Comité Industry and Labor de la Cámara de Representantes, 4 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

316 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:01:56

   Hey. Hello, hello. Hello. Hey, we have a sign-up sheet if you're interested.

2. 0:02:03

   My seat mate. Thank you, brother.

3. 0:02:05

   In making a 15-second comment.

4. 0:02:08

   Official now.

5. 0:02:09

   Yes, sir. How's your baby feeling?

6. 0:02:12

   My baby is, uh-

7. 0:02:14

   Is that the flu?

8. 0:02:15

   We think so. They're trying, they've been trying to get blood out of him all day. They can't get blood out of the little guy. They're in there now trying to get blood.

9. 0:11:33

   Okay, it's 3:30, so we can start. And I'm gonna ask Representative McClain to open us in prayer.

10. 0:11:41

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Uh, let's bow our heads. Dear Father, bless us today to make sure that whatever we, decisions we make, we make in, in Your name. Father, You know, today is one of those days that, uh, when the sun came up, we all got up and we all wanted to make sure that we could do those, whatever we did, we did it in Your name. And Father, make sure that we realize that we vote from, from compassion, uh, that we realize that what we've gotta do is make sure that workers in Georgia are treated fairly.

11. 0:12:16

    Uh, and also employers, uh, Father. Don't, you know, just don't think that one is without the other, but we gotta have them both. And I just know this committee, uh, that we have a chairman that will make sure, uh, that we all realize that we all in this together. And we will, I will always ask this in the name of the Lord. In Jesus' name we pray, amen.

12. 0:12:42

    Amen.

13. 0:12:42

    Thanks, sir. Um, okay, we've got one bill before us, and just gonna give a little bit of historical s- perspective. So because this bill involves workers' comp, uh, for those that don't know, we have a advisory council that is made up of 110 members appointed by the chair of the State Workers' Comp Board, and he's here somewhere. I saw him right there, dead center. Chairman, uh, Vinson.

14. 0:13:14

    And so last year when we heard the bill, we heard probably an hour and a half worth of testimony. So, uh,

15. 0:13:27

    do with all workers' comp bills. Um, they presented us with a two-page white paper, um, that was not only neutral in explaining the effects of the bill, but their position was neutral, which little unusual, wouldn't you say? So, 'cause usually they come out with a support or a non-support. But they were neutral. Um, but I did go through the process, and so we're at it now.

16. 0:13:58

    So having had, you know, close to two hours testimony, going through the AC, um, it would, could be within my right to call for a vote now, but we're not gonna do that. I know some of you have traveled, um, a long way to, to this bill. But we're not gonna be here for an hour and a half. Um, so I wanna, I wanna make your comments as quick as possible. Um, I don't know that anybody's mind is gonna get changed. I, if, I don't think any member of this committee has not been addressed by both sides, so they've got the facts.

17. 0:14:39

    Um, and so we're gonna, we're gonna, uh, move through that. We're gonna let you speak. But couple of ground rules. I, I do want you, your comments to be made quick. And if committee members, uh,

18. 0:14:57

    I want you to jump to the end to your question instead of, um, you know, what you feel about the bill or whatever. If you've got a question, you know, let's ask it and move on. Um, so just to give an overview of the bill, this has to do with w- longshoremen and ri- and it is a little unusual because they, they participate, the employers.

19. 0:15:27

    Um, in a normal situation, employer, like most of us have state workers' comp, that we pay a, a fee to an insurance agent, we're covered. What makes this different is that it's a concurrent program mean, mean, means there's two things going on at the same time. These are, employers are paying for a federal program and, and for a state program. And so it, it is an extra burden on the, on the employers.

20. 0:16:02

    The benefit to an employee is the federal program pays better, but it takes longer to get it. So what is currently happening, 'cause I don't wanna hear the word double-dipping or people getting paid twice, 'cause that is not happening. What is happening is somebody gets hurt, and they file for state unemployment benefits, and they start getting paid pretty quickly. But they also file for s- for federal benefits.

21. 0:16:36

    And when the federal benefits, which is always later in time, kicks in, the, not the employer, but the, the benefits are reimbursed to the state so that there is no double paying. The, the, they're, they're compensated for that. But the fees to the insurance agent aren't And so this bill seeks to get the longshoremen's union or those employees, and we'll have some, um, definition of who all that includes.

22. 0:17:16

    Um, this is to move them from a non-concurrent, which means they're, they will be like most businesses. They'll just participate in one of them. So did I explain that correctly? I see a few head nods. Um, so with that, the sign-up sheet.

23. 0:17:42

    Okay. Paul Mosley, come up, tell us who you are and who you represent.

24. 0:17:51

    Thank you. Right there. Right there.

25. 0:17:54

    Yeah, you can do the, either one, table or the podium. Okay, I got you on.

26. 0:18:00

    Uh, good afternoon, everybody. My name is Paul W. Mosley Sr. I'm the president of the International Longshoremen Association, Local 1414 in Savannah. We are the largest labor union in the Port of Savannah. What I wanna discuss is, and Mr. Chairman, you summed it up pretty good, but there is a few things that's left out. It takes a total of 16 weeks, 16 weeks, for an individual to get even a increment of an answer from the federal government.

27. 0:18:33

    So that's 16 weeks where you're talking about individuals that's not working for 16 weeks, therefore, you're forcing individuals into bankruptcy and everything else. Now, to me, that's not the way you treat the hardworking citizens of the State of Georgia. These are the people that's paying the high taxes to the State of Georgia. It makes no sense. 16 weeks... Excuse me. I'm, let me correct myself. 16 months, 69.5 weeks in order to get on the docket.

28. 0:19:08

    That's my correction on that. 16 months, 69.5 weeks before an individual are allowed to talk to the federal government to even see whether they will, compensations will kick in. On top of that, to the staff, these are the same women and, m- men and women, 'cause you said longshoremen, so let me be correct. We have women out there working, too. Single parent women who are taking care of their family. You have single parent men that's out there taking care of their family.

29. 0:19:39

    And just put yourself in that situation. If you wasn't drawing a paycheck for 16 months, where will you be? It's a lot of people that make good investments with their money, but it still would put a financial strain on anybody when you're talking about something like that. And again, I have to always drive the point home. These are the people who are paying the highest percentages on taxes in the state. When management come in, Gateway Terminals and all these other terminals, they came into business, they knew what they were coming in business for.

30. 0:20:10

    They knew what they came in business to do. But during the time of the, these individuals, if you pass this bill, you are forcing individuals into, who are hurt, you're forcing them back premature, when they're not fully healed, to sustain another injury. I have a young man here, statement from a young man by the name of Samuel Green. Young man, well, I say young man, but he's in his 60, full of life. Loved to skate, loved to dance.

31. 0:20:42

    That was robbed from him in July of '23 because a container, something that he wasn't looking for. He's sitting in the lead picking up a box, supposed to be picking up a box. A container cut loose from a machine, drops on his back. You know what happens to him? Management, he turned around, after this happened, he's on his way to a doctor's appointment, and then all of a sudden a car ran into the back of his car. Because management insurance company, and I'm not gonna blame them, but their insurance company found out about this.

32. 0:21:14

    They decided that they didn't wanna pay this young man for worker's comp anymore, and he needed the surgery. But the good State of Georgia kicked in, and this young man was able to have his insurance. We're not asking, just like you said, it is not no co-mingling or anything. We're just looking for the represent, the, you members to represent the members that you look up to and when you ask those people for their vote. We're not looking for nothing extra. During the time of the pandemic, and I'm gonna sum this up, during the time of the pandemic, my men and women didn't take not one day off, while individuals for the house was on breaks.

33. 0:21:51

    You had management working from home. My men and women showed up every day, and we wasn't even considered to be essential workers. Why is that? You couldn't get the medical supplies to the hospital if we didn't get it off the ship. You couldn't get it in the grocery store if we didn't get it off the ship. We were stuck with dealing with individuals from foreign countries who we didn't know, who we had to talk in these people face. We didn't know what their vaccination or none of this stuff was. But now we gonna come up with a bill to hurt these individuals.

34. 0:22:24

    Only thing I'm saying, before you cast your vote, I want you to think about some of the things that the governor think. I want you to think about what this young gentleman right here just prayed about. Let's think about the individuals, the hardworking individual that represent the State of Georgia. Please vote no on this bill. Thank you.

35. 0:22:45

    Don't go anywhere. Tweeter, is that Chairman Petrea?

36. 0:22:49

    Yes. Thank you, Chairman. So sir, uh, thank you for giving us this information. That's the first time we've heard about, uh, 16 months. So, and, and to be clear, no one here in this body is trying to hurt workers, that's for sure.

37. 0:23:01

    Thank you, sir.

38. 0:23:01

    We have differences of opinions, but that is not the case. So help me to understand this. If, is it, so nationally, is this the case, 16 months for anyone-

39. 0:23:10

    Federally

40. 0:23:10

    ... in your profession all across the country? Why are you paying union dues for this coverage?

41. 0:23:15

    We're not-

42. 0:23:16

    S- seriously, I mean-

43. 0:23:16

    We're not paying-

44. 0:23:17

    That's-

45. 0:23:18

    We're not paying union dues for this company

46. 0:23:19

    You're not?

47. 0:23:20

    No.

48. 0:23:20

    Okay, you're not.

49. 0:23:21

    No, we're not, sir.

50. 0:23:21

    You're not paying somehow for that coverage?

51. 0:23:24

    No, sir.

52. 0:23:25

    Okay.

53. 0:23:26

    No, sir.

54. 0:23:26

    It's just available to you.

55. 0:23:28

    It's available to us. It's for-

56. 0:23:29

    Well, somebody's paying.

57. 0:23:31

    But the company is paying.

58. 0:23:32

    Yeah.

59. 0:23:33

    But now-

60. 0:23:33

    Okay

61. 0:23:33

    ... let me be clear about this.

62. 0:23:34

    So the company is paying for that-

63. 0:23:37

    Right

64. 0:23:37

    ... and for, for you to have coverage through the state.

65. 0:23:39

    Right.

66. 0:23:39

    Correct.

67. 0:23:40

    So now let me give you this, this, this, this bit of tea, because a lot of people don't understand this. If there's not a ship on that dock, we don't make any money. We don't have a guaranteed 40-hour a week job. We only work as needed. So if you have an individual that get hurt, they're in a pickle.

68. 0:24:03

    These individuals, they're, they're stuck. We only work as needed. If we have fog, we have snow, which the good state of Georgia, we had snow the other day and we weren't able to go right to work immediately. So we have all of these challenges when we get up in the morning to come to work. And I say we, I'm talking about my members. And let me be clear, I'm only talking about Local 1414. You have Local 1414, you have Local 1475, you have Local 2046. But in my union hall alone, sir, we have 3,000 people working in and out of that building.

69. 0:24:41

    3,000.

70. 0:24:42

    All right. Let's keep going. Uh, who's 27?

71. 0:24:46

    27.

72. 0:24:46

    Uh, Chairman Carpenter.

73. 0:24:48

    Mr. Chairman.

74. 0:24:49

    Yes, sir.

75. 0:24:49

    Yep. Thanks, thanks for being here. I'm still-

76. 0:24:52

    Gotcha. All right, then we're live.

77. 0:24:54

    Um, thanks for being here. I, I just heard you say you have about 3,000 members. Do you have any sort of... Is there an internal benevolence fund that you guys set up for workers? So if they run into this delay as they're waiting on, you know, waiting on... The union itself doesn't have any kind of benevolent fund for, that everybody chips into to kind of help folks or?

78. 0:25:17

    Well, what we have, sir, we don't have a benevolent fund for the union because, again, we're federal mandated. You know, DOL watches everything we do. We can't just take union funds and just say, "Okay, we got a member that's out. We can give them the money."

79. 0:25:30

    Okay.

80. 0:25:30

    It doesn't work like that. We fall under strict federal guidelines.

81. 0:25:33

    Okay. Yeah, I mean, I d- I don't, I don't know the layout.

82. 0:25:35

    Yeah. Right. Well, can-

83. 0:25:35

    So yeah, I didn't know if you guys did anything, you know, 'cause like if something happens in our community-

84. 0:25:38

    You know what we do, sir? I'ma, I'ma answer your question. You know what we do? The men and women, when we have an individual, when we have an individual who gets hurt that the company don't want to pay for, it's good you asked me that question. We go in our own pockets and give it to the member just to ch- help them pay bills.

85. 0:25:55

    Yeah, that's... I, I assume that.

86. 0:25:56

    Yeah.

87. 0:25:56

    That's what we do at home-

88. 0:25:57

    Yeah

89. 0:25:57

    ... when, when police officers-

90. 0:25:59

    Yeah, that's-

91. 0:25:59

    ... or firefighters have issues, everybody just kind of pulls up equally.

92. 0:26:01

    Yeah, we just chip in, so it's like a, excuse my French, it's like a pass the hat deal.

93. 0:26:05

    Yeah, yeah. I-

94. 0:26:06

    Which shouldn't be the burdens of everybody in the building.

95. 0:26:09

    Sure. I just didn't know with a, with a union organization if there was a, a, a leg of that-

96. 0:26:13

    No, sir

97. 0:26:13

    ... organization. Thank you.

98. 0:26:15

    Okay. Uh, Representative McClain.

99. 0:26:18

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, and thank you, Mr. President, for being here too and, and explaining it too.

100. 0:26:21

     You're welcome.

101. 0:26:21

     But I, I noticed you only s- spoke of the longshoremen, uh, them. Is there, are any other em- employees-

102. 0:26:29

     Yes

103. 0:26:29

     ... that, that work-

104. 0:26:30

     Yes

105. 0:26:30

     ... you know, that this is gonna affect at all?

106. 0:26:32

     Yes, sir. It'll affect those individuals who are in the area of the Tybee Island and Thunderbolt who are working on ship repairs. This thing goes wide. You're talking about a estimate from research, about 66,000 people will be affected by this bill. Because you have people that's working in the shipyards that will be affected. Anybody who's directly attached to that beautiful river, that beautiful port we got in Savannah, could be meaningfully affected by this bill being passed, sir.

107. 0:27:04

     Yes, sir.

108. 0:27:05

     Okay.

109. 0:27:05

     Thank you.

110. 0:27:06

     Let's, um... Okay, Bruce, that's all the questions. Thank you, sir for being-

111. 0:27:10

     Thank you

112. 0:27:10

     ... coming here. Bruce Caraway.

113. 0:27:25

     Good afternoon. Uh, uh, my name is Bruce Caraway. It's an honor to appear before you again. Um, I have been doing workers' comp law for, this is my 40th year. Um, I do practice, uh, Longshore and Defense Base Act. It's under the Longshore Act, and I've been doing that probably for the past 25 years. Um, I do more of a national practice. I do have a perspective as to how these cases are handled in Florida, where you don't have concurrent jurisdiction. Uh, Mississippi doesn't have concurrent jurisdiction.

114. 0:27:56

     Um, I will say that I, I think the, the Port of Savannah is much better than those ports. I think it has the infrastructure. I think it has the workers. But whether or not you pass this bill, it's not really gonna make any difference in the, the cost of freight. Um, at the outset, I'll say that, that if you pass this bill, it's going to be a tragedy. It will be a tragedy if you pass this bill, especially without further study.

115. 0:28:26

     Um, and as far as I know, this bill popped up last year, didn't go through the chairman's committee, um, Bobby Potter's committee. Bobby's here. He does the legislative committee through the, the State Board of Workers' Comp.

116. 0:28:37

     He did.

117. 0:28:38

     Um, his committee hasn't, hasn't studied this issue. Um, we did have a licensure committee that I was on. Brian McElreath was on that also. We had one meeting. We met in Jekyll, and we, we talked about the issues, you know, that, that's where the white paper came from. But it wasn't real study. You know, we don't know, you know, what would insurance premiums go up or down if this passes. We don't know. Um, if it changes insurance premiums, how does that change the cost of freight, you know, versus just maybe profit going in somebody's pocket? But what we do know is that it would be a tragedy for the workers as far as what would happen to them if they're thrown into the Department of Labor system.

118. 0:29:17

     Um, you know, John Grisham wrote a book called, uh, Gray Mountain, where he talked about the, the black lung workers and how basically they're caught up in the same Department of Labor system. And he, he painted the picture of the, the company, the coal mining companies, they're holding the cards, and so they know that these black lung workers, it'll take, you know, not 16 months, it'll take four or five years if that case is controverted until you get a judgment from the administrative law judge. Um, I don't know about you, I, I can't go two months without a paycheck, but to have a worker go five years without a paycheck, that's a tragedy.

119. 0:29:55

     You know, and what that does, it, it throws the system, throws the workers back onto the state system. You know, and so they're getting, you know, hopefully they're getting Medicaid, you know, maybe Medicare if they qualify for Social Security. They're getting welfare. They're getting rent support. Um, but do we wanna pass a bill that increases the role of people on welfare, or would we rather the company that they were working for when they got hurt be responsible for paying for that?

120. 0:30:24

     Um, you know, I'll just say that, that, you know, overview of the system, I mean, the, the problem with the Department of Labor is that the system, it, it was bad when John Grisham wrote about it, but it's worse now. Um, you know, Ralph Overbaum's here, he's gonna talk also. He, he does Defense Base Act. We represent people that are working in war zones. I have a client of mine who's caught up in the Department of Labor system. He's here to testify. Um, but the problem is that the Department of Labor handles not just workers who are working for Georgia companies overseas, it also handles workers who are foreign nationals.

121. 0:30:58

     So you have somebody who's from Somalia who's working in Iraq, and they hurt their back, well, they're entitled to a hearing. Um, and so because of that, the statistics are through the roof. You know, each judge is handling, you know, I don't know, you know, 2,000 cases a year. Um, and the, and the awards they write, they're 50-page awards. I mean, they're writing like they're on the Supreme Court of the United States. Um, the system is broken. You know, I, um,

122. 0:31:28

     The, the longshore worker, Sam Greene, uh, that was talked about earlier, I mean, that's my client. You know, he got work, work, he got hurt working for Gateway. It was an accepted case, you know, when the, when the container fell and injured his back and neck where he needed neck surgery. You know, he was getting his workers' comp benefits, and then Gateway got hold of a report that said he was in a auto accident. Well, the, the report was that his car was hit while nobody was in it. So that was the auto accident, was that it basically said his car was in an accident.

123. 0:32:00

     Um, under Georgia workers' comp, under, under Chairman Vinson's system, then the company, well, they could file, you know, they could file for a hearing. They say, "Hey, we hear he's in an auto accident. You know, we wanna go to court and cut off his benefits." And so due process occurs, and if he was in an accident, we go to court and cut off his benefits. In the longshore system, they cut Mr. Greene's benefits off. You know, they didn't, you know, investigate further. They didn't look into it. They just cut off his benefits. He didn't get his neck surgery approved. Um, you know, he went for months and months where he wasn't getting benefits.

124. 0:32:33

     Um, I, we filed a claim with the Department of Labor. We're waiting and waiting for them to do something. You know, filed for a hearing, waiting the, the two years for the trial to be held. Luckily, in Mr. Greene's case, I was able to file for a hearing under the State Board of Workers' Comp. We had a hearing set fairly quickly, you know, within two months, and started discovery. Under longshore, you don't even start discovery for six months to a year, so nobody's talking, nobody's exchanging documents, no depositions. Um, under the state system, discovery starts right away.

125. 0:33:03

     You know, so you can get to the justice of the situation, so, you know, the truth comes out under the state system. So in that case, we filed for a hearing, exchanged discovery, and, and Gateway did the right thing. They started his benefits back. They paid for his surgery. Um, you know, so good for them. I mean, they, you know, when we went through the system, they, they paid the benefits. But if we didn't have the State of Workers' Comp, the State Board of Workers' Comp handling the case, he would still be waiting for his surgery. We'd still be waiting for a hearing. And that's a tragedy. I mean, to, to have someone who, you know, not only gets hurt, you know, can't do things they likes to be able to do, but they're not getting their rent paid, they're not, not paying for their car.

126. 0:33:42

     I mean, I have clients that, you know, they, they lose their house. They live in their car, and then the car gets repossessed. When, when do they go there? Um,

127. 0:33:51

     All right. Will you-

128. 0:33:52

     So-

129. 0:33:52

     ... take a couple of questions?

130. 0:33:54

     Yeah, and, um, I, I have one, one more point to make-

131. 0:33:56

     Okay

132. 0:33:56

     ... if I may. Um, so we can prevent this tragedy, and then there's a way to do it, and it, and it's through rational study of the issue, not, you know, this hurried meeting out of the blue. You know, we had one meeting last year. Um, but I don't, I don't see any economic study of what's going on. I don't see any real back and forth. Um, you know, we've had one, one meeting trying to negotiate something. Um, you know, we're open for a second meeting. And I'll say that if you look at, at the statute OCGA 34-9-243d, it gives the State Board of Workers' Comp the right to write rules as to how an, a, an employer can say, "We're entitled to reimbursement." So if Gateway says, "Hey, we, we already paid this money through longshore.

133. 0:34:42

     We want reimbursement," um, there's already a system in place where they get, they get paid back for the wage loss. They're paid back for the, for the, um, medical treatment. And if there's any, any tweaks to it, if, if it's confusing how it's done now, the State Board of Workers' Comp already has the right to write rules as to how it can be accommodated. They can say, "Here's a piece of paper. Fill out the paper. Um, you know, tell us what's been already paid. You know, a little due process. You have 10 days, and then we're gonna get a reimbursement for it." Um, so the State Board of Workers' Comp has not fully explored this, um, and I think there, there's other avenues where it can be explored without the draconian just stopping the worker having the right to use the Georgia Workers' Comp system.

134. 0:35:24

     Okay.

135. 0:35:26

     Chairman Carpenter. Thank you so much. Two quick questions. Uh, one, what percentage of cases do you think, um, that are sent to the federal level are considered, uh, controversial, there's a disagreement between the worker and the employer? What p- what percentage total of all those cases? Uh- What percentage of cases are before the Department of Labor? Yeah, what, what percentage ends up going over this 16-month period where you c- you're, you're waiting four months before anybody's discovered anything? Are we talking 5% of cases, 2% of cases, 30% of cases?

136. 0:36:00

     What percentage is it? That, that's a very good question, Representative Carpenter, and, and, and it, it needs study. You know, l- let's take a look at it and see how many people this really affects. Um, you know, from my perspective, people call me when there, there's a problem with the case. 100% of your clients are, uh, yeah. Yes. Every... 100% of what you're dealing with is. I get that. Yeah, yeah. Um, I think that's an important piece to know. And then the other piece is, um, as far as your firm itself, what are the fees typically that you guys incur, um, out of the settlement dollars that the people get?

137. 0:36:32

     What pers- Like, what's your take on a state issue versus the federal issue? Does that make sense? I'm sure that- Is it the same, is it the same take rate or? Uh, that's a good question and, and I'll, I'll answer it this way. In John Grisham's book, he writes about the Department of Labor system, and he makes the point that there aren't many lawyers willing to take those cases because the system takes so long before anybody, anybody gets paid. You know, you don't see a billboard on, on I-95 saying, "Call me with your longshore case." Sure. You know, th- these are hard and, and most of the guys that do it are, you know, old like me.

138. 0:37:05

     You know, you don't have a, a 30-year-old feeding his family doing longshore workers' comp. Okay. Um, so to directly answer your question, in Georgia workers' comp, I'm paid 25% of the settlement. Okay. Um, you know, and I've settled a, a case through the Department of Labor, I mean, this g- a paraplegic. Um, total value of the settlement was s- was actually $8 million. Um, a lot of that was medical. Uh, my fee on that was $60,000. Right. Um, if it had been a Georgia workers' comp case, you know, at least on the indemnity part, I would've made $500,000.

139. 0:37:39

     Sure. So, so personally, um... So personally it works, but the st- your, your, your take at the state level's better than the federal level. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. Yeah, and I- Chairman. I, and, and understand, the longshore, we charge by the hour. So if it is a case that gets litigated and, and there's a lot of hours put into it, then, you know, I'm getting a good fee on that. But it, but it's still, you know, after four years, and I'm gonna have to win the case. Gotcha. Okay. We gotta keep moving. Chairman Bonner. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

140. 0:38:09

     Just, uh, uh, you know, my question I've got is, you know, what, what more is there to know? Um, and, you know, from like your perspective, i- i- because it sounds like we're at this philosophical difference, right? I d- I don't know how much more study it would require. Um, I mean, you know, even though we're not in session, that doesn't preclude the parties from having these conversations and, and coming to some sort of consensus knowing that, you know, ultimately, you know, the legislature may be the one that, that comes to that consensus for you, right?

141. 0:38:45

     So w- I mean, uh, I'm, I'm, I'm just not one to continue to kick the can down the road if it's not productive. So my question, I guess, is really, you know, what is it gonna do for somebody like you to, to come to consensus on this issue?

142. 0:39:01

     Um, well, for one thing, you know, we can use the, uh, the current process we have to write a rule that, that takes care of the problem the employer has. You know, if they're, if they're claiming double-dipping on some level, I know we're supposed to say that, but I think that was mentioned initially. But if they claim, "This is costing us three times as much as, as if it was just longshore," I wanna see the numbers. I mean, I, I'd like to see, you know, Gateway open up your books. You know, "What, what's your total budget for the year?

143. 0:39:32

     Um, you know, what's the current budget for workers' comp? And if this bill passes, what would your budget be? And if, and if that happens, how would that affect shipping costs? How would that... Basically, how would that change how many workers you can hire? You know, is it a difference that makes a difference, or is it just a, a minuscule amount that helps the bottom line, but it doesn't really help Georgia citizens, doesn't help hire more workers?" Um, we do know that it, it's a tragedy, that it devastates the workers being thrown in the system. That we know.

144. 0:40:03

     So to, to cause this tragedy, is it worth it? You know, what, what, what are they getting in return? Um, and like Representative McClain said, I'm, you know, just prayer, I'm all for, you know, what's fair for the worker, what's fair for the employ- uh, employer. You know, so why are the employers pushing this so hard? What, what are their numbers? Okay. Representative McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, I guess what I g- ask is, you know, do, do you think this bill will improve the experience of, of a worker, or do you think this is just a cost-cutting, uh, on the employer for their insurance?

145. 0:40:35

     I mean, I'm just trying to, I'm just gonna get to the chase, as Chairman Bonner said. You know, kicking it down the road is... So is this a cost-cutting for the insurance policy? I mean, I don't know. M- maybe you're not, you shouldn't, you may not be the one I should ask this question to, but, uh, is that, is this the reason? Is it insurance costs? Is it cost-cutting? Because it definitely cannot be an experience for a worker, uh, to be out of work and not get funds for 16 months. Uh, it, it, that's a good question, Representative McClain.

146. 0:41:06

     And, and, and I think the answer is that it, it's, it's totally cost-cutting for the employer. You know, as far as for the worker, it, it creates a system where, where there's such a delay in bene- in bene- benefits. And, and it's arbitrary. You know, some companies are fair. I, I like, you know, there's some, um, attorneys, you know, Brian McElreath, he's a good attorney. I like, and I like working with Brian. But there's some attorneys that aren't, you know? And so we're taking away the rule of law. and instead it's just arbitrary, you know, what does the insurance adjuster feel like that day? You know, d- they don't like the fact that the worker didn't have surgery, cut off the benefits.

147. 0:41:39

     Okay.

148. 0:41:40

     Uh, so it absolutely hurts the worker.

149. 0:41:41

     We've gotta shorten some of these answers.

150. 0:41:43

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

151. 0:41:43

     Okay, uh, Whip Park.

152. 0:41:46

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm, I'm trying to understand the implications that this bill would have with existing law, uh, in particular OCGA 34-9-11, which provides the exclusive remedy provision, which would prohibit or prevent, um, an employee from suing an employer if the employer provides for workers' compensation. By saying that, you know, employees, that, that the state-based workers' compensation would not apply to these employees who are under the federal protection, would these employees now be able to sue their employer through the civil process with the workers' compensation, um, immunity now being removed?

153. 0:42:29

     It, it, it is a different body of law, but, but I think the short answer is no. I mean, there, there's still, you know, there, there's still workers' comp, um, provided through the Department of Labor program, and, and that does create a bar where if your leg's cut off and they don't pay your benefits for four years, you can't sue for anything but workers' comp. You can't sue for negligence.

154. 0:42:48

     But, but if, if the Georgia workers' comp protection no longer applies to these employees, these employees would then be able to sue their businesses who are supportive of this legislation. Is that my... Is that a correct understanding or am I off-base there?

155. 0:43:02

     I, I don't think so. I think they still would, there still would be a workers' comp bar because there's still workers' comp under the Longshore Act. Um, and that does state that you can't sue for negligence. All you, all you can sue for is workers' comp.

156. 0:43:13

     Thank you.

157. 0:43:14

     Okay, that completes... Okay, Aaron, is that Foiler or Ol- Ola? Aaron, come on up.

158. 0:43:34

     Thank you, everybody, for taking the time to hear from me today. Uh, I am a worker that got injured-

159. 0:43:40

     Speak into the microphone 'cause it's also being recorded. Thank you.

160. 0:43:43

     Can you hear me better now?

161. 0:43:44

     Yep.

162. 0:43:45

     Thank you for taking the time to hear from me today. I am a, an injured worker that got hurt, uh, and filed underneath the federal program. Uh, I was injured in Afghanistan. I'm a father of three. Uh, and speaking to those, uh, since I returned home, uh, and getting treated, uh, I've had my benefits suspended arbitrarily three different times. Uh, one was for a lack of a following of a adjuster missed an LS200 that I submitted to them.

163. 0:44:19

     That was r- took a month to resolve. Uh,

164. 0:44:26

     s- the second time it was a 10-month ordeal, and that has been going on for 30 months now, and I still have not been compensated for that period of time. And we've gone through preliminary hearings, and they still, I mean, it's caused my family's home to go into forbearance, and this, it put me into a place where I have had to have surgery, and that surgery has gone sideways and caused me to have permanent nerve damage, so...

165. 0:45:11

     I, I'm sorry, I'm getting-

166. 0:45:12

     No, son, you're good.

167. 0:45:14

     Uh,

168. 0:45:21

     obviously with the loss of that amount of time, I, it, every time it happens, again, it happened this year, it is very traumatic that it triggers, I have issues, so...

169. 0:45:40

     Okay. Thank you for coming and testifying.

170. 0:45:46

     All right, don't see any questions. James Williams.

171. 0:45:53

     Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. Uh, thank you for allowing me to testify today. Um, I'm speaking in opposition of passing the bill at this time. Uh, as, uh, Bruce Curry already mentioned, um, I serve on the State Workers' Compensation Board. Uh, I was assigned by Chairman Vince- Vincent to the subcommittee to study this particular bill last year. Uh, we did meet in Jekyll Island. Um, various folks put in, uh, briefs and papers and information, um, and we talked for a few hours there trying to hammer out an idea on this.

172. 0:46:26

     And when we finished, uh, the, the chair, uh, Tracy Leonard, said that she would like to continue this conversation, continue to have meetings, and get more information. And I believe, and I don't wanna speak for Chairman Vincent or Chair Potter over the legislative committee, but I believe that's where the neutral stance come from. We haven't done a complete study on it. Right now we're looking at the longshoremen, we're looking at gateway terminals. But under the federal act, this is any intercoastal, um, waterway or byway, so you're talking rivers, you're talking barge traffic, uh, so we don't know how many workers this would affect by this particular bill.

173. 0:47:01

     We don't know if there's a Georgia State employee on a barge taking water samples, if they get injured, do they not have the right to file under Georgia Workers' Comp? Because under this law, they, they're on the, the maritime waterway. So would they file in Georgia, or would they only be allowed to file, uh, on the federal government level? We need to look at the fees. There's just a lot of more research and a lot of more study that we need to do to come up with an accurate, and this is why, um, the State Workers' Compensation board exists, is to do these difficult tasks. So I would just say pushing forward with this bill w- Um, would be a disservice to the workers.

174. 0:47:35

     It'd be dis- a disservice to the workers' comp advisory board. Um, and honestly, it would be a disservice to this committee, 'cause this committee made the choice to allow us to dig into this and find the decision, uh, to give for you, whether it was for or against this legislation. So I would just ask, uh, to wait and let us do the work that we've already been working on and we're continuing to work on so we can come up with an accurate decision, and you guys have the information that you need to make a proper decision. So that's all I have today.

175. 0:48:01

     All right. Thank you, sir. All right, there's no questions. Matt Campbell.

176. 0:48:14

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Matt Campbell. Um, I have the privilege of representing Gateway Terminals, which is one of the lar- largest employers, uh, especially on Savannah. In, in the state of Georgia, they employ, uh, several thousand people, um, and some are here today, obviously. So, uh, I'm not gonna speak very long. You know, this was talked about extensively last year. It was assigned to a committee, which, uh, has been referenced. Uh, the workers' comp board, um, created a task force, and, uh, Brian McElreath, uh, will be coming up here shortly.

177. 0:48:53

     He is, uh, of counsel of Gateway Terminals, and he was also on this task force, so he can go into more detail about the issues and clear some things up. Um, I will say this is not an attempt to strip something from an employee. This is an attempt to correct the system, a flaw, a flaw that has been addressed by many other states, many other states on the coast, that Georgia's ports, who we rely on as a huge economic driver, not only for these good jobs that have been mentioned, but to bring many of their products into the state, out of the state, and, uh, keep this economy thriving.

178. 0:49:28

     Uh, they have addressed this problem, and, uh, you know, I believe as a Georgia citizen, that we need to look at it and address it as well. Um, so Brian McElreath, you'll come up and, um, answer any questions. You want him here or up front?

179. 0:49:41

     Either one.

180. 0:49:41

     Okay.

181. 0:49:42

     Okay. Yeah. So any questions? All right. Brian.

182. 0:49:44

     Yes,

183. 0:49:51

     sir. Thank you, Chairman. I'll keep my comments brief and hopefully respond to any questions that you all have from the, the support side. Um, but m- my comments-

184. 0:50:01

     Pull that mic just a hair closer. Thank you

185. 0:50:04

     ... my comments, I basically wanted to sum up into addressing the, uh, the disservice or the tragedy that this would potentially be to longshoremen and women. The Georgia workforce is approximately five million people. We're talking about roughly 5,000, even if you double it, 10,000 people. That Georgia workers' comp system or their 80, 82,000 roughly federal employees, all those other folks, the five million minus 5,000 or five million minus 10,000, they're all covered by one system.

186. 0:50:39

     So to go back to the gentleman's prayer, we are just asking for equality for both employees and employers. The only employer that's saddled with the burden of carrying two coverages are maritime employers. Everybody else, if you're a federal employee, you're covered by FICA, you're covered by DBA, that the gentleman and, uh, Mr. Caraway spoke about. If you work on Fort Stewart, if you work at Henry, you're covered by the Non-Appropriated Funds Act. If you're your brothers and sisters in arms that are federal politicians or federal judges, you're covered by FICA.

187. 0:51:14

     If you're a railroad employee, you're covered by FELA. You don't have an avenue to state workers' compensation. And then there are approximately, what, five million minus 5,000 minus 82,000 that are covered by just the state workers' compensation system. And although there will be anecdotal times where the system isn't adequate, that isn't best addressed by having two systems. Those anecdotal incidents are unfortunately always going to exist. So a couple of other things and then I would love to address any questions that you all have.

188. 0:51:49

     I think Mr. Caraway corrected the misstatement about the 16 months on Samuel Green. As Mr. Caraway noted, Samuel Green's accident, he was the, the plaintiff's attorney, I was the defense attorney, Gateway was the employer. That was an accepted accident, as Mr. Caraway noted. Subsequently, it came to light that Mr. Green had had an, a car wreck that could've been an intervening accident, and his benefits were stopped at that time. They were stopped for 16 weeks. They were resumed, and he's being paid now.

189. 0:52:20

     There was no 16-month period ever. As for the, the pool that the gentleman on the left asked about, there is an accident and sickness pool. It's basically an in-house short-term disability plan, and it does provide for weekly benefits, not as robust as the federal or state system, but there are weekly benefits in an in-house accident and sickness fund.

190. 0:52:45

     I wanted to address will the premiums go down that Mr. Caraway brought forth. You have one policy that's federal, you have one policy that's state. We don't know what will happen with the federal. It might go up slightly. It might do that whether there are one or two policies, but if you take the requirement for one policy away, you can guarantee that those premiums are gonna go down. It's going to allow you to hire more folks from the good state of Georgia, and it's gonna allow the port to continue to grow and to continue to maintain its competitive advantage over its sister state, South Carolina, that has concurrent jurisdiction, and to keep from being caught by its bookend states, Florida and Virginia, that do not have concurrent jurisdiction.

191. 0:53:30

     Georgia, the fastest growing port in the nation in 2024- The Port of Norfolk, or Savannah was the fastest growing port in the nation, not Georgia. Port of Norfolk was six. I think Port of Jacksonville was seven. Port of Miami was eight. Those are the states that you have to worry about, are those non-concurrent states that are nipping at your heels. You've lapped Charleston many times over, but the way that, that South Carolina could get back within eyesight of Georgia would be to do what we're asking you to do first.

192. 0:54:04

     And then that means fewer jobs for the good hardworking folks of Georgia.

193. 0:54:14

     The, uh, the gentleman, Representative Park, asked about the exclusive remedy. So there is, there's a state federal workers' compensation system, there's a federal workers' compensation system. Although it seems odd to say they're exclusive remedies when you can have concurrent remedies , they're both exclusive remedies. They're both exclusive compensation remedies against the employer. So even if you do away with the state and it becomes an exclusive jurisdiction state, it would still be an exclusive remedy in the worker comp system.

194. 0:54:43

     I think those were all the clarity that I had. Uh, if anybody has questions, happy to address.

195. 0:54:51

     Okay. Representative McClain.

196. 0:54:54

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, and thank... No, excuse me, sir.

197. 0:54:58

     Oh.

198. 0:54:58

     Thank you. Oh, no, thank you. No, I I'm sorry. I, I, I want to get out, too, because, you know, the one that, that, that, you know, uh, President Modley said was it, you know, it takes 16 months to even get a hearing. Now, you didn't address that at all. Is there was a reason you didn't address that, or is, or is that common? I don't... I mean, I don't know.

199. 0:55:17

     Sure. Happy, happy to talk. Thank you for the question. Uh, I thought the 16 months, he then subsequently looped in Mr. Greene, that he said was 16 months. That turned out to be 16 weeks. It can, it can take... It depends on when, depends on what happens. If the case is denied from the beginning, which the thing that we should always keep in mind is-

200. 0:55:37

     No, no, excuse me. I'm not talking about what, uh, Mr. Caraway said. I'm talking about what the president said-

201. 0:55:42

     Understood

202. 0:55:42

     ... when he... Yeah, okay. All right.

203. 0:55:44

     Yeah. I, I believe the president was the gentleman that had the, the letter from-

204. 0:55:47

     Yes. Mostly, yes

205. 0:55:47

     ... from Samuel Greene. That was the same one that Mr. Caraway referenced. But getting to the 16 months. In al- in any of these protracted litigation span cases that we're talking about, we're talking about the 5 to 10% of cases that are controverted. As Mr. Caraway noted, Gateway is an exemplary, exemplary employer. 90 to 95% of these cases are accepted. The good folks of Georgia get injured, and they mostly go back to work, and Gateway pays their wage replacement benefits and provides their medical.

206. 0:56:20

     They don't see me. They don't see Mr. Caraway. They don't see Mr. Lobovon. So we're talking about that 5 to 10% of cases that may be denied, for whatever reason. And so then it depends on when that denial occurs. If it denies, if it's denied right out of the gate, the person never gets paid, they can refer that case up after 30 days and probably have a hearing within six to eight months. Now, it will take some time to get a decision and order back from that judge, and that can be anywhere between one to three years.

207. 0:56:50

     Like Mr. Caraway, I litigate in multiple states. If you litigate a case, and this is my anecdotal experience, uh, there's no case study on this, but when I've litigated cases in Virginia and Florida, it typically takes a year and a half, two years. Those are non-concurrent states. When I litigate cases in South Carolina and Georgia, it typically takes two and a half or three years. Those are concurrent states. Is that because they have to weigh a state statute and a federal statute and kind of educate themselves on what's going on? I don't know, but that's just my experience.

208. 0:57:21

     But I am acknowledging, yes, it can take a while to get to those.

209. 0:57:27

     Okay.

210. 0:57:28

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

211. 0:57:29

     Okay. Carpenter, Bonner. Chairman Carpenter.

212. 0:57:33

     Let, let me ask you a question. Do you think if we, there would be a lot less heartburn over removing this, uh, capability in the State of Georgia if we were able to adopt the same pay scale as the feds do? So for instance, if we, if we made a decision in code to say, "The feds are paying you by the hour to do workers' comp work. The state should pay that same rate," do you think that would, there'd be a little bit less heartburn of, from the other side of this issue to get rid of it?

213. 0:58:06

     'Cause to me, that, that illustrated a big issue for me, was when you're making 25% in the State of Georgia and you're only getting paid by the hour with the feds, it's, it's almost like you're taking away somebody's upside. And I'm not against people having upside, but at the same time, you're asking the citizen, you know, you're asking companies in Georgia to pay for that upside. So do you think that would slow down this, this conversation?

214. 0:58:31

     I think that's a great question. It's also a difficult question, because does, does the contingency fee make things more enticing for plaintiffs' attorneys? I've never been one, but I assume it would, because 25% of $2 million, like Mr. Caraway said, is a half a million dollars, right? But could workers get in, get hurt if you went... Well, I guess if you went to an hourly rate, if... I would say, if anything, you should go to an hourly rate in Georgia, because what happens is people with small cases have a hard time finding attorneys.

215. 0:59:04

     If it's a contingency fee on a finger case, and that finger's worth at most $4,000, 25% of that's $1,000. If, you're gonna be hard-pressed to find an attorney that, that will represent you on that. So that's where the federal case is superior, because it allows them to charge, you know, $4- or $500 an hour, and they may only recover $4,000 that the finger's worth. But if I fight that for some reason, I could end up paying them $50,000. Does that answer your question to some degree?

216. 0:59:37

     Follow Chairman. Yes. And, and do you-- So that, that brings up another point just in my head. Um, do you think that some of the clog in the federal system is because they're getting paid by the hour, and so they're, they keep pushing? You know, attorneys for the, for the employee are pushing stuff that because they're getting paid by the hour. Does that make sense? Is that, is that just-

217. 0:59:59

     That, that does make sense. I would, I would brag on the guys and gals that litigate on the Southeast or on the East Coast. They generally don't litigate about their fees in this area. Is that a problem in California? It absolutely is. The, the clog in the federal system is, as, uh, Mr. Caraway noted, it covers multiple. It covers defense-based contractors. It covers non-appropriated workers.

218. 1:00:20

     Gotcha.

219. 1:00:21

     And when we withdrew out of Afghanistan, there were 14,000 people that filed contemporaneous PTSD claims and flooded the system.

220. 1:00:29

     Gotcha.

221. 1:00:29

     A system that was already over- overburdened, and it just brought it to a screeching halt.

222. 1:00:33

     Perfect. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And kudos to you guys for that compliment. Thank you for doing what you do.

223. 1:00:38

     Representative Park.

224. 1:00:41

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm, I'm just trying to better un- wrap my head around the exclusive remedy component. So i- if we w- if this bill passes and we are an exclusive state and a federal judge rules that that federal workers' comp does not apply, would that employee then be able to file a lawsuit against the employer?

225. 1:01:07

     Po- possibly. If, if, if it doesn't apply because they're not an employee, then the exclusive remedy wouldn't be a bar because the exclusive remedy is only a bar to employees.

226. 1:01:18

     Right.

227. 1:01:18

     If, if they ruled that the work comp doesn't apply because they didn't have an accident, they were an employee, but they didn't have an accident, then the exclusive remedy would still apply because they are an employee. Does that make sense?

228. 1:01:32

     To, to a certain extent. I mean, you know, does the state, um, workers' comp, um, component, does that not also serve as a shield to employers, right? In which if that's then removed under this bill by moving to a exclusively federal workers' comp situation, and again, a federal judge rules that that federal workers' comp claim is not, um, under s- uh, their respective tests, right, um, i- is, is, won't move forward, that employee or the employer would no longer have that exclusive remedy immunity shield from lawsuits.

229. 1:02:08

     Is that correct? So essentially-

230. 1:02:11

     It, it would-

231. 1:02:11

     ... this bill could open up to, open li- employers up to greater liability. Is that a possibility?

232. 1:02:17

     I guess it's a possibility. It would depend on why they ruled against them, but there's an exclusive remedy shield under both the State Workers' Comp Act and the Federal Workers' Comp Act.

233. 1:02:26

     Mm-hmm.

234. 1:02:26

     So if you did away with one, the exclusive remedies shield still stands. Would there be potential tort liability if someone said you're not an employee? Absolutely.

235. 1:02:36

     Thank you.

236. 1:02:38

     Representative Holly.

237. 1:02:40

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna go straight to it.

238. 1:02:48

     Have you lost confidence in the Workers' Compensation Board to meet again to be able to come up with a compromise?

239. 1:02:54

     Have I? Have I?

240. 1:02:55

     Yes.

241. 1:02:58

     No. I would, I would say the, the, the both sides met in good faith and had a lot of promising discussions and then-

242. 1:03:08

     And then, yeah.

243. 1:03:11

     I mean, it's-

244. 1:03:11

     So if they were to meet, if-

245. 1:03:12

     If you wanna know the answer, I can tell you.

246. 1:03:13

     Yeah.

247. 1:03:13

     There, there was one individual that wasn't on my side that said, "You can't be a little bit pregnant. Either you're, either you're concurrent jurisdiction or you're not, and I'm not interested in anything else." And both sides, I think, were kind of flabbergasted about that, and that was, that was the breakdown. I mean-

248. 1:03:30

     Mm-hmm

249. 1:03:30

     ... everybody else, there w- there seemed to be an arm's length negotiation, like we're talking here. Like, there were reasonable discussions and trying to craft reasonable remedies.

250. 1:03:39

     And, and I understand that. And I know, you know, you being an attorney and understanding that, you know, a lot of the anecdotal, um, lessons that you've learned practicing in jurisdictions when a judge would grant you a reset or maybe put it towards a continuance, it gives parties to meet again. Sometimes they go into arbitration. You come out maybe with, because there's pressure upon you, it might provide maybe a, a, a faster resolution. And so the only reason why I bring that up here is because, granted, this is probably our third week. You know, we're, well, crossover is, it's a little way off.

251. 1:04:12

     If for the pressure of us all being in the room, if this were even to be reset a week for you all to meet again, would it be clearing your conscience to be able to say, "You know what? Perhaps because of the pressure there, it won't be so one-sided that perhaps, um, there may be, um, a compromise that will work better upon our conscience to be able to either deny or pass this bill."

252. 1:04:34

     Let me, uh, help answer that because then we saw an example last week. If y'all know anything about me, I love see... I mean, we had a bill last week that the two sides could not have been further apart, and we spent hours negotiating to come up with a compromise. I tried that this week, and you answered it. And to your point about being a little bit pregnant, there, that's the problem with this bill, and that's what I don't like, not about the bill, but this type of bill.

253. 1:05:11

     There is no compromise. You either do it or you don't. It's, you know, if you, if you have a, a bill to change the, the flag, which was debated, you know, years ago, there's a lot of compromise with what goes on the flag and what doesn't. If you have a bill to change the state flower from a daisy to a daffodil, there is no compromise. It's, so I don't see how... I mean, they did meet. They c- they came away, and, and of course, everybody on that committee is not gonna have the same kind of answer But this type of bill, because I've, I've ...

254. 1:05:50

     I mean, everybody in this room knows I've talked to most of y'all at length, and there's, there's no compromise. We- we're either gonna go to a concurrent state, a concurrent system, or we're not. And so that's the problem with this. Um, or not the problem, it's the nature of this type of bill. So I don't see any more que- well, yep. Uh, I'm sorry, Representative McClain.

255. 1:06:18

     Thank- thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I guess I need to be fair in, in everything that I do because, you know, um ... So what kind of compensation do you get from, uh, uh, for working doing these cases?

256. 1:06:29

     Sure. I, I get paid by the hour just like, uh, the federal plaintiffs attorneys. I just get paid 40% of what they do.

257. 1:06:37

     Okay. I-

258. 1:06:38

     But I, I, I don't have to win to get paid. They, they may or may not have to win to get paid-

259. 1:06:41

     Oh, okay

260. 1:06:42

     ... depending on how the case goes.

261. 1:06:43

     So you get paid regardless if you win or not and then-

262. 1:06:45

     All right.

263. 1:06:45

     Thank you.

264. 1:06:46

     But we're straying away from the bill. Yeah.

265. 1:06:48

     Yeah.

266. 1:06:48

     Okay. All right. That exhausts questions unless there's someone in the audience that would like to, that did not sign up. I see a hand raised. Come on up.

267. 1:07:02

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought I had signed up. My name's Ralph Lorberbaum. Uh, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk. I s-

268. 1:07:10

     Get closer to the mic.

269. 1:07:11

     I spoke twice last year.

270. 1:07:13

     Right.

271. 1:07:13

     But we had a, a separate issue at that time, as you mentioned, with this double-dipping. Uh, I'd just like to start out by saying that, uh, I saw Ron Stephens here. I'm one of his constituents from Savannah, and, uh, he does a great job for us. We may not agree on everything, but he does a good job. The thing that I wanna point out is that there's over 12,000 cases pending in front of the United States Department of Labor on cases to be decided.

272. 1:07:45

     There are 34 judges due to, uh, the president's request for, uh, people to take early retirement, opt out. The staff in the judge's office, and there's seven judge's offices around the country that hear these kinds of cases, longshore cases, uh, the staff has been reduced to one or two clerks to help write the opinions for these 12,000 cases. Um, insofar as the length of time, it typically takes, where a controvert is filed, uh, anywhere from one to four months to get an infor- what's called an informal conference, where you have to talk with the Department of Labor at a lower level and see if they can work the matter out.

273. 1:08:36

     Once that happens and they issue a recommendation, it's not an order, they're not judges, they're not even lawyers, you can ask for a trial. Savannah, all cases from Savannah are being handled out of the Covington, Louisiana office. It typically takes a minimum of a year from when the case is filed in their office to get a trial, and it typically takes anywhere from one to three years from the day of trial to get a decision from the judge.

274. 1:09:11

     Now, as, as I see, the biggest problem that is going to happen if you eliminate concurrent jurisdiction, forgetting the, uh, whether or not you can sue your employer, is going to be there is nothing to stop the carriers and the employers from controverting every single claim. Why? Because they know it's gonna take th- three, four years for a judge to make a decision.

275. 1:09:42

     Under the state workers' compensation system that we have, if a claim is decided or if it's not, you can get to a hearing within 60 days. If the claim has been accepted, the carrier cannot suspend benefits without a hearing if the authorized treating physician hasn't released the claimant. Under the longshore system, the carrier can just go, go get a report from a doctor. Maybe he's in California or he's in Maine. We don't like what's being done.

276. 1:10:14

     We're gonna stop the benefits. So what you're going to do is increase the number of claims and the length of time that it's gonna be to get these workers their benefits.

277. 1:10:28

     Okay.

278. 1:10:29

     Right?

279. 1:10:29

     Let's answer a question and-

280. 1:10:31

     Right

281. 1:10:31

     ... move on, 'cause you did. You testified at length-

282. 1:10:33

     Yes

283. 1:10:33

     ... already. Okay. Uh, uh, okay, Wood Park.

284. 1:10:38

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

285. 1:10:40

     Yes.

286. 1:10:40

     Uh, this question may not necessarily be for you, but, uh, for the gateway, uh, representative along with, uh, the attorney. Um, a- and I certainly appreciate your, your presentation.

287. 1:10:49

     Sure.

288. 1:10:49

     But so, so for the employer, um, if we move to a exclusive, uh, federal jurisdiction given the timeline, w- what's the plan for injured workers in the meantime given, given the clearly longer period of time in which, you know, they won't receive any benefits whatsoever?

289. 1:11:07

     Sure. W- love to address that. So again, 90 to 95% of cases are accepted. People are being paid. 5 to 10%, they're not. And the, the hammer hanging over my head in that instance is... are the attorney's fees. If I don't pay, if my client doesn't pay compensation to the injured employee within 30 days of their injury, the genie is out of the bottle on attorney's fees and I owe opposing counsel's, not me, my client owes opposing counsel's fees throughout the lifespan of that claim.

290. 1:11:38

     That genie cannot be put back in the bottle, and those fees at an hourly rate. That's a great benefit to the employee because that, they are made whole And the, the opposing counsel doesn't get 25% of their money, they get paid in addition to by my client. So my client's exposure becomes paying not only the employee, the injured worker, but also paying those fees in addition too, which can be 50, 60, $85,000.

291. 1:12:08

     I, I, I think just especially from hearing from, you know, workers and their personal experiences, you know, how heartless would it be to move forward with this in which we're leaving injured workers ultimately hanging? I mean, uh, you know, s- the, you know, this is certainly not my area of, uh, expertise, but the exclusive remedy aspect aside, or, uh, including that, I mean, ultimately this seems that it could potentially, you know, provide some short-term benefit with respect to lowering insurance premiums, but subject, open them up to a greater liability.

292. 1:12:40

     But for workers in particular, you know, this, this seems incredibly harmful, um, especially, you know, given the, the, you know, testimony that we received today. Um, I, I have a very difficult time understanding the benefits that this would have, certainly being in this committee, uh, in which we've been as intentional as possible to pass legislation that benefits or provides parity for both employers, employees. Where is the employee benefiting, especially if injured in those instances? Let's say those 5 to 10% instances, um, in which this goes to litigation and it's a complex case.

293. 1:13:16

     Well, I, I think I can maybe fall on a sword that helps explain. I, I acknowledge that all 5 million Georgia workers would be better served if, if all employers were required to have both state and federal coverage, right? Duplicative coverage will cover more gaps. And if you did three coverages, it might cover even more gaps, or five coverages. But I think 4.95 million workers are covered by one coverage. The employers of those 4.95 million employees are only required to have one coverage.

294. 1:13:53

     I think fairness dictates that everybody be treated equally.

295. 1:13:58

     Would you say that there's a difference with, uh, with respect to risk of workers versus the work of longshoremen?

296. 1:14:06

     Uh, possibly. I mean, if you work as a, a Walmart greeter. Well, uh, longshoremen work very hard, longshorewomen work very hard. I do not, um, deny that.

297. 1:14:17

     But you-

298. 1:14:17

     There, there are tons of state workers that do construction and manual labor that, you know, bridge builders that work very hard. I think those, those cases are always gonna exist in every scheme.

299. 1:14:28

     I think clearly, you know, State of Georgia has a concurrent system for, for, for a good number of years for certain reasons, specifically with this, with respect to longshoremen. I have not yet heard a reason as f- on, on behalf of employees as to why that should change, other than a direct short-term benefit of employers potentially lowering their insurance premiums to the detriment of, to workers.

300. 1:14:50

     Oh, okay. That, that's a fair question. I think, I, I think the benefit to employees would be the continued growth of the port and the expansion of jobs. Longshoremen and longshorewomen work very hard. Most of them don't have a college degree, and most of them make far in excess of six figures. These are jobs that would not be available to people of similar education, and I think continuing to grow the port allows those jobs to grow and those hardworking constituents to have jobs that they couldn't have with their current life experience, well-paying jobs that allow them to provide for their families.

301. 1:15:26

     Are you asserting that the concurrent system is what is inhibiting growth of the port?

302. 1:15:32

     I think the port is growing very well, but I think you could really unleash the port even further absent the concurrent system. Florida doesn't have it, Virginia doesn't have it. They're having banner years that they haven't had previously.

303. 1:15:43

     Even if workers know going in that they may not be able to receive benefits for months if they're injured?

304. 1:15:52

     I think under the state system, they may not be able to... Uh, if a case would be denied under the federal system, it would likely be denied under the state system. There aren't different versions of deny. I mean, a denied case would be a denied case no matter which forum you were litigating in. You might have a quicker avenue to a remedy under the state system.

305. 1:16:10

     I'm, I'm not aware of a 12,000 case backlog at the state level, at least right now. Um, but, but I, I appreciate your, your answers. Thank you.

306. 1:16:18

     Yes, sir.

307. 1:16:19

     Chairman Petrea.

308. 1:16:22

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move due pass.

309. 1:16:25

     We've got a motion. Second. We have a second. Any discussion? Lipart?

310. 1:16:33

     Uh, motion table.

311. 1:16:35

     Second. Okay. We gotta handle that first 'cause that takes precedent. On the motion to table, all those in favor say aye.

312. 1:16:44

     Aye.

313. 1:16:45

     All those opposed? No. All right, let's do a hand count. All those in favor to table, raise your hand. Four. All those opposed? Okay, that motion fails. Back to the motion to pass. All those in favor say aye.

314. 1:17:06

     Aye.

315. 1:17:06

     All those opposed? No. Does anybody want a hand count? I do. Okay. All those in favor say aye, or raise your hand.

316. 1:17:18

     Got it. Okay, all those opposed? Okay, the motion carries. We're adjourned.