MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Select Committee on Health and Legal Issues
Seventy-First Session
May 23, 2001
The Select Committee on Health and Legal Issues was called to order at 2:19 p.m., on Wednesday, May 23, 2001. Chairman Ellen Koivisto presided in Room 3138 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:
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto, Chairman
Ms. Kathy McClain, Vice Chairman
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Ms. Merle Berman
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. Bernie Anderson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Marla McDade Williams, Committee Policy Analyst
Will Keane, Legal Policy Analyst
Darlene Rubin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Geoffrey White, Attorney at Law, White and Meany, Reno, Nevada
Roy Cannon, Attorney at Law, San Diego, California
Antoinette Cooper, Silicone Victim
Georgeanne Kaufman, Silicone Victim, Las Vegas, Nevada
Luann Baker, Silicone Victim, Las Vegas, Nevada
Helen Miller, Silicone Victim, Las Vegas, Nevada
Robert Barengo, Lobbyist
Note: A simultaneous videoconference was held in Room 4402 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Chairman Koivisto announced the first order of business would be the adoption of the standing rules (Exhibit C). The only changes from the Standing Rules of the Health and Human Services Committee were in the numbers needed for a quorum and for a vote, because Health and Legal Issues Committee was a smaller group. The Chairman asked for a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO ADOPT THE STANDING
RULES FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND LEGAL ISSUES.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Assembly Bill 667: Revives for limited time certain causes of action based on effects of silicone injected or implanted into body. (BDR 2-1559)
Chairman Koivisto announced the committee was formed just to hear one bill, A.B. 667, as authorized by Speaker Perkins. There was already a question on the bill in that it dealt with silicone gel injected, instead of injected and implanted; however, Will Keane, Committee Legal Analyst, would explain that issue.
Chairman Koivisto stated that the meeting would be short, of necessity, due to members having to return to the Assembly Floor at 3:30 p.m. She hoped some of the people who did not get a chance to speak at the last meeting would get a chance; however, testimony would be limited to five minutes in order to pass out the bill. She asked witnesses to express how passage of the bill would impact them personally.
The first witness to speak from Las Vegas was Georgeanne Kaufman. Ms. Kaufman stated she had been a Nevada resident for 22 years. She had silicone implants in 1979 and experienced problems from the beginning, including misshapen breasts and capsular contracture, a very painful procedure. She believed when people spoke of silicone, they tended to trivialize the composition of the chemical. In reality, it was a compound that contained numerous toxic elements. Proponents of the breast implants often compared the use of silicone with the use of ordinary products, such as Mylanta, Milicon Drops, and baby bottle nipples, the implication being that silicone implants were not harmful. That ploy was analogous to comparing swallowing an aspirin to injecting cocaine; both would be considered taking drugs, but they were in no way comparable. The product with the highest concentration of silicone was Mylanta, having less than one-tenth of one percent silicone. In contrast, breast implants contained about 45 percent silicone, according to Balco Labs. Mylanta was taken infrequently, entered the gastrointestinal tract, and was excreted quickly. Silicone implants remained in the body in leaking implant bags 24 hours a day for decades.
Ms. Kaufman added that silicone was just one of 37 substances that went into creating the actual gel. Other components included methylethylketone, cycloboxinon, isopropyl alcohol, denatured alcohol, acetone, urethane, polyvinylchloride, lacquer thinner, ethylacetate, epoxy resin, and more.
Chairman Koivisto asked Ms. Kaufman to specifically explain how the bill would help her.
Ms. Kaufman responded she had been poisoned by silicone, she had been diagnosed with lupus, and she had neurological manifestations.
Chairman Koivisto asked if she had talked to an attorney, and Assemblyman Anderson asked specifically what legal recourse was available, according to her attorney. Ms. Kaufman said she had an attorney in New Mexico. Regarding Bristol Myers-Squibb, the maker of her implants, she did have legal recourse, which she had pursued. She added that she did not have the kind of insurance that covered what she needed.
Chairman Koivisto asked if she had already participated in a lawsuit. Ms. Kaufman said she had. Chairman Koivisto clarified the bill was trying to help those people who had not had the opportunity to seek legal remedy for their problems.
Luann Baker, testifying from Las Vegas, explained she was implanted in 1974 as a result of reconstruction from double mastectomies. She had experienced many of the illnesses and health problems described by others. If the bill passed, she said it would open the door for her and other women to continue to live long enough to have adequate compensation and go after the people who had caused the problems. Ms. Baker urged passage of A.B. 667.
Helen Miller, Las Vegas, said if the bill was passed, all the people who were affected and were suffering would benefit with help for medical bills and health-related issues and the removal of implants or mastectomies if extreme measures were needed. She had silicone injections in 1965 and had suffered ever since. She urged passage of the bill.
Assemblyman Anderson asked if she had spoken with an attorney. Ms. Miller said she had been contacted by Roy Cannon.
Assemblyman Nolan asked when she first started having health problems and why she did not seek an attorney’s help sooner. Ms. Miller said they never knew what was happening to her. The doctor who had given her the injection told her it was a “light fat injection that would go under the skin and would stay where it was;” however, she started having pain, and it continued for a long time. She went to doctors, but they failed to diagnose the problem correctly.
Chairman Koivisto invited the attorneys present to speak. They had knowledge of the other lawsuit and could give an idea of what would happen in the anticipated lawsuit.
Roy Cannon, Attorney at Law from San Diego, California, stated he represented silicone injection victims, including Helen Miller, who received their injections back in the 1960s. At the time they were told the silicone was safe, inert, and would not cause any problems. Most of them suffered almost immediate reaction to the silicone, including hardness, tenderness, and neurological symptoms, with at least half requiring mastectomies within a very short period. Most of those who had mastectomies then had implants inserted. Of the people who received silicone injections, it had been estimated that there were 20,000 to 40,000 nationwide. Mr. Cannon’s study showed about half of those were in the state of Nevada, estimated at 5,000 to 10,000, and about half of those had also had breast implants.
Continuing, Mr. Cannon stated for those people with silicone injections whose symptoms were almost immediate, they had been suffering since the 1960s. Those cases would be barred by the statute of limitations in all states. Nevada, like most other states, had a discovery statute, which meant the statute took effect at the date that the individual knew, or should have known, they had a problem due to silicone. With the hardness or lumps, there was definitely a problem. It was Mr. Cannon’s observation that of those who had the silicone injections, virtually 100 percent of those women had symptoms. Mr. Cannon said he had also represented breast implant clients, and the situation was different. He could not say that all breast implant clients had immediate onset of symptoms, but he could say that once their implants ruptured, 100 percent of the women had symptoms. It was now known the implants had a limited lifespan and would rupture eventually.
Mr. Cannon said it was important from an historical perspective to note that when the proposals from Dow Corning came forth, the people with silicone injections, mostly women, but some men as well, initially believed they would be covered by the Dow Corning proposal. They received information from Dow Corning regarding the bankruptcy. The women were classified as having breast implants and received the same forms as his breast implant clients had received. It was not until the current plan came forth from Dow Corning in 1999 that they found the injected people were excluded. By excluded, Mr. Cannon explained they did not qualify for the grid payments that Dow Corning was offering to their implant recipients. Even those women who had both implants and injections had problems qualifying for the grid payments, because in most cases, their symptoms predated their breast implants; they went back to the silicone injections. As a result, those symptoms were not allowed to be used for qualifying for the grid payments. Those victims were faced with a situation where having discovered their problems back in the 1960s, their claims were barred.
Product liability litigation had evolved extensively since the 1960s, and it was only now that the long-term studies had come out showing the connection between silicone and the diseases long suspected were due to silicone. Regarding A.B. 667, Mr. Cannon emphasized it was important to include both injected and implanted women because many women had both procedures. To limit compensation for damages based on a distinction between injected silicone and implanted silicone would be an almost impossible job.
Assemblywoman Berman asked if the women should be able to sue for both procedures and collect for both. Mr. Cannon believed the people should be able to seek compensation for their injuries, regardless of whether those injuries were caused by the injections or the implants. In terms of causation, where the women had both injections and implants, it was essentially the same product. In terms of the injection, it was Dow Corning 360 Fluid, which was the same chemical formula as the gel used in their implants. If they were limited to one or the other as grounds for compensation, it would be an impossible job to differentiate between what was caused by the injection and what was caused by the implanted silicone; that was the reason to seek full compensation.
Assemblywoman Berman requested clarification and asked the witness if he wanted to sue for both procedures and collect for two different lawsuits from Dow Chemical. Mr. Cannon said that, with the limitation, there was only one recovery. A jury would set damages and then apportion between the two. The same person could not recover double compensation for her injuries.
Assemblyman Nolan asked how Mr. Cannon anticipated dealing with those people who had already accepted some type of compensation from the bankruptcy settlement of Dow Corning. Were those the “grid payments” of which he spoke earlier? He asked for confirmation that nothing had come out of the class action suits. Mr. Cannon said it was just the opposite. Some payments were made under the class action suits against the other manufacturers in the grids. Under the Dow Corning bankruptcy, no one had received any compensation. The amended plan was on appeal. Oral arguments would probably take place in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, possibly in August, and whichever side lost would take an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Until that problem was resolved, there would be no payments from Dow Corning.
Assemblyman Nolan asked if it was true there were a half-dozen manufacturers of the product, including Dow Corning, the largest manufacturer. Mr. Cannon clarified several lawsuits were filed, grouped into class action I and class action II, or global I and global II, against Dow Corning who subsequently filed bankruptcy. Those people named in the lawsuits were still in a bankruptcy proceeding. The other four or five manufacturers had apparently reached some settlement with their victims.
Geoffrey White, Attorney at Law, offered to clarify and stated, with respect to the Dow Corning plan of reorganization, Dow Corning filed bankruptcy on May 15, 1995. It was now May 23, 2001, six years had passed, and no one had received any compensation. Mr. White presented a copy of the Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (Exhibit D), which specifically excluded silicone injections. Regardless of whether Dow Corning was paying money out now or later, silicone injections would be excluded from those payouts. Mr. White noted that in 1992, the Food and Drug Administration banned silicone gel breast implants, and that ban was still in effect. Shortly thereafter there was a wave of lawsuits brought mostly against the Dow Corning Corporation in Texas, California, Nevada, and elsewhere. Dow Corning put together a settlement with all of the other manufacturers, namely Bristol Myers, Baxter, and 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing) (i.e., the “Big Four”), who put up approximately $4.2 billion dollars to compensate all of the women who had problems with implants. The minimum compensation was approximately $100,000 for women who had fibromyalgia, also called “Silicone Flu,” and they could get up to $1.2 million if they had lupus or some serious health problem.
Mr. White stated that all of those people that had implants joined in the settlement and had to have a board-certified doctor attest to the sickness or actual claim. After that, Dow Corning failed to honor the plan and instead filed bankruptcy. In 1995, when Dow Corning filed bankruptcy, women everywhere were stuck within the Dow Corning settlement. The three remaining manufacturers, Bristol Myers, 3M, and Baxter, implemented their own much smaller settlement. Many of the women that Mr. White, Mr. Cannon, and others had represented were able to participate in the settlement with Bristol Myers, Baxter, and 3M, if they had implants that were not Dow Corning implants. Instead of settlement figures from $100,000 to $1.2 million, the new figures became $10,000 to $50,000; “a severely ratcheted down payment.”
Mr. White stated he fully supported A.B. 667, and he did not know if the committee needed more testimony from victims about the devastating effects of silicone. The same legislature in 1968 made it a felony to inject silicone in the body because people were dying of lupus and other diseases. The Nevada Supreme Court had addressed the issue in a case where he represented Charlotte Mahlem, the case being Mahlem v. Dow Chemical. There was no doubt about the harmful effects of silicone. The most recent study of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) validated the fact that silicone gel, when it escaped from the implant into the body, caused fibromyalgia and other very serious symptoms.
Mr. White said he had come to ask the legislature to consider adding the words to the statute, “injected or implanted within the body.” That was the same language used in the New York statute, and that would only apply to women who did not have claims. If they had already contacted an attorney and had received one settlement or the other, they would not be able to benefit from that particular statute. If, for example, a woman discovered in 2001 she had a rupture and then she contracted lupus, Mr. White explained if he was on the defense side, he would advise the woman that she should have brought suit back in 1995. She knew then the implants were dangerous, and she was having some complications. With respect to the people who received injections, it would allow those who could not previously get attorneys due to the catastrophe of Dow Corning’s bankruptcy and the collapse of the settlement, to retain counsel. There would be a very small percentage of women implanted who would be able to take advantage of the bill. There had not been any more silicone implants since approximately 1993.
In closing, Mr. White said there was no adequate remedy in law for women with silicone gel implants who had not registered for one of those settlements.
Chairman Koivisto noted the bill specified a time deadline of July 1, 2003 for initiation of an action. If a woman’s implants ruptured July 2, 2003, she would be precluded from a lawsuit. Mr. White concurred with that interpretation. When an implant ruptured, it happened within seven to eight years, and it had been nearly eight years since the last implant. As such, the chance of someone coming forward a day after the statute was unlikely. According to statistics, there was a 70 percent chance that a rupture would occur sometime in the client’s lifetime, so the women would have to do something prior to July 1, 2003.
Mr. Cannon commented that legal minds often differed, and such was the case between he and Mr. White. Mr. Cannon did not think the hypothetical woman they discussed would necessarily be precluded from filing a lawsuit for a ruptured implant. He did not think she would benefit from the bill. As he saw the purpose of the bill, it was not to assist individuals indefinitely into the future, but to deal with a very limited number of individuals whose claims had already been lost due to the statute of limitations. The hypothetical individual would be free to bring her lawsuit, but she would have to explain to the court at that time why her claims should not be barred by the then-applicable statute.
Vice Chairman McClain said she was under the impression the intent of A.B. 667 was to deal with that group of women who had been injected and discovered, after that period of time had expired, they were going to be excluded from the lawsuit. Mr. Cannon said his understanding was that it would cover injections and implants. Ms. McClain said that was true; however, the genesis of the bill was originally targeting that group of women who thought they were part of the bigger lawsuit, but then were found to be outside the statute of limitations and were not included. Mr. Cannon said he could not confirm that since he had not been involved in the development of the bill; however, that was probably the most important part of the bill in his judgment.
Mr. White interjected a plea that the implanted women not be excluded because they had a separate set of problems.
Mr. Cannon asked the committee to also consider amending the bill to delete the word “gel,” because the silicone that was injected was actually a liquid. He felt it was clearer and more concise if the bill read “silicone injected or implanted.”
Assemblyman Nolan stated his understanding was that approximately 40,000 women in Nevada underwent some type of procedure, either injections or implants, in the 1960s and 1970s. He asked how many of those women still resided in Nevada, how many had become ill, and how many were on disability. He recalled in earlier testimony the statement that many of the women were uninsurable as well as unemployed. There was concern among the committee regarding health issues as well as the fiscal impact on the state now and in the future.
Mr. Cannon responded that he had been in contact with approximately 300 to 400 women. Of those, approximately half of the procedures were performed in Nevada. He said the 40,000 women to whom Assemblyman Nolan had referred were nationwide, not just in Nevada; however, about half of those, or 20,000, were in Nevada, and that figure was consistent with Mr. Cannon’s study. Of the women with whom Mr. Cannon had spoken, virtually all of them were ill. Most were on disability, and some were still struggling trying to hold down a job because they could not live on what disability would pay them.
Assemblyman Nolan asked how many injected women in Nevada were ill. Mr. Cannon said the number was between 5,000 and 10,000.
Chairman Koivisto asked how many of that number were excluded from the previous lawsuit and if they were all injected. Mr. Cannon said his comments were limited strictly to “injected” individuals, most of whom were women. He added that in terms of the Dow Corning and Dow Chemical claims, which were the claims for the injected silicone, there would not be a direct impact on the Nevada judicial system. Since the Dow Corning matter was in the bankruptcy court, those claims would have to be brought forth in the bankruptcy court; however, there could be some impact on the federal judicial system.
Assemblyman Anderson stated the precedent of removing a statute of limitations was worrisome to him. Digressing to earlier remarks of Mr. Cannon, concerning the estimated 10,000 affected women in Nevada, he asked why there was a disproportionate share based on Nevada’s small size. Mr. Cannon replied there were three areas of the country where the vast majority of injections were performed: Florida, Hollywood, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada. Mr. Anderson wanted to know if it was because a particular doctor or group of doctors in those areas preferred that procedure at the time and had now discontinued that procedure because of problems. Mr. Cannon believed the vast majority of injections were performed by a very limited number of doctors. There were two or three doctors in Las Vegas that performed the majority of injections.
Assemblyman Anderson said the statute of limitation question was important because doctors stopped using the procedure at a particular point, and the likelihood of current cases coming forward, if there was going to be failure, would be on an average of seven to ten years following injection. Since the procedure was no longer performed, it was unlikely there would be claims after that seven to ten year period. Mr. Cannon disagreed. The seven to ten year figure dealt with the rupture of silicone implants. With respect to silicone injections, there was an almost immediate reaction. He described the reaction suffered by the silicone injected people as being the same reaction of women with ruptured silicone breast implants, usually about seven to ten years after they were implanted.
In response to Assemblyman Anderson’s question regarding the statute of limitations, Mr. Cannon stated that by 1975, the statute had run out for most of the victims. It became readily apparent that the manufacturers clearly knew at that time silicone had caused a localized reaction in the tissue and had since been found to cause a great deal of systemic problems. The manufacturers had concealed the fact at that time. In 1975, the women were still being told that silicone was safe; it was inert. If the implant ruptured, the silicone would not migrate, and if it did move, it would not be a problem.
Assemblyman Anderson then asked about the statute of limitations in California and if it had been removed. Mr. Cannon said he had made an attempt to have California’s one-year statute removed. In the 1998 California legislative session, both houses of the legislature did enact a bill very similar to the bill before the committee. The governor vetoed it. Regarding precedent, similar windows of opportunity to lift the statute of limitations had been enacted previously with the Dalkon Shield product and with asbestos products; therefore, silicone was not ground-breaking case. Mr. Anderson asked where that had taken place. Mr. White said that occurred in New York. Mr. White presented a copy of the New York statute (Exhibit E) and the Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Dow Corning Corporation (Exhibit D), which excluded silicone injection.
Assemblyman Oceguera viewed the key issue as whether extending the statute of limitations would have any effect on the Nevada judicial system and if it would be a precedent-setting opening of the statute of limitations. In other words, what procedure would be next? Mr. Cannon felt silicone was a very unique situation. It was a product that was widely advertised by the manufacturer as being safe, and it had only been in retrospect that the problem could be identified. It was unlikely that would be repeated with another product. Mr. White noted the statute of limitations was a creation of the legislature. If there was no legislature, there would be no statute of limitations on crimes or civil actions. It was something enacted by the legislature to be either two years or four years or six years. The issue of setting precedence arose in New York, and the argument made then was that the legislature had the power to enact the statute and to remove the statute. Mr. White was uncertain, since the enactment of the statute in New York several years ago, whether there was a flood of legislation that emerged to exempt particular products; however, he offered to research the matter and report back to Mr. Anderson. Mr. White recalled it had been a rather benign experience in New York, and only a limited number of people benefited from the legislation.
Assemblyman Anderson commented the New York statute had only a one-year opening, whereas the current proposal was for a two-year opening. Based on the number of emails he had received on the issue since February, one would think legislation would have been brought forward in the regular process for in-depth study. The fact that was not done caused him a certain level of concern in terms of setting a precedent for how it would be done, who was ready to proceed, how they came to be in the situation, and whether they were sought out or excluded. If they were precluded, he said he had one reaction. If they were sought out, with the recognition that Dow Corning might have gone bankrupt, and they wanted to “move with some of the other people on a second bite of the apple,” he expressed concern at being a conduit for that action.
Mr. White responded that in the first instance, he doubted anyone would or should object if the legislature, in its wisdom, was to limit the window from two years down to one year. Most of those problems should have been manifested by now, and if there was a window of opportunity, it did not necessarily need to be a two-year window. Further, he knew that Mr. Cannon was not out soliciting those cases, and he felt confident he could speak for Mr. Cannon. The problem with the injections as both he and Dr. Stewart of the University of Nevada, Reno, had testified at the first hearing, the women who had injections could not get anyone to represent them, since the attorneys at that time interpreted the statute of limitations to be long past.
Chairman Koivisto asked what would happen if A.B. 667 was amended so that both silicone implants and injections were covered and the statute of limitations window was shortened from two years to one year. Mr. White offered to respond. Regarding the women with implants, the legislation would impact, at most, a few hundred women in the state of Nevada. That group included those who were barred by the earlier settlements or were unable to obtain legal representation when there were not enough attorneys to handle the caseload following the collapse of the global settlement. They would be allowed the right to sue Bristol Myers-Squibb, 3M Corporation, and Baxter in federal court; however, not in state court because of a concept called “diversity of jurisdiction.” A Nevada plaintiff suing a foreign corporation went into federal court. None of those women, as a result of the statute of limitations, would be able to participate in any of those particular settlements. It would not affect them at all, because those women would have already been barred by the settlement for failure to sign up in time. They either had no symptoms, did not know they had symptoms, or they were listening to the bullhorn of the manufacturers who were telling them that silicone gel was essentially harmless. They were told “not to worry about it.”
Assemblyman Nolan asked if that would only encompass those women who had had procedures performed in Nevada. He was concerned that, if Nevada was one of the few states that offered the statute, the state would incur a flood of women with disabilities. Mr. White responded that same issue had come up before Judge Mills Lane, Judge Janet Berry, and the Nevada Supreme Court. Because of the doctrine of “forum non convenience,” a California woman would not be able to come into the state of Nevada under those particular circumstances and take advantage of the window of opportunity. There would have to be circumstances that would make the case relevant in the state of Nevada. The Nevada Supreme Court had already ruled on that precise issue, and there would not be a mass influx of victims from other states into Nevada.
Assemblyman Anderson said if the woman received the implant in the state of Nevada, she would then have standing in the state, even though not a resident of the state. Mr. White agreed with that statement; however, he did not believe there would be many women in that category. Most women who received implants in Nevada had the procedure performed by a plastic surgeon in Reno or Las Vegas. Mr. Anderson questioned if Nevada was the only state that would have that opportunity at the present time. Mr. White said it had happened in New York, but that opportunity was closed now.
Mr. Cannon clarified that many of the comments would also apply to the injected individuals. They would have to have had some connection to the state of Nevada. In other words, women who had injections in Hollywood or Florida generally would not be able to come to Nevada to sue. Mr. Cannon believed he was the only attorney in the country handling those cases at the present time. His work related to a lawsuit filed in 1995 in the northern district of California in Federal Court. That action was stayed in 1996 and remained stayed due to the Dow Corning bankruptcy. He added he would anticipate commencing litigation in the federal system in Nevada on behalf of those women whom had injections performed in the state of Nevada.
Assemblyman Anderson asked if there was a particular doctor or group of doctors that followed the particular medical procedure, and if so, were they located in southern California, Florida, and Las Vegas. He reasoned that a woman wanting that type procedure would go to a location where it was performed. Mr. Cannon said that was correct; however, he knew of no one who traveled to Nevada to get injections performed. They were already Nevada residents, and many had been asked by their employers, the casinos, to have those injections performed.
Assemblyman Nolan emphasized the scope of the action should be narrowed to the manufacturers of the silicone breast implants and not to anyone else who might have ancillary involvement. In response, Mr. Cannon believed the bill, as proposed, very clearly limited the action to the manufacturers. It specifically exempted the malpractice provisions and stated explicitly that it was limited to the manufacturers.
Chairman Koivisto asked if there was any testimony in opposition to the bill, noting no one had signed in as an opponent. There being none, Mrs. Koivisto asked the committee’s wishes.
VICE CHAIRMAN MCCLAIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 667 BY INCLUDING THE WORDS “OR INJECTED” ON LINE 5 AND ON LINE 4, REMOVING THE WORD “GEL, ” AND CHANGING THE DATE TO 2002.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Anderson commented “the shorter the bill, the more complicated the question.” He asked how the bill limited the action to the manufacturer and could they be assured that was the case.
Will Keane, Committee Legal Analyst, replied it could be assumed that manufacturers would be the ones sued; however, the bill did not limit the suits in that way. Mr. Anderson asked who else could be impacted, other than the manufacturer. Mr. Keane said that, except for the state, a cause of action could be created against others based on medical malpractice, and that would be allowed under the bill. He was uncertain whether it would be possible to create a cause of action against anyone other than the manufacturer. Mr. White explained the distribution of silicone breast implants was directly from the manufacturer to the plastic surgeon; there was no Nevada retailer or distributor involved. There might have been a supply house in California. Mr. Anderson asked if hospitals would be included. Mr. White said hospitals and anesthesiologists would not be affected. Mr. Cannon said legal action would be filed exclusively against the manufacturer.
Robert Barengo, a lobbyist who clarified he had not yet been retained, suggested an employer could be sued for telling an employee to get breast implants, especially in cases where the employer paid for them.
In response, Mr. White asked that the employer be excluded. Mr. Nolan stated that the language should be crafted to specifically cite the action against the manufacturers. He asked if the maker of the motion would accept that as an additional amendment. Chairman Koivisto announced that Mr. Keane, Legal Policy Analyst, determined that was acceptable. Assemblywoman McClain, maker of the motion, agreed.
The vote was taken.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
Chairman Koivisto announced to the women in Las Vegas the bill had passed the Assembly Committee, it would be amended, and would then be forwarded to the Senate. She acknowledged the important stories the women had to share and thanked them for coming.
There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Koivisto adjourned the meeting at 3:33 p.m.
Darlene Rubin
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, Chairman
DATE: