MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-second Session
February 26, 2003
The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 8:08 a.m., on Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 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 Warren B. Hardy, Vice Chairman
Senator Maggie Carlton
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Ann O'Connell
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Bernice Mathews, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 1
Ex-Senator Lawrence Jacobsen
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst
Kevin Powers, Committee Counsel
Lynn Hendricks, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Wiles, Division Counsel, Division of Industrial Relations, Department of Business and Industry
Ivan R. “Renny” Ashleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Health Care Associates
Jack Kim, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Programs, Sierra Health Services Incorporated
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Employers Insurance Company of Nevada
Don Jayne, Lobbyist, Nevada Self-Insured Association
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, President, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada
Mike Neville, Criminal Investigator, District Attorney, Washoe County
Tom Atkinson, Chief, Law Enforcement Bureau, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Michael Gillins, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14
Phil Gervasi, Lobbyist, President, Police Officers’ Association, Clark County School District
Wayne Carlson, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County
Jim Jeppson, Risk Manager, Washoe County
Jim Fry, Workers’ Compensation Analyst, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration
Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, Department of Business and Industry
Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO
John E. Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Builders and Construction Trades Council
Chairman Townsend:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 168.
SENATE BILL 168: Revises provisions governing industrial insurance. (BDR 53‑466)
John Wiles, Division Counsel, Division of Industrial Relations, Department of Business and Industry:
This bill was designed by the Division of Industrial Relations to clarify certain provisions, address some inconsistencies, and provide a more orderly appellate mechanism for benefit penalties.
Under section 1, there is a new definition of “medical facility” to include hospitals, clinics, and other facilities. The intention of this is to accommodate situations where a treating physician is an independent contractor of a hospital. If the physician or chiropractor completes the forms on time but the hospital administration does not file them on time, it is not appropriate for us to respond by fining the physician or chiropractor. This would allow us to fine the medical facility, if appropriate. This change affects sections 4 and 5.
Under section 6, we are proposing amendments to the uninsured claim account statute. At present, benefit penalty appeals are heard by the administrator; however, by contract we have engaged the Department of Administration Hearings Division to hold those hearings. This was done out of a sense that appeals officers are better situated and better trained to address the issues. The bill provides a two-part appellate mechanism, with a different process when the appeal involves a claim made by an injured worker.
The bill also adjusts some of the time frames. It gives the uninsured worker the same 70 days to file an appeal that an insured worker has. Those appeals should go through the normal Department of Administration process, in which the appeal first goes to the hearings officer, and then to the appeals officer. However, if there is a question about whether there is an employer/employee relationship, we believe it is better to fast-track the appeal to get it directly in front of the appeals officer. This allows us to resolve it quickly, while the employer is still traceable and before benefits have been paid out.
The amendment in section 9 changes the appellate mechanism for appeal of benefit penalties. We tried to make the timelines more consistent, expanding the time to appeal an administrative determination from 10 to 30 days, which is a normal appeal period. This is beneficial to the person appealing. The appeal will also go directly to the Department of Administration appeals officer; again, we currently do this by contract and would like to place it in statute. In section 11, changes in chapter 617 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) mirror those in chapters 616A through 616D for consistency. These changes were suggested by Kevin Powers, Committee Counsel.
Senator Neal:
I am concerned about the language in line 7 of subsection 2 of section 1. The use of the word “and” in the phrase, “arising out of and in the course of his employment,” appears to change the definition of “accident,” excluding those occurring on the way to work, for example.
Mr. Wiles:
That was not the intent. The definition was created in consultation with the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) and reflects the existing requirements in chapters 616A, 616B, 616C, and 617 of NRS. The definition reflects the distinction between an accident by injury and an occupational disease.
Kevin Powers, Committee Counsel:
Just for the record, so it’s clear, in section 1 of the bill, where it defines “medical facility” and uses the term “arising out of and in the course of his employment,” that tracks the language of the existing standard for both occupational injury and occupational disease, or an industrial injury.
Chairman Townsend:
Senator Neal’s concern is to make sure we are not changing the standard by which a claim is judged.
Mr. Wiles:
For the record, it’s certainly not our intent in putting this bill forward to change any of the existing provisions relating to the qualification of an industrial accident or an occupational disease.
Ivan R. “Renny” Ashleman, Lobbyist, Nevada Health Care Associates:
I see a potential problem in section 4 if the treating physician and the “medical facility” work jointly on the claim. If they do so, who is to be held liable for meeting the timelines? The University Medical Center (UMC) is amenable to being held liable, if that is the intent, but I think the language will need to be modified to some degree.
Chairman Townsend:
The position we are trying to clean up is one in which both parties claim that the other is responsible for missing the deadline. Somebody has got to be clearly responsible.
Mr. Ashleman:
I think there is merit to that, Mr. Chairman. We do not have any problem with this language.
I would like to propose some further amendments to the bill (Exhibit C). I had thought the division was going to support our amendments; however, Mr. Wiles now tells me he is not prepared to be affirmative for them.
Amendment A would change the deadline for reporting from 3 days to 5 working days. This was adequate when all claims were handled by the former State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS), but it is not sufficient in the current situation. In addition, we suggest the language of subsection 5 of section 4 be changed from "shall" to "may" to give the administrator discretion in imposing fines. This section should also include the phrase “medical facility.”
Amendment B would require employers to issue industrial insurance cards to employees upon hiring and when the carrier changes. The objective is to make sure the employee has information about the insurance carrier, employer, and contact information readily available. Some 38 percent of all injured workers received at UMC are unable to tell us the name of their employer and/or their insurer, which adds to the time needed to file the forms. Eventually we will be able to get the information on-line from the National Council on Compensation Insurance Incorporated (NCCI), which would solve the problem. Unfortunately, this system is not yet available.
Senator Hardy:
I do not disagree with your intent on Amendment B, but I am concerned about increasing the regulatory burden on employers. Would posting the information not accomplish the same thing?
Mr. Ashleman:
Posting is often done at a central office, while most accidents occur at the job site. Employees may never go to the central office or even be aware that such posting exists. In my opinion it is not a big financial burden to the employer to distribute the information with the pay packet.
Chairman Townsend:
Mr. Wiles, the committee is reluctant to do anything that would add to the length of time it takes for claimants to receive benefits. We want to make sure we do not disadvantage legitimate claimants while we try to get everyone to do their paperwork properly.
Mr. Wiles:
Prompt payment is the goal of this act. There are several timelines involved; perhaps one of the other timelines can be adjusted.
Mr. Ashleman:
I spoke with Danny Thompson of the Nevada State AFL-CIO about changing this time-line to 5 working days. He had no objection.
Mr. Wiles:
I need to point out that the purpose of the language on subsection 9 of section 3 is to facilitate dissemination of proof of coverage information.
For the record, the intention behind this is not to make otherwise confidential information public records. In other words, specifically, the medically related information of claimants is not in any way, shape, or form impacted by this change. That’s our intention. We are not trying to make it possible for the public or anybody who just might be interested [to gain access to] confidential medical information of claimants by making this change.
Jack Kim, Lobbyist, Director, Legislative Programs, Sierra Health Services Incorporated:
I have no problems with S.B. 168 as written. However, I am concerned about proposed Amendment B and possible unintended consequences of the cards. If a policy is canceled for nonpayment and an employee uses the card to obtain medical treatment, this would be fraud and a possible criminal case.
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Employers Insurance Company of Nevada:
I do not have a big concern about the change to 5 working days, though I would not support an effort to change the other timelines. I am not convinced that finding out the name of the employer is a big problem. When an employee is injured on the job, the employer will usually give the injured employee a referral slip with the name of the insurer. A bigger problem is the employee who seeks health care after the injury. Someone referred to a job site by a union hall may not know exactly who their employer is.
I also have some concerns about the card. Who is responsible for issuance? What the penalty would be if it was not given? The cost and trouble of issuing cards to 300 banquet workers hired for a single night’s work, for example, is excessive. We already provide the D-1 form required by the Division of Industrial Relations; it is posted at the workstation. Perhaps the word could be changed from “card” to “notice,” which might be a sheet of paper.
Senator Neal:
A card is a notice. Are you suggesting a phone call? Are you talking about a permanent document that would be good for a year or two? The aim is sufficient notification to the employee.
Mr. Ostrovsky:
I am suggesting the information be provided on a sheet of paper rather than an individualized card. The notice would be good until the employer changed insurers, at which time a new notice would have to be issued. In cases where you have a lot of on-call workers, it is easier to hand out a generic piece of paper listing the name of the insurer than it is to make 300 individualized cards with each employee’s name. Perhaps I am over-interpreting what the law would require.I agree that the employee has the right to know. It is just a question of how.
Don Jayne, Lobbyist, Nevada Self-Insured Association:
We support the bill but have problems with the card concept. A card like this might give the impression that coverage is guaranteed. In workers’ compensation cases, individual claims must be investigated to determine if the case will be accepted. We agree that the employee should be informed as to their employer’s insurer.
Senator Neal:
I am not sure why you think this would be damaging to the insurer. Is the doctor not obligated to call the insurer to confirm coverage before providing care? How does the doctor know who the insurer is if the employee does not have that information?
Mr. Jayne:
I cannot speak to the procedures in doctors’ offices. Our concern is to ensure the card is not construed as guaranteeing payment.
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada:
We also have a concern about Amendment B. The cards would add to administrative costs, which are only allowed to be 25 percent of scheduled assessments. This is something the NCCI proposal was supposed to cover.
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce:
I would also like to go on record as being concerned about Amendment B. We will participate in discussion on this.
Senator Hardy:
Do the building trades unions have a mechanism to deal with this issue when workers are hired out of the halls? Maybe there is a model we could use.
Chairman Townsend:
We will take the issue up again at the work session a week from Friday. I would like all the parties to get together and come up with some potential amendments that you all agree to, then print them out with a statement of purpose and get them to the committee members before that session.
We will close the hearing on S.B. 168 and open the hearing on S.B. 184.
SENATE BILL 184: Revises certain provisions governing occupational diseases contracted by police officers. (BDR 53-851)
Senator Bernice Mathews, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 1:
This bill provides for the payment of certain benefits to police officers for the treatment of hepatitis C. [Exhibit D]
Section 1 amends the definition of “accident benefits” for the purposes of workers’ compensation to allow police officers to receive preventive treatment for hepatitis C.
Section 2 expands the definition of “police officer” to include game wardens and investigators employed by district attorneys (DAs) of Clark County and Washoe County. This allows them to receive the hepatitis C vaccine before exposure.
Section 3 creates a statutory presumption that a police officer who has contracted hepatitis C did so in the course of his employment, if he has been continuously employed as a police officer for 5 years or more.
Section 4 establishes certain rebuttable presumptions that would preclude such treatment. For example, if a police officer refuses to submit to a blood test to screen for hepatitis C, evidence will be considered to prove that the hepatitis was not contracted as a result of his employment.
Senator O’Connell:
Could you give us some background on the three types of hepatitis and how they are contracted?
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, President, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada:
All three types are contracted through exposure to blood and other body fluids: saliva, seminal or vaginal fluid, and urine. A needle stick is not required. The virus can live for up to 6 weeks on a hard surface.
Senator Carlton:
There is a vaccine for hepatitis A and hepatitis B, but not for hepatitis C, is that correct?
Senator Mathews:
That is correct. You cannot vaccinate for hepatitis C.
Mr. Dreher:
Assembly Bill No. 313 of the 71st Session provided these same benefits to firefighters and emergency medical attendants. This bill would provide those same benefits to police officers currently covered by NRS 671.135. I have provided a copy of an article by Leslie Gibbenhuck (Exhibit E) that lays out the causes and effects of hepatitis C as they affect police officers. She recommends annual testing, which we are going to add to the bill. We will also be suggesting an amendment to establish baseline testing for all police officers at some date.
The bill also extends this coverage to certain game wardens and DA investigators. Their duties can place their exposure risk at nearly the same level as positions currently covered by NRS 617.135.
Senator Neal:
How many known cases are there where game wardens or police officers have contracted hepatitis?
Mr. Dreher:
There are no facts either way.
Senator Neal:
This bill would create a statutory presumption that hepatitis is an occupational disease for police officers. How can we do this without massive testing?
Mr. Dreher:
Once the baseline we are proposing has been done, subsequent testing 12 months later will show the actual rate of exposure. Workers’ compensation people have told us they believe the exposure rate is going to be minimal.
Senator Carlton:
In my experience, when I see police officers responding to car accidents, they always wear gloves. It seems that awareness of the risk is much higher than suggested by the Gibbenhuck article.
Mr. Dreher:
The article was written in 1999 and gloves are more prevalent now. However, officers do not always have time to prepare for events, and gloves do not always prevent infection.
Senator Carlton:
Section 2, subsection 12, paragraphs (a) and (b) seem to be redundant. Paragraph (b) applies to all counties, but (a) is just those with population over 100,000. Can we clarify to whom this applies?
Mr. Powers:
The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 12 would control over the general provisions of NRS 289.170. The idea here is that the officer first has to have those powers of a peace officer that are set forth in NRS 289.170, and in addition the officer must be employed in a county whose population is 100,000 or more. So this provision would control over the general peace officer provision of NRS 289.170.
Chairman Townsend:
Can you give me an example of what a game warden would run into that would have a risk of exposure?
Mr. Dreher:
Frank Shaves, a supervisor in the Division of Wildlife, informs me that game wardens must deal with various accidents, boating, hunting, and car, without the help of paramedics or other emergency services. They are the first officers on the scene of accidents in the parks. They render first aid and must use their own vehicles to transport victims.
Senator Neal:
Is section 4 new language?
Mr. Powers:
Yes. Section 4 is new language; it is considered by the LCB to be transitory language because it is not a law of a general and permanent nature, and therefore it is not a law that goes into NRS. It is not codified into NRS, but it is still a law. It would be part of the statutes of Nevada, it just would not be codified in NRS, because it is a transitory provision that bridges a certain period of time and it is not a law of permanent, general application.
Chairman Townsend:
Under section 2, we are now adding two additional groups to NRS 617.135. Does that give them additional coverage beyond hepatitis?
Mr. Powers:
It gives them coverage under the heart and lung provisions of that chapter, and it also gives them certain benefits of chapters 616A to 616D of NRS. It also gives them benefits in chapter 287 of NRS.
Chairman Townsend:
We do not have the final fiscal note on this bill yet, but at this point it comes to $675,000 the first year and $1,400,000 the following year. The committee cannot make a decision until we have those numbers.
Senator Mathews:
We should have the final figures for you by your next work session.
Mike Neville, Criminal Investigator, District Attorney, Washoe County:
As shown in my position paper (Exhibit F), the DA investigators have much the same exposure as street cops. On the fiscal side, hepatitis testing costs $200 to $300 per person annually. Since many investigators are former police, 8 of 15 in Washoe County, they already qualify for the heart and lung coverage.
Senator Carlton:
The issue is that we are adding a new position to the classification of police officer, more than the number of officers involved. How are DA investigators exposed? Are you first responders? What are your actual duties?
Mr. Neville:
We are full-duty peace officers as defined in chapter 289 of NRS. We conduct criminal investigations, make arrests, transport inmates, interview inmates in county jails and prisons, respond to crime scenes, and execute search warrants.
Senator Carlton:
How many crime scenes do you respond to?
Mr. Neville:
We respond to major accidents and homicides, though not necessarily as a first responder. I cannot give you a number.
Senator Hardy:
Do you ever find yourself in a situation where you do not have time to put on gloves?
Mr. Neville:
Yes, particularly in court. Incidents are infrequent, but they do occur regularly. In the regular course of our duties, we are not first responders. However, as police officers, we are obligated to respond to any circumstance that requires our attention.
Senator Carlton:
It is your intention to include DA investigators in both hepatitis C and heart/lung coverage?
Mr. Neville:
Yes.
Tom Atkinson, Chief, Law Enforcement Bureau, Division of Wildlife, State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
I am the chief game warden for the Division of Wildlife. Game wardens are first responders and are category I peace officers. We deal with exposure situations in rural Nevada routinely. We have been working on this issue with the Risk Management Division. A companion bill on this may be introduced as part of the Governor's budget. We expect the cost to our agency to be minimal. Our agents should be covered by heart and lung coverage as well.
Michael Gillins, Lobbyist, Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs:
We support this bill. Training in hepatitis exposure has improved over the last few years with the prevalence of hepatitis A and hepatitis B. However, first responders do not always have time to suit up. Officers may not realize they are being exposed and situations can change rapidly. For example, you do not usually wear gloves for a domestic incident.
Of the 2000 firefighters in the State, 4 were found to have hepatitis C when they did baseline testing, and treatment methods are improving. Because of this, fiscal impact cannot really be estimated.
Senator Hardy:
Do you have any data about how many police officers in your agency are now infected, and have you established that the infection is job-related?
Mr. Gillins:
I am aware of three officers in southern Nevada police agencies who are positive for hepatitis C. In my opinion, there is a nexus between those cases and the performance of their jobs.
Gary H. Wolff, Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 14:
We support the bill. Troopers often have to act as paramedics, firefighters, and police officers in unpopulated areas.
Phil Gervasi, Lobbyist, President, Police Officers Association, Clark County School District:
School police officers should also be included in this bill. We are first responders and are usually on the scene before paramedics. We sometimes come in contact with homeless people who must be physically removed from school property. We are requesting that the language read, “a school police officer who has powers of a police officer pursuant to NRS 281.190." We would not want an infected officer working among children every day undetected.
Senator Carlton:
Are school police officers included in heart and lung coverage?
Mr. Gervasi:
No. We would like to be included in this as well as hepatitis C coverage.
Wayne Carlson, Lobbyist, Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool:
Most private-sector insurers have denied access to workers’ compensation coverage to agencies that have police and fire operations. We provide coverage for the smaller and rural governments throughout Nevada, and the fiscal impact of this bill could be very significant. It is entirely appropriate to grant this coverage to police officers, as you can see in our handout (Exhibit G).
Senator O’Connell:
I would just like to note for the record. On all information we’ve received, fiscal notes are addressing specifically the bill and not the expansion that we're hearing, is that correct?
Mr. Carlson:
Yes. This data (Exhibit G) is based on hepatitis C coverage for police officers only. It does not include heart and lung coverage or the two added classifications.
Fiscal information can be found on page 3 (Exhibit G). We developed the range of costs using national data. We recommend the cause of the disease be a rebuttable presumption rather than a conclusive presumption, since workers’ compensation is for work-related health problems only. A baseline test done within 72 hours of exposure can eliminate preexisting infection.
The heart and lung coverage is a lifetime benefit. We have had to raise our base rates 44 percent to cover post-employment costs. We suggest that "lifetime" be reevaluated.
Senator O’Connell:
When an officer leaves employment, does he still pay for this coverage?
Mr. Carlson:
No. The employees do not pay for coverage, the employers do. The 44 percent is being paid on behalf of current employees to create a reserve to meet the needs of former employees. The employer continues to be responsible for officers who have left employment unless they are hired by another police agency.
Mr. Dreher:
I would like to put on the record that to do what Mr. Carlson suggested, to test a police officer within 72 hours of an incident, we would be doing that on a daily basis because we are involved daily with those types of situations. So every time you got out of the car, you would have to go for another test, which to me would quadruple costs.
Dan Musgrove, Lobbyist, Clark County:
The fiscal analysis for Clark County (Exhibit H) is based on our experience with firefighters and assuming worst-case scenario. We agree first responders should have coverage, but DA investigators do not meet these criteria. They go into controlled situations and should not be included.
Senator Carlton:
Mr. Musgrove, do you currently vaccinate investigators for hepatitis A and hepatitis B?
Mr. Musgrove:
I do not know. I can find out.
Senator Carlton:
You do not want investigators to be covered for heart and lung or hepatitis C, correct?
Mr. Musgrove:
Correct.
Senator Carlton:
Are your investigators put into harm's way when they visit the Clark County Detention Center or one of the jails? In the public areas of those facilities, there are barriers between inmates and visitors.
Mr. Musgrove:
Not that I am aware of. I will research this and let you know.
Jim Jeppson, Risk Manager, Washoe County:
The cost of heart and lung coverage is astounding, and adding two more classifications will pose a significant fiscal problem for Washoe County. Washoe County faces unfunded liability of more than $10 million for health care for current retirees only. We ask the Legislature to consider some sort of cost‑sharing program or funding source for the counties. We will amend our fiscal note and submit it later.
Senator Hardy:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 184 and open it on S.B. 193.
SENATE BILL 193: Clarifies coverage of industrial insurance for members of Nevada Legislature. (BDR 53-782)
Senator Schneider:
After a legislator injured his leg last session, I requested Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, LCB, to do research on workers’ compensation coverage for legislators. She said legislators are only covered while on the floor of the Senate or Assembly voting. This bill was drafted to expand coverage to include whenever a legislator is doing the duties of a legislator. Our work has expanded to include speaking to outside groups, meeting with homeowners’ associations, and so on. This bill asks that we be covered as every other employee in the State of Nevada is covered.
Senator Hardy:
This bill would cover legislators wherever they are, if doing legislative business?
Senator Schneider:
Correct. Every member of this panel has gone out of town to events as part of their duties, and they were not covered at all.
Senator Shaffer:
Is this sort of coverage not required of all employers in Nevada?
Senator Schneider:
Yes.
Ex-Senator Lawrence Jacobsen:
I was injured while serving in the Legislature in the 1960s, while on a tour of Marlette Lake at the invitation of the Governor. After a car accident en route, I had difficulty getting treated or even transported because I could not prove I was covered. I eventually had to call in my private physician and still had to pay for emergency room care myself. The injury to my shoulder still causes me some pain on occasion. I recommend the Legal Division be asked to research the State's obligation in this respect. It is only reasonable that legislators should be covered when performing duties pertaining to the position.
Jim Fry, Workers’ Compensation Analyst, Risk Management Division, Department of Administration:
Before July 1, 2001, workers’ compensation coverage for LCB staff and legislators was provided by State Industrial Insurance System/Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (SIIS/EICON). The LCB opted to come in with the Executive Branch, so legislators pay premiums and have the same coverage as other LCB employees. The "scope and course" of a legislator’s duties will be determined by the courts.
Chairman Townsend:
It is important to define coverage rather than leave it up to some vague interpretation, particularly for the younger legislators who have families.
Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers, Department of Business and Industry:
This issue came up several years ago when Assemblyman Jim Banner slipped on the ice on the way to his office from the parking lot. He was covered because he was around the building. The difficulty comes when a legislator is injured away from the building.
Chairman Townsend:
Every year Senator Jacobsen served, he visited every State facility almost annually. It is not required, but somebody has to go out and see how things are going.
Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO:
We support this bill wholeheartedly. Being a legislator is a difficult job with less compensation than most people think. There should not be a question of coverage when you are doing your job, just like anyone else. If I went to an evening meeting for labor negotiations and was injured, I could make a case that it was in the course and scope of my job. A legislator should be in the same category.
John E. Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Builders and Construction Trades Council:
I totally agree with Mr. Thompson. Legislators should have the same right as other workers to make a case that you were on business when injured.
Chairman Townsend:
This committee has confronted this issue in the past and has always tried to be reasonable about what constitutes a workplace injury, even though you may not be actually on the job site when it happens. The job does not always end at the property line.
The hearing on S.B. 193 is closed. Is there any other business?
Senator Schneider:
I have some issues I would like to discuss at a future meeting regarding terrorism insurance, medical malpractice insurance, and gasoline prices. I would like the insurance commissioner, representatives of the insurance industry, and our consumer advocate to look into these matters.
Chairman Townsend:
Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst, please notify the insurance commissioner and the Bureau of Consumer Protection that we would like their input on these issues.
There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned at 10:51 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lynn Hendricks,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
DATE: