SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND LABOR

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Commerce and Labor

Seventy-First Session

May 3, 2001

The Senate Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 8:26 a.m., on Thursday, May 3, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was video conferenced to the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

Senator Ann O’Connell, Vice Chairman

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Michael A. (Mike) Schneider

Senator Maggie Carlton

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County Assembly District No. 27

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Crystal M. McGee, Committee Policy Analyst

Jude Greytak, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Lisa M. Black, R.N., B.S.N., Lobbyist, Director at Large, Nevada Nurses Association

Linda F. Covelli, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association

Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

Jim Fry, Workers’ Compensation Analyst, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration

Carin R. Franklin, Lobbyist, Operating Engineers, Local No. 3

Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District

Wayne Carlson, Lobbyist, Public Agency Compensation Trust

Christine Sawyer, Chairwoman, Service Employees International Union Nurse Alliance

Jerri Woulston, Service Employees International Union

Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, Department of Business and Industry

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Associated Pathologists Laboratories

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada

Donald Jayne, Lobbyist, CDS of Nevada No. 200

Roger M. Belcourt, M.D., M.P.H., Health Director St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center, and Medical Director, CDS of Nevada Incorporated

Richard Tiran, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs

Sue Dunt, Risk Manager, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration

Vicki Stevens, Acting Assistant State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

David Dini, Deputy State Fire Marshal II, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety

Andy (Eldon) Anderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs

Douglas D. Swalm, Chief Alternative Sentencing Officer, Department of Alternative Sentencing, East Fork Justice Court, Douglas County

Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner, Consumer Affairs Division, Department of Business and Industry

George Wm. Treat Flint, Lobbyist, Nevada Brothel Owners Association

Robert E. Romer, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association

Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada

Vice Chairman O'Connell opened the hearing with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 279.

ASSEMBLY BILL 279: Provides for availability of industrial insurance benefits to employees for exposure to certain contagious diseases. (BDR 53-123)

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, Washoe County Assembly District No. 27, testified she is presenting A.B. 279 on behalf of the Nevada Nurses Association. She stated American health care workers sustain between 600,000 and 800,000 accidental exposures to blood and body fluids every year from needles and sharp objects present in the work environment. She stated between 1 percent and 2 percent of patients are human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive; so we can assume 1 to 2 percent of needle sticks are contaminated. This, she said, produces up to 35 new occupational HIV infections each year. She added between 2 percent and 10 percent of patients are hepatitis C positive which potentially cause up to 1180 new occupational hepatitis C infections each year. She noted hepatitis C is becoming nationally recognized as a “silent epidemic” among health care workers. She said because there is often such a long period between exposure and diagnosis, and also because of the high cost of treatment for HIV and hepatitis C, many health care workers are being denied workers’ compensation benefits. She stated when an infected health care worker files for workers’ compensation benefits, the employee is often forced to prove the infection resulted from health care employment even in cases where there has been a documented exposure to a known infected patient.

Assemblywoman Leslie said A.B. 279 was amended to clarify concerns of the insurance industry related to whether a disease was contracted at work. She noted safeguards have been placed in the bill to require reporting of the needle-stick injury and testing within 72 hours of exposure. She added they also defined contagious diseases as hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, tuberculosis, HIV, or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). She stated she supports the minor amendment which will be presented by the Risk Management Division. She remarked many rural boards and commissions have unfairly characterized this bill; but, Assemblywoman Leslie asserted, A.B. 279 does not try to get coverage for contagious diseases which are nonoccupational. Nor, she continued, does A.B. 279 contain conclusive presumption language. Assemblywoman Leslie said she has discussed this with the sponsors of the resolutions that mention these things and they agree with her analysis and said A.B. 279 should not be included in the resolution. She noted due to the amendments, the fiscal note would no longer apply. Assemblywoman Leslie concluded everyone agrees these diseases ought to be covered, and A.B. 279 will help ensure this and also ensure injured workers are not harassed.

Senator O'Connell asked whether this is current law. Assemblywoman Leslie answered, “Yes, these diseases should be covered.” She stated workers’ compensation is harassing the worker because the claims are so expensive. Assemblywoman Leslie added she hopes the clarifications regarding testing and reporting will ensure coverage.

Senator O'Connell asked whether the language in A.B. 279 mirrors the language enacted last session concerning infected corrections officers. Crystal M. McGee, Committee Policy Analyst, stated the legislation passed last session addressed preventative treatment for peace officers and corrections officers who are exposed during employment, specifically by battery. Ms. McGee noted, under current law, there is a schedule of occupational diseases in chapter 617 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), and all of the diseases listed in A.B. 279 are not included in that statute. She stated the types of diseases listed in chapter 617 of NRS are anthrax, lead poisoning, arsenic poisoning, diseases which are not very common today. Ms. McGee explained A.B. 279 sets up a process by which an injured worker who met certain testing requirements would then be covered by workers’ compensation. She added the bill includes all workers who are exposed to an occupational disease.

Lisa M. Black, R.N., B.S.N., Lobbyist, Director at Large, Nevada Nurses Association read a written statement (Exhibit C) regarding her personal experience after being infected with HIV and hepatitis C from a needle-stick injury while caring for a terminally ill AIDS patient. In her statement she said the hospital hired a private investigator to investigate her private life and she had to pursue three levels of legal appeals over 2 years before she was finally awarded workers’ compensation benefits. Ms. Black noted the medications she takes cost approximately $3000 per month and asserted the expense factor was the reason benefits were denied. She recommended two amendments to the bill. She said into subsection 1 of section 1 should be added, “whether or not” and should read, “contracts a contagious disease whether or not that disease results in temporary or permanent disability or death.” This, Ms. Black stated, is important, because it is quite possible to contract one of the diseases listed in A.B. 279 and not meet the statutory definition of disabled; but that should not be reason to deny benefits. She added an exposed employee may not be aware of the timing of the exposure, therefore, language should be added to line 14 of page 1 so it will read, “within 72 hours after the date of exposure, when the time of such an exposure is known.”

Senator O'Connell asked why they had omitted “at the workplace” from the language on line 5 of page 1 where it says, “contracts a contagious disease.” Ms. McGee stated that is addressed in paragraph (a), but said they could add, “in the course and scope of employment” to subsection 1 of section 1 also.

Linda F. Covelli, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified SNEA is in full support of A.B. 279. She stated it would clarify requirements and make current law more effective for the employees.

Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), testified he was familiar with Ms. Black’s case and recalled the insurer had attempted to reduce her benefit by 25 percent due to an accusation of improper safety measures. He voiced how ridiculous that seems and noted how financially devastating it would have been. He asserted Ms. Black’s case is not uncommon. He emphasized the AFL-CIO supports A.B. 279 and urged the committee to adopt it.

Jim Fry, Workers’ Compensation Analyst, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration, read a statement (Exhibit D) relating to a proposed amendment to A.B. 279 which would add coverage for preventative treatment following an exposure incident.

Carin R. Franklin, Lobbyist, Operating Engineers, Local No. 3, testified in support of A.B. 279. She commented, 6 years ago, as a registered nurse, when she began working in the hemodialysis center, she was told the highest cause of death for hemodialysis nurses was hepatitis C. She restated the Operating Engineers are in full support of A.B. 279.

Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, thanked the authors of the bill for addressing all the concerns of the workers’ compensation unit of their school district in the amendment. She commented the Clark County School District is the sixth largest school district in the United States and is therefore one of the largest employers in Clark County. She continued this bill would affect their school nurses. She testified the Clark County School District is in full support of A.B. 279 as amended.

Wayne Carlson, Lobbyist, Public Agency Compensation Trust, testified the resolution mentioned in earlier testimony was a result of his board adopting a resolution and distributing it to the members regarding concerns regarding A.B. 279 in its original form. He stated the concerns were mainly whether the bill would include conclusive presumption language. He continued the amendments balance public policy interest in assuring to the worker and to the employer there is an occupational trigger for the coverage. Mr. Carlson commented this coverage has always been in place. He stated his board has never encountered a claim like Ms. Black’s and asserted an administrator who handled a claim in the way Ms. Black’s claim was handled would no longer have a job with his organization.

Mr. Carlson noted the amended bill will now determine whether a disease is already present by testing within 72 hours. He stated the medical community had suggested the disease will not appear on tests during the first 72 hours after exposure unless it was present before that time. Therefore, he elucidated, if the worker tests positive within the first 72 hours after the incident, it means he got the disease somewhere else. Mr. Carlson continued, if the initial test is negative during the first 72 hours after the incident, and within the first 12 months the worker tests positive, then the bill says the injury is occupational. He noted his organization realizes there could be an intervening cause during the interval between tests, but this is unlikely, because the worker will probably become more cautious after the initial scare.

Mr. Carlson stated the resolutions his board drafted to address their concerns have been addressed, and because the bill avoids using conclusive presumption, and avoids including nonoccupational exposure, the Public Agency Compensation Trust now supports A.B. 279. He restated they support the bill in its present form and also support the amendment proposed by Mr. Fry (Exhibit D) for the addition of preventative treatment.

Senator Carlton asked Ms. McKinney-James why she now supports A.B. 279 but did not support the original bill. Ms. McKinney-James stated the original bill included provisions which they felt would present a substantial potential harm for school nurses. Ms. McKinney-James stated the amendment altered language regarding the nature of the evidence, the 72-hour reporting time, and the time frame for further testing. These, she added, were issues brought forward by the attorney who represents workers’ compensation issues for the Clark County School District. Ms. McKinney-James stated these changes to A.B. 279 have allowed the Clark County School District to support the bill in its current form. Ms. McKinney-James reiterated school nurses will be covered by this bill.

Christine Sawyer, Chairwoman, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Nurse Alliance, testified their organization represents approximately 7000 health care workers in southern Nevada. She stated A.B. 279 ensures nurses and other health care workers are protected if they contract blood-borne diseases. She urged the committee to support the bill. She stated they oppose the amendment proposed by the state Risk Management Division (Exhibit D), and would withdraw their support for A.B. 279 if it were included in the bill.

Jerri Woulston, Service Employees International Union, testified she has been a critical care nurse for over 12 years. She stated in February 23, 2001, during her second week back from maternity leave, she had a needle-stick accident. She explained when she was drawing blood from a patient who had received numerous blood transfusions, she was distracted by the patient’s ventilator alarm. Ms. Woulston said she stuck herself with a large-bore needle, which was filled with the patient’s blood. She continued, after the accident she decided not to take AZT (zidovudine, formerly called azidothymidine, abbreviated AZT), for AIDS prevention due to the severe side effects, and the uncertainty of effectiveness. She noted she has not been diagnosed with a blood-borne disease but has discontinued breast-feeding her baby and will continue routine testing for the next 6 months. Ms. Woulston stated she supports A.B. 279.

Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, Department of Business and Industry, stated, hopefully A.B. 279 will reduce the volume of litigation challenging coverage. She stated the Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers has represented a correctional officer who had raw sewage splashed in his eye who was not afforded preventative care or testing until after litigation. Ms. Leeder said in that case, treatment was ultimately covered by district court order. The Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers also represented Ms. Black, the nurse who testified; a secretary who was stuck by a needle when she cleaned out her new desk; a park ranger who was stuck by a needle when he picked up park trash; a sanitation worker who was stuck by a needle in a garbage bag; a police officer and an Emergency Medical Technician upon whom blood splattered. She stated all of these were challenged cases forcing the worker to enter into litigation, sometimes losing critical treatment time.

Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Nevada Highway Patrol Association, testified he was a highway patrolman for 31 years and he knows first-hand how frequently highway patrol officers and emergency room workers are at risk. He voiced strong support for A.B. 279.

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Associated Pathologists Laboratories, stated he had worked with Assemblywoman Leslie in drafting A.B. 279 and Associated Pathologists Laboratories supports the bill. He noted Ms. Sawyer, who testified on behalf of SEIU, may have misunderstood the amendment presented by the Risk Management Division (Exhibit D). He explained the amendment offers additional protections consistent with federal law and enhances the bill. He testified Associated Pathologists Laboratories supports that amendment (Exhibit D), and he urged the committee to adopt it. Mr. Hillerby suggested, with further explanation, the SEIU may decide to support it also.

Ms. Woulston testified the Service Employees International Union is opposed to mandating the preventative treatment. She stated, in her case, she and her doctors weighed the possible benefits of preventative treatment against the possible side effects. Ms. Woulston noted the patient whose blood was involved in her accident had not tested positive for blood-borne diseases, nor had any of the donors who gave blood to the patient. Ms. Woulston said, although there was still a risk of having a blood-borne disease, it was deemed unwise by her doctors to expose herself to the risks of preventative treatment. She stated she decided not to undergo the preventative treatment, and would not want to be mandated to do so against her wishes and her doctors’ advice.

Mr. Fry testified the amendment does not mandate preventative treatment. He stated it forces the insurance companies to pay for the preventative treatment if the employee chooses to take it.

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, testified the association supports A.B. 279 and the proposed amendments.

Ms. Leeder asked to have the preventative treatment amendment (Exhibit D), which she had not seen, faxed to her. She was attending the meeting through video conferencing from the Grant Sawyer State Office Building in Las Vegas.

Donald Jayne, Lobbyist, CDS of Nevada No. 200, introduced Roger M. Belcourt, M.D., M.P.H., who is currently the St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center, health director and the medical director for CDS of Nevada Incorporated.

Dr. Belcourt presented a chart titled: “An Exposure Primer” (Exhibit E). He stated there are distinct differences between hepatitis A, B, and C. He said hepatitis A is a fairly mild disease and the most common occupations at risk are day care workers and food handlers. Usually, Dr. Belcourt stated, hepatitis A and B are self-limiting and do not become chronic. However, he stated, hepatitis C and HIV have a high potential to become chronic. Dr. Belcourt noted he wrote the “Blood‑borne Pathogen Standard” protocol for the City of Reno and for St. Mary’s employee health plan. He noted he has had to incorporate procedures in this protocol which are in addition to those recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) because of recent advancements. Dr. Belcourt commented the treatment Lisa Black, who testified earlier, received was inexcusable.

Dr. Belcourt suggested the CDC recommendation, as adopted by the programs he has authored, will show exposures because they are not “silent.” He noted he personally has had one needle stick and one mucus membrane splash, but has not converted. Dr. Belcourt pointed out his handout cites 60 CDC‑confirmed occupational infection HIV cases. He said he believes that number is substantially lower than the actual number of cases. He noted it is estimated, by 2008, close to 8 percent of the population will be infected with hepatitis C. Dr. Belcourt concluded, an exposure has a higher probability of occurring in the health care workplace, and with the percentage of infected population growing, the problem will only get worse.

Senator O'Connell asked Dr. Belcourt if he knew of a way to structure a testing program which would identify the source of the infection, regardless of cost.

Dr. Belcourt stated the CDC-recommended procedures, if implemented in the spirit in which they were written, would adequately address the issues of blood‑borne contagions in the work place. He added tuberculosis is also covered under CDC regulations for testing protocol.

Senator O'Connell asked whether these tests are considered regular policy in hospitals. Dr. Belcourt stated they use these procedures at St. Mary’s Hospital where he works. He added the treatment for HIV is the most effective if initiated within 2 hours of exposure. He noted Ms. Black received the treatment within 2 hours of her exposure, but still converted. He said the CDC recommends testing for 1 year in people who have taken the treatment drug, because it may slow down the virus production and can delay the diagnosis. He commented anyone who has exposure to blood or body fluids is considered by definition a health care worker by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).

Senator O'Connell asked Dr. Belcourt to comment on the earlier testimony by Ms. Woulston who did not want preventative treatment to be mandatory.

Dr. Belcourt stated he agrees the treatment should not be mandated. He stated after an accidental exposure, treatment decisions are personal issues which should be decided by the injured workers and their physicians. He said he believes, in the circumstances Ms. Woulston described, he would have recommended she not undergo preventative treatment.

Richard Tiran, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, testified he is employed by the Nevada Division of Parole and Probation. He stated parole officers are also at risk from needle sticks when they exercise search clauses on parolees they supervise. He stated the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs support the bill.

Chairman Townsend asked Mr. Fry to clarify his proposed amendment (Exhibit D). Mr. Fry stated, on page 2, line 16, he would like to add “preventative and” before the existing “medical treatment, surgery and hospitalization.”

Senator Carlton disclosed her husband is a parole and probation officer.

Chairman Townsend closed the hearing on A.B. 279 and opened the hearing on A.B. 289.

ASSEMBLY BILL 289: Expands definition of “police officer” for various purposes relating to industrial injuries, occupational diseases and programs for public employees. (BDR 53-393)

Sue Dunt, Risk Manager, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration, testified when her office originally introduced A.B. 289, the intent was to clarify the definition of a police officer who is eligible for the “heart lung” benefits. She stated NRS 617.135 limits those who are eligible to the listed positions. Ms. Dunt explained the committee decided to add the fire marshal’s office to the definition instead of adding the word “only” which they had requested. Currently, she restated, the only change is the addition of the state fire marshal’s office to the definition of police officers who are eligible for the special benefit. Ms. Dunt noted other police officers, because they are defined as police officers, have misunderstood that they should qualify for the special heart, lung coverage. She stated the Risk Management Division is only allowed to budget for physicals for those officers who are on the list in NRS 617.135.

Senator O'Connell asked what other impacts this list in NRS 617.135 has besides the heart and lung coverage. She asked if this list also defines those officers who are allowed to carry guns.

Vicki Stevens, Acting Assistant State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated state fire marshals are P.O.S.T. (Police Officers’ Standards and Training Commission) certified and they currently carry weapons.

Senator O'Connell asked whether there would be any other new privileges afforded the state fire marshal’s office if they were added to the list.

David Dini, Deputy State Fire Marshal II, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, stated, in fire investigations there can be unsafe conditions and exposure to hazardous materials.

Senator O'Connell asked whether chapter 617 of NRS is limiting.

Crystal M. McGee, Committee Policy Analyst, responded, adding the state fire marshals to NRS 617.135 would not change the powers and duties. She stated, however, NRS 281.153 provides for the election of a normal salary in lieu of workers’ compensation for not more than 1 year and the peace officers who are eligible are those defined as a peace officer in NRS 617.135. Also, she said, NRS 287.021 provides an option of a surviving spouse or child of a police officer killed in the line of duty to accept or continue coverage for group insurance or medical insurance at a cost to the public agency, if the police officer is defined under NRS 617.135. Finally, she said, NRS 287.0477 provides an option of a surviving spouse or child of a peace officer killed in the line of duty to join or continue coverage under the public employees’ benefits program, and those eligible officers are also defined under NRS 617.135.

Senator O'Connell elucidated it does much more than only include them in the heart and lung coverage. Senator O'Connell asked how many employees from

the fire marshal’s division this would include. Ms. Stevens stated they currently

have eight investigators and they would be the only employees affected by this bill.

Chairman Townsend noted the language specifically references the state fire marshal, his assistant, and his deputies. He asked whether all the investigators are deputies. Ms. Stevens answered yes.

Chairman Townsend commented the Risk Management Division had requested the bill to clarify the law and now the bill has taken a different direction.

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, presented a proposed amendment to A.B. 289 (Exhibit F). He stated originally they had asked to broaden the definition of peace officers as defined under chapter 289 of NRS. Now, Mr. Dreher stated, his amendment asks to add state fire marshals and game wardens. Game wardens currently receive yearly physical examinations, and therefore no additional funding would be required. He noted the Risk Management Division supports this proposed change. Mr. Dreher said his association would also like to include the district attorney investigators who have to be specified because they are grouped with the attorney general investigators. He stated their intent is to eventually include additional peace officers and specifically exclude certain others.

Mr. Dreher listed the currently identified exclusions from definitions in NRS: security officers employed by local governments, members of every school board of trustees of a school district, California correctional officers, members of the state disaster identification team, commissioner of insurance and his deputy, certain employees of Transportation Services Authority, railroad police, and taxicab field investigator or airport control officer. Mr. Dreher concluded their amendment (Exhibit F) would add the word “only” to section 1 and also add special investigators employed by the district attorney and game wardens to subsection 10 of section 1.

Senator O'Connell asked how many additional people would be covered with the proposed amendment. Mr. Dreher answered he was told by Ms. Dunt there are 8 fire marshals and 37 game wardens. He stated the Washoe County district attorney has 15 special investigators and he does not know how many there are in Clark County. He noted the Public Employees Retirement System recently added district attorney special investigators to the early retirement police officer benefit. He said game wardens are in the early retirement category. He noted the district attorney special investigators would not be covered by the Risk Management Division, but by their local governments.

Senator O'Connell stated the fiscal note needs to be changed.

Senator Carlton stated she is concerned the word “only” could be excluding some yet-unidentified officers.

Ms. Dunt stated as the law currently reads, only the officers listed are covered. However, she said, the language is not clear enough to eliminate various interpretations which result in court cases. She stated she wants to clarify the intent of the law so future contentious situations can be avoided. She noted the fiscal impact would be too great to include every officer at this time.

Senator Carlton suggested listing the powers and duties which define police officers, and this would eliminate the possibility of missing an agency on the list.

Ms. Dunt stated Senator Carlton’s suggestion would be adding 766 police officers for whom the Risk Management Division would be required to provide yearly physical examinations. She said the cost of the examination is approximately $300. Ms. Dunt stated the legislature would have to fund that expenditure. She added, legislation would also need to be enacted limiting the length of time these officers would be eligible for yearly physicals after termination or retirement. Ms. Dunt stated, by current law, an officer who works for 5 years when he or she is young, and then quits his or her position, is still eligible for these benefits at age 60.

Mr. Dreher stated the peace officers association’s intent is to include all police officers as Senator Carlton had suggested, but the fiscal impact is too great. He added, if an officer who is not covered should suffer a heart attack, the association would assist the ailing officer in pursuing the matter in court.

Andy (Eldon) Anderson, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, testified he was concerned when he was told the word “only” might be added to A.B. 289. He stated there are city corrections officers and city marshals who are presently covered by the benefits under “heart and lung” but are not specifically listed in this bill. He said he is concerned if they add the word “only” it would exclude people who are already being covered.

Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Anderson if he knew how many investigators for the district attorney there are in Las Vegas. Mr. Anderson answered approximately 60 investigators and probably 12 or 14 county park rangers. He noted those are only the local government in Clark County. Mr. Anderson stated the city marshals, officers in Henderson and North Las Vegas, city park rangers, and corrections officers in Clark County are currently covered. He commented he believes the Clark County school police should be covered because their duties have expanded greatly since the enactment of the original legislation. Mr. Anderson stated the Clark County school police perform all the duties of the metropolitan police but are limited to school properties. He stated he fears if some officers are excluded from coverage they will not be eligible in the future even after their jobs make them more like other officers who are enjoying the benefits. He said he would like to have all police officers covered but realizes the fiscal impact might be too great. Mr. Anderson suggested using a standard rather than a list to describe those eligible.

Chairman Townsend asked Ms. Dunt whether the committee inserts the word “only” would it preclude people who are currently getting a benefit.

Ms. Dunt stated she could not speak for how the counties cover their employees. She added the Risk Management Division has a case pending before the Nevada Supreme Court regarding whether a peace officer who is not on the list would be granted the benefits. Ms. Dunt stated they have come to the Legislature to clarify this issue, so the intent of the legislation is decided by the Legislature rather than the courts.

Chairman Townsend explained the issue is whether the word “only” would exclude any state workers who are currently enjoying the benefits, or would it exclude employees of some other entities who are currently covered. Ms. Dunt

suggested the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau may be able to answer that question.

Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified the school district police officers are currently not covered. She stated the Clark County School District is currently under fiscal constraints and the cost associated with adding coverage for school district police would be substantial.

She commented she is not taking a position on whether the school police should be added to the list, but she is calling attention to the potential fiscal ramifications.

Senator O'Connell asked Ms. McKinney-James how she felt about the bill, which would put school police under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan police. Ms. McKinney James answered the chief of Clark County School Police has testified he is not opposed to consolidating, but the district has recommended a study to clarify issues.

Douglas D. Swalm, Chief Alternative Sentencing Officer, Department of Alternative Sentencing, East Fork Justice Court, Douglas County, requested the committee include the chiefs, assistant chiefs, and all sworn officers of the Department of Alternative Sentencing in A.B. 289 (Exhibit G). He noted these people are exposed to the same risks, stresses, and dangers as the other peace officers listed in the bill. Mr. Swalm pointed out the chiefs, assistant chiefs, and all sworn officers are now covered by the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada early retirement. He noted the Department of Alternative Sentencing was created by the 1995 Legislature and there are currently only four members.

Ms. Leeder testified one litigation case involves a capitol policeman who suffered a heart attack. She noted capitol policemen are often experienced officers. She stated this experience can be beneficial because of their expertise in handling delicate situations, but it can also be negative, because they may be older and more susceptible to heart and lung ailments.

Chairman Townsend stated the committee will reconsider A.B. 289 after the fiscal note is added with the proposed expanded coverage. He closed the hearing on A.B. 289 and opened the hearing on A.B. 627.

ASSEMBLY BILL 627: Revises provisions relating to trade practices. (BDR 52‑554)

Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner, Consumer Affairs Division, Department of Business and Industry, testified A.B. 627 was created to clarify several statutes over which the Consumer Affairs Division has jurisdiction. She stated section 1 of A.B. 627 relates to NRS 598.092. She explained this section of NRS relates to taxicab drivers who deliver tourists to adult nightclubs against their wishes. Ms. Jarman-Manning commented she believes this issue should be handled by the Taxicab Authority or the Transportation Services Authority. However, she stated they have agreed to remove it from chapter 598 of NRS and place it in chapter 597 of NRS, which would make it the responsibility of the local police or the district attorney’s office. Section 2 of A.B. 627, she continued, deals with NRS 598.0915 subsections 1 through 10 which refer to knowingly misrepresenting goods or services as being original, new, or in good condition. Ms. Jarman-Manning commented the Consumer Affairs Division has several complaints by consumers concerning these types of misrepresentations.

Chairman Townsend asked why the Consumer Affairs Division decided to move the taxicab problem to local jurisdiction rather than to the Taxicab Authority. Ms. Jarman-Manning stated the Consumer Affairs Division has no way of monitoring the activities of taxicab drivers. She stated she believes the problem should be handled by the Taxicab Authority and stated she had spoken with Paul J. Christensen, Chairman, Transportation Services Authority, and he had said he would take the responsibility. However, Ms. Jarman-Manning stated, it was recommended to remove the language from chapter 598 of NRS and place it in chapter 597 of NRS. Ms. Jarman-Manning said she agreed to compromise, as long as the language is removed from chapter 598 of NRS.

Senator Carlton recalled how contentious the debate in the Senate transportation committee had been over this issue in the previous session.

Ms. Jarman-Manning continued, subsection 11 of section 2 of A.B. 627 relates to goods or services, which are advertised as free. She asserted an item which is advertised as being free should not have an associated cost, such as administrative costs or shipping fees which were not originally disclosed.

Chairman Townsend asked whether television advertisements are federally regulated. Ms. Jarman-Manning stated she was not sure, but Consumer Affairs Division was targeting printed advertising when they asked for this portion of the bill. Ms. Jarman-Manning continued, subsection 2 of section 4 changes “shall” to “must” in NRS 598.2806, and subsection 4 of section 4 relates to annual registration renewals. She called attention to section 5, subsection 5 of A.B. 627, which relates to NRS 599B.105, subsection 10, paragraph (b), which allows the Consumer Affairs Division to recover leftover funds from bonds after the consumers have been fully restituted. Ms. Jarman-Manning noted the Consumer Affairs Division spends many hours investigating and auditing companies and would like to be allowed to recoup its expenses, with the remainder going to the General Fund. She commented the provision to recover expenses is allowed in chapter 599B of NRS and the Consumer Affairs Division is asking to have it added to chapter 598 of NRS. Ms. Jarman-Manning restated the reimbursement of expenses to the Consumer Affairs Division occurs only after the consumer has been restituted. She stated the Consumer Affairs Division documents all of the costs for each investigation. She noted the Consumer Affairs Division would only be reimbursed from a settlement the portion they actually spent on the investigation from the remaining balance, after the consumer was fully restituted.

Ms. Jarman-Manning continued section 6, subsection 1 of A.B. 627 inserts the word “before.” She said subsection 2 relates to health clubs. Ms. Jarman-Manning explained this law was enacted 10 years ago when health clubs were relatively new and relatively small. She said currently they have two registered health clubs in Nevada, which have more than 150,000 members. She stated the instrument, which is currently in place, is not sufficient to protect the large number of members. Ms. Jarman-Manning continued, after subsection 5 of section 6, a correction should be inserted. She said she would like subsection 6 of section 6 amended to add, “All businesses who are required to post a bond for consumer protection, must keep the bond in force for the life of the business.” Ms. Jarman-Manning explained the current statutes allow security instruments to be returned to the business after they have been in business for 4 years with no complaints. She commented the Consumer Affairs Division has to protect consumers for the life of the business, especially in businesses they perceive as having a potential problem.

Ms. Jarman-Manning continued section 7 removes NRS 598.0992 so it can be placed in chapter 597 of NRS, which they earlier discussed. She stated in section 9 of A.B. 627 the changes become effective October 1, 2001, with the exception of subsection 1, so the Consumer Affairs Division has time to notice and prepare.

Chairman Townsend asked Ms. Jarman-Manning if she has any jurisdiction over travel agencies. He commented there have been some terrible scams perpetrated by travel agencies who sell expensive tickets and close their offices without ever intending to deliver the product. Chairman Townsend noted as the older population grows there is more potential for harm.

Ms. Jarman-Manning stated in the past 4 months, four travel agencies have gone out of business and approximately $62,000 from prepaid tickets has not been returned to consumers. She noted all travel agencies are supposed to be registered and post a $250,000 bond with the Airline Regulatory Committee. Ms. Jarman-Manning stated, in Clark County travel agencies are also required to post a $25,000 bond with the county. She commented, the Consumer Affairs Division only learns of these defunct travel agencies after they have sold the tickets and the consumers discover they have closed their doors. By then, Ms. Jarman-Manning said, the company is gone and there is no way to find them.

Chairman Townsend asked Ms. Jarman-Manning if she could gather together people from the travel industry to try to come up with some solutions to bring to the committee by the following week. Ms. Jarman-Manning answered yes. She commented she had originally thought they would tackle this travel agent problem later, after they had investigated it further. However, she said her staff had urged her to try to get legislation this session, due to the severity and the recent increase in incidents.

Chairman Townsend stated the committee will need more information before it can act. Ms. Jarman-Manning commented the Consumer Affairs Division had intended to only ask the new agencies to post bonds and had no intention of requiring any new regulations or restrictions for established agencies.

Mr. Thompson stated he also represents taxicab drivers in Las Vegas, and he commented he was involved in the negotiations over section 1 of A.B. 627. He warned the committee the compromise before them was extremely contentious and they may want to accept the problem has been addressed at length, and seems to be working fairly well in Las Vegas. He said the reason the jurisdiction goes into chapter 597 of NRS and not to the Taxicab Authority is because there is no taxicab authority in northern Nevada.

George Wm. Treat Flint, Lobbyist, Nevada Brothel Owners Association, testified last session an agreement was reached in the transportation committee to deal with the growing problem of taxicab drivers diverting customers to selected establishments and section 1 of A.B. 627 was part of the original bill. He continued, because Washoe County was experiencing some of the same problems as Clark County regarding this matter, Washoe County also wanted some mechanism to regulate the problem. Mr. Flint said because there is only a Taxicab Authority in Clark County, it was decided to place this matter under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Affairs Division instead of the Taxicab Authority so Washoe County would be protected by the same regulation. He noted if the committee removes section 1, the repealed section could remain and it would accomplish the same thing, but it would only affect Clark County. He commented if section 1 is retained, it will allow Washoe County to fall under the same program which has worked well in Clark County. He asserted taxicab drivers have historically taken payments or benefits from the establishments to where they have delivered customers. Mr. Flint acknowledged, in Las Vegas it was probably abused. He said he had asked the Assembly to amend the bill on line 11 of page 1 to add the words, ”for purposely diverting.” He stated the issue of diversion is the gist of the matter; and no one had intended to punish a taxicab driver for an honest mistake of accidentally delivering a customer to the wrong establishment. He noted the Legislative Counsel Bureau had left the language he had requested out of the first reprint of A.B. 627.

Chairman Townsend asked Ms. Jarman-Manning why A.B. 627 would have this section 1 in the original bill, if the bill was drafted by her request, and she did not want that portion.

Ms. Jarman-Manning stated she had asked the bill drafter to put that portion in the bill so the matter would be identified, and then could be removed from chapter 598 of NRS. She stated if it were removed from chapter 598 of NRS and placed in chapter 597 of NRS, it would no longer be under her jurisdiction for enforcement, and would be placed under local jurisdiction.

Chairman Townsend stated he was unclear as to why this is a problem. He commented when he hires a taxicab they simply take him to the establishment he has requested.

Senator Shaffer explained there was a proprietor who owned a taxicab company and also owned adult cabarets. He said the taxicab drivers were diverting business away from his establishment by misleading customers.

Mr. Flint stated the parties have already negotiated an agreement on this issue. He said he would not be concerned if the bill moved the jurisdiction from chapter 598 of NRS to chapter 597 of NRS. However, he expressed, he did not

want the regulation altered in other ways. He commented lowering the population minimum for counties covered by the law will help Washoe County with the problem as it has helped Clark County.

Ms. Jarman-Manning stated the Consumer Affairs Division has never received a complaint regarding taxicabs diverting customers. She added the Governor’s office had contacted her asking that the population minimum be lowered from 400,000 to 100,000 so Washoe County and some other areas would also be included. She restated she just wants the regulation taken out of chapter 598 of NRS.

Mr. Flint stated the Nevada Brothel Owners Association would be happy if the committee would pass the bill in its existing form.

Chairman Townsend replied the travel agency issue is still unresolved and A.B. 627 is the only vehicle for that legislation. He asked Ms. Jarman-Manning to research the travel agency issue and come back to the committee. Chairman Townsend also asked Ms. Jarman-Manning to alert local government representatives because they will be affected by the fiscal note. He said if jurisdiction over this legislation is passed to local governments they could incur expense.

Chairman Townsend closed the hearing on A.B. 627.

Chairman Townsend opened the hearing on A.B. 338, Assemblyman Bache’s bill. He said because the issue is so complex there is not time to discuss the matter fully before the Senate Floor Session and asked interested parties to return the following morning.

ASSEMBLY BILL 338: Makes various changes concerning workers’ compensation. (BDR 53-711)

Chairman Townsend closed the hearing on A.B. 338 and opened the hearing A.B. 628.

ASSEMBLY BILL 628: Revises provisions governing benefits for industrial insurance for certain police officers and firemen. (BDR 53-625)

Chairman Townsend asked Mr. Fry if this language could be added to A.B. 279. Mr. Fry responded A.B. 628 covers just tuberculosis and he believed it could be added to A.B. 279

Jim Fry, Workers’ Compensation Analyst, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration, read a statement regarding A.B. 628 which would allow for testing, preventative treatment, and compensation for policemen or firemen who test positive for tuberculosis but have no documented exposure (Exhibit H).

Rose E. McKinney-James, Lobbyist, Clark County School District, testified the school district’s general counsel advised them to oppose A.B. 628. Ms. McKinney James said the employer should not be made financially responsible for the employee, regardless of what they may do in their private life, which may have caused the condition. She said, at a minimum, the bill should be revised to require proof of exposure during work-related duties. Ms. McKinney-James stated she would like to go on record with these concerns.

Robert E. Romer, Lobbyist, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified SNEA is in favor of A.B. 628.

Mr. Fry testified his main concern has been for correctional officers. He said Nevada state prisons house Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detainees who have not been tested. He commented these people are from third-world countries where there is a high prevalence of tuberculosis, and the correctional officers are exposed. Mr. Fry concluded the officer would not be able to identify by whom or when they were exposed.

Raymond (Rusty) C. McAllister, Lobbyist, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, testified in favor of A.B. 628. He stated, during the interim, it was decided the form of testing provided by the employer should be clarified; A.B. 628 will clarify accordingly.

Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada, testified the association is in favor of A.B. 628.

Chairman Townsend closed the testimony on A.B. 628. He stated they would begin the next day’s committee meeting with A.B. 338 at 7:30 a.m.

Chairman Townsend adjourned the meeting at 10.54 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jude Greytak,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

DATE: