Senate Insurance and Labor Committee, March 26, 2026

Transcript

704 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:16:36

   Closer and closer. Uh, I'm gonna ask, uh, Senator Ed Harbison if he would pray for us. He will be missed greatly. Uh, and I say this, he has been a great friend, a great, uh... How many years in the Senate, sir?

2. 0:16:50

   It will be 34.

3. 0:16:51

   Only 34. A mere 34 years.

4. 0:16:54

   Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

5. 0:16:54

   You were a teenager then, weren't you?

6. 0:16:56

   I did what to whom?

7. 0:16:57

   You were a teenager.

8. 0:17:00

   Great to have you.

9. 0:17:01

   Same here. That's very kind of you.

10. 0:17:03

    Thank you.

11. 0:17:03

    Yeah.

12. 0:17:04

    And we get confused a lot. They say Harbison and Harbin, and it's because we look so much alike, right?

13. 0:17:09

    The only time they don't confuse us- ... is when they pass out the checks. He got the lounge, lion's share. If you'll bow with me. Father God, we thank you for the blessings of this day. Thank you. Let us be of godly mind when we contemplate for the people to the betterment and to the care and comfort of the people of the state of Georgia. Thank you, Father, and bless us as we travel to and for. Let us remove hate from our hearts and give us strength to love one another in spite of our differences. These things we ask in Jesus' name.

14. 0:17:39

    Amen.

15. 0:17:40

    Amen. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. All right, we're gonna start HB 1274. Representative Reeves, come on down.

16. 0:17:54

    Okay, we got that. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Harbin and members of the Senate Insurance Committee. Good to see you again. Uh-

17. 0:18:01

    Good to be seen.

18. 0:18:02

    Thank you, uh, for, uh, taking a look at 1274. Do you have LC1118S? Is that the version before you?

19. 0:18:10

    That's correct, sir. That's what I've got.

20. 0:18:10

    All right. I wanna thank the chairman and other members of this committee to continue to work on some of these insurance affordability, uh, ideas. I, I did wanna, uh, communicate, uh, 1344 that you passed out of the committee the other day. I've circulated that the last two days, and if you send that over to the House, I'm prepared to ask for an agree on that version that y'all amended on there. So appreciate your work and-

21. 0:18:33

    It's... I can tell you it's coming.

22. 0:18:34

    Good.

23. 0:18:34

    I can't tell you when. I can just tell you it's coming. Kind of like-

24. 0:18:37

    Thank you

25. 0:18:37

    ... like Jesus. We know he's coming.

26. 0:18:39

    I appreciate you, uh, working together with us on that.

27. 0:18:41

    Thank you.

28. 0:18:41

    That has some good ideas from the Senate and the House in there to make insurance more affordable, and so does House Bill 1274. Let me walk through what is currently in 1274. The first part, section one, uh, this, this is amended from what you, uh, saw the other day about the excess profits, uh, auto bill that came from the House Study Committee. Uh, some changes are the effective date is January the 1st, 2028. It has a five-year period rather than a three-year period.

29. 0:19:15

    Uh, it has a 6%, uh, rather than a 5%, uh, factor. And so just to take a step back, Florida has had a statute on the books for decades where in their rate filings, the anticipated profit line item, if you exceed that line item for three straight years by 5%, then you have to give a, a rebate, and then you have to file a rate filing. What this bill does, it mirrors that Florida law just for auto, but it has a five-year, um, look-back period, and then it has a 6% factor.

30. 0:19:50

    Those were some amendments, uh, that, uh, the Senate, uh, reviewed, uh, in addition to the effective date mo- being moved back. And, uh, it also makes it clear that insurance commissions and premium tax payments and other tax payments, those will not be changed despite the rebate. So the rebate will go to the customer. It's similar to what State Farm did recently nationwide. They had a $5 billion rebate back to customers, but you're not gonna have the commissions and the taxes undone because of that.

31. 0:20:22

    It's a pure rebate with no effect on commissions and taxes. And, uh, the, uh, you'll have the refund within 60 days of the final order with the insurance department, and those were some changes, uh, made by the Senate that, uh, are agreeable, and we appreciate, uh, the second look on that and, and request your approval of that. Auto insurance, we got 9.1 million drivers. This will provide some relief, uh, to them. The way this statute has worked in Florida is there's only been one big rebate and fine.

32. 0:20:55

    Uh, what it has done is it has made the auto insurance companies be real accurate and modest when they're filing their rates and make sure that customers are getting the lowest rates possible on the front end rather than the back end. So it's worked well there. Uh, appreciate the modifications in the Senate and, uh, uh, prepared to advocate for that in the House. Section two of this substitute, that is the ambulance surprise billing that Senator Shawn Still has, uh, advocated for, and it has been heard in the House. We passed it out of the Insurance Committee in the House.

33. 0:21:28

    Uh, uh, there's, uh, Senator Still right there. Uh, so the, uh, surprise ambulance billing is included at section two. And, um, Senator Still can elaborate, uh, if you'd like to hear more about that. But this, uh, provides, uh, some consumer protections on ambulance charges. Where he and I overlap in Sugar Hill, Georgia, that is a pretty good distance away from a hospital, so that's certainly gonna help customers, uh, in places like where we overlap and all across the state on their surprise ambulance bills.

34. 0:22:02

    Section three and four, Chairman Harbin, uh, these are, are your provisions, uh, that I understand have been heard in the House Insurance Committee in a past term, and, uh, they're pending now. One is the insurance, uh, unclaimed funds, uh, provision, uh, which, uh, uh, requests insurance companies to search for, um, unclaimed, uh, funds, beneficiaries, and has, uh, provisions there to ensure that, uh, beneficiaries of life insurance policies are found and, uh, that information is available.

35. 0:22:38

    And then section four, again, that's been heard in the past. You've had it pending, uh, for a while. Uh, and that, uh- Authorizes policyholders to designate an authorized recipient to access policy information through a form, uh, developed by the Department of Insurance, and, uh, gives a plain language statement of policyholder's rights and a standardized authorization form on the department's website by January the 1st, 2027. And, uh, Chairman Harbin can elaborate more on that.

36. 0:23:08

    One thing I did want to mention on, uh, LC 52-1118S, on line 73 and 74, uh, we've moved it from three years to five years. And so where it says at two 12-month intervals on line 73, I would request for that two to be changed to four, because we added those three years. I've checked with, uh, uh, the department and, and legislative counsel on that. And then on line 74, it says three evaluations, and that should be changed to five since we're dealing with five years.

37. 0:23:44

    So I would request those amendments to that. Um, if you have any questions on the ambulance billing or the life insurance or the, uh, uh, policyholder, uh, authorized recipient, I know, uh, Senator Still and, and Chairman Harbin, uh, can answer that. And then, um, I, I do have the rate filing, uh, information with fines. I've got that, uh, if that is something that, that I can ask for here. Okay.

38. 0:24:15

    I want to ask, is this those two items that he mentioned in 73 and 75, 74, that's something we can review?

39. 0:24:24

    We can do that and the sub, and then, uh, and then give you the answer.

40. 0:24:29

    You can, you can handle that. We can handle that after we get through. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Okay, dope.

41. 0:24:32

    We need an amendment for subs.

42. 0:24:34

    Okay. Senator Merritt.

43. 0:24:38

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,

44. 0:24:42

    this is a- again, another bill that, uh, has several bills on it. Is that correct, Representative Reeves?

45. 0:24:50

    1270-

46. 0:24:50

    We've sub- we subbed it out for several pieces of legislation.

47. 0:24:53

    12- 1274 was the original bill. That was the auto access profits, and then the additions are Senate bills.

48. 0:25:00

    Okay.

49. 0:25:01

    Right.

50. 0:25:01

    Um, I have no bui- real issues with the bill themselves. My issue is this, and this is a process and something that, um, my caucus leadership will back me on. We have three bills here today, and they're all subs. I did not get any of these subs for... I think they're all subs. I know at least two of them are. But the issue is we often don't get the subs until we're sitting here. I asked for these subs two hours ago.

51. 0:25:34

    It is not fair, as legislators here, we represent our districts and the people of Georgia. It is not fair that all of us do not have proper time to vet these bills before they're dropped to us. It is almost impossible to go through a whole bill that's almost 20 pages and properly vet it and have our teams properly vet it for us to be able to debate here, Mr. Chairman. So that part of the process, I know it is in practice, I know we do it, but in all fairness, for us all to be able to, um, speak for our districts, advocate for our districts, and legislate as we should, we should have copies of these, these bills way before two hours before we meet here.

52. 0:26:15

    So I'm going to have a hard time supporting any bill here today because I just got subs today. Even if it's bills I've seen, I still have not had time to properly look and vet this legislation. So, and there are some good pieces here that I have no real issue with, but that is my issue. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

53. 0:26:36

    Okay. We, we make note, we'll make note of that. Let me ask a question. I know we've had, um, well, questions by the committee. Let me go there. A- any, any questions? But... Okay. Do we... I've got a sign-up sheet with a Bruce, is it Caraway?

54. 0:26:53

    Uh, yes, sir. I'm actually here about the Longshore-

55. 0:26:55

    Okay. Okay. It didn't have a number, so you're... Okay. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we, we got that. Okay. Very good. All right. Uh, let's see. We have it as it is, and am I correct, we're gonna need to make those two corrections as far as that, uh- And Mr. Chair, I was passed down that one page of the rate review of violations, uh, that we've circulated that a lot. Uh, if there's any way to include this in this bill, I think it would be something that would be helpful.

56. 0:27:26

    I'm not gonna do that right, right now, but, uh, I'll- Okay ... I'll take note. Thank you. Listen, is that, that the copies?

57. 0:27:34

    Let me see here. Is that what we had? Yeah, this is another sub. Yeah, it's another, another one. Okay. Let's, we're gonna work with what we've got there. Let me go, Senator 13 is... Who's that?

58. 0:27:44

    Still.

59. 0:27:45

    Still. Senator Still. Yes.

60. 0:27:47

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm just trying to match up LCs here. So the paper that's being distributed to the members now is-

61. 0:27:54

    Jason wants that passed. I know

62. 0:27:56

    ... 1119. We're looking at 1118. I just want to make sure no one's getting confused, uh, to Senator Merritt's point on, uh, since we're seeing a lot of this for the first time, I just want to make sure that we're focused on that because this,

63. 0:28:14

    this LC does not match the bill. So I'm, it's just a-

64. 0:28:19

    Yes

65. 0:28:19

    ... it's, it's a one-up number.

66. 0:28:20

    That's right.

67. 0:28:20

    And just creating some confusion.

68. 0:28:21

    LC 52-1118S. This was, uh, presented today and appreciate-

69. 0:28:27

    Right. But this page is 1119.

70. 0:28:29

    The 119 was from the original- 1344. It's something that's been under review. We added that second paragraph to it to make sure that confidential records stay confidential. We've circulated this for a good long while to affected parties, the Commissioner of Insurance. It would help with rate reviews for all available information to be reviewed. And what this does is it would ensure that if the Commissioner reviews information that's confidential, it would remain confidential.

71. 0:29:01

    It doesn't become publicized by virtue of reviewing it. It's something that would help, and it's, it's, uh... We've got a, a, a situation here in Georgia where some people at the department don't think they can review fines, violations, adverse information when they're reviewing rates, and this would make it clear they can do that. Uh, and, and if they're reviewing confidential records, they would remain confidential.

72. 0:29:25

    Mm-hmm.

73. 0:29:26

    We added that second paragraph, the confidentiality paragraph, for that reason. But this has been circulated for quite some time in the House Study Committee. It got pulled out of 1344 for further review, and, uh, I think it's something that would be helpful for insurance affordability and rates. And it, it could be added as an amendment to 1274.

74. 0:29:49

    Where would it, uh-

75. 0:29:50

    We could just add it as, as the last section before the effective date, uh, make it a section, uh, after Section 5 or, or af- after Section 4.

76. 0:30:03

    After Section 4-

77. 0:30:04

    So-

78. 0:30:04

    ... before Section 5

79. 0:30:05

    ... line, line 230-

80. 0:30:06

    Got it

81. 0:30:06

    ... after line 238.

82. 0:30:09

    Got it. Thank you.

83. 0:30:11

    Thank you.

84. 0:30:11

    Thank you.

85. 0:30:15

    You got a feel on that? You talking about it?

86. 0:30:20

    I mean, this makes it better, but it's still confused.

87. 0:30:25

    Yeah.

88. 0:30:37

    Okay.

89. 0:30:39

    Speak on it.

90. 0:30:40

    Anybody else to speak on, on this, on your, your propo- That's a proposed, really, amendment as far as that portion. I didn't know if we had anybody else.

91. 0:30:46

    It is.

92. 0:30:46

    Okay.

93. 0:30:47

    We, we've circulated it-

94. 0:30:48

    Okay

95. 0:30:48

    ... to, to the industry-

96. 0:30:49

    Okay

97. 0:30:49

    ... to the commissioner, the study committee-

98. 0:30:51

    Okay

99. 0:30:51

    ... and, and, uh, um, I, I think everybody-

100. 0:30:55

     Okay

101. 0:30:56

     ... uh, was comfortable with it.

102. 0:30:57

     Okay. Uh-

103. 0:30:59

     Representative, we, we, we need to leave some stuff to work on next year, too.

104. 0:31:03

     I understand. I understand.

105. 0:31:05

     Okay.

106. 0:31:06

     For jobs-

107. 0:31:06

     And I, I wanna-

108. 0:31:07

     ... job security

109. 0:31:08

     ... and I wanna, I wanna thank you for all the work you've put in on this and-

110. 0:31:12

     Mm-hmm

111. 0:31:13

     ... that y'all have been working on this issue-

112. 0:31:14

     You've been great

113. 0:31:14

     ... of affordability.

114. 0:31:15

     Okay.

115. 0:31:15

     Thank you.

116. 0:31:17

     Okay. We need to, we need to vote on the bill, and then we need to fix the bill as far as those two amendments that are there. So I'm assuming, uh, our f- our, our, our first part, or events, is we need to make, what, just a motion for that, is how we would do that? Um, and you-

117. 0:31:35

     Just wanna make sure that the, you move a bill on the first and second, so move the bill, and then you put it on amends.

118. 0:31:39

     Okay. Right. Okay. I just wanna make sure you're, you're good with that. Okay. On, um, HB 1274 LC52111AS, uh, all in favor, raise your right hand.

119. 0:31:54

     No, you gotta have a motion.

120. 0:31:55

     Motion. I, excuse me. I'm getting ahead of you.

121. 0:31:58

     And then you do the-

122. 0:31:59

     I'm sorry.

123. 0:32:00

     Okay.

124. 0:32:00

     Yeah. I was gonna make a motion do pass-

125. 0:32:03

     Thank you

126. 0:32:03

     ... on the underlying bill.

127. 0:32:04

     On the underlying bill. Thank you.

128. 0:32:06

     Second.

129. 0:32:06

     My mess up. And we have a second from Shawn, and we have... Okay. Uh, any further discussion?

130. 0:32:15

     We're not, we're not voting for this.

131. 0:32:16

     We're not voting on that. We're just voting on the main bill right now.

132. 0:32:18

     No, no.

133. 0:32:18

     Okay. Any other further discussion? Okay.

134. 0:32:21

     Yes. And, and I wanna, I think, I will reluctantly support the bill, but I thank the Senator from the 19th. Uh, it, it really is an, uh, uh, it's something that we need to do to make sure... I know we're in a hurry, we're running late, and we got a lot of things to do, but she has a point. She has a very good point about making sure that we have this thing in adequate, these bills in adequate times in order to digest them rather than hurry. I would hate to kill somebody's bill just arbitrarily. Not arbitrarily, but because of something. But we really do need to get 'em.

135. 0:32:53

     We, we really do. This has put us in an awkward position. A couple of them I have not seen before. Got parts of them I've not seen. But if we're gonna drop number nine, I will, I will go along with it for this vote only. I want to be clear about that.

136. 0:33:05

     Okay.

137. 0:33:05

     Okay?

138. 0:33:05

     Okay. Thank you. I'll take that into consideration.

139. 0:33:08

     That's not a phrase to support later.

140. 0:33:10

     Right. We've got a, a motion do pass, a second.

141. 0:33:16

     I'm sorry. We have amendments.

142. 0:33:17

     Hmm. Any, any further discussions?

143. 0:33:18

     Further discussions or amendments.

144. 0:33:19

     And that was? Okay.

145. 0:33:20

     Or amendments.

146. 0:33:21

     Or amendments.

147. 0:33:22

     Amendments.

148. 0:33:23

     Amendments?

149. 0:33:23

     Yes. On page four, line 73 and 74.

150. 0:33:29

     Okay.

151. 0:33:29

     I think Representative Reeves indicated that we need to change two to four-

152. 0:33:34

     Correct

153. 0:33:34

     ... and three to five.

154. 0:33:36

     Five.

155. 0:33:37

     Correct.

156. 0:33:38

     Correct.

157. 0:33:38

     So that's the motion.

158. 0:33:40

     Okay. We got a motion. Any... We got a se- a fir- uh, a second from Senator Hodges. Any discussion on that? It's pretty simple. All in favor of the, of the amendment, raise your right hand. Okay. All opposed? Okay, got one opposed. Okay. Okay, now we have the bill as amended. You got something else, sir?

159. 0:34:02

     On the, uh, on the next amendment to include this language, I could have the, you know, to, to...

160. 0:34:12

     Okay. So the bill is as amended with our amendment. Any further discussion on the bill itself? None. Seeing none. Uh, Senator Still.

161. 0:34:25

     13.

162. 0:34:28

     Representative, can you walk us through a little bit further, um, on the

163. 0:34:34

     1119 amendment, uh, for Part 4, Section 4-1 that you wanna insert after line 238. Um-

164. 0:34:42

     S- Senator Still, I could save you some time. I think I've, I've gotten some guidance to pull that. It needs more work.

165. 0:34:49

     Okay.

166. 0:34:50

     So, um, I think it's a good idea, but it may not be the right time. Uh, we'll continue to review it with the Senate

167. 0:34:56

     So we're just gonna stay with the first amendment, not a second. Got it. Thank you.

168. 0:34:59

     Okay. So we are with an amended bill. We've got a, a first and, uh, or a movement and a second. And all in favor of the bill, raise your right hand. All opposed. Okay. Got one opposed. Get that? Okay. All right.

169. 0:35:19

     Thanks so much.

170. 0:35:19

     Get you going. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

171. 0:35:22

     Appreciate it.

172. 0:35:22

     All right. Uh, let's see

173. 0:35:27

     who's got... Who we got here? 12. Is, uh, you're, you're presenting for-

174. 0:35:36

     Mm-hmm.

175. 0:35:37

     Hmm?

176. 0:35:37

     Here.

177. 0:35:38

     I wanna see you out front.

178. 0:35:39

     That's good.

179. 0:35:39

     Okay. Yeah, so we can see. We wanna see him.

180. 0:35:45

     Great. I like that.

181. 0:35:47

     And you're not who you say you are, but go right ahead. I'm being funny with you. Thank you.

182. 0:35:51

     You're fine, Mr. Chairman.

183. 0:35:52

     I appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

184. 0:35:54

     Uh, good afternoon. I'm here presenting HB 1263, LC 461663S. Maybe I said one too many sixes. Um, this bill, um, is the language from Senate Bill 367 by Senator Cowsert for exempting facility services and equipment for CON requirements when primarily or exclusively serving cancer patients. The substitute is language that was previously passed the Senate Regulated Industries, uh, Committee on the full crossover day, and it includes the floor amendment, um, from the senator from the CO, Senator Hodges.

185. 0:36:30

     The sub also adds the indigent and charity care requirements that mirrors current law on CON exemptions. Senator Cowsert, uh, committed to including the indigent and charity care requirement, uh, to the House Health Committee if they moved the bill. Even though they didn't move, uh, give this bill a vote, Senator Cowsert wanted to include it to show that the Senate is continuing to do the right thing for the people of Georgia. Again, this is the language that's already passed the Senate, um, and will access, create access for cancer patients.

186. 0:37:03

     I'm just gonna say just briefly on a personal note, um, I've been very vocal about this bill just 'cause of my personal circumstances, um, with family mothers, m- members like my mother that went through cancer and was taken care of by Emory, um, Hospital and Winship University many years ago. I think it is absolutely crazy and atrocious that we have to sit here and have a debate related to removing government state regulations related to cancer patients all over the state, when we have hospitals and facilities in Metro Atlanta that, um, are full.

187. 0:37:37

     Um, we're not able to serve enough people in the Metro Atlanta area, while at the same time we have residents in South Georgia, East Georgia, and even parts of my community, um, touching the Alabama state line, um, that have to drive three and four hours away basically to get cancer care. Um, and as all of you know, cancer care is a pretty complex situation. Um, they shouldn't have to go and buy a minivan or a car and lay down in the backseat, um, you know, when they're Stage 3 and Stage 4 and they're on chemo and, um, and, and going through that.

188. 0:38:11

     And so I'm hoping that this bill will basically open the door for a bigger conversation of results in the state, and that we see this bill and we send it to Governor Kemp's desk. Um, because if there's, the one thing we can do is to help, um, you know, create more cancer survivors in the state, just like I've seen firsthand, uh, with Winship in Decatur, Georgia, um, and, you know, the compassion that they give to so many people in this state. So Mr. Chairman, I just, um, hope that this bill has a favorable result and, and eventually as we finish this process over the next week, this bill gets to the governor and we, we enact it in law.

189. 0:38:50

     Any questions from the committee, uh, on, on, um, HB 1263? Motion to pass. Motion to pass from Senator... Oops. Oops.

190. 0:39:02

     I do have some, uh, questions.

191. 0:39:03

     Okay, let me go to Senator Merritt first.

192. 0:39:07

     Thank you very much.

193. 0:39:08

     Oh, oh.

194. 0:39:09

     I yield to the dean.

195. 0:39:10

     You'll, you'll yield. Go.

196. 0:39:12

     Oh, I'm sorry.

197. 0:39:13

     Okay, you're ready.

198. 0:39:14

     Oh, I thought you were-

199. 0:39:15

     You're live, sir.

200. 0:39:16

     Thank you very much. Uh, Senator, uh, you, you, can you explain to me a little, how does this change the current CON laws as opposed to we pass a CON laws dealing with hospitals, what, three years ago, two or three years ago, and now we back again with another type of change in the CON? How does this car- what does this carve out and how does it affect it, um, standalone facilities, uh, facil- uh, facilities designed to deal with cancer only? Where, where does this fit in?

201. 0:39:46

     What, what is it for?

202. 0:39:47

     Yeah, I mean, I think in the bigger picture, Senator Harbison, like, we have a lot of hospitals in the state, especially in rural Georgia, that can provide the basic chemotherapy care. But when we get into, you know, like my mother who had me- metastatic Stage 4 cancer, um, you need more than just the basic chemo care and radiation care. Um, you talk about panel boards, you talk about all sorts of other things. There are many facilities around the state that are basically just not able to be able to provide that kind of service to consumers to basically keep them alive where they're at.

203. 0:40:23

     And they're having to travel across the state. Um, I understand, you know, some of the challenges that people have in communities where we do want them to protect their local hospital, but we also don't want, um, the people that live, you know, maybe between your house and Albany and that kind of that healthcare desert where we don't have-

204. 0:40:41

     Mm-hmm

205. 0:40:41

     ... a lot of facilities, um, to have to either travel to Atlanta, maybe Columbus- Um, or even south maybe to Tallahassee to find a hospital, um, to get that cancer care. Um, in, in many ways in this state, the certificate of need law going back for, you know, since the 1970s, basically a facility of any sort wants to apply and do something that's positive for the community, just we already know that it's gonna be denied. And I think it's pretty silly in this state that knowing that that's the case, and, and just to your point, you know, um, seeing this taken up a couple of years ago and just where we're at, um, it, it is the government getting in the way of dictating regulation of how a patient should get their own cancer care.

206. 0:41:28

     And if they wanna stay in their home in Tifton, Georgia, or they wanna stay in their home, whether it's in Waycross, Georgia, or they wanna stay in their home up in Northeast Georgia in the woods and in the mountains where their family can take care of them, and after their care, go lay down in their own bed and rest, or in some cases like my mother, you know, be able to pass away in a facility or their home when they're, when it's time, their, their time to go meet Jesus. I think that's, that's, you know, what this bill is basically is doing, is pushing-

207. 0:41:59

     Five seconds

208. 0:41:59

     ... the access back to where families can be at home with their loved ones while they're going through these, these, you know, hard times.

209. 0:42:06

     Okay. So basically we're talking about rural hospitals would have the same access as those cancer patients who... Uh, those, uh, facilities that have invested that kind of equipment to deal with people like, uh, the Amos Center in Columbus, Georgia. That's what you mean basically, right?

210. 0:42:22

     Yeah. I mean, if, if, if I had my way and a magic wand, we wouldn't have regulations over who, what, where, and when could build a cancer facility and treatment. As long as they're accredited, as long as they've gone through the appropriate processes and they're meeting all state and federal requirements and CMS requirements-

211. 0:42:39

     That's it

212. 0:42:40

     ... I, I don't, I don't know why we would, we would continue to get in the way-

213. 0:42:43

     Right

214. 0:42:43

     ... as a state or even as a nation when it comes to cancer patients.

215. 0:42:47

     Well, well, thank you very much. And-

216. 0:42:49

     And I appreciate your question

217. 0:42:49

     ... and incidentally, I'm, I'm sorry to hear about your mom. My wife died of-

218. 0:42:53

     Yes, sir

219. 0:42:53

     ... of, of cancer as well, and that's, that's another thing.

220. 0:42:57

     We, we both live it, sir.

221. 0:42:57

     It's a tough thing. It's a tough thing to go through.

222. 0:42:59

     Yes, sir.

223. 0:42:59

     But, uh, God bless all those people who have to face that. It adds a geographic limitation prohibiting the exemption for facilities located within 30 miles of, uh, a, a community hospitals offering chemo oncologist service. So that's a, this is the meat of what your bill does, right? That, is that right?

224. 0:43:19

     Yeah.

225. 0:43:19

     Well, I w- I would commend that, and I would, I would support that. But... And I've gotten other people in Columbus, Georgia call me about that. I just wanna put that out there that, you know, people suffer. We want... And the same thing for stuff like sickle cell. People need help for this kind of stuff.

226. 0:43:33

     I would agree with that, sir.

227. 0:43:34

     And I'm highly sympathetic to that. And so I just wish your bill, uh, well, luck, okay?

228. 0:43:39

     Yeah.

229. 0:43:39

     I would.

230. 0:43:40

     Senator, I'll just say, especially when you talk about sickle cell or other, um, you know, impacts to our communities around the state, it, it just baffles me-

231. 0:43:50

     Yeah

232. 0:43:50

     ... that we sit up here in this capital-

233. 0:43:52

     Yes

234. 0:43:53

     ... and de- have to debate some of these issues when-

235. 0:43:55

     Yeah

236. 0:43:55

     ... it's not just common sense.

237. 0:43:56

     You're talking about people.

238. 0:43:57

     But we talk about, you know-

239. 0:43:59

     Yeah

240. 0:43:59

     ... the human aspect of helping-

241. 0:44:00

     That's right

242. 0:44:00

     ... Georgians live long lives.

243. 0:44:02

     That's right.

244. 0:44:03

     And I, and I think that's where we are today.

245. 0:44:04

     And my hospital people call me. They're in favor of it, too. Thank you.

246. 0:44:08

     Thank you, Senator.

247. 0:44:11

     Pro Tem Walker.

248. 0:44:13

     Mr. Leader, this seems very familiar to me, um, this issue. Um, did we not pass this out of the Senate already?

249. 0:44:23

     Yeah. This, this was-

250. 0:44:24

     This session just a week or two ago?

251. 0:44:26

     Yeah. I think the only thing we were, we were missing is having a unanimous green board minus the two vacant seats that one day will vote next year. But th- this is the type of issue that both parties should be on board with. There shouldn't be politics. There shouldn't be games. Um, you know, whether it's Emory University in DeKalb County or WellStar in Paulding County and Cobb County or whatever the facility is, um, that's providing treatment, I mean, everybody in the state should be voting green on this bill.

252. 0:44:58

     It's curious. I'm, I'm curious what might have happened to the Senate bill that had all the same language in it. That's, that's interesting.

253. 0:45:05

     I don't know. Some people didn't like it, uh, Mr. Pro Tem, but I think at the end of the day, if we polled cancer patients in this state and they saw what we were doing in this building, um, and the way this bill is being treated and discussed, they would be absolutely disgusted. Most of them are already disgusted with half the things that happen in this building, but this takes it to an entirely new level.

254. 0:45:26

     At least half, yes.

255. 0:45:29

     Madam.

256. 0:45:32

     I have something. I'm sorry. Can I have it?

257. 0:45:37

     Yeah. My light went like this, but no problem. Glad you asked.

258. 0:45:37

     Okay. Governor Lee, uh, Senator Kay.

259. 0:45:39

     Yeah. I was just gonna point out, Mr. Chairman, that, uh, this bill did pass in a bipartisan way when we voted on it-

260. 0:45:47

     It did

261. 0:45:47

     ... before, including a couple people that are on this committee.

262. 0:45:52

     No, it did not.

263. 0:45:53

     Okay. Senator Merr-

264. 0:45:54

     Not 100%.

265. 0:45:54

     I'm sorry. Senator Merr- Matt, Matthew.

266. 0:45:55

     Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify that vote, um, 17 of my colleagues voted no on this bill under SB 367, and it is always our same issue. So, Senator, is it not true that when we start rolling back con, even though it's EON, I know the intent of this bill is very good, but what happens is we're creating a, a two-tier system where wealth- the wealthy, it will carve out for the wealthy to be able to afford these services while everyone else could end up paying more. That is always our problems with, with... Is that not true?

267. 0:46:27

     Senator, I... You know, you, you can have your beliefs and I can have my beliefs. Um, but for a facility like Emory University who serves veterans, in the heart of that hospital is someone being born in At- born and raised in Atlanta that has served the indigent, the poor, um, you know, every facet of life. I think that is a mischaracterization when we get in, we get into this. For the fact that we wanna sit here today- And say that CON is gonna help the wealthy.

268. 0:46:59

     Last time I checked, most of the people in rural and South Georgia that are trying to get to Emory University or one of the other facilities in Atlanta that can't afford a car, can't afford gas, barely got a job because they can't access the services in their state, um, they sure as heck ain't wealthy. So I mean, we can, we can come up with all kinds of different scenarios of, you know, this law is gonna do this, and it's gonna depress that person and everything else. But at the end of the day, we're rolling back regulations to allow cancer care, whether you're poor, whether you're rich, whether you're Hispanic, Black, white, it doesn't matter.

269. 0:47:35

     Okay. I have a follow-up question. I have more questions, Mr. Chairman.

270. 0:47:38

     Okay.

271. 0:47:38

     So understand your particular argument, but again, our concern is always leaving it open to that private investors can come in and build, like, private hospitals, which are gonna take away from the community hospitals that serve kind of our Medicaid patients. And then it's gonna allow, or is it not true, for these tames- same type of centers to start cherry-picking kinda who their patients are and who has the best insurance and who gets the reimbursement. Is that not true, Senator?

272. 0:48:07

     Senator, do you consider Emory University as a private investor?

273. 0:48:10

     I don't consider them a private investor, but again, when we start-

274. 0:48:13

     Is it not true, Senator, that Emory University's in Decatur, Georgia? Emory University is in Downtown Atlanta.

275. 0:48:19

     Okay. But is it not also true that we have closed facilities there?

276. 0:48:21

     Are those, are these not the, the constituencies of the minority party-

277. 0:48:24

     Mis-

278. 0:48:25

     ... in Atlanta?

279. 0:48:25

     Se- Senator, is it not-

280. 0:48:26

     Okay. Well-

281. 0:48:27

     Is it also not true that we have, we have closed community centers here in the city of Atlanta?

282. 0:48:30

     Senator, we, we can, we can go back and forth and debate this all day, but if we want this equal, I mean, we should treat cancer patients whether they're in Democratic districts or Republican districts at the end of the day.

283. 0:48:41

     And then my last thing, Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna bring up again that the sub came to us today. And as I stated before, I'm just now seeing this among my other issues with rolling back CNN. Also realizing that it has good intent, but there are implications where we have concerns, and 17 of us voted against this bill on the floor.

284. 0:49:00

     Well, Senator, in due fairness, this is CON, not CNN. I- you may be used to CNN, but-

285. 0:49:04

     I'm sorry. CON. Sorry.

286. 0:49:05

     This is CON. Um-

287. 0:49:07

     Sorry. CON

288. 0:49:07

     ... but you, you've seen this. You voted against it, as you just said, so this, this is not a surprise.

289. 0:49:12

     Yeah.

290. 0:49:13

     All right. Any more comments?

291. 0:49:18

     Senator Still.

292. 0:49:19

     We already made a motion.

293. 0:49:20

     Made a motion.

294. 0:49:20

     We made a motion.

295. 0:49:21

     Okay. We're done. Okay.

296. 0:49:23

     We need a second.

297. 0:49:23

     Huh? Need a second.

298. 0:49:25

     I already made it.

299. 0:49:25

     You made the second. Okay. We're good. Okay. All right. Okay, let's take a vote. All, all in favor, raise your right hand. And all opposed. Okay. You guys-

300. 0:49:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman

301. 0:49:37

     ... make it, move it. All right.

302. 0:49:39

     Fabulous day.

303. 0:49:40

     Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. All right. Senator Hodges, HB 569, which is a substitute that took place, and you will explain it and talk to us about it, correct, sir?

304. 0:50:06

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Um, can I... Is it okay with you if I bring Matt Campbell with me? He rep-

305. 0:50:13

     We'll, we'll let him sit, sit with you, yeah.

306. 0:50:15

     Matt represents about, um, about 20 or so employers, um, that this would affect.

307. 0:50:21

     Okay. Why don't... Just Matt, why don't you introduce who you are, and then we'll let, uh, Senator, um-

308. 0:50:27

     Oh, yes. Uh, Matt Campbell, Georgia Matters, and I represent some, uh, employers, uh, that employ, uh, waterfront workers-

309. 0:50:34

     Okay

310. 0:50:34

     ... as well as other businesses.

311. 0:50:36

     Okay. Okey dokes. Senator Hodges, it is you.

312. 0:50:39

     I appreciate, um, Mr. Chairman. I'm, I'm looking at House Bill 569. The LC number is 461544S. Um, this bill is about, uh, workers' compensation in Georgia. As everybody knows, we have a system of workers' compensation to take care of workers who are hurt or disabled and need rehab. Um, employers pay premiums into a fund, and the fund takes care of the workers.

313. 0:51:09

     In Georgia, we have a, kind of a unique situation be- we have one group of workers in Georgia, and only one small group of workers. Workers who, uh, work in our, in our ports, in our docks, uh, workers who work near navigable waters of the United States, um, they are also covered by the, uh, Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, a federal act enacted in 1927.

314. 0:51:44

     And this act provides medical benefits, excuse me, compensation for lost wages, vocational rehab to maritime employees injured or disabled while working or on or near US navigable waters. Basically, it covers most non-seaman private sector maritime workers. It doesn't cover folks who work on a boat. It covers the workers at the dock. Uh, in Georgia, uh, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 workers.

315. 0:52:20

     Um, and, you know, primarily based in the Savannah area and the Brunswick area around our ports. The issue we've got is that those workers are not only covered under the, um, um, LHWCA, but they're also covered under Georgia workers' comp laws too. There's no other workers group in Georgia that is covered, uh, in a duplicate manner under federal and state workman's comp, uh, programs.

316. 0:52:50

     So now 11 other states who have a similar situation have done something about this. Those states include, um, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia. They've either eliminated Or complete-- they eliminated completely or heavily restricted the so-called concurrent jurisdiction. Uh, South Carolina is the only, uh, eastern seaboard state that has not done so, and we, we-- I will note that we compete with South Carolina, and if we were to take the action that I'm gonna ask you to take, it would put us in, uh, somewhat of a competitive advantage for South Carolina.

317. 0:53:33

     If they take it before we do, then they would have a competitive advantage over us. Um, concurrent jurisdiction, having, being covered under federal and state workers' comp laws leads to, for employers, it leads to duplicate premiums being paid. It leads to duplicate claims being processed, and it, and it also leads to duplicate litigation expenses.

318. 0:54:05

     In Georgia, if you're one of these affected workers and you, you, um, you file a, a, a workers' comp claim, you can, uh, file, um, um, under the federal act, and your attorney can, um, the judge will allow, um, um, attorney fees, which the attorney can, um, collect for the term of the, you know, it's usually somewhere in the neighborhood of maximum of about three hundred days, I believe.

319. 0:54:37

     And then when it's over, the, um, the worker can file a duplicate claim under the Georgia laws. And the litigation expense there is whatever settles. The attorney can get twenty-five percent of that settlement. So there's, again, duplicate premiums, duplicate claims, and duplicate litigation expense. Um,

320. 0:55:03

     and the way to deal with that is with this bill, and I will just, um, very quickly just tell you. Basically, if you look at page one, section one, the salient part of the legislation reads that, "Code section thirty-four dash nine dash two of the OCG Annotated relating to applicability of workers' compensation to employers and employees generally is amended by adding a new subse-section to read as follows." And this is the change: "This chapter shall not apply to employees of an employer covered by and providing coverage under the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act as amended and its extensions." So that's basically what the bill does.

321. 0:55:49

     Um,

322. 0:55:52

     um, this bill basically clarifies that maritime workers covered under Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act will not, will not also file a dupli-a duplicate Georgia workers' comp claim. And what the bill does not do, the bill does not reduce worker benefits. The weekly wage, uh, that is paid under the, uh, federal bill is two thousand and eighty-three dollars per week.

323. 0:56:23

     The weekly portion that would be paid under Georgia is eight hundred dollars, so big difference there. Um, the bill does not l-uh, limit medical care under the federal program. Um, healthcare providers are compensated at Medicare rates. Under the Georgia law, uh, the rates are less than Medicare. So you're gonna have more people who are more, um, providers, if you will, who are gonna be willing to accept Medicare rates than less than Medicare.

324. 0:56:58

     So the federal, uh, workers are gonna get, um, um, a bigger shot at, um, a, a wider place to get healthcare. And then, um, a couple of other things. Um, you know, the, um, doing this doesn't re-create any new bureaucracy. As a matter of fact, it'll free up some people at the Georgia Department of Labor. Um, I point out that the Longshore Act pays permanent disability, um, benefits for life, whereas Georgia pays for four hundred weeks.

325. 0:57:33

     The, um, Longshore, um, program allows injured workers to select their own doctor. The Georgia, uh, program forces workers to choose from a list of doctors, so you might not have, be able to have your own doctor. And, um, I've got a list of about, um, uh, twenty employers, uh, down on the coast, about fifteen of which employ these workers directly. And then the others are, um, insurers and, um, uh, some law firms that are affected by this.

326. 0:58:09

     And I'm gonna ask Matt to speak about that. But this is basically, it's, uh, it's, it's fairness. Um, there are two programs for this group of workers. They're the only group of workers in Georgia to be, to benefit from having duplicate sources of workers' comp. And I think the fair thing to do is to pass this bill and let these workers rely on the federal program, which has been around since nineteen twenty-seven and which provides much better benefits than the state program.

327. 0:58:42

     And, um, with that, I'll ask Matt if he has anything to say, if that's okay.

328. 0:58:47

     Any comments, Matt, that you wanna make?

329. 0:58:48

     Sure. Um, so once again, Matt Campbell. Um, and the, this bill, I mean, it's obviously nothing simple in here, right? We all hear simple. Simple as in it's one page. Uh, but what it does is just clarify a, a loophole, um-

330. 0:59:02

     Which code?

331. 0:59:03

     ... you could say in the Georgia Code, which other states have done, which, uh, basically says if you're covered under this federal workers' comp coverage, then the state doesn't apply. Um, it's to note that- The average time before a state claim is made, um, so you figure worker injured, goes out of work. Um, within 13, 14 days from injury, they start to receive coverage. And then under a federal claim, right, the Longshore Act, and then, um, the average state claim isn't made then until nearly 300 days later.

332. 0:59:39

     Um, so the, the timeline that federal doesn't pay, what... Anyway, long story. So 300 days later, they're go, um, the- they're being advised to go back and make a state claim. That's, that's one thing to, to note. The other is, um, like I believe, uh, Chairman Hodges mentioned, is other states that we compete with, uh, Virginia, New York, Florida, Al- Al... You know, they've either addressed this in some manner or the other, removing the concurrent dual, you know, paths to recovery, um, or restri- extremely, uh, restricting it, which is, you know, what we're trying to do here.

333. 1:00:13

     And, and ob- obviously to keep us more competitive. How it would keep them more, more competitive is insurance rates. You know, obviously the more injuries you have and claims you have, um, continue to rise. I mean, that's, you know, employers, that's part of, part of doing business. Uh, but with this type of system, it just creates unnecessary bureaucracy adding to the timeline. You figure insurance companies, um, and, you know, doctors are going back and forth. Is this a federal? Is this a state? And all that, you know, coupled together, I mean, that, that creates time.

334. 1:00:43

     Uh, this just eliminates unnecessary dual litigation, lowers costs, and protects, you know, this, this sacred thing that those workers who have a dangerous, very crucial, very important job, who serve this state, um, you know, and their forefathers won that in Congress in 1927. Um, similar to the Railway Labor Act won in the 19, uh, hundreds, which I was under my whole life, uh, you know, until I gave it up to put on a suit and tie. Um, and, uh, um, there are some others too, you know, that are under federal, and you, you don't have a path to get both.

335. 1:01:19

     Um, if, you know, that was bargained and negotiated or whatever, that'd be one thing. But it's not. It's, uh, you know, and it's, uh, a shame the few people who really benefit from this, um, you know, leads me to what you see by all evidence are, are some lawyers, which is great. That's, uh, nothing wrong with that. You know, it's a job. But, uh, the federal program is a better program, and our businesses, our ports, um, are the number one economic driver in the state, right? Think about how many jobs spur off from that. And when one employee sector or one employer or two employers or three employers are forced with an extra burden that others across the state are not, um, you know, that, that creates a problem.

336. 1:01:59

     Um, I'll mention before I be quiet and anybody else, um, you know, before I don't have the opportunity to speak again, just I've heard something about like a compromise. Why can't we, they find compromise? So I'll go through the timeline with you just so you'll know and you'll have it. Um, so this bill, there's two bills introduced 2025. Senate Bill 321 by Mr. Hodges next to me. House Bill 574 by Chairman Ron Stevens in the House. Bills were heard in committee last year, uh, in the House Industry and Labor Committee, or excuse me, bill, the Senate bill was not heard.

337. 1:02:35

     The House, the House bill was heard in the House Industry and Labor Committee. Uh, Chairman Workhouser, as, um, normally they do, sent it to the Workers' Comp Advisory Board, um, which they do with workers' comp issues. It was then from the board, they created a task force to debate this issue-

338. 1:02:54

     Mm-hmm

339. 1:02:54

     ... to deliberate. Uh, that task force met and did what they were instructed to do, and they produced, um, a white paper. Um, yes, it is, um, you know, a very neutral white paper, right? But, um, uh, the Workers' Comp Board can speak to it better than I can. Um, it doesn't say do A, do B or C. Um, you know, it put it back in the hands of the groups to figure out what's best, but it does, um, you know, clearly state that, yes, this is, uh, an issue that needs to be looked at-

340. 1:03:21

     Yeah

341. 1:03:21

     ... and it could hurt the competitiveness of our state's ports. Um, that happened, I guess, in November when that was issued. We come back to session in January. Um, in the meantime, the, uh, folks representing the business side and the attorneys represent the workers' comp attorneys, we met a couple of times and, uh, see if we can come up with anything. Nothing formal was ever given. No compromise, no offer. Um, we get another hearing in the House Industry Labor Committee. The bill passes. Uh, then I guess a week or so later, um, an, an offer was made of a compromise, if you call it, uh, which would give a credit back to the employer that's, you know, for the two different, uh, premiums and the...

342. 1:04:05

     or two different monies that's paid out. But it does not solve the underlying issue. Uh, you know, it doesn't solve the, the dual litigation. It does not solve the extra time out of work-

343. 1:04:15

     Mm-hmm

344. 1:04:15

     ... um, which is troublesome not only for the employer, you know, bec- but forget them, right? It's also trouble for the employee because, you know, studies show the longer you're out of work, the harder it is to go back. You know, I've been out of work before. You know, when I get home to Savannah, uh, you know, or if you go wherever and you're gone for a week, it's hard to climb back in. Look at COVID, you know? So if you're healthy, and that is the, uh, the task of workers' comp, as I believe it, the fundamental, you know, foundation of it is to, you know, care for the employee and treat them and get them back to work.

345. 1:04:45

     Um, anyway, so it passed out of House Industry and Labor. The compromise didn't solution... Uh, the offer didn't, uh, find any solution. Um, anyway, long story short, we're here and, uh, happy to answer any questions or clear up anything else.

346. 1:05:00

     Go ahead.

347. 1:05:01

     And let me just add that, um, I, I think most of you know that I grew up on the coast. I'm very familiar with the ports. Um, I guess I'm in my, I guess I'm in my eighth decade of living on the coast, and have done business, uh, in the coastal area for, uh, a long time. And, uh- Our, our port system is one of the key drivers of the economy in Georgia. I've read that our ports account for 10% of the jobs in Georgia are port-related, 10%.

348. 1:05:36

     Right.

349. 1:05:36

     So anything that we do to help the folks, the, uh, e- employers who run these businesses to run more efficiently gives us a better competitive advantage and helps us continue- ... to make Georgia the best state in which to do business, and particularly if we do it without having a bad effect on the employee. And here you don't. The employee actually has a better program, comes out with a better program. Um, so I think this is a win-win.

350. 1:06:07

     Okay, okay.

351. 1:06:08

     I think it's a win-win, and we, if anybody's got any questions, we'll be glad to try.

352. 1:06:12

     Y'all are, y'all are, y'all, y'all got some lights here. Y'all, they're, y'all, there. But I mean, basically what we're seeing here is your p- your employer's paying for worker's compensation at the Georgia level, also paying at a level for the federal government that they're paying. So they're paying double where other states are not paying. And worker's comp is a big part of the operation of a b- any business from that standpoint. So that's what you're asking for. Okay. Well, we've got a few lights for you. Uh, Senator Merritt, number five, please.

353. 1:06:38

     Oh. Is it on? Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have, I have a few questions, so, um, I'll try not to take up too much time. But I, I am having a difficult time understanding what problem we're trying to solve here. If we're going to remove Georgia's ability to protect longshoremen, you know. You've already stated that the, this industry, they're making billions of dollars on the ports. And I get-

354. 1:07:04

     No, what I, what I stated was the, the state is... Well, they're making money obviously. The, but the state is benefiting with billions of dollars in jobs and economic, uh, activity because of the port.

355. 1:07:18

     Correct. So we can agree the port is generating billions for-

356. 1:07:21

     Correct

357. 1:07:21

     ... for the state, but also-

358. 1:07:23

     For the people of the state

359. 1:07:24

     ... for, for the people and the workers. Okay. Okay. I, I understand that they're benefiting from both federal and state worker's comp. Why are we inclined to remove that flexibility when we know that the federal process can be a lot slower on claims? And do you know how long it does take for a federal claim versus what it would take the state of Georgia to satisfy worker's comp?

360. 1:07:54

     Do you have that number?

361. 1:07:55

     Yes, ma'am. And I, I thought I'd hand that out. So I guess first to answer your question is, the, you're not, you know what I mean? You're, the federal program pays, right? I mean-

362. 1:08:07

     It does, but it's slower

363. 1:08:08

     ... and then the s- well, it's, part of the reason why it's slow, I'm j- just answering the question, um, you know, is when you're, there's two different avenues and there's two different arguments and stuff going back from insurance company to doctor to back and forth employer, you know, two different avenues. Just like when you go to the, uh, doctor and give your insurance card, but it's the wrong one. I mean, that, that adds time. That being said, the state claims on average, uh, are not made until nearly 300 days. So a federal claim is made, then the, the employee is out of work, um, for 200, average is actually 292 days, excuse me, uh, anyway, before the state claim is made.

364. 1:08:50

     Okay, let me clarify that for you because I have a different number. Is it not true that it takes four years for the federal claims to go through, and in the Georgia it takes four to six for a claim to go through? So our Georgia claim is more efficient, four to six, versus it takes longer, could be up to four years for the federal. So why would we not allow our longshoremen to have this flexibility when we know the federal worker's claim process can be a little slower?

365. 1:09:16

     I don't know that number.

366. 1:09:18

     Yeah. Well, I think that number you're referring to is, you know, a rare case where a litigated case, a contested case, and then just like any injury case would go through, you know, litigation, right? So one side versus the other, where it's a contested injury or, or whatever reason for the employee being out. Um, but the employees, the, the workers are receiving benefits. So the average payment time after someone goes out of work where they're receiving their benefits, which are, I think he mentioned up to 2,000... The high end is 2,000-

367. 1:09:48

     83

368. 1:09:48

     ... $2,083 a week, um, within 13 to 14 days, um, from the time you're injured.

369. 1:09:54

     I, I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. So how does this bill help workers who are gonna split their time? We're talking about our longshore workers or those that work the docks. They're gonna split their time between land and water, and they may lose some access, um, to Georgia benefits that they currently rely on. So how does, how does this help or how did this impact those workers?

370. 1:10:14

     What do you mean by split their time between land and water?

371. 1:10:17

     Um, I'm assuming some longshoremen, I'm, I know they're working the docks, um, and you know, some of our other, uh-

372. 1:10:23

     I don't think this covers folks who are on boats, on ships.

373. 1:10:27

     But it is all longshoremen. It-

374. 1:10:29

     Works on the docks. Works on the land.

375. 1:10:32

     Okay. Correct. So they're, if they're splitting their time between land and water, this could still have impli- implications for them, does it not?

376. 1:10:40

     The people who, who are on the water aren't covered. They're covered by something else.

377. 1:10:44

     Okay.

378. 1:10:44

     The Jones Act, I believe.

379. 1:10:45

     Okay. And then, and my last thing that you alluded to is, you know, the docks. There's billions of dollars generated in, you know, on our ports.

380. 1:10:55

     There's a lot of money.

381. 1:10:56

     There is a lot of money. So I, it's just my, my thought here that we're asking... I, I don't see why we can't make allowance for our longshoremen to have a two system of federal and state worker's comp as benefit. I don't, I don't see where this costs us or we're losing money if we're making billions, is my struggle here.

382. 1:11:22

     I would imagine it would be for the same reason that 10 other states have done it.

383. 1:11:27

     And how much are we gonna save? Uh-

384. 1:11:31

     Okay

385. 1:11:31

     Well, it, just envision you own a business, Senator. You own a business and you have employees, and you're having to pay two different insurance for the same insurance, same coverage. You're paying two different premiums when your competitors are paying one.

386. 1:11:53

     Then-

387. 1:11:53

     Again, I'm gonna go back to-

388. 1:11:54

     And your employer, uh, excuse me, and your employees, um, in this instance, can have better benefits from the pro- the surviving program.

389. 1:12:05

     Right.

390. 1:12:05

     Do you have evidence of that, Senator, that, uh-

391. 1:12:08

     Just gave it to you

392. 1:12:08

     ... longshore workers are gonna receive equal or better benefits?

393. 1:12:10

     Yeah. They will-

394. 1:12:11

     Well, that-

395. 1:12:11

     If they just move to federal-

396. 1:12:12

     Right

397. 1:12:12

     ... do you have evidence for that?

398. 1:12:13

     Sorry, uh, let's go. We got some more.

399. 1:12:14

     I didn't mean to jump in. Well-

400. 1:12:15

     Yeah

401. 1:12:15

     ... uh, it's, since 1927 they have. It's called the Longshore, uh, Worker and Harbors Act.

402. 1:12:20

     Act

403. 1:12:21

     L- H- W- C- A, and so it is a superior plan.

404. 1:12:24

     Yeah. Let's go on. We got more questions.

405. 1:12:26

     Okay.

406. 1:12:26

     Number 14, which is, uh-

407. 1:12:28

     Yeah, that's me

408. 1:12:29

     ... Dr. Kirkpatrick. Yes.

409. 1:12:30

     14.

410. 1:12:30

     14th. Uh, I got 14.

411. 1:12:33

     14.

412. 1:12:34

     14. Is that you, Ms. Kay?

413. 1:12:35

     Yeah, that's me.

414. 1:12:36

     Kirpa- Okay, got you on.

415. 1:12:37

     Yeah, so a couple comments and questions to follow. Um, I served on the advisory board of the state workers' comp board for years, and, uh, this is very confusing to have federal and state programs involved. We have a really good state program, but, uh, I will correct one thing that was said. The federal rates, maybe Medicare, I'm not sure, 'cause I dealt at the state level, but, uh, the state rates are way more attractive than Medicare.

416. 1:13:09

     So just to be sure that y'all understand that. As a physician, we live that every, every day, and we look forward to seeing our injured workers. Um, the, uh, uh, questions are, uh, is this the same program, the federal program, that the railroads have? Do they only have federal-

417. 1:13:30

     Railroad workers only have federal protection. Yeah, from the day you're, you know, y- you're not allowed to claim workers' comp, state workers' comp.

418. 1:13:38

     Okay.

419. 1:13:38

     They have their own sickness and disability federal plan.

420. 1:13:42

     Okay, and then is it, um... I've heard the term double-dipping used. Is it possible for that to happen, that a worker could be collecting benefits from both systems?

421. 1:13:55

     I think the benefit, I think it's very unlikely, and I, I wouldn't use the term double-dipping. I think when this issue first started, uh, came about or, or, you know, tried to be addressed, that that was thrown out. But, um, you know, I don't say double-dipping or any of the folks. Um, I think the majority of the cases, what you'll see is once the federal claim is exhausted, which is after that average of nearly 300 days, then a state claim is also filed, um, which does a lot of things. Not only just adds cost, but also keeps the employee from getting back to work, and then also increases litigation fees for some attorneys.

422. 1:14:32

     Okay, so you're saying that, that people would be collecting benefits from one or the other at any given time?

423. 1:14:39

     Uh, that's the way I understand it, yes, ma'am.

424. 1:14:42

     And then can you just explain, you said that, um, this causes extra time out of work. Could you go through that again? I didn't understand that.

425. 1:14:51

     So if you're injured on the job, right? Uh, whatever that looks like, and you're under workers' comp, federal workers' comp, Georgia workers' comp, whatever. You live in another state. You know, the, the duty of workers' comp is to, right, to treat you, right? You can go see the doctor. You can go get treated. You can recover from your injury and then, you know, work. The goal is to get you back to working that good job. Uh, the way, the few cases that this applies to happens, and the way it rolls out is all those things are happening, and then after, uh, what was the average?

426. 1:15:25

     I keep going back to that nearly 300 days. 292 days for 95% of these cases, um, they then are filing a state claim, right? In s- in lieu of going back to work or in, or, or whatever the, you know, however you wanna do it. So yeah, so essentially if you file the state claim after whatever time and you start receiving those benefits, you know, you can keep receiving, what is it, $800 a week until you do go back to work.

427. 1:15:56

     Okay. Well, I'll, I'll, Mr. Chair, I'll just finish by saying that it's disappointing to get this late in the session on d- almost day 38 and hear about this for the first time, but I, uh, definitely agree that it's very confusing to run two systems at the same time.

428. 1:16:12

     Senator

429. 1:16:13

     Senator

430. 1:16:16

     Thank you, Chairman. Um,

431. 1:16:22

     Chairman Hodges, are there any other industries that require both state and federal? 'Cause I can't seem to find any.

432. 1:16:29

     Not to my knowledge, Senator.

433. 1:16:31

     So railroads use the federal program. Federal nuclear employees use the federal program. Agriculture uses state programs. Construction and contracting, which I know a little bit about, you're, you're using those programs. I, I, I have spent my entire career paying work comp premiums, probably more than most people. Um, I think my work comp premium is triple that of longshoremen.

434. 1:17:06

     And, uh, when you work in, in high degree construction, you're going to have injuries. It's just part of the business. I have never in my life seen an industry that has the option to tap into both. So why then are longshoremen treated differently?

435. 1:17:30

     I don't know the answer to that.

436. 1:17:32

     It, obviously it's a question that predates us, right? I mean, this was all here before anybody was in this room, but- I, I just for the life of me don't understand why we have carve-outs of exceptions for one particular industry over another.

437. 1:17:52

     Logging, the Forestry Association, or GFA, the most dangerous job we have in our state. Um,

438. 1:18:03

     roofers are right up there. Um, heavy construction, like I do, is definitely top five. Um, and when you look at the injury rates in our Georgia DOL website, you look at the claims, you look at what's happening there, I'm, I'm baffled why this hasn't been solved sooner. So thank you for bringing this bill.

439. 1:18:29

     Senator Harbison, and then I believe somebody-

440. 1:18:35

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be brief in my questions so we can move to hear from the people who may be directly affected as well. Uh, first place, uh, what came first, the federal coverage or the state coverage? And if the federal covent- uh, coverage was always in place already, why did we come up with the state to offer benefits to our people in the state of Georgia to make sure they was covered as well in another area? Or was this kind of like a, a stop-gap insurance or gap insurance or something like that?

441. 1:19:10

     The, the federal program started in 1927.

442. 1:19:13

     Okay.

443. 1:19:13

     And I'm not, I, the, I don't know when Georgia workers' comp, um, was started.

444. 1:19:20

     Okay. I'm, I'm sure we'll, we'll find the answer.

445. 1:19:22

     What I've been, uh... S- I'm sorry, can I-

446. 1:19:24

     Excuse me. Go right ahead, yes.

447. 1:19:24

     From what I've been told, I'm not, you know, I'm not a lawyer and I'm, you know, I didn't do well in school, but I have heard and have seen over the course of these committee hearings, uh, and then talking in the halls and, and also back, you know, with the, the folks, uh, pursuing this, is that I think in the late '80s maybe, early '90s, um, a loophole or whatever you say was found where, um, perhaps some litigator said, "Oh, well, this is, you know, an avenue that we can pursue, um, with these workers," uh, which benefits the worker, I would say, but not the employee, right?

448. 1:20:00

     So it was discovered and used in states where... So in Georgia it does not explicitly, like we're trying to do, say that you cannot claim Georgia, which gave an avenue to go in and claim Georgia. Uh, warranted or not, um, that's, that's when it started.

449. 1:20:16

     Who could claim Georgia? I'm sorry. I-

450. 1:20:18

     Um, uh, the, the, an employee-

451. 1:20:20

     Any, anybody

452. 1:20:20

     ... employee or-

453. 1:20:21

     Oh, okay

454. 1:20:22

     ... yeah.

455. 1:20:22

     I, I just wanna clarify that. And y- I heard you use the word loophole a, several times.

456. 1:20:27

     In the code.

457. 1:20:28

     But I also heard you mention earlier something about a white paper that you followed the direction of trying to get information of, and that white paper came out in a rather neutral fashion, didn't ask you to go forward with this kind of request or not go forward with this kind of request, unless I, a request, uh, unless I heard you wrong.

458. 1:20:47

     Well, you know, the way I read the wri- white paper, white paper, excuse me, and interpreted it, and, and others, it could be different to somebody else. But I'll read you the last, uh, paragraph. I don't know if you have the paper, but, uh, "This issue deserves consideration in terms of the expense to employers in the sector, the wellbeing of the longshore workers in Georgia, and the ability to continue to provide Georgia with a competitive advantage in this area."

459. 1:21:14

     Okay. Can I do this, uh, um, for just a minute? Because I know we're running out of time. We're gonna lose some people.

460. 1:21:20

     Okay.

461. 1:21:20

     But we also have, and I was gonna ask if he would speak, Judge Ben Vinson, who is the chairman and the chief appellate judge for the State Board of Workers' Compensation, and I think he can fill us in on some of the history issues and things of that nature, which I think would be really beneficial. I don't mean to break in, but-

462. 1:21:37

     No, that's good

463. 1:21:38

     ... I don't, I don't wanna lose him-

464. 1:21:39

     I can, I can ask, uh, I can ask him that way. All right

465. 1:21:40

     ... as far as that, if y'all want to, just for a minute until we hear from, hear from him.

466. 1:21:44

     Sure.

467. 1:21:44

     He has all wisdom and knowledge in the area of workers' comp maybe.

468. 1:21:47

     Mm-hmm.

469. 1:21:47

     Will, will s- explain this to us.

470. 1:21:52

     There's some. Those people signed it.

471. 1:21:53

     Yeah, yeah. But I don't want them-

472. 1:21:55

     Yeah.

473. 1:21:55

     Yeah. If you'll tell us who you are, what you do. Well, I've already t- said that, but, uh-

474. 1:22:01

     Yes, sir.

475. 1:22:01

     Fill us in.

476. 1:22:02

     Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

477. 1:22:04

     Thank you.

478. 1:22:04

     I'm Ben Vinson. I'm the chairman and chief appellate judge at the State Board, State Board of Workers' Compensation. And I appoint the members of the advisory council, and I also ask them to do certain things and research certain things based on bills that are introduced or based on issues that come before me. Bobby Potter, who's sitting behind me, is the chair of the advisory council, so I work closely with Bobby. Yes, so what I've heard here so far today, lots of accurate information and a report of what we did based on the bills introduced last year.

479. 1:22:35

     I created a special subcommittee of my licensure committee to study this issue, and it is very accurate. The white paper concludes with a neutral stance. And th- this issue has emerged a few times, uh, about five years ago-

480. 1:22:52

     Mm-hmm

481. 1:22:52

     ... and then about 15 years ago. And I think the posture we were in was, uh, 15 years ago and five years ago, was there enough argument or momentum to come forward to try to ask the state board or for, you know, as the chair of the state board, to move forward and push the issue? It's a little bit of a different question if the bills are already in the general assembly, whether we would then show up and try to oppose the bills. So that's where I felt like we probably were gonna end up in a neutral position, where we could just answer questions about how the, how the systems would work in tandem, um, spe- you know, s- specifically the state system, which is what we administer.

482. 1:23:30

     So a couple of the questions that came up, uh, to Senator Harbison, it's 1920 is when the state, state workers' comp system was created.

483. 1:23:41

     Okay.

484. 1:23:41

     So we did have the state system that was created in 1920, and then the federal longshore system would've been created in 1927. Part of the follow-up to that question, which I think is where Mr. Campbell was going for that, is part of the answer, um, to Senator Still would be it was a Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court decision, the Sun Ship case, which I believe was 1972.

485. 1:24:07

     Mm-hmm.

486. 1:24:08

     So that's the answer of why can you do both, is because the United States Supreme Court told longshoremen they could do both. And so that's where then you had all the states, all 50 states started going through a process of where do we wanna be. Do we wanna stick with it? Do we wanna have, let 'em have both? Or do we wanna go in and pass laws to make it so that it's just exclusive?

487. 1:24:28

     Mm-hmm.

488. 1:24:28

     So that opened it up to the states. And, and it's true. You got, it's about half. I think it's, in our, in our research, it's about half, and there are a few as you go kinda up and down the coast. Uh, you know, Florida's exclusive, and, uh, Virginia is exclusive, Texas. But then you, you got states like Alabama and South Carolina, North Carolina that are like us, that are concurrent. So it's a mix. It's a mix.

489. 1:24:53

     Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

490. 1:24:54

     Um, one question that came up, and I believe the way Mr. Campbell said it was about the 300 days, and I think the way to understand that is both systems, you have the ability to file a claim pretty quickly.

491. 1:25:10

     Mm-hmm.

492. 1:25:10

     The question is maybe in practice, how does it work? So the tactics that are utilized by the injured longshoreman and the lawyer, so you might have a very quick move to file a federal longshore claim, but then you might wait. We have a one-year statute of limitations in Georgia, so you might wait almost a year to then file your state claim. So it may be true that for them, what they see, the state claim might not come in for about 300 days. I think that's just 'cause they're waiting to get close to the statute of limitations period.

493. 1:25:43

     Mm-hmm.

494. 1:25:43

     But certainly, both systems would, would protect the injured worker, and you could jump in and file a claim pretty quickly. So, um, I think those were the primary questions that I heard. Oh, yeah, and then just, um, just making... I, I'm happy to answer any questions about our process and what we did in, in our study and come back with the white paper.

495. 1:26:05

     Mm-hmm. Well, may I continue with one, one, one... Thank you, Judge. Um, very good information. Well, w- i- if, if you're kind of a neutral approach and are just trying to discover things that would be beneficial to both sides, w- what, what's the benefit of getting rid of the workers compen- compensation in Georgia as opposed to leaving the federal government in place and just say bye? Well, what is that? Is that's pursuit of enhanced... You're trying to find e- extra income to, you know, the bottom line for your business.

496. 1:26:38

     You know, let me put it that way. Is that, is those everything that went into consideration kind of?

497. 1:26:43

     I think that's accurate.

498. 1:26:44

     Okay.

499. 1:26:44

     And I, I even included that in the white paper, and that's certainly when we, when I provided a forum and asked both sides to explain their arguments, that's what came out. I think that's true. If you, if you're a, a large employer in the state of Georgia and you no longer have, because the law changes, you no longer have to cover state workers' compensation claims, then you would be able to eliminate those programs, eliminate those premiums, and you would save costs. That's, that's why they would want this.

500. 1:27:10

     Okay.

501. 1:27:11

     Yeah.

502. 1:27:11

     Thank you very much. Thank you, Judge. Appreciate it.

503. 1:27:13

     You're welcome.

504. 1:27:15

     Senator Merritt.

505. 1:27:16

     Yes. Th- thank you. I just wanted to clarify because I think Senator Still, and you've kinda answered this, but, and then I was alluding to this with, um, um, the senator when he was, uh, up. I was just trying to clarify. Longshoremen work land. They work sea. Um, they work the docks. They work the terminals. So they're in this place of, yes, they do land work. Is that not true?

506. 1:27:44

     Yes.

507. 1:27:45

     And they're also maritime. Is that not true?

508. 1:27:48

     Yeah.

509. 1:27:48

     And maritime is covered under federal jurisdiction.

510. 1:27:52

     Correct.

511. 1:27:53

     But because they also work on land, they are, they can also be compensated for state. Is that not true?

512. 1:27:59

     That's essentially it.

513. 1:27:59

     And that was created by whom? I think Congress.

514. 1:28:03

     Congress.

515. 1:28:04

     Thank you.

516. 1:28:05

     That's right.

517. 1:28:10

     Senator Colton Walker.

518. 1:28:12

     Hey, Judge. I'm trying to wrap my head around this. I don't, I live in the middle of Georgia, and we don't have any longshoremen in my district that I'm aware of, unless they're commuting in pretty good ways. My-

519. 1:28:25

     Correct.

520. 1:28:27

     So, um, I'm mostly, I understand it would be frustrating to pay essentially two premiums for two different systems if your employee is only gonna be avail- avail themselves really to, to one. Um, but I don't wanna unintentionally leave any gaps where an injured Georgian is, uh, in limbo and not, it's not clear.

521. 1:29:00

     It's, it, it creates excessive litigation to determine com- whether their com- the injury is compensable under state statute or federal. Um, would, is that an impossibility or... I mean, if we say, you know, the, this class of employees is now only able to avail themselves of the Longshoremen Act, not the state work comp statutes, would that unintentionally possibly put a Georgian at risk of not being able to find coverage or having to go through excessive litigation to find coverage?

522. 1:29:39

     Based on what I have seen and heard, and the parties, both sides were, were great with me about bringing information and argument, and I tried to condense it and put it in writing and then understand it. I, I think the argument would be maybe you could probably have some litigation if, if this, uh, were to go into effect. This ... If this bill were to go into effect, then those injured longshoremen that currently have the ability to file a state claim and a federal claim at the same time, and utilize all the resources and all the ability under the state act, they would only have the federal act to go on.

523. 1:30:17

     And I don't quite know what's happened in those other states that have gone exclusive, you know, whether they saw some type of negative consequence kinda going forward. Um, I, I think the argument would be that they would not be left with nothing. I mean, I think that's clear, that if you, you change the law and take away the state claim, you are not taking away the federal avenue. So they certainly ... A- any longshoreman that's injured in Georgia would still have an ability to file a claim.

524. 1:30:49

     It just would be under the federal system, not the state system. And then you could argue, and they have, very well, the differences of the two systems. And-

525. 1:30:58

     So if I could follow up on that. I, I guess what I'm trying to get at, uh, is are you a longshoreman by virtue of your job title, or are you a longshoreman by virtue of the job you're actually attempting to perform when you get injured? And if you are just a ... You know, if you're a longshoreman three hours of the day-

526. 1:31:21

     Right

527. 1:31:22

     ... and a truck driver the other five hours of the day, is, is this gonna allow one party to say, "Hey, you gotta be covered under longshoreman. You're a longshoreman," um, and the other party to say, "You know, you're not eligible for longshoreman. You were driving a truck that day"?

528. 1:31:46

     Right. In that scenario, I think you'd probably have a, a pretty good lawyer that would represent that person, and they would probably file in both. I mean, they would probably file

529. 1:31:56

     Under current.

530. 1:31:57

     Right.

531. 1:31:57

     But if this passes, they would only have the avenue of the federal. That's, I guess, my only concern, and maybe that is not even a practical concern, 'cause I don't really know enough about how longshoremen ... I mean, they, maybe they never, never drive trucks or do other things that would not be ... I don't know if it's by title. You know, if it's like if you're a longshoreman and in the union, then you automatically are gonna be compensable injuries under this program that the feds have.

532. 1:32:27

     Or is it by what you were actually doing when you got hurt? I mean, like driving to or from work, uh, sometimes is compensable.

533. 1:32:36

     Right.

534. 1:32:37

     Um, I don't know. I mean, this kinda sounds ... I don't know much about all this, so.

535. 1:32:43

     Yeah. I think it would be fact sensitive. I think it would depend on exactly what that worker was doing.

536. 1:32:49

     And, and if I could ask one more question.

537. 1:32:51

     Sure.

538. 1:32:51

     Is there any limitations to the Federal Longshoremen Act, like, uh, if you had a partial disability, the time of benefits you would be eligible to receive, or we already talked about the Medicare rates versus the Georgia rates. Are there any, uh, limitations, uh, that we would be ... or anything, any potential benefits that would, we would be taking away from a Georgian that's hurt on the job if we say you can only go to federal?

539. 1:33:22

     So certainly the, the representatives on the labor side who helped me with the s- with the subcommittee, special subcommittee of advisory council, were able to communicate some information, and I tried to include it in the white paper. And I think-

540. 1:33:37

     Which we've not seen the white paper

541. 1:33:39

     ... sure, and I, I can, I can circulate that

542. 1:33:39

     ... to, to my ... I haven't seen it anyway.

543. 1:33:41

     No. And the answer is, is yes. I mean, I think you could walk through and talk about probably the panel system in Georgia. So you would have access to the panel of physicians if you were able to go under the state system, whereas under the federal system they do not have a panel approach. So I think you could go through and pick out a few things. I think there is an MMI provision under the federal act where if you're an injured worker and you're receiving TTD, there's an easier path to, to getting you off of the TTD, whereas in the state system we don't have MMI.

544. 1:34:18

     You have to go in front of a judge or you have to return to work. There's a few other ... There's certainly a few points-

545. 1:34:25

     Okay

546. 1:34:25

     ... to be made about the differences.

547. 1:34:26

     Okay.

548. 1:34:26

     But Senator, maybe one more ... I'm sorry. One more, one quick question, if I may.

549. 1:34:30

     Okay, one more quick question. Then I'll take the floor.

550. 1:34:32

     Thank you. Uh, judges, I recall recently, uh, like maybe a year or two, there was a great struggle, and they were under great duress a- as longshoremen in that area because they were trying to, uh, navigate between independent workers and, uh, private owners and that kind of thing. That was a great struggle. And I was just wondering, is that part of this kind of struggle going on now, m- moving away from state, uh, workmen compensation programs as opposed to now you're fully, uh, independent, uh, workers, 1099 workers as opposed to employees of that country?

551. 1:35:10

     Myself and the senator from the 29th, uh, Josh McKoon and I went down with another group of people to try to navigate that and have a study committee on that, and I look like that's sort of seeping into that, if I may.

552. 1:35:21

     That's a great question. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I remember some of the discussion about classification. Um, I haven't heard that so far. Um, but-

553. 1:35:32

     Okay. Thank you.

554. 1:35:33

     Yeah, sure.

555. 1:35:34

     Let me ask this question. Under Georgia Workers' Compensation, its sole remedy for an employer who is employing people, as long as he carries workers' compensation, he is... That, that is the sole remedy for an employee coming against an employer from that standpoint.

556. 1:35:50

     Correct.

557. 1:35:51

     Now, the same thing, is that true in federal? If, if a Georgia employer is employing, and he, he has longshore exposure-

558. 1:36:01

     Right

559. 1:36:01

     ... does he cross a line where Georgia no longer is going to defend or, or to cover him from that standpoint? As a general rule, uh, what I have seen in my years, if he's an employee, he's covered. But my question was, does both federal and state have sole remedy, um, built into them from a legal standpoint?

560. 1:36:24

     Yes. Based on my understanding, we've had a little discussion on that. You would have exclusive remedy under the federal system. You'd have exclusive remedy under the state system. So I think under, under either path, you would not be able to somehow sue in tort.

561. 1:36:39

     Okay.

562. 1:36:39

     You'd still be covered under some type of a-

563. 1:36:41

     Okay

564. 1:36:41

     ... workers' comp system.

565. 1:36:42

     There seems to be some, um, fog in between where th- where this lies if, if someone from a legal standpoint, that, that, that issue. One, one more quest- um-

566. 1:36:52

     Sure

567. 1:36:52

     ... one more question.

568. 1:36:54

     Sorry to ask another question.

569. 1:36:55

     Not one. No.

570. 1:36:56

     But I just wanna clarify. So the, the worker is covered under federal workers' comp no matter what they're doing in their task, right? They're covered whether they're in, on the land or the sea.

571. 1:37:09

     Correct.

572. 1:37:09

     Is that accurate?

573. 1:37:10

     Correct.

574. 1:37:12

     Thank you.

575. 1:37:12

     Yes.

576. 1:37:12

     Okay. Um, thank you. Uh, I appreciate that. There, there seems to be a white paper that is not black and white. Am I correct?

577. 1:37:22

     That's correct.

578. 1:37:23

     Okay, that's all we need le- ... Uh, we've got one sign up, uh, and I know we're gonna lose some pe- Bruce, is it Caraway?

579. 1:37:30

     Yes, sir.

580. 1:37:30

     Come on down and-

581. 1:37:31

     She'll take it off

582. 1:37:31

     ... and we'll let you give us that, and, uh, work from there.

583. 1:37:36

     Get it off.

584. 1:37:38

     I didn't see the sign. She knows.

585. 1:37:41

     I'm letting you see it from here. Okay.

586. 1:37:44

     There's a line.

587. 1:37:45

     I'll call you.

588. 1:37:51

     All right. Tell us who you... Well, tell us who we, who we got. We got two. And tell us about it.

589. 1:37:56

     Yes, I do. Good afternoon, Senator Harbison.

590. 1:37:58

     Thank you.

591. 1:37:58

     I'm, I'm Attorney Bruce Caraway. I, I practice longshore and Georgia workers' comp. I've been a, a lawyer, this is my 40th year, so I've, uh, been doing this for a while. Probably longshore work, about 25 years. Um, and I'm here with James Williams. James, uh, actually was on, uh, Chairman Vinson's committee with me-

592. 1:38:18

     Okay

593. 1:38:18

     ... studying the longshore issue. Uh, James is with the AFL-CIO, so he's here to speak for the, the labor union side of it. Um, i- it's an honor to speak here today. I appreciate being able to, to come down. Um, uh, this i- this is a complicated issue. You know, people say, "Bruce, why are you, why are you doing longshore?" Like, well, you know, workers' comp is like Latin. You know, uh, longshore is like Greek. You know, it's got a lot of the same concepts, but different statute numbers, different things we're doing.

594. 1:38:48

     Um, but to cut to the chase on this, I mean, the reason I'm passionate about this bill not passing, is the longshore system is broken. Um, and if you want a visualization, I want you to visualize the Atlanta airport. You know, it's being run by the federal government. It's overwhelmed with passengers, and it's not being properly funded. That's the problem with the longshore system. You know, it's, it's overrun with claimants, 'cause it do- the longshore system doesn't just cover longshore workers. It's through the Department of Labor, and it covers civilian contractors who are injured in war zones.

595. 1:39:23

     So it's overwhelmed by Iraq and Afghanistan. Um, it's gonna be even more overwhelmed and, and the long, and the Department of Labor system covers contract workers that are from Georgia working for United States government, contractors working for the military. But it also covers workers from Macedonia, from, you know, Somalia, from, from all over the world. Um, you know, we had our longshore conference in New Orleans last weekend and, and the theme of it was, you know, the system's broken. You know, we used to have 45 longshore judges handling these cases.

596. 1:39:56

     We now have 35. We used to have 300 claims examiners who would be the front line. They would, you know, hear a telephone conference, you know, giving up or down on benefits. You know, they've gone from, you know, 300 to, I don't know, like, 210. So, you know, and these are people that have, have left now. I mean, the system is broken. More and more people are leaving. It's more and more claimants coming through. So, uh, you know, to put this in perspective, if, if I'm a worker on the Georgia dock and I herniate a disc, and so I need back surgery, and I tell my, my employer, "Hey, you know, I hurt my back on the job," and my employer doesn't like me, and they say, "We think, we think you hurt it playing soccer with your kids at home, so we're not gonna cover your herniated disc in your back," um, you know, I can file for a hearing before Chairman Vinson, and I'll, and they'll set a hearing within two months.

597. 1:40:47

     Discovery starts right away. You know, we'll have a trial, you know, six months to a year. We'll get a decision, you know, another two or three months. That worker can have that back surgery probably on average about a year after they're injured. In the longshore system, it can take five years. Um, and it's, and the system, I mean, you have an initial process. You file for an informal conference. You have a, a telephone hearing with the claims examiner. Used to be a pretty good system when I first was doing that. You know, the claims examiner would actually come to you and meet with you and the claimant.

598. 1:41:17

     You would talk about the issues. You know, you could come to an agreement, or they could say, you know, they give a recommendation, and the employer, you know, Gateway would say, "Yeah, we'll pay it," "We won't pay it." But the problem is, if Gateway says, "We're not gonna pay it, we don't like this guy," um, you know, "He's the leader of the ar- labor union. He, you know, he's, he's a Muslim," whatever reason they don't like him, they can arbitrarily say, "We're not gonna pay it," and he's gotta wait five years To have the back surgery. Um, you know, I, I can ask Dr. Kirkpatrick, you know, if someone has a herniated disc or carpal tunnel, and they've...

599. 1:41:51

     the nerve is being compressed, and they can't get surgery, and they have to wait one, two, three, four, five years for surgery, what's the medical result of the delay in, in surgery? You know, it's, it's a tragedy. Um, you know, and so I think this process, and you know, it's an honor to be here, but I, I will say, you know, due process is, you know, notice and a right to be heard. Um, you know, so this committee meeting came out of nowhere. You know, I, I do nationwide longshore Defense Base Act cases, so I'm here.

600. 1:42:22

     Um, the labor unions from Savannah have not had a chance to come down here. Um, as far as I hear, you know, the, there's a white paper, um, uh, that hasn't been properly disseminated. Everybody hadn't had a chance to look at it. So we're here to take a vote on this issue without us all really understanding what we're talking about. But, you know, I'll give you my Scout's honor, you know, as a Christian, this is a tragedy. You know, basically, if you take a Georgia worker, taxpaying Georgia worker, and you put them into the Department of Labor system, and you make them wait five years to have back surgery, uh, that, that's justice delayed is justice denied.

601. 1:43:00

     So it's, uh, you know, it, it would be a horrible thing to have happen. Um, and I can address just a couple of other issues that were talked about. You know, why are we here? Why do we have two different systems? You know, what other companies are covered under two systems? Um, you know, I'll say, you know, trucking companies have to carry... They don't carry just Georgia workers' comp insurance. They, they carry nationwide insurance. You know, if you have a truck accident in South Carolina, you know, you can file a South Carolina claim, you can file a Georgia claim. Um, and there's a system set up. If you get benefits in South Carolina, later you file a Georgia claim, you get dollar for dollar credit for everything you paid in South Carolina.

602. 1:43:35

     So, so we have that in Georgia right now. You know, if my client, you know, files a longshore claim, and then for some reason, um, you know, he wants to go to court quicker, you know, he files for here in Georgia. They, they get credit. You know, there's no double-dipping. You know, I think I was at the first house committee meeting, and, and, you know, the other side came up and said, "There's double-dipping. They're double collecting." And you know, later they backed off on that, 'cause it's not true. There's not double-dipping. You know, basically, if a worker gets wage loss benefits, and they wanna change systems, they, they... the employer gets full credit for that.

603. 1:44:06

     Yeah.

604. 1:44:06

     Um, you know, and it's not this, this crazy system. You know, if it's a big company like, like Gateway, who, you know, what I've seen is, is owned by private equity, a lot of it comes from Saudi Arabia, um, you know, they're... If they have a claim, they have the same adjuster who handles the Georgia workers' comp claim and handles the longshore workers' comp claim. If they have an attorney, you know, they have the same attorney. So, you know, he's not double billing. He's handling both claims, so there's really not that much more administrative cost.

605. 1:44:38

     But as far as the reason why, why do we have longshore and state workers' comp, and, and it's because the workers do walk back and forth between coverage. I had a case in Florida. Florida doesn't have concurrent jurisdiction, and my worker, he was a painter. So he went out on the, on the pier where, where the cruise ships come in, and he painted the block house where they provide electricity for the cruise ships. He's, he's on the pier. He's, he's a dock worker. He's a longshoreman. Um, the longshore insurance company said, "No.

606. 1:45:08

     You know, this, this is a state workers' comp. We're, we're not paying this." And the longshore w- and the, the state workers' comp said, "No, he was on a pier. We're not paying this." So same deal, you know, he needed, he needed to have back surgery. Um, you know, so it took probably two and a half years before I could get somebody, whether it's state or federal, to cover the longshore.

607. 1:45:26

     Okay. Okay.

608. 1:45:27

     Under our current system in Georgia, they can't do that. They, you know, they can't say, "Hey, it's state. Hey, it's workers' comp," because it has to be either or.

609. 1:45:34

     Right.

610. 1:45:34

     And if it's the same employer, they've got to cover one of them.

611. 1:45:37

     Gotcha.

612. 1:45:38

     And so that, that worker gets their surgery.

613. 1:45:40

     Okay. Yeah.

614. 1:45:40

     But, but that's why the Supreme Court, you know, said that it's okay to have, um, state and federal workers' comp-

615. 1:45:48

     Okay

616. 1:45:48

     ... is because it, it, we have this confusing situations where the workers, you know, and there's... And you know, to get technical with it, I mean, there's, there's situs. Situs means the location where you're working. You know, so it has to be, it has to be near water, you know, a dock. You're unloading ships for interstate commerce. Um, you know, that's longshore, but you also have to have the status.

617. 1:46:08

     Right.

618. 1:46:08

     You have to, you know, do this job on a regular basis.

619. 1:46:11

     Okay.

620. 1:46:12

     You know, so my painter, if he goes there one time, probably not a longshoreman. But if he does it 10 times, you know, then it's a gray area. He needs to be covered.

621. 1:46:19

     Yeah. Yeah.

622. 1:46:19

     But, but you know, my, my plea to you is this is an important issue.

623. 1:46:24

     Yeah.

624. 1:46:24

     You know, if, if you're, you're taking away the right to a worker for five years to get medical treatment, to get benefits, you know... And I've, any given time, I've got workers living in their car, you know, because-

625. 1:46:35

     Right

626. 1:46:35

     ... the workers' comp system is slow.

627. 1:46:38

     Yeah.

628. 1:46:38

     But it needs to be studied. You know, there, there needs to be more time.

629. 1:46:41

     Yeah.

630. 1:46:41

     Um, I was on the, the Licensure Subcommittee. James is on it, uh, more full time. Uh, you know, um, I have a lot of respect for Bobby Potter. He's, he's head of the, um-

631. 1:46:50

     And I would say with what I've heard from you and what we've heard, I think that there's, there's some work that needs to be done with what's going on from, just, just from that standpoint. I think we need to have some more information to be able to make any kind of decision. I wanted to give one other person op-

632. 1:47:04

     Well, just may I real quick?

633. 1:47:06

     Yes. Yeah, real quick. And then-

634. 1:47:07

     So I, I served on the subcommittee. I was appointed, um-

635. 1:47:09

     You, that produced the white paper, is that correct?

636. 1:47:11

     Well, we didn't produce the white paper. We met, information was given.

637. 1:47:14

     Okay.

638. 1:47:15

     We had a few meetings, and we were still working our way through the process to find out what decision we were going to be coming up with. And then, um- Pressure was applied from the legislator. They wanted a decision from the workers' comp. And so the paper is what it is, but we and the subcommittee haven't had enough time to go through all of the evidence-

639. 1:47:33

     Okay

640. 1:47:33

     ... all of the information to make a proper decision on it.

641. 1:47:35

     Fine.

642. 1:47:35

     I testified with this in the House, when the bill came up in the House, that we would like more time to be able to come up with a, a thorough and a good process decision through the Workers' Comp Advisory Board.

643. 1:47:46

     Okay. Okay. And I, and I would agree with just what I've heard today-

644. 1:47:49

     And-

645. 1:47:49

     ... that we need to have more information. When the, the judge, there's h- there's not clarity as far as-

646. 1:47:55

     Yeah

647. 1:47:55

     ... that portion for what we need to do then. And right now, I think this, I'd like to give everybody a chance. I'm gonna give one other voice before we-

648. 1:48:02

     And I just have one more statement.

649. 1:48:04

     Okay.

650. 1:48:04

     Uh, sorry, uh, Chairman. Um, uh, the longshoremen, uh, representatives couldn't be here today.

651. 1:48:10

     Understood.

652. 1:48:10

     Um, but they are vehemently opposed to this language.

653. 1:48:13

     How come not?

654. 1:48:13

     'Cause this bill doesn't just affect the longshoremen out of the, uh, out of the ILA union. It affects any construction worker, any shipbuilder-

655. 1:48:20

     Okay

656. 1:48:20

     ... any port personnel that's working on any intercoastal waterway.

657. 1:48:24

     Okay.

658. 1:48:24

     That's including the Savannah River.

659. 1:48:26

     Okay.

660. 1:48:26

     Any waterway that dumps into the ocean, backwater, intercoastal waterway. It could affect somebody-

661. 1:48:31

     Oh

662. 1:48:32

     ... building a boat dock on somebody's house down on the intercoastal down there.

663. 1:48:35

     Yeah. No. It, it needs, it needs some more work, uh, in that respect. But I'd like to have one more, um-

664. 1:48:41

     Okay, Brett

665. 1:48:41

     ... representative speak and then I th- I think I would li- My, my-

666. 1:48:45

     Mr. Chairman, um, I guess you were loosed-

667. 1:48:47

     No. Well-

668. 1:48:48

     ... I guess, to postpone-

669. 1:48:49

     Yes. I, I, I-

670. 1:48:49

     ... any, any action on this

671. 1:48:51

     ... I wanna, I wanna hear, and I'm gonna postpone any action right now. When, when I'm listening to judges, they the judge tells me those portions. Tell us who you are, as if we don't know, but nevertheless.

672. 1:49:06

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee. Uh, just to help clarify several que-

673. 1:49:10

     You identify yourself first.

674. 1:49:11

     Oh, sorry. Brett Hume. Uh, Brett Hume. I'm with L- Brett Hume Legislative Affairs now. And, uh, the longshoremen are, uh, my client. One of my clients. Just to help answer some of the questions asked, the Federal Longshore Harbor Act does not have any language that addresses catastrophic injury. None. We're talking about folks working that lose limbs and things like that. So the state workers' comp, in a lot of cases, is a backstop.

675. 1:49:44

     As to what the workers' comp attorney addressed, should there be some sort of, uh, stoppage of federal benefits, number one. Number two, uh-

676. 1:49:55

     I don't think they hear

677. 1:49:56

     ... to the chair lady's question about drawing both, it's impossible. Because using the, uh, prior testimony about federal benefits being stopped, state benefits kicking in, once the federal benefits are reinstated, the state carrier is reimbursed 100%. The state's not losing any money.

678. 1:50:27

     And then it's almost like an advance.

679. 1:50:30

     Okay.

680. 1:50:31

     The federal would deduct any state benefits that worker had already received.

681. 1:50:36

     Okay.

682. 1:50:36

     Uh, I do have, uh, a concern about some of the statements on the competitive aspect.

683. 1:50:42

     Okay.

684. 1:50:44

     Work at the waterfront is determined by freight in and out. The state has mandated that if you do business in the state of Georgia, you are required to have workers' compensation.

685. 1:51:02

     So there's no competitive advantage to any of the other companies employing workers on the waterfront-

686. 1:51:10

     Right

687. 1:51:11

     ... under the Longshore Act, because they ha- are also obligated to pay those premiums. Should this, at a later date, pass as written, I would suggest to you that we become less competitive. Because for the simple fact our inventory nowadays hinges on quickness to get unloaded and distributed to market.

688. 1:51:44

     If the workers

689. 1:51:48

     start becoming afraid that they get injured, there's gonna be a delay in compensation, now everybody will have to work safer than they currently are. And working safer requires a- attention to detail and activity around you. I don't see where a reduction in a premium has a direct relationship on the movement in or out of the port of freight.

690. 1:52:28

     I just don't see the connection.

691. 1:52:29

     Okay. Okay.

692. 1:52:30

     Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.

693. 1:52:31

     I'm, I'm gonna let you, and then I'm gonna take one comment, and then we're gonna close this.

694. 1:52:34

     Just, just one question before you leave.

695. 1:52:36

     Yeah.

696. 1:52:36

     Are you saying you want our longshoremen to work less safely?

697. 1:52:40

     Not at all.

698. 1:52:41

     No.

699. 1:52:41

     But if there's a fear they get injured and they're not gonna be compensated what they're entitled to-

700. 1:52:48

     Right

701. 1:52:49

     ... they may have to rethink how fast they're moving.

702. 1:52:53

     Okay. I, I wanna say this. Thank you for the folks. I think this, we've learned a lot of things we didn't know as far as that portion, and we've got an issue. I think there's some work that needs to be done on this, uh, greatly. Some of this is state issue, some of this is federal issue. And we can't fix the federal issue. We can deal with some of the state issues. So with that, I'm gonna, I'm gonna clo- close us and dismiss us from that standpoint. Committee, thank you. I think some great comments. Uh, some of the things, like you said, getting things, but as he end, you know how that goes. Thank you, uh, Senator Merritt. But listen, thank you for being here.

703. 1:53:24

     Appreciate your help, and we will close and dismiss. Thank you.

704. 1:53:28

     Good.