SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND LABOR

MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Commerce and Labor

Seventy-First Session

February 28, 2001

The Senate Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 8:09 a.m., on Wednesday, February 28, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst

Laura Adler, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Raymond Badger, Attorney, Concerned Citizen

Frank W. Thompson, Attorney, Concerned Citizen

Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO

Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada

John E. Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, and Southern Nevada Central Labor Council

Carin R. Franklin, Lobbyist, Registered Nurse, Operating Engineers Local 3

Kathy Stoneburner, Alliance for Workers’ Rights

Carol M. Walton, President, Alliance for Workers’ Rights, and President, American Federation of Government Employees Local 2152

Mary Valencia Wilson, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, League of United Latin American Citizens, and Alliance for Workers’ Rights

Charlotte Arrowsmith, Alliance for Workers’ Rights

Rosemary Flores, Concerned Citizen

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

Marcia Belkin, Concerned Citizen

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, Nevadans for Affordable Health Care

Donald Jayne, Lobbyist, Nevada Self-Insured Association No. 200, and CDS of Nevada No. 200

Leslie Bell, President, Nevada Self-Insured Association No. 200, and Director of Workers’ Compensation, CDS of Nevada No. 200

Timothy E. Rowe, Attorney, Concerned Citizen

Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada

Robert Vogel, Vice President of Operations, Pro/Group Management Inc.

Mary Cunningham, Concerned Citizen

Barbara J. Gruenewald, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association

Herbert Jones, Concerned Citizen

Charles R. Nort, Lobbyist, El Cortez Hotel, Pratte Development, and Union Plaza Hotel

Robert Licker, Retired, Workers’ Compensation Judge, Los Angeles County, California

Dean Hardy, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association

Gary Licker, former Insurance Claims Adjuster, State Farm Insurance Companies

Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, Retail Association of Nevada

Senator Townsend opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 126.

SENATE BILL 126: Prohibits certain discrimination against employee and prospective employee for filing claim for workers’ compensation. (BDR 53‑856)

Senator Carlton stated the situation prompting the bill was first brought to her attention through the Interim Committee on Workers’ Compensation, and phone calls from constituents. She articulated how she got to this point was that no employee should ever be afraid to file a workers’ compensation claim because of fear they might lose their jobs or be discriminated against in any way.

Senator Carlton stated she had been put in a position at her employment where she had to explain to some of her coworkers that because they have to get stitches for a work-related injury, does not mean they would lose their job.

Senator Carlton voiced there is a large education curve in that a lot of employees in some of the service industries do not understand their rights as far as workers’ compensation goes. She said she has been told this is more of a problem in northern Nevada than in southern Nevada, because the employees in the north feel they have no rights and no protections and are actually afraid to seek medical help when they have been injured at work. She explained this could eventually cause a burden on all the other plans because they will not say anything at work, but later often decide to call the family doctor, and possibly put the burden on one of the other private insurers or one of the other plans in the state.

Raymond Badger, Attorney, Concerned Citizen, testified that as a young lawyer he had worked for the Nevada Industrial Commission (NIC) where he was very offended with callers who wanted to know how they could fire an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim against the company and have the NIC protect the employer. He said when he became a private lawyer, he wanted the case of Hansen v. Harrah’s, because of his previous experiences (Hansen v. Harrah’s, 100 Nev. 60, 63, 675 P.2d 394, 396 [1984] [Exhibit C] DillardDepartment Stores v. Beckwith, 115 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 53 [1999] [Exhibit D]).

Mr. Badger continued that Mr. Hansen, a slot mechanic for Harrah’s, while working on a machine, was knocked down by a patron who was trying to elude casino security, causing of severe enough back injury to require an ambulance. He said Mr. Hansen’s workers’ compensation claim was denied based on the fact he had a back problem 10 years previously while in the military. Mr. Badger conveyed that Mr. Hansen won his claim at a hearing, however, unbeknownst to him, his employee file then showed him as terminated. Mr. Badger said that Mr. Hansen discovered he had been terminated about a month later, when his wife called to verify coverage for the birth of their child. Mr. Badger stated he took Mr. Hansen’s case to the Nevada Supreme Court, which ruled that although other states may not allow claims without supporting legislation fearing that to do so would destroy their workers’ compensation systems, if a worker is made to choose between the job or the claim, the workers’ compensation system is ruined, so the court allowed the case. It made a very limited exception to the general rule in Nevada where employers can hire and fire at will. Mr. Badger stated the bill is a codification of Hansen v. Harrah’s and expands it in certain areas.

Senator Townsend asked Mr. Badger to clarify the part of the bill about an employer using a workers’ compensation claim filed with a previous employer as a reason for not hiring someone.

Mr. Badger explained, as he understood the intent of the bill, the employment interview process should not be based solely on a prospective employee’s previous workers’ compensation claim, otherwise an employer is free to hire or not hire.

Senator Townsend commented specifically about section 4, subsection 1 of S.B. 126, the discharge or discrimination against employees with regard to transfer or promotion, termination, and compensation, in the bill. He wanted to know how that applies to someone who does not work for you, specifically the wording on line 6, page, 6, “Fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee.”

Frank W. Thompson, Attorney, Concerned Citizen, said he understands the bill to mean it would prohibit an employer from not hiring an employee by virtue of the fact that employee had filed a workers’ compensation claim. He explained the bill would prevent employers from discriminating not only against employees who file claims against that employer, but also prohibit the employer from discriminating against an employee who had filed a claim against some other employer.

In response to Senator Townsend’s question, Mr. Thompson stated it would not be a prudent thing for an employer to ask if the prospective employee had ever filed a claim. The bill would be a further codification and a statement under Nevada statutes that prohibits that practice. He added that under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), it is prohibited to ask.

Senator Carlton added that in her research, some workers’ compensation claims and the damage from injury may not put the person under the ADA. It may not be a life-function injury, it may be something where they can keep working although it was a past injury. She claimed there are some people who may fall through the cracks.

Senator Townsend expressed concern over the wording in the bill of, “Fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee;” because he has filed a claim for compensation pursuant to chapters 616A to 616D or 617 of NRS. He remarked he thought state statute already prevented that kind of inquiry. Mr. Thompson responded that S.B. 126 provides an expansive clarification. He added that the ADA only protects qualified individuals with a disability.

Senator Townsend reiterated that he thought the “do-not-ask” directive had been addressed over two to three sessions in a row. Senator Townsend stated he did not know how that requirement in the bill could be defended or prosecuted. He pointed out the wording says nothing about whether the employer knew about an employee’s previous claim, only that the prospective employee could come after the prospective employer on that basis.

Mr. Thompson explained that in order to understand the bill, it would help to understand Hansen v. Harrah’s (Exhibit C), which, he said, currently is a common-law exception to at-will employment. He added, in Nevada, all employees are at-will employees unless they can establish otherwise.

Mr. Thompson elucidated:

The Hansen v. Harrah’s is a common-law exception that recognizes that an employer cannot terminate an employee in violation of fundamental state policy. And, that policy is the policy underlying the workers’ compensation scheme that the historical bargain that the employee did not have to sue the employer for negligence, but would receive workers’ compensation benefits on a no-fault basis that would limit.

Mr. Thompson stated the bill expands on the ruling by saying it would be illegal to discriminate against an employee who filed a claim in a more expansive way. He added the bill is drafted more in line with Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), which has a 37-year history of being enforced on failure-to-hire issues.

Mr. Thompson addressed Senator Townsend’s concern that enforcement occurs only if a qualified applicant applies for a position and does not receive the job, which is given to another applicant who is not qualified or is less qualified. The first applicant, who believes he or she was not hired because of a workers’ compensation claim, could then bring a civil action, and by a preponderance of evidence in court, prove the claim was the real reason.

Mr. Thompson stated, as S.B. 126 is written, it does not allow for collection due to emotional distress, which he said should be included. He expounded that the bill does allow the court to reinstate an employee rather than just award damages.

Senator Carlton stated she would address the concerns regarding the wording in the bill, particularly line 6, page 6.

Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO, articulated that the phrase in section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (a), could be reworked to make it less onerous. He said, clearly the bigger problem is an employee of an employer who has a case, not a prospective employee. He voiced a lot of these situations are difficult to prove, but sometimes they are not. He stated he had no problem with a statement that it is illegal to discharge, or not transfer, or not promote an employee as a result of a workers’ compensation claim.

Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), stated PLAN supports S.B. 126. She expounded there is a need to go beyond the ADA to prevent discrimination against employees. She also agreed that the wording in line 6, page 6, needs to be expanded for clarity.

Senator Townsend opined the issue is the current employee and whether he or she has been terminated, lost benefits, lost wages, been demoted, or had retaliatory action taken against him or her because of a case. He said, obviously, it is the court that determines inappropriate actions, but he has a problem in understanding how the line 6 phrase could be enforceable.

John E. Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, and Southern Nevada Central Labor Council, asserted there are problems with prospective employees and he is aware of cases in southern Nevada where employees have been blackballed for injuries, especially back injuries. He said the word can spread quickly, particularly among specialty contractors. Mr. Jeffrey suggested perhaps adding the word, “knowingly,” to line 6, page 6, may help.

Carin R. Franklin, Lobbyist, Registered Nurse, Operating Engineers Local 3, reading from prepared text (Exhibit E), testified that patients have spoken to her of discrimination on their jobs due to filing for workers’ compensation. She stated she was also discriminated against by her employer after developing an allergy to the latex in gloves that must be worn to protect patients and others. She concluded this type of employee discrimination should not be tolerated, and urged support of S.B. 126.

Kathy Stoneburner, Alliance for Workers’ Rights, noted the alliance supports the bill in a letter to the committee (Exhibit F). She pointed out the importance of provisions in the bill because of employers who have used “neutral employment practices” to retaliate against injured workers who have filed workers’ compensations claims. She added that these practices not only affect the employees, but also their families.

Ms. Stoneburner told of her personal experience in which an employer’s reluctance to authorize treatment caused a 14-month delay resulting in permanent disability in her neck and lower back. She asserted that 7 years later, that employer is still blacklisting her, and noted attorney fees are prohibitive for her to seek redress. She pointed out the prevalence of this practice often forces prospective employees to falsify their applications by not listing a former employer in order to be hired.

Carol M. Walton, President, Alliance for Workers’ Rights, and President, American Federation of Government Employees-Local 2152, testified from prepared text (Exhibit G) that in almost a decade of advocating for employees, the saddest stories she has heard were of people who had been injured at work and were then blackballed by employers and prevented from getting suitable work afterward. Ms. Walton conveyed that a visible injury is more easily acceptable, whereas a pulled muscle, a sprained back or an injured tendon is not a visible injury and, unfortunately, tend to arouse suspicions and can lead to discrimination. She concluded that S.B. 126 is a step in the right direction to restore dignity, reduce discrimination, and open up employment opportunities to injured workers.

Mary Valencia Wilson, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Alliance for Workers’ Rights, stated the organizations are in support of S.B. 126.

Charlotte Arrowsmith, Alliance for Workers’ Rights, said there were a number of people in Las Vegas who would like to testify. She suggested having the question asking if the applicant had ever filed for workers’ compensation removed from employment applications as a solution to line 6, page 6.

Rosemary Flores, Concerned Citizen, stated she was injured from inhaling chemicals used on the job last November. As a result, she was immediately fired and escorted from the hotel, where she had worked for 13 years, by security guards. She said she lost her home and is currently on food stamps. Ms. Flores emphasized the hardest part of the experience is the stress her illness has put on her children. She said there were 20 other people who were affected by the chemical accident, but her case was the most severe.

Senator Townsend wanted to know whether Ms. Flores’ attorney could provide the information that was part of her case for better understanding from a legal point of view. Ms. Flores affirmed she would, and Ms. Arrowsmith commented she would assist in that effort.

Ms. Arrowsmith added that the other injured workers have been to doctors and are allowed to wear masks during work, because their employer, Harrah’s, still has them using the same chemicals that caused their injuries in the first place.

Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers (NAIW), Department of Business and Industry, stated she is an attorney for injured workers, and since 1989, her office has had an 800 telephone number for injured workers to obtain information about workers’ compensation. She said many of the people who call have similar stories about being fired after receiving an injury at work.

Senator Townsend quoted from page 64 of the Hansen v. Harrah’s consolidated appeals (Exhibit C):

In view of the foregoing, our course is clear. We elect to support the established public policy of this state concerning injured workmen and adopt the narrow exception to the at-will employment rule recognizing that retaliatory discharge by an employer stemming from the filing of workmen’s [sic] compensation claim by an injured employee is actionable in tort.

Senator Townsend said since the court’s ruling is on the public policy, he asked Ms. Leeder if she was saying that when a claimant is terminated for filing, you cannot use the case law to threaten the employer? The employers are not buying into that?

Ms. Leeder replied, “Yes.” She added that a worker in such a situation would then have to go to a lawyer who handles wrongful termination cases. Then there are proof problems and long delays. She concluded that the reason for the proposed bill is to eliminate the long delay and to make it a more viable remedy.

Senator Townsend noted he would pay close attention when there is a court case regarding this situation. But, he surmised, there are a lot of employers who either do not care or figure it is cheaper to have a delay than to reinstate the employee and pay back wages and other expenses as opposed to punitive or other compensatory action.

Ms. Leeder responded that most workers do not follow this remedy. She pointed out that just going through tort litigation is difficult and stressful, and an injured worker has low stress tolerance.

Senator Townsend commented there is something in all of these cases that is troublesome, and that is when the original claim was denied, then appealed, that is when the termination came. He remarked, it appears that had the claim denial not been appealed, then the employee would not have been terminated, which sends a chilling effect to people trying for compensation for their legitimate injuries.

Ms. Leeder replied that was the policy the Nevada Supreme Court is addressing in the paragraph Senator Townsend read. She added that because the state has set up workers’ compensation and a grievance procedure, it is expected that injured workers should be able to avail themselves of these procedures without being penalized.

Marcia Belkin, Concerned Citizen, said she works at Harrah’s and was present when the 20 people were hurt on the job. She said Harrah’s took down the bar and tried to fix the problem, but people are still getting sick. Ms. Belkin stated she has seen many doctors who have said what appears to be sunburn was really chemical burns. She said her hands are cracked and bleeding from handling the dishes from the dishwasher, and the employer has done nothing about it. She added that every employment application she has ever seen asks if the applicant has ever filed for workers’ compensation. She said she has only used the insurance through the union and has never applied for workers’ compensation because she has seen what has happened to other people and she is afraid. And, because she is afraid, she does not wear any protection and only treats her condition with antibiotics outside of work. She averred that her own doctor told her not to make waves because of what they do to troublemakers. Ms. Belkin concluded that the bill would be very helpful to injured workers.

Ms. Arrowsmith stated she had worked for her employer for 17 years as a cocktail server, but can no longer perform the job due to severe injury to her feet from wearing the required high-heeled shoes. She said the employer has offered her another position, but it is not a union position and pays much less than her cocktail server job. She voiced she is afraid to file for workers’ compensation but is now ready to do it, once she finds legal representation.

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association (NRA), said he wanted to give a little history and referred to Lewis v. MGM Grand Hotel/Casino. He stated, at that time he was director of human resources for the MGM and was the one who determined to terminate Mr. Lewis. He noted at that time there were no provisions in the statutes. Mr. Ostrovsky pointed out that there was cause for termination, but the court took a narrow view focusing only on retaliatory discharge. He stated that since Hansen comes before Lewis, the case became Hansen v. Harrah’s (Exhibit C) because of the way the court consolidated the matters.

Mr. Ostrovsky stated the NRA does not oppose the right of an employee to be protected against retaliatory discharge. He added, the NRA does not oppose adding clarification to statute. He asserted the NRA is opposed to the bill as it is currently drafted. He noted, as testified to by others, the state of the law is such that it does take a lot of time to find a lawyer to handle these cases. Mr. Ostrovsky pointed out that an injured worker would still have to find a lawyer, and would still have to go through the process. He said the NRA proposal would change the process a little differently, but there would still be a delay.

Mr. Ostrovsky said the process has worked as a screening mechanism since 1979. He said if an employee does obtain a lawyer, then there is probably strong evidence, however, there have not been a lot of good evidentiary cases that have gone forward. He pointed out there are also a lot of cases where the discharge was for job performance, but coincidentally, there was also a workers’ compensation claim filed. He maintained that situation puts the employer in an awkward position.

Mr. Ostrovsky communicated that Title VII was mentioned, but first you would have to go to the Equal Rights Commission. He stated there is an administrative procedure that must be followed to get a “right to sue” letter before ever going to court. He said that is a screening mechanism for claims, and if the employer is proven wrong by that process, the claim can be settled. If the employee is still not satisfied, then he or she goes to court. He declared the bill did not provide for a mechanism for the quick disposal of issues.

Mr. Ostrovsky articulated employers have stopped using the question regarding filing a workers’ compensation claim, because it became evidence against them in saying the employer knew about a disability and did not hire the applicant because of the disability. He conveyed that smart employers use a post application after the person has been hired in which the employee is asked if they have a disability and if they would like the employer to make reasonable accommodations for them.

Mr. Ostrovsky said another scenario would be the situation of employing through a hiring hall, where an employer may ask for a particular person they have used before, not knowing that someone else with similar skills is first on the hiring list. He stated it is quite possible the person first on the list could make a discrimination case.

Mr. Ostrovsky communicated that his proposal would be to take the narrow focus of employment termination and fold it into NRS 616D.120, which is the penalty section that applies to employers and others who violate chapters 616A-616D or 617 of NRS. The appropriate remedy would be an issue, as well as who would do the work. He said he did not think the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) had the authority to do other than issue benefits penalties; they are not set up to handle matters of termination. He stated if that were put in the statute, then the DIR could handle terminations. He acknowledged that the downside is the employee would not have punitive damages, because punitive damages are not awarded by state agencies.

Mr. Ostrovsky conveyed that under the current status, court proceedings offer a chance for substantial money. However, as a matter of public policy, to have these issues handled quickly, they should be considered in an administrative setting, which is either the DIR or perhaps the Department of Administration. Either one of which has dealt with matters of termination, which is usually the area of independent arbitrators. He said the NRA thinks it is wrong to terminate or retaliate against someone for filing a claim, and supports a quick and easy way to handle claims so employees do not have to search out lawyers and go through a 2- or 3-year court process for a final decision.

Mr. Ostrovsky expressed that the NRA supports putting the suggested process in place and monitoring the results; then expanding the process to other areas of employment practices, such as, promotions, reassignments, and layoffs. He acknowledged this would be a big undertaking for any state agency.

Senator Carlton wanted it noted that this was a rare incident: when she and Mr. Ostrovsky agreed on the same thing.

Donald Jayne, Lobbyist, Nevada Self-Insured Association No. 200 (NFIA), and CDS of Nevada No. 200, stated both entities support that it is wrong to terminate an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim, but there are also concerns about S.B. 126.

Leslie Bell, President, Nevada Self-Insured Association No. 200, and Director of Workers’ Compensation, CDS of Nevada No. 200, stated it was important to note that workers’ compensation statutes already exist with already built-in discrimination penalties. She expounded that it may be a matter of educating employers and employees by providing printed information that guidelines and penalties already exist, should someone unduly exert influence against filing a workers’ compensation claim. Ms. Bell added that any applications with the question about filing a claim were old, because federal regulations, to a certain extent, address this issue.

Ms. Bell drew attention to the issue of subsequent injury. She said it was found that a majority of employers were unaware that subsequent injury existed. She told the committee employers need to be educated about subsequent injury and encourage employers to hire people with disabilities rather than discriminate against them. Ms. Bell concluded that NFIA and CDS are not in favor of the bill, as written, but do support the need to protect injured workers.

Tim Rowe, Attorney, Concerned Citizen, said his practice is primarily in the area of employment discrimination litigation and workers’ compensation for employers. He opined the bill would create a quagmire of litigation for employers. He noted existing federal legislation or existing case law in Nevada already covers most of the items in the bill. He stated the bill is redundant in that it prohibits retaliatory discharge; again Nevada case law already covers this. Mr. Rowe stated the ADA already covers the issue of failing or refusing to hire an employee by clearly prohibiting that action.

Mr. Rowe questioned part of the bill dealing with discrimination of employment in eligibility for promotion, transfer, and so on. He pointed out this was an open-ended bill that clearly discriminated against the employer in his ability to defend himself when making personnel decisions for the good of the business. Mr. Rowe surmised that the bill would make it very difficult for employers to make good-faith decisions about employees who have nothing to do with any workers’ compensation history.

Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada (RAN), stated she would echo the concerns expressed in previous testimony. She stressed the primary concern regarding the bill is there is no level of proof necessary, no preponderance of evidence, no clear and convincing evidence, it is an open-ended piece of legislation. She said the RAN thinks the level of proof must be defined for the provision to remain or there would be a substantial increase in litigation. She emphasized that every applicant with a previous workers’ compensation claim would have a potential lawsuit against a prospective employer by simply implying or alleging that he was not hired because of his claim.

Ms. Lau stated there are concerns on realizing that disabling and sometimes permanent physical restrictions caused by industrial injuries are very relevant factors to determine an employee’s return to work. She said there are several statutes and regulations which address returning to work and rehabilitation that are in conflict with provisions in section 4, as proposed. She conveyed if there was a way to further protect employees and protect employers, while addressing problem employers with administrative action, then the RAN could support such language.

Robert Vogel, Vice President of Operations, Pro/Group Management Inc., said Pro/Group was the administrator for several self-insured groups, including the Nevada Transportation, Nevada Retail, Nevada Auto Dealers, and Builders Association of Western Nevada self-insured groups. He reiterated previous testimony in opposing S.B. 126, as written, because of the expansion of liability on the employer’s side.

Mary Cunningham, Concerned Citizen, stated she was an injured worker who had not filed a workers’ compensation claim. She testified that Brian Nelson from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) expressed that it was ludicrous to go up against a casino. She emphasized it was not easy to find an attorney who would take a case, especially when it is a low-income worker who still has to pay the up-front costs. She stressed the present system is just not viable for the average worker. Ms. Cunningham opined that the casinos and other big businesses make large donations to judges’ campaigns, raising the question of whose side they are really on when it comes to hearing these types of cases. She concluded this bill was very needed to make employers be more responsive to injured workers.

Ms. Arrowsmith elaborated on her testimony, saying she has pursued her case since 1995 with the EEOC and with an attorney, at a cost of over $100,000, to date. She remarked that most people do not have the resources for litigation, and all she has heard from the attorneys’ testimony is the bill provides the means for more litigation. She pointed out that if employers remove the question regarding a workers’ previous compensation claim, that would reduce a lot of litigation.

Jack Kim, Lobbyist, Behavioral Healthcare Options, California Indemnity Insurance Company, Commercial Casualty Insurance Company, Family Healthcare Services, Health Plan of Nevada, Nevada Administrators, Nevada Association of Health Plans, Sierra Health & Life Insurance Company, Sierra Health Services, Sierra Healthcare Options, and Southwest Medical Associates, stated that in reading the bill he concluded it contains one unintended consequence that could affect the temporary light-duty or permanent light-duty jobs in vocational rehabilitation. He said the bill would restrict employers’ willingness to offer light-duty jobs or permanent light-duty jobs to someone who has an injury.

Senator Carlton acknowledged it was an unintended outcome of the bill language, and she would address it.

Senator Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 126 and opened the hearing on S.B. 209.

SENATE BILL 209: Makes various changes to provisions governing workers’ compensation benefits. (BDR 53-616)

Ms. Leeder said the bill is an amalgamation of five different ideas proposed by NAIW, based upon what happens in her cases. She noted sections 1 and 4 deal with changing the language from “primary,” to “substantial contributing,” in order to maintain coherence in the law because there are two different standards which exist when there is a determination of causes of injury and changes of circumstances being made by the appeals officer, as to whether a particular fact pattern is going to be covered by the law. Ms. Leeder continued that it is going to be compensable. She stated, in 1999, the wording was changed from “primary” to “substantial contributing” in NRS 616C.175, however, the other statutes which have the same language were not changed, and so sections 1 and 4 changed the language in other existing statutes to the same legal standard.

Ms. Leeder continued, there is an independent reason to change from the word “primary” to “substantial contributing,” because “primary” is a legal standard doctors really do not understand. She said “substantial contributing” is closer to medical language, and it is medical testimony that is required.

Ms. Leeder called attention to sections 2 and 7 of S.B. 209 that deal with the uninsured employers’ claim fund. She stated there is an anomaly in the law as it exists, and it negatively affects Nevada workers. Ms. Leeder elucidated by citing a case she was handling in which a man worked for an employer for 6 years. The employer decided to open a satellite office in Pahrump and asked the employee to staff the satellite office. The employee and his wife moved to Pahrump and established the satellite office. In December 1999, the employer allowed his workers’ compensation insurance to lapse and did not inform any of his employees. In January 2000, the employer asked the employee in Pahrump to open another office in Bullhead City, Arizona. The employee agreed, so long as he would not have to be in Bullhead City too long, because he did not want to move there. About 3 weeks into the new assignment, the employee sustained and injury, and found out he was not covered because the uninsured employee claim fund has a section that omits coverage for a Nevada employee working out of state. Ms. Leeder pointed out that an employer who is covered by insurance does cover his Nevada employee who is injured while working out of state. She rhetorically asked why then should the uninsured employer get a break. Ms. Leeder noted section 2 of S.B. 209 covers that situation for an industrial injury by revising NRS 616C.220; and section 7 covers that employee who brings a claim under occupational diseases, revising NRS 617.401.

Ms. Leeder said section 3 of the bill addresses the automatic stay provision, NRS 616C.380. She continued, the automatic stay provision says basically:

. . . if the employer or insurer files a motion for stay so that there is no requirement to pay the benefit which has been ordered by the initial hearing officer or court making the decision on the contested claim, . . . by the act of filing the motion for stay, if the stay itself is denied because the judicial officer thinks it has no merit, . . . the worker is going to win again on appeal, . . . nevertheless the payment need not be made.

Ms. Leeder commented that is an automatic stay provision. She stated what happens sometimes is the stay motion is made at the last minute where it cannot possibly be decided because there is no time. She said sometimes the motion is made only to put the automatic stay into effect. She said it would appear to be more equitable to prevent the requirement of paying a large sum permanent partial disability (PPD), as to NAIW’s claimants, there seems to be no equity in holding up retroactive temporary total disability (TTD), and rehabilitation maintenance, which is the effect. Therefore, the proposal in section 3 is to allow the automatic stay provision to apply only in PPD situations.

Ms. Leeder testified that section 5 addresses the permanent total disability (PTD) recoupment issue, which has been addressed during two prior sessions, is NRS 616C.440. She said what has happened in two cases is one case went to the Nevada Supreme Court, but there was no decision, just an order dismissing the appeal because the district court had decided in favor of the worker. The second case, from Clark County, involved a person living on a ranch outside Battle Mountain, in which the same thing happened to him, and that was decided by the First Judicial District Court. Ms. Leeder said, in both cases, the court decided in favor of the worker but there is really no precedent value to the decisions, therefore, that is why the matter has been brought before this committee.

Ms. Leeder explained what it says is if there is going to be a recoupment from a prior paid PPD lump sum because the injured worker is in permanent total disability status, the recoupment can happen only once. She noted the previous session took care of the situation where the recoupment was supposed to take care of, not only the money that was paid, but also some additional interest despite the fact there had been a discounting of the original payment. She stated now the situation is there is a reopening of the claim. The reopening, initially, is allowing the worker to get paid temporary total disability and the recoupment starts under TTD. Then the worker is changed from TTD to PTD, which was the case with the ranch worker near Battle Mountain and also the person in Las Vegas, and the recoupment starts over again. Therefore, allowing for far more “recoupment,” which is not recoupment because it is taking more than was originally paid out. She claimed that part of the bill was to close that loophole.

Ms. Leeder stated section 6 addresses NRS 616D.120. She said the procedure was established administratively instead of allowing the bad-faith claims mismanagement. She voiced this change addresses the legislatively established time limits within which payment ought to be made. She articulated that the statute says after a stipulation the payments ought to be made to the party who is dismissing his action within 10 days of the signing of the stipulation, and after a decision within 30 days. But, she pointed out, the statute also contains the word, “unreasonable.” She proposed to delete “unreasonable” and use the statutory time frame as the statement of unreasonableness. She surmised that was what the legislature originally intended, but because the word “unreasonable” is placed in the initial language of the section, there is a double decision being made of, was the payment late, and do we think it was unreasonable.

Barbara J. Gruenewald, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), stated the NTLA supports S.B. 209.

Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO, stated his organization wholeheartedly supports the bill, they think it will fix many problems for workers, especially those around border towns.

Herbert Jones, Concerned Citizen, said he would like to reacquaint himself with the committee. He stated he had given testimony in 1991, regarding the management at State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS). Mr. Jones said that permanent total disability people have problems with issues not being addressed by this bill. He told the committee that the 1995 and 1999 Legislatures corrected a supreme court ruling that overruled the decision of a hearing officer, appeals officer, and district court in reference that the system could not give unfair enrichments. He said, in 1999, the court said all claims remaining and open would be retroactive. He pointed out the issue is still alive. Mr. Jones said there were two methods of recovery for a PPD offset. He explained before that bill was signed, state administrators were laughing because they knew it was not going anywhere, because for every 1 statute and 10 lawyers there are 10 different opinions. He noted when there is too much wiggle room, everyone blames the legislature for passing ambiguous laws.

Mr. Jones stated in a recent case heard by the Nevada Supreme Court, the court ruled in favor of injured workers saying TTD must be included. The case was remanded to district court and ordered Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICON) to do a proper monthly recalculation. Mr. Jones read a letter from EICON responding to a claimant’s inquiry (Exhibit H).

Mr. Jones commented the letter does not explain why the injured worker’s benefits were changed or the calculations. He stated the company is hiding behind the monthly installment rate. He continued that there are two procedures in NRS 616C.440 that were revised to stop this problem so the system could not give unjust enrichment. Mr. Jones explained, in his case, he received $59,000 in PPD awards, and at that time they were going to recover $155,000.

Mr. Jones asked, “What is ‘reasonable’?” He communicated he is only receiving 66.6 percent of his 1988 wages. He emphasized that workers’ compensation is still taking over 22 percent of his fixed income. He pointed out there are no cost-of-living increases, the payment rate is locked into the wages of the 1980s.

Mr. Jones stated he has filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Attorney General and the Governor’s office in reference to the deceptive measures used by the system, and refusal to provide information on how they are interpreting the statutes.

Senator Townsend interjected that in reference to page 5, section 5, of the bill that deals with NRS 616C.440, and Ms. Leeder’s proposed changes on page 6, he wanted to know whether there was proposed language with which Mr. Jones did not agree.

Mr. Jones responded that he thinks it is about doing proper monthly recalculations. He said, for example, in the letter there was a recalculation, but the benefits remained the same. He pointed out that under the present statutes, if the system shortchanges an injured worker where they owe him money, the system is to pay 9 percent interest to that injured worker. He stated, in the case of PTD people, they are paying over 22 percent back for the recoupment of funds received in PPD awards. He asserted the problem could be solved when they are stopped from receiving unjust enrichment.

Mr. Jones said the monthly installment rate contradicts NRS 616C.440 because it says the recoupment must be “reasonable.” He elucidated that the statute says a worker must be 65 years old on the day of the injury or the last day the injured worker received TTD, but they will not answer the question, because these issues have never been brought before the Legislature to consider the question of discrimination.

Ms. Leeder stated she was aware of Mr. Jones’ case. She said she recently talked with his attorney, who is an NAIW attorney in Las Vegas, about Mr. Jones’ case. She told the committee the issue Mr. Jones is raising is not included in the bill, and thinks he is asking that his issue be included in the bill in order to take care of his situation and others with similar situations.

Ms. Leeder clarified that Mr. Jones is addressing the two different kinds of recoupment. The minimum lump sum requires recoupment of only 10 percent at a time of payment. The subsection 4, paragraph (a) of NRS 616C.440, type of recoupment applied to Mr. Jones, based on the amount of money that would have been paid out in PPD installment payments is allowed to be recouped. She explained the same amount of money paid out would be allowed to be recouped on a monthly basis out of the PTD pension payment. The amount of money and the percentage varies according to the amount of money that was paid out. And, as Mr. Jones testified, his payment comes out to be 22 percent, as apposed to the minimum lump sum recoupment which is limited to 10 percent.

Ms. Leeder surmised Mr. Jones was saying he and the group that he belongs to would like the Legislature to change chapter 440 of NRS, not only the way NAIW is proposing, but also to say the recoupment should be no more than 10 percent for all injured workers who are on PTD pension, not just for those who paid a minimum lump sum.

Senator Townsend suggested since it is Ms. Leeder’s bill, S.B. 209, Mr. Jones would do well to get with her as to wording, or find another bill, or develop a new bill to address the issue. He also encouraged Mr. Jones to go over his issue with Crystal McGee, Committee Policy Analyst, who is the committee’s expert on workers’ compensation. Mr. Jones responded that he would work through an attorney in Las Vegas, where he lives, to provide the necessary information as soon as possible.

Ms. Lau stated the Retail Association of Nevda has some opposition to changing sections by deleting “primary cause,” and adding “substantial contributing.” She said that change is inappropriate. She continued that changing “primary cause” to “substantial contributing” is vague, subjective, and makes it impossible for a provider, and more importantly, for the insurer, hearings officer or appeals officer to make a determination on the nature and origin of an injury.

Ms. Lau articulated that the association is opposed to the section 4 amendments to the reopening statute. She said there is no opposition to the proposed changes applicable to the uninsured claim fund.

Charles R. Nort, Lobbyist, El Cortez Hotel, Pratte Development, and Union Plaza Hotel, stated he thinks the language change would swing the pendulum too far to the right and take away from the objective standards currently imposed, specifically with section 4 of NRS 616C.390. For example, a provider involved with a reopening issue of degenerative disc disease that has progressed over 10 years, superimposed by an industrial injury of a herniated disc, and it has been operated on, yet the progressive degenerative disc disease condition continues. The provider has to tell that person the condition is not a substantial contributing cause. Mr. Nort said almost every case would fall into that category. He said the present language of “primary cause” leads to an objective standard allowing the provider to differentiate and draw the line, where needed, with respect to lifetime reopening rights provided by section 4, NRS 616C.390. He concluded that his clients were satisfied with the language on pages 2, 4 and 5.

Mr. Ostrovsky stated that on the question of “primary cause,” versus “substantial contributing,” it would only apply to stress, which sections 1 and 4 address with reopening. He said it was stated by another testifier that “primary cause” versus “substantial contributing” might have been an oversight. It was instead a deliberate decision by this Legislature to achieve a higher standard for purposes of stress claims and reopenings that it should be “primary cause,” he said, adding that without the change there would be a lot more claims.

Mr. Nort stated he was not clear on section 3 of the bill, regarding installment payments. He surmised the purpose was because recovery is usually very difficult once payment has been made. He concluded the purpose of monthly payments was to allow the time needed to determine the validity of a claim before a lump sum payment was made.

Mr. Nort commented, in regard to section 2, if the worker was injured in another state, then why not make a claim against that state. He stated he was defending the uninsured employer, because of people like him who are paying into the uninsured employer claim fund. He posited that it might be a good idea to include language to the effect that an injured worker first file in the state where the injury occurred.

Mr. Nort stated section 6 was included intentionally, to give the Division of Industrial Relations some ability to look at the reasons for payment not being made. He pointed out that without that section, it is possible if an employer or insurer is just 1 day late in making a payment, they would be immediately guilty and fined.

Mr. Rowe stated he was registering CDS CompFirst’s objections to S.B. 209. He iterated he did a lot of representation of employers on workers’ compensation cases. He said over time people have gotten used to “primary cause” to mean more than 50 percent. He claimed, from his experience, no one is quite sure what “substantial contributing cause” means. He said “substantial contributing cause” was used primarily by medical providers who have interpreted the language to mean “any contributing cause,” not “substantial contributing cause.” Mr. Rowe said changing the language would substantially change the legal standard by which opening a claim would be assessed.

Mr. Rowe addressed section 3, S.B. 209, the installment payment provision. He said from his perspective as an attorney in this field, there are many cases decided on a lower level that are adverse to an employer. He expressed it is difficult to obtain a stay because hearing officers do not consider the payment of money as causing irreparable harm. He asserted, in absence of the provision in the bill, employers and insurance companies make payments that are later found by a higher review source to have been made inappropriately. Mr. Rowe pointed out the provision in the bill will correct this inequity.

Mr. Rowe said, in section 6, dealing with unreasonable delay, there has to be provisions for assessment when there is a reasonable basis for the delay, such as a mistake.

Ms. Bell stated the Nevada Self-Insured Association (NSIA) is opposed to the language that lowers the burden from “primary cause” to “substantial contributing cause.” She said, under section 6, the removal of the word “unreasonably” is appropriate because there are legitimate reasons benefit payments could be delayed.

Ms. Bell conveyed her concern regarding section 7, and that claims for injuries received while in another state should be filed in that state. She said she was concerned, however, that workers would be penalized by delay of payment while the state decided who was at fault and who should pay. She suggested it could be decided that the uninsured fund could make payments while it is being worked out between the states for collection. She stated the NSIA agrees the language covers people out of state, but also agrees there should be some protection of our own state funds.

Senator Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 209 and opened the hearing on S.B. 154.

SENATE BILL 154: Establishes limits on attorney’s fees for representing injured employee to obtain workers’ compensation benefits. (BDR 53‑447)

Senator Schneider stated S.B. 154 came out of conversations primarily with Judge Licker of California.

Robert Licker, Retired, Workers’ Compensation Judge, Los Angeles County, California, said he has been retired from the bench for 20 years. He stated he thinks attorneys’ fees for workers’ compensation cases in Nevada are too high. He insisted he was not opposed to attorney fees, but when they become outrageous then it is obscene. Judge Licker maintained the quality of the process should not be changed.

Senator Schneider said Judge Licker had been instrumental in writing the law in California on attorney’s fees and workers’ compensation.

Judge Licker stated in personal injury cases you have to prove to a certain percentage you are right, while in workers’ compensation cases it makes no difference who is right as long as it happened on the job. Keeping that in mind, he said, he had formulated three points, all concerned with attorney fees. First, attorney’s fees shall not exceed 10 percent of the permanent disability award. He told the committee he personally knew of a case in which the attorney received 50 percent of the award, and Judge Licker said he thought that was outrageous. Second, the settlement of the workers’ compensation case, including the attorney’s fees, should be reviewed and approved by a judge of the district court who has jurisdiction, and only an approved settlement by a judge, usually of the district court. Judge Licker said in that regard a lawyer tends to be conservative when he is not going to get 50 percent of an award. Lastly, in no event shall the attorney’s fees exceed the sum of $20,000. He said that maximum could be varied in the final bill. He said the fact remains, in Nevada, and he finds it surprising as many other people do, there are no limits to attorney’s fees, and Nevada should have limits.

Senator Schneider stated the committee has a document, selected pages from Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (Exhibit I), gathered by the legislative research division showing that Nevada is the only state which does not address attorney fees and workers’ compensation in some fashion. He pointed out that the document states, “no provisions on attorney’s fees in Nevada.” He said every other state spells out exactly what the provisions are on attorney’s fees.

Dean A. Hardy, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, stated the senator’s comment was a surprise, because in 1993, there was testimony on many aspects of workers’ compensation. He said the testimony dealt with a hemorrhaging state system with a $2-million-a-day deficit. He noted there was not one proposal that suggested the hemorrhaging and need for change was because of attorneys and the need to regulate fees. He said the reason it was not discussed was because it was unnecessary. He reiterated the judge’s point that Nevada appears to be the only state without regulatory provisions regarding workers’ compensation and attorney’s fees. He said, but in Nevada, there is Nancyann Leeder’s office offering access to a free lawyer. He added there are no criteria upon which an injured worker can be denied access to a free attorney based upon their ability or inability to pay for a lawyer.

Mr. Hardy stressed, even though he is a lawyer, he would try to be objective. He opined that he would probably land on his feet; he would retool his office and direct his energies toward representing other people, because he could not provide his services to an injured worker for a 10 percent fee. He stated litigation numbers have skyrocketed the opportunities to represent someone on issues that are not based upon dollars-and-cents changes regarding the physicians prescription reimbursement, mileage reimbursement, and he said he does each and every one of those hearings on his own. He said mechanisms are already in place regarding attorneys’ high fees. He said the state bar has a dispute committee, and his brother sat on that committee for over 9 years. Many of the cases dealt with workers’ compensation, and sometimes the committee ruled the fees were in excess of what the attorney should have received. Those decisions resulted in reimbursement to the litigant, and sometimes there was a referral to the discipline committee for further action.

Mr. Hardy maintained that people come to his office because they are in distress, and he would have to turn them away if this bill passes, and that would be an error. He said the intent of a workers’ compensation plan was for quick and efficient medical care, compensation, and resolution of a claim. He said the system has unnecessary delays, denials, and unnecessary litigation that is not the result of attorney involvement; but, rather, the result of inappropriate claims administration. He pointed out people are referred to doctors, many of whom are only concerned about keeping a steady stream of patients coming in. He said appropriate medical care, compensation, and resolution of claims is what we are all after. He said the purpose of the bill was not to protect claimants, because protections were in place. He stated the purpose of the bill was for individuals to obtain representation, whether that purpose is directed at attorneys or at injured workers, the effect is the same. He pointed out the bill will eliminate the opportunity and availability of appropriate representation in a workers’ compensation claim.

Mr. Hardy pointed out he has testified many times since 1985, and on several occasions has asked that any instances of behavior on the part of attorneys that was not in the spirit of appropriate representation, be brought to him. He said as a result, those instances were dealt with. He said he would continue to offer that service and make himself available.

Senator Schneider stated his intent was not to eliminate attorneys’ fees from the process. The intent was to give injured workers the maximum amount of the benefit. He noted there is no pleading out in California that injured workers are not receiving care. He wanted to know, since Judge Licker helped write the law in California, how the law is working now.

Gary Licker, former Insurance Claims Adjuster, State Farm Insurance Companies, identified himself as Judge Licker’s son. Mr. Licker stated after college he worked as a claims adjuster in California for a couple of years, and there were primarily three law firms that handled 75 percent of workers’ compensation cases. He said the law firms handled the volume of cases with a large staff of paralegals that did everything, including research and taking the clients to doctors, and the lawyers were fed the information when they had to attend a hearing. He elucidated that the paralegals also worked up the cases with adjusters such as payment schedules, medical payments, medical services, and so on. He explained the ratio of paralegals to lawyers was around 3 to 1.

Mr. Licker continued that these large law firms were set up to provide total services to the clients, and through this method, profited on the 10 percent fee with large salaries for the lawyers. He surmised, to his knowledge, this practice continues in California.

Senator Shaffer said he wanted to know the percentage of cases won on behalf of the claimant under those circumstances.

Mr. Licker asserted the law in California is very, very progressive, and as an adjuster, in the cases he personally handled for Truckers’ Insurance, a division of State Farm Insurance, it may have been 98 percent on which the company paid compensation.

Judge Licker responded there were 1 to 2 cases out of 10 that were found non-compensable.

Senator Shaffer clarified that the bill was not to ferret out law mills, but to assure no worker with a legitimate claim would fall through the cracks.

Mr. Hardy responded that he was familiar with the law firm mentioned. He stressed he does not run a mill nor does he want to. He emphasized he could guarantee that law mills would result from this bill, and he thinks individuals would not receive fair representation. He elucidated that he uses paralegals in preparing cases, but he is the primary person with which clients communicate. He predicted, should the bill pass, people would only see paralegals unless the case went to court. He insisted that is not what would serve Nevadans best. Mr. Hardy pointed out that individuals have a choice regarding attorneys’ fees. They can shop attorneys’ fees and even negotiate fees. He concluded that a regulatory scheme is not necessarily better government.

Mr. Danny L. Thompson stated the AFL-CIO represents 155,000 workers who are adamantly opposed to S.B. 154. He asserted the unions do not represent the workers beyond the hearing level and an attorney is required to proceed past that point. He articulated there are cases that can go on for 2 or 3 years or more, and an attorney who is getting 25 percent or 27 percent of a $30,000 award may only break even. He explained that workers’ compensation was in a financial crisis not long ago, and this proposal would put it back in financial trouble. He pointed out the bill would interfere with the right to contract.

Ms. Leeder expounded on Nevada’s workers’ compensation system versus California’s in that Nevada’s system allows a worker to have representation when they do not want to pay a private attorney. She said paralegals are prohibited from representing claimants at the appeals officer level. She voiced, in Nevada, the issue is not just whether the injury happened on the job. There is a substantial proof level that is required beyond the injury just happening on the job, and there is a substantial body of case law which must be complied with in order for a claim to be compensable.

Ms. Leeder noted the difference between California using district court judges to authorize fees, whereas in Nevada, district court judges do not get involved. She said to involve a district court judge in Nevada, a record would have to be completed and filed with the district court and the district court would have to open a case. She emphasized that process would be a time-consuming, energy-consuming, money-consuming system.

Ms. Leeder stated according to the Department of Administration, Office of Appeals, Hearings Division, an attorney from her office is appointed to 40 percent of appeals at the appeals officer level statewide. She said she estimated half of the private attorneys representing workers would leave this field. Ms. Leeder expounded that would mean her office would have to take on about half of the 60 percent of cases to which they are not appointed now. She insisted NAIW cannot handle a 75 percent increase with the present budget and staff, they are already overloaded. She told the committee, as a quick estimate, NAIW figured a 75 percent increase in their budget for each category would come out to $1.6 million per fiscal year.

Mr. Jeffrey remarked, in his limited knowledge, between the California and Nevada systems, California’s is more liberal and easier to get through than Nevada’s. He pointed out, since 1993, when the ability to sue for bad faith was taken away, administrators have routinely denied claims because they know the worst that can happen is a claim will have to be paid. He noted the nonunion workers are most affected by this practice because they have no one to represent them, and many just give up on the system because it has just become too difficult for individuals to represent themselves. Mr. Jeffrey concluded that the attorneys he would recommend do not operate mills and would not be able to perform under this bill, and he opposes S.B. 154.

Mr. Ostrovsky stated the NRA is neutral on the bill, because they have to pay one way or the other, to the claimant or an attorney. He observed that the debate, primarily what the claimant receives and the amount of the attorney’s fees, is clearly a public policy issue that the committee can address. He stressed private lawyers have been effective in representing claimants who were having problems with their cases, and would not want to see them locked out of the system.

Senator Schneider posited that it is obvious there is a monopoly on the system, and testimony from both sides supports the fact that a claimant cannot go through the system without an attorney. Senator Schneider noted that his computer is showing many people who are interested in the issue, and so he would like to keep the record open on the bill to allow other people to testify, including John Wills, a concerned citizen.

Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce (LVCC), and Retail Association of Nevada (RAN), stated the LVCC and RAN are in support of the bill. He said it is important to assure the system works. He added, from their point of view, attorney representation is cost-effective and the system does work. He said, speaking for employers, the bill pushes more dollars to the injured worker who really should be the recipient.

Senator Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 154, and adjourned the hearing at 11:02 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

DATE: