The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Wednesday, May 5, 1999. Chairwoman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairwoman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. (Excused)

Ms. Jan Evans (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator John R. Porter, Clark County District 1

Senator Mark A. James, Clark County District 8

Senator Raymond Rawson, Clark County District 6

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call Chairwoman Buckley Buckley opened the public hearing on S.B. 38.

Assemblyman Hettrick explained he was on the worker’s compensation committee and many of the bills came from that committee to the Senate side for introduction. If the bill had been amended he might not be able to address every issue. He read the floor statement from the bill. S.B. 38 which transferred the responsibility for issuing the certification of registration for certain employee leasing companies from the State Industrial Insurance System to the Department of Business and Industry, Division of Industrial Relations. The transfer had to be done because there had to be more than one private carrier as of July 1, 1999, regulating other groups.

Mr. Hettrick continued the bill also provided books, records, and payrolls of an employer insured by a private carrier must be open to inspection by the private carrier who provided worker’s compensation insurance to that employer which insured the private carrier knew the payroll was correctly reported. In addition, an employer who refused to open their books, records, and payroll to inspection was subject to a $1,000 fine. The measure allowed private carriers and the State Industrial Insurance System to offer fully insured worker’s compensation coverage to heterogeneous groups of employers.

Mr. Hettrick concluded the bill also changed the requirement for an insurer to notify the Division of Industrial Relations of the changes in the insurance status of employers from the current 24 hours to 15 days. Finally, the bill required insurers to notify claimants in writing of the circumstances under which a claim may be closed automatically. The bill specified written notice of the automatic closing of a claim did not create any right to appeal the contents of the notice. The issue came from the fact, individuals had been injured and did not know that a claim was automatically closed if not filed within 6 months. Automatic notification was not given to those individuals, and they had not received treatment within the 6 months even though they were injured and their injury was recorded. The claim was then closed and there was no provision to reopen the claim. The bill stated when the claimant recorded the claim or injury they were provided with an automatic notice that the claim would automatically close if they did not receive treatment, thus there would be no doubt the individual was made aware of the automatic closure procedure.

Chairwoman Buckley asked Crystal Lesbo to outline the changes that were made from the original form of the bill compared to the first reprint.

Crystal Lesbo, committee policy analyst, replied in the original bill no provisions existed to transfer the responsibility for employee leasing companies from the system to the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR), which was the major change in the bill. Section 4, subsection 2 in the original bill provided only private carriers could offer insurance to groups of employers. The amendments added private carriers. In the original bill the letter for automatic closure had no provision that stated without appeal rights. The amendment added in the provision that there was no right of the injured employee to appeal the contents of that notice.

Chairman Buckley wondered what rationale prompted the prevention of appeal rights.

Ms. Lesbo commented that the rationale was based on testimony given in the Senate. The concern was that upon written notice, everyone would go to the doctor and take steps to insure that their claim remained open.

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing to committee questions. She invited anyone to come forward who wished to testify on S.B. 38.

Phil Stout, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Independent Businesses (NAIB), identified the organization as an employee association not engaged in similar trade. Requests from NAIB to the insurance company were turned down because NAIB was not considered a homogenous organization. The bill allowed the members access to the worker’s compensation programs and provided added information.

Chairman Buckley wondered if Mr. Stout referred to section 4 which stated that the self-insured carrier was formed and maintained for purposes other than obtaining industrial insurance making sure the companies were allowed to associate and organize.

Mr. Stout answered yes.

Assemblywoman Segerblom inquired how many individuals belonged to NAIB.

Mr. Stout commented NAIB had a little over 800 members. They would be allowed to purchase insurance from the state or another private carrier. There would probably be little difference in the first few years.

Chairman Buckley inquired if section 12 resulted in a procedure not appealable in any stage of the proceedings.

Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers (NAIW), opined that there would be no appeal.

Chairman Buckley queried if typically there was an appeal when the current system closed the case.

Ms. Leeder pronounced there was an appeal if closed in normal course of business. The particular provision under discussion was an administrative appeal so it was an administrative closure and no appeal was allowed in that system. The claimants that Ms. Leeder represented preferred that an appeal be permitted. In fact, there were a lot of horror stories because of the passage of the bill originally. One such situation was the negotiated fee settlement. Frequently medical treatment in excess of $500 did not turn out to be $500 because of the rate reduction that had been negotiated. The case closed, the person had no appeal rights, and no rights for treatment because he did not incur $500 paid by the insurer. Another problem encountered applied to old claims. In years past there would be less than $500 incurred in treatment, and subsequent problems obtaining more treatment.

Assemblyman Hettrick drew the attention of the committee from section 2 to section 12, subsection 2, where existing law stated that if the benefits paid were less than $500 the claim closed automatically if the claimant did not receive additional medical treatment for the injury for at least 12 months. "The claimant may not appeal the closing of such a claim." The new addition to the law read: "The insurer shall send to each claimant who receives less than $500 in medical benefits within 6 months after the claim is opened a written notice that explains the circumstances under which a claim may be closed automatically pursuant to this subsection. The written notice does not create any right to appeal the contents of that notice." That translated into a 6-month advance notice and it simply stated in the new language the written notice did not create any right to appeal the contents of that notice. Mr. Hettrick did not believe that existing law changed but rather the notice did not open the right to appeal. Notice that was not previously provided would be given 6 months ahead of time.

Chairman Buckley suggested that from Ms. Leeder’s earlier testimony it could be one of the reforms from 1993 or 1995 that prohibited the right to appeal. Ms. Buckley informed the committee that she had not been a part of the debate, but the bill sounded as though it was amelioration and not a reversal.

Scott Craigie, representing the Association of American Insurers and the Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, revealed they brought the bill to the interim committee. The main purpose of the bill was to deliver the benefits of the competitive market to very small employers. It was necessary to get the private carriers and current state fund to address the needs of the small employers as a serious problem. There were 7,000 employers whose total annual premium was $120. Their annual premium would go to $210 under the administrative pricing formula approved by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI). Even that was barely enough to cover the mailings much less the insurance. A system was needed to allow small employers to share in the benefits. The bill proposed two of them. Page 2, line 37, of the bill was designed to give private carriers the same access to employer records the current system had. There were records and materials there to make sure that adequate numbers of employees were reported and properly insured. The language was found in almost every state in the country so an audit function was possible. Section 4, page 3, of the program was to allow heterogeneous groups to pull together and obtain insurance from a private carrier as a group. There were administrative savings, an advantage to pricing of a system that had both small and medium sized companies, and one of the few ways that small employers would be able to access insurance from the private carriers. Insurance providers would be looking for a much higher niche than those employers who paid the minimum.

Page 4, section 6, facilitated small employers being able to take advantage of available insurance. In both cases the insurance companies would write the $210 policy because they could access a full book of business where there were large and small employers. The way the system worked in both cases was the insurance company was required to issue an individual policy to each employer. It was not like an association of self-insured companies with private coverage where the insurance company would issue a policy that included all employers within the group. Rather, there would be an individual policy for each employer. That applied also to the employers leasing companies. The insurance relationship between the insurance company and the employer remained intact even if the leasing company disappeared. The bill was intended to accomplish that.

Assemblywoman Segerblom asked what it would cost each employee.

Mr. Craigie replied that 7,000 employers paid $120 a year for their insurance and were heavily subsidized. When it was a state fund the insurance could be handled in that manner and a policy decision had been made to do that to insure coverage. The state agencies attempted to take care of the vulnerable population. In a competitive marketplace the state fund could not be asked to have a huge subsidized class. Rate shock would take them to $1,000 or $1,200 in one year. The NCCI transition plan raised them gradually over a period of
4 years to a point of being at full cost. All of those employers would be at $210 for the first year. Insurance carriers had the right to refuse to insure an employer. There were eight companies that had indicated in their business plans on file with the insurance commissioner, they were going to write those plans. One of those companies was in the Liberty Insurance Mutual Group. The two approaches offered some avenue of providing insurance. If all the private insurance carriers turned an employer down they were placed into the residual market. There was a 25 percent surcharge there. Once an employer was in the residual market it would be difficult to get out. A way must be found to deal with the small employers.

Assemblyman Hettrick agreed with Mr. Craigie’s proposal. He commented that his personal business would probably fall into one of those groups. However, he did not believe he was subsidized because he had been covered by SIIS for
15 years and never had a claim because he worked out of his home and could not file a claim. As an employer he was required to have worker’s compensation insurance. He believed he subsidized the rest.

Chairman Buckley added that her nonprofit organization paid a lot and never had a claim.

Danny Thompson, Director, Committee on Political Education, Nevada State American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), began by addressing section 12 as it related to the $500 claim. He stated the AFL-CIO would be proposing an amendment in another bill coming before the committee next week. In 1993, when the system had $2.1 billion in unfunded liability the governor proposed a 6 year plan to solvency. In that plan a dollar amount cost was attached to each benefit to injured workers. The problem with the $500 claim was a result of the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) now Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICN) not doing case management and having trouble with the small claims that stayed open. The administrative closing was done to save money. At the time the AFL-CIO raised the same concerns. There had been problems as a result of that situation when someone received an injury and never reached the $500 limit. With managed care today that was easily done because of substantially reduced costs. He told of an actual situation to illustrate the problem. A truck driver hit his knee in exiting the truck, the employer sent in a notice of injury, he had no problems for a period of 12 months, but he had a problem at a later time. He was unable to open the case and then was considered a person with a pre-existing condition with those accompanying challenges. Mr. Thompson wanted to go on record as opposing that portion of the bill.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if Mr. Thompson could provide the committee with the genesis of the amendment so they could anticipate it.

Mr. Thompson expressed there should not be administrative closing to the claim, so an injured worker gave up certain rights in a no-fault system. Going into a three-way environment July 1, 1999, there was no reason to limit people since the system had $2.2 billion in assets according to Mr. Dirks in the Senate Finance Committee. The action was considered a benefit reduction.

Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, announced they were in support of S.B. 38 particularly section 4. He clarified the revision of the section previously discussed by Mr. Thompson of automatic closure in section 12, was done in the 1997 Legislative Session to clear inactive claims after 12 months.

Scott Craigie disclosed that the amendment Mr. Thompson discussed was not that of the Association of American Insurers. In fact, the two pieces Mr. Craigie discussed were the only two his association added to the bill. The rest of the bill belonged to someone else and he did not know who that was.

Assemblyman Hettrick divulged that although he worked on the interim committee he could not remember who brought the bill. The issue was that the committee was trying to improve the situation from 12 months to 6 months with notice so people would be aware of what needed to be done. The intent was to improve things not to make them worse.

Ms. Leeder divulged in the 1997 Legislative Session the section was liberalized a bit because it was changed from 6 months to 12 months. The original discussion about adding the language to S.B. 38 was to have a notice provision at the 6 month period. Then the word "additional" was added to line 34 so it could be read to mean after the notice was given at the 6 month time there had to be additional medical treatment thereby negating what appeared to be an easing of the situation.

Chairman Buckley closed the public hearing on S. B. 38 and opened the public hearing on Senate Bill 42.

John Wiles, Division Counsel, Division of Industrial Relations (DIR), related that S. B. 42 was originally proposed by the Nevada Self Insurance Association respecting the subsequent injury fund for self-insured employers and other funds. Those funds were originally intended to accomplish two primary purposes. One was to assure there was no discrimination in the hiring of individuals with known disabilities. The second purpose was to spread the risk, that would result from the hiring of those individuals across the spectrum of employers. Mr. Wiles announced DIR supported the bill because it would eliminate the new subsequent injury fund to be created July 1, 1999. Given the concerns of the self-insured employers and others regarding the continued necessity for such funds they did not believe it was appropriate for DIR to start up another fund resulting in another claim that needed to be handled over time.

Mr. McMullen representing the Nevada Self-Insurers Association, informed the committee multiple pieces were included in the bill. The self-insurers requested that the subsequent injury fund specifically for self-insurers be discarded. That was a result of having received prior legislative authorization to put together a board for the self-insured injury fund and the disability act. Issues prior to employment were not subject areas of concern. Suggestions from other people were added in the bill. The bill stopped the submission of claims but did not specifically remove the subsequent injury funds.

Mr. Wiles referred the committee to page 2, lines 14 and 15, where a cut off date was provided for the submission of claims to the fund as well as a similar provision for each of the other funds.

Chairman Buckley requested that additional information be provided to the committee members that had not served on the Labor and Management Committee in the 1997 session. She wondered what the subsequent injury fund was, what would be the ramifications of discarding it, and how would it affect the new system to be implemented.

Mr. Wiles communicated the subsequent injury fund was actually three different funds. One of those funds would come into existence July 1, 1999. Each of the funds was designed to provide a reimbursement for an employer that hired or retained an employee with a permanent partial disability as defined within each of the separate funds’ statutes. In the case of the State Industrial Insurance System there was an offset mechanism. In Nevada that reimbursement was set as a percentage of disability and had changed over time. Historically in other states there was a list of impairments, but Nevada chose to work with a generic description based upon percentage of impairment. Once that condition was satisfied the self-insured employer or a member of an association would be entitled to reimbursement from the fund for the cost of the compensation provided to the injured employee. That was a short description of the way the fund worked for self-insured employers. There was an offset mechanism provided for the State Industrial Insurance System known as Employers Insurance Company of Nevada or private carriers.

Mr. McMullen clarified the information from Mr. Wiles had nothing to do with benefits paid to the injured worker or the claimant. It affected the mechanism of cost sharing between existing employers and prior employers. Sometimes confusion arose relating to the subsequent injury fund. It was a mechanism for adjudicating that confusion, had lost much of its utility, and was a cost sharing mechanism.

Chairman Buckley contemplated if it was a cost sharing mechanism of premiums attributable to two different employers based upon who was liable, or who had employed the person during the injury.

Mr. McMullen revealed it could pertain to either the prior or the current injury and each employer was paid under various categories. There were three subsequent injury funds as of July 1, 1999. A certain portion was paid in assessment for self- insured or as part of the premium for the existing system as a contribution to the subsequent injury fund. Looking back to the prior employers it was a way to share the risk and manage the cost if the cost of the injury was more attributable to the prior employer than to the current employer.

Chairman Buckley queried the recommendation from the interim committee to do away with the fund and asked what rationale prompted the recommendation.

Mr. Wiles responded that the recommendation was to eliminate the funds. Various members of the subsequent injury boards echoed the comments of
Mr. McMullen. With the applicability of the American With Disabilities Act (ADA) the underlying purpose of the legislation was no longer necessary because the law provided that discrimination on the basis of disability was unlawful. The rationale was viewed by some members of both boards, self-insured employers and members of associations, that with ADA the funds became unnecessary for the purpose of encouraging the retention and hiring of people with disabilities.

Assemblyman Hettrick read a portion of the bill summary provided on the Senate side to assist in clarification. "A subsequent injury fund provides monetary relief to employers who retained disabled employees. However, it is not a benefit to injured workers. The American Insurance Association recommends that all states abolish second injury funds because many of the funds:

1. Deviate from the principle that employers cost should be internalized,

2. Have not met the objective of promoting the hiring of disabled workers,

3. Have accumulated large, unfunded deficits,

4. Create administrative costs and disputes that promote much more

attorney involvement."

It was not an added benefit to workers. It was intended to be a cross pay to employers that hired injured workers. ADA addressed those issues. The idea was that an employer would not get an additional charge on their experience rating by hiring someone who was injured and then having them reinjured, and therefore, they might have refused to hire that person. It had not worked that way. Testimony heard in the worker’s compensation committee was the more sophisticated employers had the staff, time, and knowledge to address the funds. The less sophisticated employers or the smaller employers tended not to have the resources and consequently it was not accessed evenly by all employers that hired injured workers.

Mr. McMullen interjected each person who represented a particular group agreed it made a lot of sense. Consequently the agreement was responsible for the way the bill was constructed. He clarified the bill did not extinguish the fund but did terminate the filing of claims. The intention was to manage the cost of the claims filed with the fund as of a certain point.

Mr. Wiles declared Mr. McMullen made a very important point. The claims that had already been accepted and approved by the funds would still continue. There would be lifetime reopening privileges and continued costs. The bill did not cut off payment to the employers who had already qualified. They were able to continue to seek reimbursement for accepted claims, and claims would continue to be paid. There would be no new claims filed or accepted.

Assemblyman Nolan admitted that several states had done away with the subsequent injury fund. Some injuries did not fall into the category of life disabling according to ADA and were not applicable under ADA but could be considered eligible under the subsequent injury fund. Those type of injuries were limited and some other states maintained a subsequent injury fund to handle those cases. He suggested that should be addressed.

Chairman Buckley pronounced that an excellent point. Under the ADA a person was not allowed to participate in substantial gainful activity, while under the subsequent injury plan a person was working and subsequently injured. The plans were very different from one another.

Mr. Wiles responded the practical effect of the ADA, for the self-insured groups, was that no attempt was made to determine what someone’s prior problem may or may not have been. Secondly, it was more cost affective and efficient to make reasonable accommodations as required and resolve the problems. The resulting claims, which may or may not be ADA, would be a cost of doing business. A conscious decision was made regarding administration and effectiveness, deciding it was more cost effective and efficient without the fund than with it. The ADA did not cover each one categorically rather it had changed the practice and understanding and how the problems were handled.

Assemblyman Nolan offered the example of a person who suffered a low back strain and subsequently recovered only to be hired by another employer and suffered an exacerbation of the original injury. Through medical evidence it was determined the second injury was related to the previous injury. Under the subsequent injury funds some of the cost would be attributed to the previous employer and the subsequent injury fund would be accessed. Mr. Nolan inquired if that scenario was correct.

Mr. Wiles related he did not believe that would be correct. The subsequent injury fund provided the second, or subsequent employer, had to pay for the entire claim even though part of it may have been attributable to a preexisting condition. The funds were designed to provide relief to the subsequent employers when there was an underlying condition that contributed to a greater injury later in time. It was exactly the opposite of Mr. Nolan’s hypothesis. There were two employers but the second employer essentially was responsible for the entire cost of the claim. The employer would seek reimbursement from the fund.

Assemblyman Nolan agreed Mr. Wiles had clarified the situation. He wondered what would happen if the fund was cancelled. The assumption was made that ADA would fill in on most of the circumstances.

Mr. Wiles responded the hypothetical individual under discussion may not be suffering from a debilitating injury; however, the medical evidence attributed his injury to his previous employer. It made sense for the employer, whether or not the individual qualified for ADA, to make reasonable accommodations, and that was the cost of the claim versus going to the previous employer because of the lack of a subsequent injury fund to access for relief.

Assemblyman Nolan wanted to make sure the scenario was codified in language and felt there must be a stopgap for those claims that did not fall under a disability as defined by ADA.

Chairman Buckley shared that Assemblyman Hettrick pointed out under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 616B.540, for an employer to have a charge removed from their account under paragraph 3 of that statute, the employer must establish by written record that he had knowledge of the permanent physical impairment at the time the employee was hired or that the employee was retained after the employer acquired that knowledge. The argument was not the employer hired someone who was unable to work in terms of permanently disabled under the terms of ADA, but that under the employment section, which was Title 1 of the ADA, one could no longer ask if they had a disability. If the federal law prohibited the employer from asking, why have a statute that said the employer could access the fund for alleviating the charges if the employer hired them knowing they had a disability. That information clarified the discussion for Chairman Buckley.

Susan Dunt, Worker’s Compensation and Safety Manger, State of Nevada, presented the estimated fiscal impact statement (Exhibit C) that discontinuing the subsequent injury fund would have on the State of Nevada. The estimation was the fiscal impact to Budget Account 1329, the worker’s compensation employee trust fund, would be $1million or $1.5 million per year. She anticipated that would affect the state fund as early as fiscal year 2001. The cost was based on an average the State of Nevada received for the subsequent injury fund. An attachment to the exhibit demonstrated the type of previous injury employees had that increased their disability or prevented them from returning to their regular jobs.

Discontinuing the fund would also increase the composite rate charged to all state budgets within the central payroll system. Over the past 4 years the cost increase was almost $6 million. Heart and lung claims for police officers fell under the protection or reimbursement factor of subsequent injury. It was typical to discover through the employment physical that an employee had a preexisting and resolved heart condition, and the persons were hired because the employer could not discriminate against the employee. In the course of their career, after reaching the conclusive prevention in 5 years, a number of the employees had the condition worsen and turned into a disability point for the State of Nevada. Subsequent injury claims acted as an incentive. It was an incentive for the employers to hire people and keep them in employment once they learned the person had a previous disability. Ms. Dunt expressed the belief it would affect the injured workers, and they would not be given the benefit of the doubt when the issue was considered. Within the state, they attempted to find alternate jobs for the employee who could not go back to their regular job because of the injury or illness. Employers would be concerned if they were responsible for the worsening of the condition. The promise of the subsequent injury fund gave an incentive for the employer to provide an employment opportunity to the employee.

The idea that ADA replaced the incentive created by the subsequent injury fund was misguided. There were areas where ADA did not apply. As the law read, the injury did not have to be a preexisting worker’s compensation injury. The person could have a preexisting automobile accident, war injury, or congenital condition such as diabetes. An insulin dependent diabetic was automatically rated at 10 percent disability. Diabetes was a known condition that impeded healing and costs were increased as a result. Those states that discontinued the subsequent injury fund had complications because there were so many funds to administer. The inconvenience of that situation or a high assessment of the employer was not desirable which resulted in removal of the benefit provided to the employer and employee. The ADA could not require that an alternate job be offered, it only required that an accommodation be made for the employee to do their regular job. It was difficult to accommodate many employees in their regular position such as policeman, fire fighter, and transportation workers.
Ms. Dunt asked that the committee consider the other side of the possibility of discontinuing the fund.

John Reiser, Reiser and Associates, declared he had been with former Governor Michael O’Callaghan and the labor management group when the subsequent injury account had been adopted by the 1973 legislature. He assured them the account had done a lot of good, which was what the legislature and labor management group intended for it to do. It had encouraged employers to rehire and take injured employees from other employers without the fear of having the $100,000 or $200,000 liability probable because of the preexisting injury. There would be a new generation of labor and management to express the same opinion expressed in 1973. The fund was a benefit to all workers and helped employers maintain workers after back surgery, automobile injuries, and war injuries. He prevailed upon the committee not to pass a bill to undo what had done a great deal of good. That protection was still needed along with the ADA to make new life careers available.

Randy Jones, who worked for Gates and McDonald, and was a retired Las Angeles (LA) County Deputy Sheriff shared that if ADA had been in effect when he had been injured, he would not be before the committee. He received five back injuries in 1 year and was subsequently retired by LA County with a
36.5 percent disability rating. The county arbitrarily retired anyone with a
28 percent or greater disability rating. A person could come to work one day and no longer have a job. Mr. Jones had been involved in worker’s compensation for the past 7 years, formerly with W.R. Gibbons, which was now Gates McDonald. He had represented employers in many subsequent injury matters. He had recovered millions of dollars for employers over the years from the subsequent injury fund. The loss of those funds would have directly affected the taxpayers. Some company budgets were reduced by over $500,000, which they passed directly back to their consumers. He noted any increased costs were passed on to the consumers.

Mr. Jones related the story of an insulin dependent diabetic employee who had a minor scratch on his stomach that resulted in a claim of $35,000. That cost was covered for the employer under the subsequent injury fund and the employer retained that employee.

Mr. Jones shared that he represented several hundred companies in a retrospective rating program. One of the things employers were required to do after the employee was hired was to spell out a post-hire questionnaire. At that time a lot of employers discovered that the employees had preexisting nonindustrial conditions such as diabetes, stenosis of the spine, and congenital problems. The fund benefited both the employer and employee, and in certain companies it benefited the taxpayer and the consumer.

Chairman Buckley asked if any of the individuals had testified before the interim committee and the Senate.

Ms. Dunt replied she had testified, and a similar fiscal impact statement was provided at that time. The feedback she received after the testimony was that there could have been a misunderstanding. The cost effect was thought to not be as large as projected because it was returned through the rates. However, Ms. Dunt did not believe that would be the case because of the retrospective rating plans that had been negotiated. The impact presented today was the real impact to the State of Nevada.

Chairman Buckley inquired as to whether the suggested fiscal impact had been discussed with the Governor’s Office and did the Governor have a position.

Ms. Dunt responded the information had been provided to him, but she had not followed up to determine what his position was.

Assemblyman Hettrick announced that someone needed to explain who paid into the subsequent injury fund so the committee members understood from where the money came to pay claims.

Mr. Reiser said all employers in the state paid worker’s compensation insurance premiums and there were no additional costs for subsequent injury. There was a pooling of the costs as opposed to charging it to one employer who had an employee with a subsequent injury. The system collected the money, and there was not a separate fund within the system. Funds were paid from budget Account 1329 when a subsequent injury occurred. All employers in the state paid the premiums and out of the surplus the subsequent injury costs were paid. Overall there were no additional costs to the system from subsequent injuries.

Chairman Buckley asked how that would work under the new system.

Mr. Reiser answered a fund would need to be collected from all employers in the state if there was a single subsequent injury account. There were no additional costs to the entire state system because someone would pay the costs. It was a pooling of the costs.

Chairman Buckley questioned who would administer that fund.

Ms. Dunt observed that was one of the difficulties created by the three way insurance plan. The major question was who would administer the fund, and there was disagreement among the self-insured employers regarding the fairness of the assessments within that group.

Assemblyman Nolan remarked the letter Ms. Dunt provided sought a means to offset the cost, which would fall into the subsequent injury fund. He wondered what the results were in states that had abolished the subsequent injury fund. Mr. Nolan understood some of the states purchased an annuity so the employer did not pay a portion of premium on every employee into a subsequent injury fund when a claim was made an annuity was purchased for that individual resulting in a cost savings to the employer.

Mr. Jones declared the State of Utah had done away with the subsequent injury fund. However, in the State of Utah the employer had no rights. If a mistake was made the only recourse an employer had was to sue under errors and omissions insurance. In the State of Utah the insurer declared the action to be taken. Colorado abolished their second injury fund. Employers in Colorado had varied opinions about the removal of that fund.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani sought clarification on the opposition to S.B. 42 and offered her understanding that the testimony stated the subsequent injury fund; 1) Encouraged employers to hire injured workers, 2) Not all injured workers were covered by ADA, 3) There was a need for the subsequent injury fund, and 4) It was considered a fair way to distribute charges.

Danny Thompson, Director, Committee on Political Education, Nevada State American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Operations (AFL-CIO), said they supported maintaining the fund and were opposed to the bill for all the reasons previously stated by Ms. Giunchigliani.

Cheryl Blomstrom, Nevada Chapter of Associated General Contractors, articulated their industry lent itself to cumulative injury. Without the protection of subsequent injury it would be difficult for the employers to continue employing those who had previous injuries. A post hire questionnaire was provided to employees which included information about prior injuries. Employers were encouraged to rely on subsequent injury coverage for protection covering both employer and employee.

Jack McClary, Insurance Agent, Insurance Solutions, Las Vegas, Nevada, was a former chairman of the Association of Self-Insured Subsequent Injury Fund. He had recommended the fund be eliminated. Research led him to believe the fund was of no benefit because the ADA eliminated the need for a subsequent injury fund. The fund became a relief for insurance companies, employers, or third party administrators to seek financial relief. The state itself bore the financial burden when it became onerous. Mr. McClary was a partner and owner in a compensation program in Tennessee, which was probably 10 years ahead of Nevada regarding worker’s compensation law. That state had an open rating system and open competition. Nevada had not reached that level and he proposed it would take 7 to 10 years before that would be experienced. Tennessee had eliminated their subsequent injury fund. They used an annuity to cover some of those injuries. The need for a subsequent injury fund was eliminated because of the competition itself among insurance carriers who covered worker’s compensation. All employers paid a premium based on their experience rating. The experience rating covered subsequent injury. No one was adversely affected and insurance companies did not surcharge or raise rates because of subsequent injury. It was a cost of doing business and was divided among all companies insured and there was no discrimination against any employer. The State of Nevada did not need the subsequent injury fund.

Mike Lynch, representing the Builders Association of Northern Nevada, said they had over 850 company members affiliated with the construction industry. Even though they currently had a retrospective rating, after July 1, 1999, members of the association in a retrospective rating plan, guaranteed cost plan, or who were part of a self-insured group would be covered by private insurers. He believed each would look to the State of Nevada to honor the promise given in the past when they hired employees. They were able to hire the best employee to do the job without concern of the status of their health or potential disability. Rather than arbitrarily setting a date when an employer could no longer claim against the subsequent injury fund, a better idea would be to make it effective as of a certain date employees were hired. Currently every employee on the payroll was hired with the expectation of promises under the current program.

Chairman Buckley closed the public hearing on S.B. 42 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 419.

Bob Schriver, Executive Director, Commission on Economic Development, claimed workforce development was an issue related to economic development. They had searched for ways to improve the ability to market themselves and access money to be used to train Nevada workers. Funds were used from the unemployment insurance fund, claimant employment program. The Commission on Economic Development through the Train Employees Now Program received $500,000 a year from the General Fund. That income provided training funds to company employees who met certain criteria. At the conclusion of the training the employee must be paid 75 percent of the statewide average wage. The bill raised the required wage to 80 percent of the statewide average wage. The statewide average wage was currently $13.37. Mr. Schriver believed that was a good use of the money. S.B. 419 allowed the Commission on Economic Development to have priority in allocation of funds for an additional $500,000 per year. After that fund was exhausted they would be able to go to the director on a case-by-case basis to request additional funds for unemployed workers. The result would be a million-dollar training fund. Arizona had $4.5 million in training money available to companies. The program was restricted to Nevada citizens and could not be used for people moving into the state. The money was used to upgrade the skills of Nevada citizens who became more productive and increased their income. Mr. Schriver stated the program was a very valuable tool.

Assemblyman Giunchigliani commented that she liked the bill and while
80 percent was good the earlier motion in the committee was that a letter of intent be sent to the commission for the person to be paid 100 percent of the statewide average. That might create a fiscal impact.

Mr. Schriver said the amount had been raised through regulation to 75 percent. The rationale was that a lot of the work force was unskilled and they needed to be raised to a skilled level. An employer could not be asked to pay more than what they could get on an open market. The ultimate goal was 100 percent. Testimony presented to the Committee on Ways and Means indicated the actual wage paid for trainees exceeded the average hourly wage. They were already above the $13.37 per-hour wage.

Stanley P. Jones, Administrator, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, State of Nevada, stated in 1989 the legislature created the Claimant Employment Program for the purpose of training and placing unemployed workers back in gainful employment. The Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation supported S.B. 419 because it created an excellent partnership with economic development for the retraining and re-employment of unemployed workers.

Assemblyman Dini closed the public hearing on S.B. 419 and opened the hearing Senate Bill 53.

Senate Bill 53: Specifies information administrator of division of industrial relations of department of business and industry can require certain insurers to provide on claims the insurers process. (BDR 53-696)

Scott Craigie contended with the advent of the three way insurance system there were a number of systematic changes that had to be made to accommodate that modification. The bill encompassed one of the most important changes. There were two data banks that had to be created. One of the data banks tracked proof of coverage to make sure every employer was covered by an insurance program and was not addressed in the bill. The second database required was a repository of all claim information, so there was a claim history that could be relied upon by attorneys, administrators, and others. The self-insured entities currently had their own database. For all other employers that information was filed with Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICN) formerly State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS).

There were approximately 200 companies that sought and received certification to sell private carrier insurance in Nevada. If only one third of the carriers went forward, it would be a nightmare to access data. States throughout the country had requirements and databases like that. The insurance commissioner under the advice of the legislature provided 2 years ago hired NCCI as a rating agent. As a part of the duties, under separate contract, NCCI helped develop a program for the database.

When three way insurance began there was a task force where all the parties came together. The bill had the full endorsement of Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), Department of Insurance (DOI), The Alliance of American Insurers, The American Insurance Association, and all major carriers, many of the self-insured group, the Las Vegas Chamber, and others. Negotiations began without coalition and were very controversial in the beginning. They all wanted to minimize the cost to insure the data would be filed with the state. Everyone agreed they wanted the minimum number of data points to be filed. Mr. Craigie wanted to ensure that insurance companies coming to Nevada operated under the same reporting system used in other states. The list of reportable items could be smaller but not larger so that the insurance companies would not incur large costs to change their system. A consensus bill was available that met all the goals. Agreement was reached to require 13 data points. That was the purpose of the bill and its accomplishments. Three national experts guided the task force in the process. NCCI, DIR, and the Insurance Commission did an extraordinary job in maintaining focus and followed through to conclusion.

John Wiles concurred with Mr. Craigie’s remarks. Mr. Wiles added the consensus reflected in the bill would not have been possible without the efforts of Mr. Craigie. Mr. Wiles asked that the record reflect it was not the intention of the Division of Industrial Relations to use the indexing system as an enforcement mechanism. The indexing system served a number of other useful purposes but was not an enforcement mechanism for the agency.

Samual P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Nevada Self-Insurers Association, stated there was no opposition to the bill.

Assemblyman Dini, acting Chairman concluded the hearing on S.B. 53 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 332.

Senator John R. Porter, Senatorial District 1, revealed the bill had been brought to his attention by a constituent, Lake Mead Air from Boulder City, Nevada. Lake Mead Air provided tours over the Grand Canyon, Lake Mead, and many parts of Las Vegas. Lake Mead Air generally made a job available for pilots who had 500 hours of experience. As soon as the pilot acquired 1500 hours they were promoted to commuter airline status. That meant that traditionally pilots left the employment of a smaller aircraft operator and went to another larger airline, and a lot of them get laid off when competing with other pilots with more hours. The smaller employer’s unemployment rating was charged. The bill tried to address the problems of the smaller businesses, whose employee left their employment voluntarily, moved to another business, were laid off, and the unemployment was charged to the original small business. S.B. 332 provided that benefits for unemployment must not be charged against the record of experience rating on the employer. The employer must provide satisfactory evidence to the administrator of the Employment Security Division that the employee claiming benefits left his employment voluntarily without good cause or was discharged for misconduct connected with his employment. The bill prevented the Employment Security Division from charging employers experience rating for the employee under those conditions. Small businesses were being penalized by their employer experience rate charged for unemployment benefits when an employee voluntarily left due to the relocation of a spouse. An example cited was an employer that hired a spouse who was married to a member of the military. Currently they were charged unemployment benefits when the employee voluntarily left to accompany his or her military spouse upon the person’s transfer to a different location. The law currently had an inequity, and the bill would correct that inequity.

Assemblyman Beers asked who did get charged and was the unemployed person still eligible for benefits.

Senator Porter responded the employee was eligible for benefits, but the employer they left after a short time and not the previous employer should be charged.

Chairman Buckley questioned if the unemployment benefit to the claimant was affected in any way or if the change was merely the allocation of what employer would be charged because of the causal relationship of leaving.

Mary F. Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada, voiced support for the bill and included support from Ray Bacon, representing Nevada Manufacturer’s Association, since he was unable to be there.

Mr. McMullen added the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce also supported the legislation.

Chairman Buckley closed the public hearing on S.B. 332 and reopened the hearing on Senate Bill 419.

Senator Mark A. James, Senatorial District 8, wanted to do something in the area of economic development and Bob Schriver felt job training was the most important aspect for companies who sought to locate in Nevada. Background information was obtained on the Texas and California programs. The Senate amended the first version of the bill. Originally the bill had provided that trained individuals receive 85 percent of the statewide hourly wage. That percentage was reduced to 80 percent. The intention was to assist new companies in getting employees trained or retrained into high tech or high skill jobs as required by the bill. The program applied to residents of Nevada who were being trained in a new job or retrained. The bill would assist individuals who wanted to leave the casino business and move into a high tech job and also help Nevada encourage high tech companies to move here and help develop the state. The finance committee and Carol Jackson approved the management of the money, which would be jointly managed by Employment Security and the Commission on Economic Development.

Chairman Buckley closed the public hearing on S.B. 332 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 44.

Sam McMullen, representing the Retail Association of Nevada, related the Associations of Self-insured Employers were commonly referred to as SIGS. In anticipation of the three way insurance the Retail Association of Nevada worked with the Division of Insurance. Leeway was sought regarding the level of financial documentation that needed to be submitted by a business to become a member of a self-insured group, and the individual net worth information of the applicant. The theory was as three way insurance began the ability of the self-insured groups to lower costs to attract new member was crucial because they required a certain number of participants to be successful. The Division of Insurance was asked for flexibility in those two areas for the self-insured groups. The bill addressed the problem by saying that if a person had been in business for at least 3 years and problem free with respect to insurance claims there was a presumption of adequacy. Administrative provisions were added for the Division of Insurance on page 3 to have the insurance commissioner notified of new members.

Assemblyman Goldwater invited Mr. McMullen to remind the committee that all members were jointly and severally liable and wondered if new members were made aware of the liability. He also asked Mr. McMullen to explain to the committee what would happen if claims exceeded the insurance and tangible net worth.

Daryl Capurro, representing the Nevada Motor Transport Association and Nevada Transportation Network Self-Insured Group with 53 companies participating, replied they had researched all the items mentioned by Assemblyman Goldwater. That accounted for their support of the restrictions that exceeded those in other states. Approximately 25 states had allowed self-insured groups for 35 to 40 years. There was not a case in any state or group that had been pushed beyond the limits. The members of the group were made aware they were jointly and severally liable for any claims that were over and above the insurance and assets of the trust, and they were the final source of recovery. When Florida allowed self-insurance without regulations they had never gone to joint and several liability.

Assemblyman Goldwater reiterated the point of his question was still not answered. The legislature was considering removing the state fund and lowering the net worth of the groups through the bill. He wanted to know what would happen to the claims if the liabilities extended beyond the assets of the trusts and the personal assets.

Mr. Capurro replied that the bill granted employers the same choice going into a three way environment as would be granted a small insurance company.

Chairman Buckley interjected that to directly answer Mr. Goldwater’s question, should the association run out of money and the members had no assets the fund would be defunct, defaulted, and there would be no one there to pay the claims. That was part of the current system failure.

Eloise Koenig, Self-Insurance Coordinator, Department of Business and Industry Division of Insurance, State of Nevada, offered to answer the question. The members of each association were jointly and severally liable. If there were outstanding claims of the association of self-insured employers and not enough assessments collected to pay those claims then the individual member’s assets would be used to pay the claims. They would be reassessed and, in addition to that, all self-insured associations were required to have both specific and aggregate insurance. In most cases the aggregate attachment on the excess insurance was either at a 100 percent or below the annual assessment point. If that happened the excess insurance coverage would pick up those claims. In addition the Division of Insurance was holding a security deposit on all self-insured associations. The next step would be to cash the security deposit and make sure the claims were paid. If that was not adequate, there was an insolvency fund for the associations into which all self-insured groups paid. If there was not enough money to pay the claims from the insolvency fund the Division of Insurance had the authority to assess all the other associations. Currently there were 12 certified associations and 2 more were pending.

Assemblyman Goldwater asked Ms. Koenig if she intended to testify on the bill beyond her current testimony and if she had any concerns with the bill.

Ms. Koenig replied she had no concerns with the bill.

Chairman Buckley thanked Ms. Koenig for clarifying the question for the committee.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if any self-insured group experienced any level of insolvency.

Ms. Koenig indicated some of them may have gone into their excess insurance. The excess insurance coverage was not only aggregate but specific. One claim may have gone over the attachment point for an excess coverage. To her knowledge, none of the self-insured groups had to even reassess their employers. Their normal assessment process was covering their costs.

Ms. Lau wanted to make it clear the bill did not allow a reduction of entry requirements for groups. They must have been in existence for 3 years and during that time they were required to have $5 million accumulated before anything could be relaxed. If they had ever been brought before the insurance commissioner and proved guilty of anything the commissioner did not have to allow them to relax the requirements at all. It was fair to allow the commissioner the same 3 years that all existing groups put into effect before those entry requirements could be relaxed. John Sandie, Nevada Franchised Auto Dealer Association, was unable to be at the hearing but asked that
Ms. Lau enter his support of the bill for the record.

Mr. Capurro declared he wanted to make one other point. The trustees that governed the self-insured groups were also involved in accepting new companies to the group. If someone wanted to join a self-insured group there were many requirements they were required to meet including underwriting. Before submission of an additional proposed new employer in the association the insurance commissioner’s office it was voted on by the trustees. The trustees had a vested interest in the health of the trust because they were members of the trust. There were safeguards to make sure the new companies accepted to the group met stringent statutory requirements and fit the profile of the group goals.

Mr. McMullen related each member of the self-insured group fund were informed and signed a representation they understood they had joint and several liability. They tried to find a responsibility level of tangible net worth and made sure there was $5 million of total net worth. Another tool mentioned in the bill was the ability of the insurance commission to call in the group to answer any questions about insolvency. He continued to reiterate the testimony given previously.

Jeanette K. Belz, Lobbyist, Nevada Independent Insurance and American Insurance Association, revealed she supported S.B. 44 and offered two amendments (Exhibit D). The first amendment allowed the commissioner to evaluate self-insured groups to make sure they had sufficient capital in relation to their risk. The same risk level did not apply to diverse occupations. The amendment did not stipulate what the capital requirement would be and the rate would not automatically be set. The second amendment included self-insured groups in the definition of insurer under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 686B.1759 as of July 1, 1999. The intent was that SIGS charged an upfront premium that was actuarially determined for that class of business. It would include them in the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) rating structure. The rates were established based on SIIS data as analyzed by NCCI and recommended to the commissioner, and the commissioner adopted recommendations from NCCI. If the self-insured group was successful and wanted to pay dividends at the end of the year, there would be no objection if money was then left over. The self-insured groups should begin by paying a full premium and if money was left over dividends could be paid. That would insure enough money was available to pay claims. Florida’s self-insured groups were now under the NCCI rate structure because their self-insured system collapsed. Those two amendments would help to assure solvency and address some of the issues that had been raised.

Chairman Buckley asked if the amendments were offered in the Senate side.

Ms. Belz replied they had been offered and rejected in the Senate side.

Mr. McMullen attempted to summarize the arguments previously offered to the Senate. There was a fundamental difference between an insurance company and a group of self-insured companies that banded together to save administrative costs and costs of potential claims which were adjusted at the end of the year. Self-insurance was a very different concept than an insurance company. Issues such as risk-based capital were already adjusted as a set of business decisions and financial arrangements to make sure the group survived and succeeded. The amendments would make self-insured groups insurers and subject to stringent restrictions that had no advantage.

Chairman Buckley closed the public hearing on S.B. 44.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 44.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 53.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 332.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 419.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley decided to hold Senate Bill 38 to wait for Mr. Thompson’s amendment on another bill. Debate was anticipated on Senate Bill 42 so it was held and the committee moved on to the work session documents (Exhibit E).

Chairman Buckley noted the board submitted an attachment to Senate Bill 8 modeled on the nursing board presentation. Senator Rawson also prepared something for the bill that the income of the barbers was limited, but they supported the fee increase to support the work of the board. The barber pole represented the trade profession, was fundamental, and had a history of over 100 years.

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, revealed the fees were of some concern because of the budget addressed by Assemblyman Beers. The board desired to see the bill passed in current form but was amenable to deleting the fee increases rather than losing the entire bill. The barber pole provision was modeled after a California statute that made it an unfair business practice to display a pole except in a barbering establishment. A point of clarification on the California statute was that most of the professional regulatory statutes were under a sunset law and automatically repealed the statutes as a review process.

Assemblyman Hettrick looked at the budget, noticed it had a significant reserve, which was budgeted to drop by approximately $17,000 per year. He did not believe the fee issue was a problem.

Chairman Buckley called attention to the fee issue and explored the increases on page 13, section 26. The fee for the barber school was raised from $250 to $500. The instructor fee was raised $75 to $300. Section 26 addressed the fee to operate a school while lines 15 and 16 increased the fee from $250 to $500.

Mr. Hughey related there were fee increases in section 21. The fees for the license to operate a barbershop or renew a license were raised from $50 to $75.

Assemblyman Goldwater disclosed the issue of the pole was whether it should be a crime as opposed to a violation. For the committee to make it a license violation or a civil fine was preferred to making it a crime.

Mr. Hughey was asked to look at section 34 which said it should be unlawful and he observed it was based on a similar statute in California.

Assemblyman Beers referred to page 14 of the work session document, in the middle of the page, where barber schools were required to have two instructors available regardless of the enrollment of the school. He recollected earlier testimony reflected there were no barber schools in the state. The changes were intended to increase the likelihood of opening a barber school in the state. He believed it would have the opposite effect.

Chairman Buckley offered to clarify with the legal department exactly what was meant by the term "unlawful" in the bill. Part of the chapter stated it did not apply to a prisoner cutting hair. The concern of prior individuals related to the use of sanitary equipment that had nothing to do with the amendment. Applicants could file with the barber board or the prison.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani exclaimed that she understood the testimony to reflect prisoners were made to cut their own hair as part of retribution.

Chairman Buckley pronounced it might be a civil rights issue but that was not relevant to the bill.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani wanted to know why it was made a part of the bill if the issue was not relevant.

Assemblyman Hettrick addressed the issue raised by Mr. Beers regarding the requirement for two instructors. Section 28, subsection 2, said the old law required two instructors available at all times, and the new law required
2 instructors on the premises if the active enrollment was 20 or more students and 2 instructors available at all time. It was the same law that currently existed and did not increase the instructors required. It was not an issue.

Assemblyman Beers referred to lines 40 through 43 on page 10 that changed the requirement for a small barber school (page 14 of the work session document).

Senator Raymond Rawson, Senatorial District 6, acknowledged the concern to be the requirement of having two instructors versus one. The real question was how much of a teaching experience was provided if the students were ever left alone. With a single instructor who answered the phone or something else students were left unsupervised, and there might be a public safety issue. That was the concern. It was difficult to make a living in a small barber school so the owners had other businesses and did the barber school on the side. The reality was the students were frequently left alone. The way to guarantee that would not happen was by having two instructors present.

Chairman Buckley commented part of the confusion was to be found on the board’s explanation page 14, which stated two instructors on the premises. That did not seem to match.

Senator Rawson related in the dental field the terminology used was "under direct supervision." That meant someone was there to respond, see, and hear. If that terminology was used it would take care of the problem.

Assemblyman Humke did not recall from the testimony how many barbers were in the state.

Senator Rawson divulged that there were approximately 200 to 300 barbers in the state.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 8.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley turned to Senate Bill 140.

Mr. Hughey gave an introduction to the bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 140.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley related that Senate Bill 233 was withdrawn by the sponsor, Pat Coward and solicited a motion.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SENATE BILL 233.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on Senate Bill 495.

Crystal Lesbo, Committee Policy Analyst, related that the bill came from the Division of Industrial Relations and the Division of Insurance in preparation for three way insurance. There were no amendments proposed to the bill.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 495.

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cleone Bujalski,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: