MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND LABOR

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 17, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, June 17, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman

Senator Ann O'Connell

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Leonard V. Nevin

Senator Lori L. Brown

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Brian Davie, Senior Research Analyst

Dr. Frank Krajewski, Senior Research Analyst

Sheri Asay, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, State of Nevada

Duane Christian, D.M.D., Ltd.

Laura Lessly, Private Citizen

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Cons Citizens

Dr. Joel Glover, General Dentistry

 

Senator Townsend opened the meeting and introduced Secretary of State Cheryl Lau, to testify on Senate Bill (S.B.) 543. Ms. Lau clarified that this is not her bill, but that it does impact the Secretary of State's office.

 

SENATE BILL 543:  Revises law on trademarks.

 

Ms. Lau stated the Governor's Office had already passed and signed a trademark bill, Senate Bill (S.B.) 214. She said there was no conflict between S.B. 543 and S.B. 214.

 

SENATE BILL 214:  Makes various changes relating to registration of trademarks and insignia.

 

Ms. Lau referred to amendments to S.B. 543 (Exhibit C), and described the changes. In section 3, subsection 2, she noted that  the secretary of state is given authority to make amendments to a trademark application. Ms. Lau explained, "That creates a problem in interpretation, in accountability, in the exactness of the amendments to the application, and also it changes the duties of the secretary of state from ministerial to one with more inherent power." She said her office proposes to delete the language "or authorize the secretary of state to make," in that section.

 

Ms. Lau described the other changes outlined in Exhibit C. She said the date change in section 17, subsection 4, makes the law consistent with past legislation.

 

Ms. Lau remarked that the language in section 18, lines 4 through 11 (Exhibit C), should be eliminated because it is "redundant and also confusing."  She said it is already addressed on page 5, lines 39 through 45.

 

Ms. Lau stated she wants to eliminate lines 12 through 15 in section 18, subsection 4, because it "puts the Secretary of State's Office in a different role. We no longer become ministerial, we become something much more powerful, if you will. When we can record mortgages, I don't think the secretary of state should be put in that position...." She commented that, while it is discretionary, it is confusing and subsection 4 should be removed from the bill.

 

Senator O'Connell wondered "what is actually accomplished by this bill."

 

Ms. Lau responded, "...to make it a little bit more detailed as to how a person would register for a trademark...."

 

Senator O'Connell asked if this bill would enhance what the Secretary of State's Office is doing.

 

Ms. Lau responded, "What it does is, it brings us more into conformity with the...Model Trademark Act, which has a lot more specificity. What it also does is, it brings in the federal government into the process of the trademarks...." She referred to section 15, subsection 2, and noted, "We...have the discretionary power to ask whether a person has already registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. What it is trying to do is create more of a uniformity or conformity of the trademark process itself."

 

In response to a question by Senator O'Connell, Ms. Lau responded, "...the state process of trademarks is completely separate from the federal, and this is a way of bringing in a lot of the federal requirements to what we have to do within the Secretary of State's Office...."

 

Ms. Lau admonished that if S.B. 543 becomes law, there will be people registering their trademarks, who might then have to check with the federal government to see if those trademarks are on file. She added that this "has nothing to do with the state of Nevada." Ms. Lau explained how costly and time consuming this process would be for the applicant.

 

In response to a question by Senator O'Connell, Ms. Lau stated that this legislation would not add money to the secretary of state's budget.

 

Ms. Lau commented on a problem with section 4, subsection 2. She said, "...that's going to mean that if somebody applies and then is found not to be entitled to registration, then we're going to have to keep, perhaps, the trademark that they wanted to register with in limbo...." She explained that, "until they amend, or whatever, we will not be able to take another person's trademark who comes in with the correct material." Ms. Lau stated that they must specify "reasonable time" in regulations, which will create problems.

 

Senator McGinness inquired about section 15, subsection 1 (D). He wanted to know what it would cost to have the federal government confirm the right to use a trademark. Ms. Lau reiterated that the cost, as well as the time spent, would be quite extensive.

 

      SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 543.

 

      SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

      * * * * *

 

Senator Townsend opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 315.

 

SENATE BILL 315:  Requires dentists to disclose information to patient concerning certain kinds of treatment.

 

Duane Christian, D.M.D., Ltd., addressed the committee, and related  his background as a Carson City dentist for the past 32 years. Dr. Christian stated he has served as a member of the Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners and president of the Nevada State Dental Association. Dr. Christian read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D).

 

On the second page of Exhibit D, Dr. Christian noted that the statement in the first paragraph beginning "however," is his own comment, not a continuation of the letter from John Stanford.

 

Dr. Christian concluded his testimony by stating, "It's my position that the patient is entitled to know, before restorative procedures are done, what options they have, what materials might be available in their particular case, and then [have] the patient be a party to the decision relative to what is done."

 

Dr. Christian introduced a patient, Laura Lessly, who has personal experience relative to the issue.

 

Senator Townsend asked if the Nevada State Board of Examiners could require this disclosure through regulation. Dr. Christian said they could, but that it would be simpler if the American Dental Association (ADA), would make available the information on the risk of "amalgam and nickel restorations."

 

Ms. Lessly related her background as a double major in chemistry and elementary education. She informed the committee of her history of treatments involving dental amalgam. Ms. Lessly stated she has suffered from many negative side effects, which she attributed to the silver mercury in the treatments.

 

Ms. Lessly concluded her remarks by quoting a doctor, trained in corrosion chemistry, who said that "dentists and doctors do not have the training in corrosion chemistry to determine where the mercury migrates...."

 

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Coalition of Cons Citizens (NCCC), testified in support of S.B. 315. She said, "We've reviewed quite a bit of material...and quite frankly, we're unable to determine if, in fact, there is a significant risk from the silver mercury fillings. We would not, under any circumstances, support a banning of the amalgam...." Ms. Lusk added that, where there is a matter of controversy, the NCCC would strongly support informed consent.

 

Dr. Joel Glover, General Dentistry, testified against S.B. 315. He said he has been in private practice in Nevada for 21 years, and is currently president of the Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners.

 

Dr. Glover reminded the committee that the board opposed this type of legislation 2 years ago, and "would like to go on record today, again in opposition to this proposed legislation. Basically, we feel that the enactment of an informed consent law should be based upon intelligent reasoning. Informed consent is necessary when there is applied and proven material risk."

 

Dr. Glover stated, "When we testified 2 years ago, one of our strong statements was, that if new information and research were brought up that showed there was material risk in any of these dental materials, then it was the job of the Board of Dental Examiners...to look again at informed consent for those materials...."

 

Dr. Glover mentioned that the second part of the proposed legislation tends to absolve a practitioner from responsibility by having a patient sign an informed consent. He said, "The Board of [Dental] Examiners feels that it is not the job of any legislation to protect a licensee...."

 

Senator Lowden commented, "Doctor this seems so simple to me, to explain, before you put a filling in, that this is mercury, that this might be detrimental to your health, similar to a pack of cigarettes having that kind of warning...." She asked why there would be any hesitation in warning the patient of possible danger.

 

Dr. Glover responded, "...For 150 years, we've been doing amalgam restorations. These facts that have been brought up, have been brought up very recently. And all of the comments as to the deleterious effects of the mercury amalgam fillings cannot be proven...." He noted there are 85 million amalgam fillings done in Nevada dentist offices each year. With the cost of providing informed consent forms, and the Board of Dental Examiners enforcing the law, Dr. Glover thought the cost would become astronomical, and would be passed on to the consumer, adding to the cost of dental care.

 

Senator Lowden reiterated her suggestion about posting warning signs in dental offices. Dr. Glover responded that there has been a great deal of awareness training by the media. He said that the ADA provides a great deal of literature, available to all dentists to provide to their patients, which informs the patient about what is in dental material.

 

Senator Lowden asked, "But the board doesn't require that?" Dr. Glover said it does not.

 

Senator Townsend announced that it was time to close the hearing. He said that those who did not get to testify could give their names and comments to the secretary. Senator Townsend said that S.B. 315 would be referred to Senator Shaffer's subcommittee.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 a.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                                                            

                                    Sheri Asay,

                                    Committee Secretary

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                     

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                                

 

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor

June 17, 1993

Page 1