MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-First Session
March 12, 2001
The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Monday, March 12, 2001. Chairman Joe Dini, Jr. 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:
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr., Chairman
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mr. Bob Beers
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. David Humke
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Bernice Martin Matthews
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst
Crystal McGee, Senior Research Analyst, Worker’s Compensation
Margaret Judge, Recording Committee Secretary
N. Jolene Jones Miley, Transcribing Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ron Dreher, President, Peace Officer’s Research Association of Nevada
Carolyn Sullivan, Widow
Jeanne Minnie, Widow
Steve Turner, Reno Police Department, Retired
Barbara Gruenewald, Representing Nevada Trial Lawyers
John Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Representing Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council
Danny Thompson, Secretary/Treasurer, State of Nevada AFL/CIO
Nancy Ann Leeder, Attorney, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers
Robert Balkenbush, Attorney, Representing Public Agency Compensation Trust
Charles Verre, Chief Administrative Officer, Department of Business and Industry, Division of Industrial Relations, Industrial Insurance Regulation Section
Robert Ostrovsky, President, Ostrovsky and Associates, Government Affairs Consultants, Representing Employers Insurance Company of Nevada
Daryl Capurro, Lobbyist, Representing Nevada Motor Transport Association and Nevada Transportation Self-Insured Group
John Wiles, Division Counsel, Department of Industrial Relations
Vice Chairman Buckley called the meeting to order at 3:51 p.m. She opened the work session on A.B. 217. There not being a quorum present the committee heard the bill as a subcommittee.
Assembly Bill 217: Repeals certain provisions that prohibit payment of death benefit under industrial insurance to surviving spouse who remarries. (BDR 53-1251)
Ron Dreher, President Peace Officer’s Research Association of Nevada, read from prepared text (Exhibit C) and testified in support of A.B. 217. He said this legislation was needed after University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Police Sergeant George Sullivan was murdered on the campus at UNR in January 1998. His widow, Carolyn Sullivan was told that if she remarried, her workers’ compensation benefits would cease after she received a lump sum payment. However, if she did not remarry, she would receive workers’ compensation benefits for the rest of her life.
The Nevada Legislature has enacted legislation that benefits spouses and children of officers killed in the line of duty. They had eliminated the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) remarriage penalty in those cases. However, provisions in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 616C.505 contained a remarriage penalty for spouses who had lost their husband or wife in the line of duty. By eliminating the provisions that dealt with remarriage, spouses of peace officers killed in the line of duty could remarry without suffering a penalty.
Carolyn Sullivan spoke from prepared text (Exhibit D), testifying in support of A.B. 217. She said she did not have a vested interest in A.B. 217, and had no plans to remarry. Mrs. Sullivan said that the marriage penalty placed on death benefits through the workers’ compensation program was wrong. She was able to provide for her family as though her husband was still living. Many times over the years, she and her husband had discussed death and how life would be with out the other. She never thought it would happen to them, but it did. She had suffered extreme emotional trauma over the loss of her husband, but has never had to worry about how the mortgage or utility bills would be paid. She was still employed as she was prior to her husband’s death. She stated her financial security came from her husband’s retirement, her paycheck and the death benefit from workers’ compensation. Her husband had discussed with her that in the event of his death she and their children would be provided for. Her husband wanted her to find happiness again and it troubled her that there was a condition tied to the security provided by her husband. She reiterated that PERS had no marriage penalty like workers’ compensation insurance. If she were to remarry, her family would lose their monthly check. Mrs. Sullivan stated that some might assume that a new husband’s income would compensate for the loss of the workers’ compensation check, but she asked, what would happen if the second marriage failed. She pointed to the fact the workers’ compensation would be gone because of the remarriage and she would face the loss of income from the second spouse as well. In a divorce the noncustodial parent must pay child support for the children of that union. Mrs. Sullivan said that the marriage penalty promoted immorality because it forced couples to live together without benefit of marriage to avoid losing the workers’ compensation benefit. She closed her testimony stating that the workers’ compensation benefit in the state of Nevada was flawed and should be changed.
Mrs. Gibbons asked about Section 3 of A.B. 217 where it discussed the average monthly wage at time of death. She asked if there were any increases in the compensation. Ms. Sullivan said she had not received an increase in the benefit for three years.
Jeanne Minnie, widow of Frank Minnie, Sr., Motorcycle Officer with Washoe County Sheriff’s Department, spoke from prepared text (Exhibit E) in support of A.B. 217. Mrs. Minnie said her husband had been killed while performing his duties as a motorcycle officer. The marriage penalty imposed by workers’ compensation was unfair and should be repealed. Mrs. Minnie stated that the surviving spouses should not be penalized because they moved forward in their lives. She asked the committee to support the bill.
Senator Bernice Martin Matthews, representing Washoe District 1, testified in support of A.B. 217. She asked the committee to please support the bill.
Steven Turner, Retired, Reno Police Department, testified in support of A.B. 217. He said that his unit had investigated a number of the death investigations that involved the officers who died in the line of duty. Mr. Turner said it had been his experience that the officers on the street who put their lives on the line wanted to know their families were going to be cared for. He asked the committee to please support the bill.
Barbara Gruenewald, representing Nevada Trial Lawyers, testified in support of A.B. 217. Ms. Gruenewald stated she had a client who had been specifically impacted by this provision. Her client’s husband had been a firefighter and had died in the line of duty. The client had been receiving benefits and remarried and within 30 days the second marriage failed. Ms. Gruenewald stated her client had to obtain an annulment in order to get the workers’ compensation benefits reinstated. She urged the committee to support the bill.
John Jeffrey, Lobbyist, representing Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, testified in support of A.B. 217. He said that the provision pertaining to the marriage penalty presented a hardship to the surviving spouses. He urged the committee to support the bill.
Danny Thompson, Secretary/Treasurer, State of Nevada AFL-CIO, testified in support of A.B. 217. He said that not much could be added; he wanted the support of this bill from his organization to become a part of the record.
Mrs. Gibbons asked Ms. Gruenewald if she knew if district court judges had this penalty clause. Ms. Gruenewald said she did not know. Ms. Buckley said that committee staff could research that and report back to the committee.
Ms. Buckley asked Crystal McGee, LCB, Senior Research Analyst, Workers’ Compensation, stated that the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) established the average monthly wage. She said that there was a cap placed on the amount of benefit a surviving spouse could receive. That cap is based on 66 2/3 percent of the average monthly wage. She said it was established in regulation and was reviewed each year. She said that in respect to the district court judge, anyone that was eligible to receive workers’ compensation is subject to that provision.
Nancy Ann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers (NAIW), testified in support of A.B. 217. She said 66 2/3 percent of the average monthly wage at the time of death was computed for the 12 weeks prior to the death with a maximum cap. That is the reason there are no raises from workers’ compensation benefits.
Bob Balkenbush, Attorney representing the Public Agency Compensation Trust (PACT), a self-insured association of rural governmental entities, testified against A.B. 217. The fiscal note on A.B. 217 indicated that there would be no effect on local government or the state. He said the PACT was essentially comprised of counties and municipalities in the rural areas. They pool their monies and insure under an association that is permitted under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Mr. Balkenbush said the bill would have an effect on local government because they did not have to provide that benefit. He stated the context of the bill as amended was to provide benefits for dependants and that included the surviving spouse. The purpose of the benefit was to provide for the surviving spouse and children until the surviving spouse remarried. Mr. Balkenbush stated that upon remarriage the new spouse would become responsible for the support. He said the act as originally instituted had worked.
Mr. Goldwater asked if the PACT did not reserve for a lifetime benefit for survivors. Mr. Balkenbush said the bill had a fiscal effect on the rural cities and counties. Mr. Goldwater said the reserve for benefits for life was already built into the premiums that were paid by the rural counties and cities. Mr. Goldwater asked Mr. Balkenbush if PACT was reserving less than a lifetime benefit for this category. Mr. Balkenbush replied that the actuaries had to make their recommendations to PACT concerning premiums that were charged to the governmental entities for workers’ compensation. That premium must be based upon the language in the act. Mr. Balkenbush said that under the revised act, every occasion must be a lifetime benefit. Mr. Goldwater said that the committee needed to hear from an actuary on the reserve procedures. He asked how the bill could affect prospective premiums.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated that she had never been an advocate of self-insurance for local governments or school districts. She said that the Legislature had discussed on many occasions the possible reversal of that subject. She asked Mr. Balkenbush if his suggestion would be akin to a life insurance policy. Mr. Balkenbush responded that if the surviving spouse was unmarried then the support was needed. If the surviving spouse remarried, the rational for providing support was no longer there.
Mr. Beers said he required information from the committee’s legal staff; he was confused as how the law worked. He cited Page 2, lines 28 to 33, which appeared to be the “heart” of A.B. 217, “Upon remarriage of a surviving spouse with children, the surviving spouse must be paid 2 years’ compensation in one lump sum, and further benefits must cease.” Mr. Beers said the section stated further, “Each child must be paid 15 percent of the average monthly wage, up to a maximum family benefit of 66 2/3 percent of the average monthly wage.” He stated that, as he read the current law, a surviving spouse with children receives a two-year lump sum and the benefit continues for the children.
Crystal McGee said Mr. Beers was correct. By eliminating that provision the surviving spouse would no longer be penalized. The surviving spouse would not receive a lump sum, but those benefits for the surviving spouse would continue, even if that spouse remarried. The provision of 15 percent for each child would also be eliminated, because the 66 2/3 percent would be paid to the surviving spouse for support of the children.
Mr. Hettrick said that he thought that the committee needed to look at the language in the bill. He said that the children’s benefit would continue until they were 18. He said that he thought the bill as written was structured to compensate in both instances.
Charles Verre, Chief Administrative Officer, Department of Business and Industry Division of Industrial Relations, Industrial Insurance Regulation Section, said the division would review and give Ms. McGee a specific answer on the dependent children issue.
Robert Ostrovsky, President, Ostrovsky and Associates, Government Affairs Consultants, representing Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICON), testifying against the bill, asked if some of the changes in the provisions would be implemented retroactively. Mr. Ostrovsky stated if the bill was successful it would not go into effect until July 1, 2002. He said the bill as written would require the workers’ compensation company or any insurer to review old claims. That would include the now-defunct State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) to reevaluate all the old claims. Mr. Ostrovsky stated the actuaries do take into account the totality of the universe of claimants. He said by not taking effect until July 1, 2002 it would enable the insurance companies to raise their premiums to cover the proposed changes in the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Mr. Goldwater asked if the claims could be combined. Mr. Ostrovsky replied that he did not know if a lump sum was available in the payment of those claims. Mr. Goldwater said he would like to know what the lifetime benefit was. Mr. Ostrovsky said he would provide that information to the committee.
Ms. Buckley said the committee would also like to know how many surviving spouses there were and what EICON anticipated insofar as remarriage of a surviving spouse would be. She said those statistics would be helpful for the committee.
Mr. Goldwater wanted to know if the policies for reinsurance covered this type of change in the law retroactively. Mr. Ostrovsky replied that in the past the Legislature could make changes and did so on a regular basis. Mr. Goldwater said that EICON should have reserved for lifetime benefit, as that was the legislative intent.
Mr. Ostrovsky stated he would have to ask the actuary to what extent the age of the surviving spouse was taken into consideration at the time the benefit was incurred or whether they were combined. Mr. Ostrovsky said he did not know if all death benefits were determined by age or whether they were all averaged. He said he would get that information to the committee.
Mr. Hettrick said that any company that wrote rates must consider all the risks and all potential payouts. He said that the rates were determined by job classification and not age.
Ms. Buckley closed the work session on A.B. 217.
Chairman Dini asked for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) by the Attorney General.
MS. BUCKLEY MOVED THAT THE COMMITTEE INTRODUCE BDR 52- 484.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
MS. BUCKLEY MOVED FOR THE COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 54-295.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Dini opened the work session.
Assembly Bill 43: Revises formula for assessments related to program of workers’ compensation. (BDR 53-877)
Crystal McGee, Senior Research Analyst, LCB, Research Division, distributed the committee work session document (Exhibit F). She said that each of the bills within the document were on behalf of the Legislative Committee on Workers’ Compensation. She stated hearings were held prior to March 12, 2001. The first bill, A.B. 43, revised the formula for assessment for programs related to workers’ compensation. She stated under Attachment A was an amendment to A.B. 43 that was requested by the Legislative Committee on Workers’ Compensation. During the hearing on this bill, testimony primarily addressed the proposed amendment. She continued, stating that Attachment B included a proposal by Daryl Capurro, who represented the Nevada Motor Transport Association, and Robert Vogel, who represented Pro-Group Management. She stated the phrase “reflects the relative hazards of the employments” is not appropriate with respect to self-insured employers or associations. She opined this language was appropriate for private carriers in establishing industrial insurance rates according to risk classifications, but was not applicable to self-insured entities. She stated that in respect to items “A” through “F” it was requested that phrase be deleted in the proposed amendment, and not in the original bill. Ms. McGee said if the committee would move forward with A.B. 43, with Mr. Capurro’s amendment, the committee would also need to adopt the proposed amendment under Tab A of the work session document (Exhibit F).
Ms. Buckley said she did not recall hearing the public necessity for this bill. She said that with Mr. Capurro’s comments it could be that A.B. 43 was not bad legislation, but she could not see the public harm that was being addressed. Ms. Buckley stated without that information available, she did not see where the bill would solve any problems.
Ms. Giunchigliani said she had the same concern, as there was no testimony that stated why the bill was needed. She commented there had been two different groups that were in opposition and she was unsure what the amendment actually was.
Mr. Daryl Capurro, Nevada Motor Transport Association and Nevada Transportation Self-Insured Group, stated that A.B. 43 had come out of the committee on workers’ compensation, but at the time the BDR was requested there was opposition to the way it was presented. Mr. Capurro said there was supposed to be another BDR that reflected the amendment; however, that did not happen. The concern of the Nevada Motor Transport Association and Nevada Transportation Self-Insured Group was that some of the language was not appropriate for self-insured groups. Mr. Capurro said Nevada Motor Transport Association and Nevada Transportation Self-Insured Group were opposed to A.B. 43 in its current form and they would support Attachment A only if Attachment B was adopted to clean up the problems within the bill.
Ms. Giunchigliani said there was so much money needed to pay for certain programs related to workers’ compensation, including the Uninsured Employer’s Claim Fund. She said that the formula stated how much private carriers would pay of the total budgeted amount, as well as self-insured associations, public and private, would pay. Ms. Giunchigliani said that basically what A.B. 43 and the proposed amendments provided were two different formulas on the dollar amount that was established in the budget.
Ms. Buckley asked if at the current time every entity paid the same amount. Ms. McGee responded that in statute, as it is written now, distribution of those funds would be based on expected annual expenditures for claims. The proposed amendment stated how much would be paid at the base level by the different levels, based upon expected annual expenditures per claim.
Mr. Goldwater asked if the Chair would accept a motion for an indefinite postponement of A.B. 43.
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED FOR AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF A.B. 43.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI Seconded THE MOTION.
THE MOTION WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Dini opened the work session on A.B. 44.
Assembly Bill 44: Makes various changes relating to responsibilities of insurers who provide industrial insurance. (BDR 53-772)
Crystal McGee, LCB, Research Division, read from prepared text (Exhibit F), and informed the committee that A.B. 44 had six proposed amendments (Exhibit F). She said the bill dealt with the audit of insurers.
Bob Ostrovsky, representing Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICON), submitted a written statement in lieu of verbal testimony. He said the goal of A.B. 44 was to give the Director of Industrial Relations Administrator more flexibility. Mr. Ostrovsky stated the Administrator was required to conduct audits every three years and A.B. 44 would change that three-year requirement to five years. He said the Administrator had the authority to conduct random audits of insurers who had a history of violations. This bill allowed the Administrator to conduct a partial audit in lieu of a full audit in cases where the insurer had no prior history of violations.
Roger Bremner, Administrator, Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) submitted a written statement to the committee. He said that the DIR had remained neutral on A.B. 44. However, he said based on testimony received by the committee, his office was providing the committee with the following comments he respectfully suggested the committee consider during the upcoming work session. He continued, stating that in Section 1 the change of the audit cycle contained in that section (3 to 5 years) would not impair the efforts to enforce the provisions of the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act or the Nevada Occupational Diseases Act. Mr. Bremner said it could necessitate an increase in the number of files that were selected for audit. In the 3-year cycle where 20 files were randomly selected, if there were significant problems discovered, they would audit more files.
Ms. McGee stated that currently in statute there were no specifications on how many files must be audited to meet the requirements for the audit procedures.
Ms. McGee stated that Nancy Ann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers (NAIW), proposed the deletion of the phrase “or other reproductions.” Ms. McGee said that according to Ms. Leeder’s testimony, this proposal is intended to insure that the staff of NAIW had access to hard copies of claims that were needed for court filings. Ms. Leeder proposed the change from 30 days to 7 days, the amount of time that an insurer would be required to provide a reproduction of information related to a closed workers’ compensation claim file.
Mr. Dini asked if there was a reason for that request. Ms. McGee responded that the 30-day requirement was an arbitrary number arrived at under Ms. Leeder’s proposal.
Ms. McGee said Kim Morgan, LCB Legal Division, brought the fourth proposal forward to the committee. This section of A.B. 44 dealt with permissible investments of a public association of self-insured employers. Ms. McGee said A.B. 44 currently provided an association of self-insured public employers to invest funds not needed to meet the obligations of the association pursuant to NRS 682A, even though the individual members who are public employers would be limited in their investments by Chapter 355 of the NRS. Ms. McGee stated that Ms. Morgan indicated that Section 4 of A.B. 44 which concerned the authorized investments of associations of self-insured public employers violated the constitution of the state of Nevada, which prohibited local governments from investing in common stock and other risky investments. Ms. McGee said that Ms. Morgan recommended that Section 4 of the bill be amended to provide that any excess funds of the association be invested pursuant to Chapter 355 of the NRS rather than Chapter 682. She said that would correct the violation of the state Constitution.
Ms. McGee continued by reading the fifth proposed amendment to A.B. 44 presented by John Wiles, Division Counsel of DIR, that would pertain to Section 5 of A.B. 44 and addressed the payment of medical services related to an industrial accident to health care providers. She said that Mr. Wiles suggested adding a provision to Subsection 3 of Section 5 to provide that an injured worker who had appealed a matter related to payment of a medical bill could prevail on appeal if it could be shown the medical services provided were for an emergency related to an industrial injury. Ms. McGee said that Mr. Wiles’ request for this amendment was included in Attachment D of the work session document.
Ms. McGee said that Mr. Hettrick had proposed amending current state law to provide an individual who owned a home and employed domestic workers in that home could get a rider to their homeowners’ policy for workers’ compensation. She said that the Legal Division had provided that written language and is included as Attachment E of the work session document. Ms. McGee stated that that concluded the amendments to A.B. 44.
Chairman Dini asked Mr. Hettrick if his amendment had been shown to the industry. Mr. Hettrick responded that it had been talked about amongst the industry and had testimony that no insurance company wanted to be first, all the companies were willing to write the endorsement, but no company wanted to be the first one to actually do it. Mr. Hettrick said it only meant the insurance companies would have to write the endorsement if requested to do so by the homeowner.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated there was a concern with Section 6 on Page 5 with A.B. 44 concerning occupational diseases. She asked if there were any amendments pertaining to that section and page.
Ms. McGee replied that there had been no written amendments brought to her attention. However, she said that during the testimony, Subsection 1 of Section 6, which related to Section 5 pertaining to health care providers, specifically the section of A.B. 44 that stated in the event an insurer would not pay for a service, the provider must notify the health care provider and also the injured worker with appeal rights.
Mr. Goldwater stated that his notes indicated that in an era of three-way workers’ compensation insurance, why it was needed to increase audit times rather than increase the scope of audits. He said that was one of his major concerns, and he did not think it had been addressed in the amendment. He stated he had missed the compelling state interest even with all the amendments that had been submitted to move the bill.
Chairman Dini said the audit issue was one of cost savings.
Ms. Buckley stated she had also tried to understand A.B. 44 stating it was very convoluted.
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 44.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Dini asked for discussion. Mr. Hettrick stated there were some parts of the bill that were beneficial, citing electronic records storage. If the problem was the audit section, then the committee needed to address those sections.
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED TO WITHDRAW THE FIRST MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 44.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Dini asked about the section Mr. Hettrick had referred to. Mr. Goldwater stated that he was not including that portion in his motion. He continued stating that Section 2, Section 3 and Section 5 with the amendment No. 2 and No. 3 submitted by Nancy Ann Leeder of the NAIW was the only portion of the motion that he could support.
Mr. Hettrick said he would like to move for the adoption of his amendment and have a vote if the Chair would allow.
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 44.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Dini asked for discussion. Ms. McGee stated that in Section 2 of A.B. 44, which began on Page 3, dealing with the reproduction of claims files, those two sections of the bill basically stated that insurers could house information related to claims files regardless of the status of those files outside of the state. To that extent the insurers could retain that information on a computer or as described on page 3, lines 15 and 16, where it specifies “stored on computer or in a micro-photographic, electronic or similar format.” She said A.B. 44 specified that when they were reproduced, they could be reproduced as copies or other reproductions. Amendment No. 2, as noted in the work session document, proposed by Nancy Ann Leeder recommended deleting the phrase “or other reproductions.” At lines 3 and 5 of Subsection 3 of Section 2 on Page 3, Ms. McGee said Ms. Leeder specified that NAIW may not have access to the equipment or software that would be necessary to reproduce other reproductions. Recommendation No. 3, as provided by Ms. Leeder, proposed with respect to closed workers’ compensation claims that information must be reproduced and provided within 7 calendar days rather than 30 calendar days.
Ms. McGee said “copies” was in state law where “other reproductions” was new language, so to the extent that NAIW was getting hard copies from insurers, she believed that met Ms. Leeder’s needs.
Ms. McGee said to the best of her knowledge in NRS Chapters 616A to 616D, there was no definition of “copies.” She continued, saying there could be definitions in other sections of state law, but with respect to the Industrial Insurance Act and the Occupational Diseases Act there was no specific definition of “copies.” The committee could consider defining the word “copies” and that could be inserted into A.B. 44.
Nancy Ann Leeder, NAIW, testified that the verbiage should have read “hard copy” or “paper copy.”
Mr. Buckley said that the entire intent of A.B. 44 was to assist insurance companies who had moved into the electronic age. She said that Ms. Leeder’s concern was not all entities were at the same electronic stage, therefore, her office, which tried to aid injured workers, did not have the same technology as the insurance companies.
Ms. McGee said in order to clarify the motion, it should state the following: “To amend and do pass including Section 2 with amendment No. 3 and Sections 3 and 5.”
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 44 TO INCLUDE SECTION 2 WITH AMENDMENT AND NO. 3 AND SECTIONS 3 AND 5.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO INCLUDE THE AMENDMENT UNDER TAB “E” OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT TO A.B. 44 ENABLING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO WRITE ENDORSEMENTS AT THE REQUEST OF THE POLICY HOLDER.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Dini asked for discussion on the motion. Mr. Goldwater said he had been opposed to this amendment because the option was only in the hands of the employer. He said the amendment needed a designation for the domestic worker as well in order for the domestic worker to opt out or into workers’ compensation. He said he would oppose this motion as he opposed the original bill. Chairman Dini asked Mr. Goldwater to clarify his rationale. Mr. Goldwater responded that when a rider to a homeowners’ insurance policy allowed a homeowner to force his domestic worker into workers’ compensation as his exclusive remedy, it took away that domestic worker’s right to sue for tort.
Ms. McGee responded at the request of Chairman Dini. She stated that currently state law provided that a private carrier may provide industrial insurance as part of a homeowner’s policy. This amendment would require that coverage to be provided. She said that based upon a survey conducted by DIR, three of the largest carriers in the United States indicated that they would comply, but only if they were forced to. Ms. McGee said, Mr. Hettrick’s amendment made it mandatory for insurance companies to comply, by requiring private carriers to provide that endorsement to a homeowner’s policy but only when requested by the homeowner. She stated it amended NRS 690E, which was the casualty insurers’ chapter.
Mr. Goldwater stated that the exclusive remedy was his original objection to that bill last session. He said strengthening that option was not in the best interest of the citizens of this state.
Mr. Hettrick said that the option remains. He said an employee, by state law, must be covered by workers’ compensation with the exception of domestic workers.
Ms. Buckley said she agreed with Mr. Hettrick’s intent. She said she was concerned that homeowners were forcing their casual laborers into workers’ compensation, when they could, if injured on the homeowner’s property, place a claim against the homeowners’ policy for compensation. She continued, stating that the domestic employer had better remedies available to them than workers’ compensation. Ms. McGee said she was not aware of a provision in statute that required workers’ compensation for domestic workers. She continued stating that the bill did not provide for a disclosure to the domestic worker.
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO INCLUDE THE AMENDMENT UNDER TAB “E” OF THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT TO A.B. 44 ENABLING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO WRITE ENDORSEMENTS IF THEY CHOOSE AT THE REQUEST OF THE POLICY HOLDER.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Chairman Dini opened the work session on A.B. 46.
Assembly Bill 46: Makes various changes concerning workers’ compensation that affect eligibility, and amount and payment of benefits. (BDR 53-773)
Ms. McGee read from the work session document (Exhibit F). She said that A.B. 46 made various changes that concerned workers’ compensation eligibility, amount and payments.
She said John Wiles proposed an amendment to Section 2 of the bill regarding the medical fee schedule. He suggested the amendment to provide that the medical fee schedule be automatically adjusted. Ms. McGee said the changes were discussed in Attachment D of the work session document. Leslie Bell, President, Nevada Self-Insurers Associations, proposed the next amendment to A.B. 46. Ms. McGee said that amendment was included in Attachment F of the work session document. Ms. McGee said that Ms. Bell recommended deleting Section 3 of the bill as it appeared and replacing it with the language that was provided in Attachment F.
Ms. McGee said Nancy Ann Leeder proposed the next amendment to A.B. 46. Ms. McGee stated the only change was “shall” to “may” in Subsection 3 of NRS 616C.390. The amendment was under Attachment G of the work session document. Ms. Leeder proposed amending A.B. 46 by deleting Section 5 and further repealing NRS 616C.280 as it currently stood in statute.
Ms. McGee continued, stating that Barbara Gruenewald was against A.B. 46, and suggested that Section 3 and Section 5 of A.B. 46 be deleted and the law remains as was stated. Ms. Gruenewald’s written request was included in the work session document under Attachment H.
Ms. McGee continued, stating that Lisa Black, RN, Director at Large, Nevada Nurses Association, who contracted HIV and Hepatitis C through a needle stick injury and had her workers’ compensation benefits reduced because she was not wearing the required latex gloves, proposed the deletion of Subsections 2 and 3 of Section 5 of A.B. 46, which provided for the reduction of compensation by 25 percent if an employee’s injury was due to the absence or removal of the required safeguard or protection. Her written request was in the work session document under Attachment I.
MR. GOLDWATER MOVED THAT A.B. 46 BE INDEFINITELY POSTPONED.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Dini opened the work session on A.B. 47
Assembly Bill 47: Makes various changes concerning policies of industrial insurance. (BDR 53-769)
Ms. McGee testified A.B. 47 made various changes that concerned policies of industrial insurance. Ms. McGee said A.B. 47 contained certificates of insurance and notices of cancellation of industrial insurance. She said A.B. 47 repealed NRS 616B.026, which required an insurer to provide a certificate of insurance indicating the employer had obtained a workers’ compensation policy. The measure also deleted the provision of NRS that required a certificate be posted openly at an employer’s place of business. She said that no amendments had been offered to A.B. 47.
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 47.
MR. GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Dini asked for discussion. Ms. Giunchigliani said she had a concern that A.B. 47 was sensitive to market information and that was the reason that the certificate would no longer be posted. She said she did not think the committee should delete NRS 616B.026.
Bob Ostrovsky, President, Ostrovsky and Associates, Government Affairs Consultants, said one on the problems with posting the certificate was the renewal date was shown on the certificate which allowed other insurance companies an opportunity to solicit that business at the renewal date. Mr. Ostrovsky said that was only one example of the problems with posting of the certificate. The Attorney General’s Office had stated that the declaration page was adequate to prove coverage.
MR. HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 47.
MR. GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH ONE NO VOTE.
Chairman opened the work session on A.B. 48.
Assembly Bill 48: Makes various changes concerning policies of industrial insurance. (BDR 53-768)
Ms. McGee said that A.B. 48 made various changes that concerned policies of industrial insurance. She said an insurer would not be required to provide an industrial insurance policy covering each employee of an insured employer if certain employees were covered under the industrial insurance policy of a contractor or subcontractor that participated in a consolidated insurance program.
Mr. Hettrick recommended that the phrase of “the employer” in Subsection 2 of Section 3, line 7, Page 2 be deleted. He said there had been discussion to clarify the language in A.B. 48. He said the issue was on line 7 on page 2. The original intent was to strike the word “who” and have it replaced with “employee.” He said the proposal that was given was to strike the words “of the employer” in Line 7 to read, “which does not cover an employee who is assigned.”
Ms. Buckley asked why the committee wanted to repeal the section on the accrual of interest. Mr. Ostrovsky explained to Ms. Buckley that when the State Industrial Insurance System existed there was no method whereby interest could be charged for a late payment for the insurance. He said that in the current market, that interest was set by the contract between the purchaser of the insurance and the insurance company.
MR. PARKS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 48.
MR. HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
CHAIRMAN DINI SAID TO DELETE THE WORDING “of the employer.”
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Dini adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
N. Jolene Jones Miley Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Joe Dini, Jr., Chairman
DATE: