, state or private, and there must be accountability in management to be able to handle these procedures.
Mr. Craigie stated the issue was rolled into the change in the status from unclassified and classified and would be presented to the committee in the form of another bill. The two tier level program would be changed to a three tier level of exempt, exempt merit and classified.
The Chair explained this was a policy issue on how hearings and appeals officers should be treated.
Mr. Hettrick concurred with the Chair. He noted accountability at any level was appropriate and argued Section 1 of NRS 616.540 was necessary.
Mr. Craigie noted he felt Section 2 of NRS 616.540 was essential to the integrity and independence of the process for whichever classification the hearing officer or mediator was assigned. Chairman Giunchigliani mentioned the terminology in Section 1 could be modeled after the appeals officer appointments.
Mr. Zimmerman commented supervising a hearing officer was much different than supervising a carpenter or clerical worker, insofar as their decisions were all judgment decisions.
Chairman Giunchigliani opened testimony for NRS 616.5416, contested claims.
Mr. Young noted one option was to allow the injured party the option to select their own physician, and if both the system and the injured party had confidence in a physician, there was less likelihood of an appeal or a second rating. Presently hearing and appeals officers could order a second rating and were allowed to select their own rating physician. Mr. Young declared the way to keep the process entirely impartial was to change the existing law to state, "If the hearing officer or the appeals officer decides that they need another rating, let them pick from that rotating list also."
Mr. Regan pointed out a deletion in SB-316, Section 179, page 76, lines 1-22 and asked if this was correct.
Following discussion the Chair noted the committee had agreed the focus was to lean toward mediation and asked if anyone was against the name change. She noted another issue was if the committee wanted to allow the mediators to hold the ability to reach a decision. Ms. Morgan noted mediators were facilitators of conversation and they did not make decisions. She explained if the committee wanted them to make decisions, then they must be called hearing officers. The Chair explained a reference to training on mediation skills was still missing from the legislation. She requested Ms. Morgan to create the necessary language referencing the training techniques needed for the hearing officer.
Ms. Carol Jackson, Director, Department of Industrial Relations, testified. Ms. Jackson noted she had spoken with Brian Nix, Chief of the Appeals Office, and he indicated hearing officers would be attending mediation training within the next two weeks at the Judicial College.
Chairman Giunchigliani noted the brackets should be removed from Section 179, page 76, lines 1-22 of SB-316. She noted the hearing officers should be appointed as appeals officers were to hold a better accountability for the system.
The Chair called attention to amendments to NRS 616.5416 (Exhibit G) and asked Mr. Young to summarize.
Mr. Young noted the present amendments been made under the presumption the hearing officers would stay as hearing officers and not be changed to mediators. He explained the seven day requirement came about during the 1991 session when it was decided 30 days was too long. He noted by forcing the hearing officers to make decisions within seven days, their decisions had become very abbreviated which made it difficult for the parties to decide if they had sufficient grounds for appeal. Mr. Young further explained by raising the decision period to 15 days, the hearing officer had enough time to introduce his reasoning so the parties would know if they ought to be appealing or not.
Ms. Kenny questioned if the decision period was being raised to 15 days due to insufficient staff. Mr. Young responded if there were more hearing and appeals officers, they could produce more detailed decisions in a shorter period of time. He explained, however, seven days was too short a period of time since they were hearing approximately 15-20 hearings a day. Ms. Kenny noted possibly the number of hearing officers should be increased. Mr. Young noted if there were no budget problems he would suggest doubling the number of hearing officers.
Mr. Hettrick questioned if the seven days were working days or calendar days. Mr. Young noted if it did not specify working days, it probably meant calendar days. Mr. Hettrick noted he could not understand how the hearing officers had time to write decisions if they had 15-20 hearings every day.
Mr. Zimmerman noted there were hearings every day, but he did not think each hearing officer had hearings on a daily basis. He also stated seven days was not sufficient time to make a precise decision. Mr. Hettrick should if the chief of the hearings division to develop a format which stated "a rational reason why this decision was made" must be noted.
Mr. Craigie commented if the hearing officer level was put back in place, the concern he had was not to have a two tier hearing operation because it elongated the process.
Chairman Giunchigliani noted these were questions Mr. Bryan Nix could respond to better and possibly he could be at Wednesday's meeting. She suggested to insert language, "The hearing officer shall render his decision which includes a rationale in the most efficient form."
Chairman Giunchigliani concluded NRS 616.5416 would be held until it could be discussed with Mr. Nix.
Mr. Zimmerman noted his approval of Section 8 of NRS 616.5416 (Exhibit G). After committee discussion it was noted the 30-day limit in Section 8 should be researched more to make sure this could not be shortened.
The Chair opened testimony on amendments to NRS 616.5426 (Exhibit G).
Mr. Young explained this was the same amendment in regard to the appeals officers as in NRS 616.5416 concerning the hearing officers.
In further committee discussion it was decided to accept amendments to NRS 616.5426 (Exhibit G).
The Chair opened testimony on amendments to NRS 616.605 (Exhibit G) and summarized the amendments.
Mr. Young explained language the committee had put in the bill during the 1991 session was dropped, and the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) wanted to bring this to the committee's attention and suggest it be put back in the bill. During the 1991 session, because of the consolidation which was done to the forms filing, this section was dropped, and the language did not make its way back into SB-316.
Mr. Ernaut emphasized he did not agree "impairment" and "disability" meant the same thing.
Chairman Giunchigliani responded this item would be discussed next week when the committee discusses the Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) section.
After committee review of amendments to item 7 in NRS 616.605 (Exhibit G), the committee decided to accept the amendments.
The Chair opened discussion on NRS 616.380 (Exhibit H).
Mr. Young noted this did not come from the consensus group but was related to a matter discussed earlier regarding which issues the insurance commissioner should take on appeal, as opposed to the manager. This particular proposal involved another aspect, not involving the insurance commissioner. He explained if the system awarded an injured worker a PPD and the employer felt it was inappropriate, the employer was given appeal rights and could challenge it in front of a hearing officer, and ultimately an appeals officer or the district court, but it could not be brought before the manager again. Mr. Young noted if the employer appealed to the hearing officer and was successful, another hearing was not always necessary.
Chairman Giunchigliani defined amendments to NRS 616.380 and NRS 616.392 (Exhibit H). There being no opposition, the amendments were accepted.
Mr. Williams noted Sections 67-71 of SB-316 (Exhibit I) provided for the continuation of the legislative committee on industrial insurance, by establishing the committee as an on-going statutory committee of the legislature. This was proposed by the SB-7 interim study committee and was supported by the Governor. Section 242 (Exhibit I) dealt with the funding of the committee and the funding for the Attorney General's Fraud Unit. The payment for the salaries and expenses of the committee would come from assessments on SIIS and self-insured employers.
Mr. Bache stated his opposition to Section 242.
Mr. Anderson concurred with Mr. Bache.
Mr. Ernaut suggested discussing Section 242, the Interim Study Committee along with Governor's Control.
Mr. Craigie noted the recommendation the Governor made was there should be a legislative oversight committee during the period of time this emergency status was in place and the Governor had management control of the system.
Ms. Kenny questioned if this would be for only a two-year time frame. Mr. Craigie stated the Governor first suggested a six-year time frame.
Ms. Grandlund emphasized she was strongly in favor of the interim committee. She noted it was an advantage for both the injured worker and the employer, and if the Governor did get control it was her strong feeling this interim committee had to stay in place.
Chairman Giunchigliani concluded when the committee considered the Governor's Control they would bring this discussion into it.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JEANNE PEYTON
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Labor and Management
May 15, 1993
Page 1