LAB Committee Hearing Transcript for 02/23/2010

REP. RYAN: -- Public Employees Committee. We have the agenda before us. Just to remind people, we ask you to speak for three minutes. Everyone, when you hear the bell ring we ask you to wrap up your testimony so we can get to the next person. And especially on a day like today when the weather's not so good, I don't think we want to keep people waiting too long. We want to get -- be able to get -- give everyone a chance to offer testimony and get through the list so people can get out of here and home safely.

I'd also ask that if you're responding to a question from one of the legislators you also keep your answers less than three minutes. Sometimes that might not happen. So we will begin with the public officials and the first two individuals I -- looks like they're coming up together. It's James Dzurenda and Dan Callahan from the Department of Correction.

JAMES DZURENDA: Try it again. Good afternoon Representative Ryan and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. I'm James Dzurenda, South District Administrator for the Department of Correction representing acting Commissioner Brian Murphy. Joining me today is also Dan Callahan, Director of Human Resources.

We are here this afternoon to speak about Raised Bill 5063, AN ACT CONCERNING LIGHT DUTY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. Let me begin by stating that the administration of the Department of Correction takes the health and well-being of its employees seriously and does strongly support the return of its employees to light duty positions. So strongly in fact that it implemented a light duty program November 2009.

The Department believes that a statutory requirement to establish a light duty program is neither necessary nor needed. In collaboration with AFSCME MP4 and the Department of Administrative Services, the Department enhanced its current recuperative post program which is designed to transition injured employees back to full duty with the creation of light duty positions at each of its agencies 17 facilities.

The Light Duty Program is designed to afford employees who are out of work due to filed workman's compensation claims that prevents the employee from performing a full range of duties in their position and departmental standards. They cannot meet the requirements of a recuperative post program or return to full duty. This light duty assignment is offered to employees for a 60-day period and will serve as a transition for a return to full duty or a recuperative post assignment. A 30-day extension may be offered after a review of the employee's medical status on a case by case basis. A combination of light duty and recuperative post assignments will not exceed a total of 150 days in any injury case.

Information about the program has been distributed to all Department of Correction employees and is available at all facilities and many units also throughout human resources and the warden's offices. Since the implementation last year 86 employees have already gone through the light duty program. Of those 28 have returned back to full duty or a recuperative post assignment, 39 are still currently in a light duty post, and 19 of them have reoccurrence of their injuries and went back out on workers' compensation.

In addition to the Light Duty Program, there is a five year Department of Correction approved federally funded research project through the University of Connecticut concerning ergonomic and muscular skeletal injuries with the Department of Correction staff. Now in its third year, this study, which we believe is the first of this kind in the country, is specifically designed towards researching correctional employees' health.

Currently the main studies -- study areas are at the Cheshire Correctional Institution and at Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center. Pilot programs are fully underway at both locations to examine different approaches and programs that can help improve the health of correctional employees.

Additionally, MP4 members have also provided -- are provided with $100,000 in each of their contracts for stress reduction. These funds have fully supported the development of fitness areas at a number of facilities with space provided by the Department of Correction and the purchasing of equipment designed to help reduce workplace injuries as well as stress.

Again the Department of Correction does not believe that passage of Raised Bill 5063 is necessary since the Agency is already making light duty available to all eligible employees. Thank you for this opportunity to present the Department's view on this matter and we'll both be here to answer any questions that you may have.

REP. RYAN: Okay, so what you're saying, Mr. Callahan's not adding any testimony. He's just here to help answer any questions.

DAN CALLAHAN: I'm just here to answer any questions you might have.

JAMES DZURENDA: Correct.

REP. RYAN: I just have a question, you said you did this in collaboration with AFSCME MP4. Who does AFSCME MP4 represent?

JAMES DZURENDA: The correctional officers.

REP. RYAN: It does represent the correctional officers?

JAMES DZURENDA: Yes.

REP. RYAN: And you work with them in developing a program that's currently in effect and that this number of offices have currently --

JAMES DZURENDA: Yes. We met prior to the implementation of the pilot program and through the actual light duty positions when we offered them up. And we did meet with the members of MP4.

DAN CALLAHAN: And if I could just add, we started meeting last Spring. This has been an initiative that was collaborative. We toured the facilities with the unions. We identified places they could work that are outside of the main inmate population and came to agreement in October and implemented it in November, the program that we have now.

REP. RYAN: Okay. I appreciate the fact that you're also working to ensure that efforts are being made in the way of prevention so that people aren't injured which is good too.

Anyone else have any questions? Okay. Well no. Well thank you very much gentlemen for coming in.

JAMES DZURENDA: Thank you, Representative. We appreciate your time.

DAN CALLAHAN: Thank you.

REP. RYAN: That was too easy.

DAN CALLAHAN: Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

That brings us to the public hearing sign-up sheet and the first person is Lydia Mele and she'll be followed by Lisa Fontano.

LYDIA MELE: Good afternoon.

REP. RYAN: Again, just remember to turn on the microphone. There's a button there. Thank you.

LYDIA MELE: Can you hear me? Good afternoon. I'd like to thank Edith Prague and the other members of the Committee for allowing me to testify. This is the fourth year I'm testifying on an undue delayed bill. It is my sincere hope that this gets passed this session.

I had multiple injuries in the course of my employment as a guidance counselor and teacher in the Hartford School System. And in 1999 -- 90, I broke up a fight. It got -- a very bad fight and had called the office for assistance and no one came for ten minutes so I had to separate the girls and hold them with my arms outstretched while they were still going -- trying to get at each other. And I injured both shoulders and cervical spine, lumbar spine, wrists, and the shoulder got progressively worse.

And in 1993 my surgeon recommended surgery. The insurance company denied the surgery. They had sent me to an IME saying I didn't need the surgery. At that time I was representing myself and didn't know any better than to not pursue it. And in 1988 I also was taken out of my job classification and asked to supervise a classroom of disturbed students in Hartford.

And in Hartford there was always a shortage of substitutes. And they would take us out of job classification and many times we would walk into a violent situation which is what I did. I injured my ankle, my back in that altercation. My shoulders got progressively worse over time because I didn't have the surgery when I needed it. And in 1996 I was transferred to a school.

After my injuries they made no accommodations for my injuries and I was transferred to a school that didn't have a regular elevator and most of my students were on the third floor so I had to ride an old freight elevator. I don't know if you're familiar with the old freight elevators where you have to pull the strap and the steel doors come down. Well I went to go pull the strap with my bad shoulder and lost my balance, fell out of the elevator, reinjured the shoulder, the back, reinjured the right knee. Had to have surgery for my right knee.

At that time the orthopedist; this was in 1996, said I needed the surgery on -- both on the shoulder and the knee. And he decided to do the knee because it was weight bearing and if he did the knee I was more likely to be able to go back to work and try to function with my injured shoulder. And it was very difficult not being accommodated on the job. And -- but I lost very little time from work, just pushed through the pain. And did -- worked to the best of my ability and even when I retired, the Hartford school sent me a plaque saying what a wonderful job I did for the students of Hartford but gave me a hard time getting the surgery and medical treatment I needed.

And often it was delayed for years, not months, years. And I hired a lawyer in 1997 after that fall out of the elevator. And in 1999 I had to have extensive injury on my ankle -- and I had to have surgery on my ankle for that injury in '88. So you can see injury in '88, surgery not until '99. And the whole purpose of my coming here today is I feel I can be the poster child for this bill.

I am representative of what happens to somebody when their medical treatment or surgery is delayed. And delayed unreasonably. All my injuries are accepted injuries. At the time I had to fight for every single injury, go to hearing after hearing. It took many years. It took -- in 1993 I got my voluntary agreement for the first three injuries and the injury was in '88. So you can see how long it took from '88 to '93 to get the voluntary agreement.

In 2001 I went back to work and I was pretty disabled at that time. I was walking with two canes post the ankle surgery. The Hartford School System has no light duty so I had to be out for an extended time because they didn't have light duty. I went back and in 2001 I was assaulted by two students who had escaped from inside suspension; sustained an injury to my -- a blow to my left knee which affected my back and my -- my knee and my hip.

And in 2002 I started having severe pain in my hip. I was diagnosed with trochanteric bursitis in 1997 from the ankle injury due to the altered gait. And the hip problem became worse. I was finally referred to a hip specialist. And in 2003 the insurance company sent me to an IME to the hospital special care and Dr. Beck did an evaluation and the result of his going over my medical records for three days and an extensive examination was that his -- and this is his opinion; quote, it is my opinion based on a progressive arthritis since her work related injury of 12, 11, 2001 that Lydia Mele's hip arthritis is directly related to at least that one injury. And my -- he also said that I had substantial dysfunction due to all the injuries in total. And so I was -- had to go out on disability because I could no longer work.

REP. RYAN: Ms. Mele, we're way past the three-minute mark so if you could just kind of wrap up your testimony I would appreciate it.

LYDIA MELE: Okay. What I'm trying to say is, is that I've had to go through many formal hearings. You have to go to informal hearings until you get to a formal hearing. That whole process -- the -- the whole issue with my hip took five years to get a final decision.

I had to appeal it to the Appellate Court. They reversed the -- a part of the Commissioner's decision because there was an error of law made. But the important thing is that the commissioners have such deference that they can ignore any kind -- any information, any medical records that supports your case. And as a result of that, I'm in a chair without lumbar support.

I've had to go to formal hearings and -- you know -- these are medically necessary things that have been delayed. Now my hip is at the point where I have no blood supply to the bone. The doctor recommended surgery again on that same shoulder. They sent me to an IME of the partner of the doctor that denied it the first time. And the result of that, I had to go three different opinions. The -- I went through a formal hearing.

The commissioner was supposed to render his decision in December. He decided to send me to another commissioner's decision. And the commissioner decision agreed that I needed the surgery. And this took another whole year. So -- like I said I could be the poster child for this undue delay bill. People deteriorate with time and if they get the treatment and surgery at the time their doctor recommends it, they're more likely to go back to work and be functional and have some quality of life.

REP. RYAN: Thank you. I appreciate it.

Do we have any questions for Ms. Mele?

Thank you. And thank you for coming and telling your story and I'm sorry you had to come back again this year.

LYDIA MELE: I'm sorry my -- I'm sorry my printer broke last night but I'll try to get you a copy of this.

REP. RYAN: That would be good. That would be very good.

LYDIA MELE: No, my printer broke. It doesn't -- it didn't print out properly.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

Next we have Lisa Fontano followed by Nate Brown.

LISA FONTANO: Good afternoon Chairman Prague, Chairman Ryan, and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. I am Lisa Marie Fontano, a correction officer and Executive Board Member of the Correction Employees Local 387. I am speaking for Council 4 AFSCME and its 5,000 correction members in favor of Senate Bill 96, AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORIZATION OF BONDS OF THE STATE FOR REPLACEMENT OF PATROL RADIO EQUIPMENT FOR CORRECTION OFFICERS and House Bill 5063, AN ACT CONCERNING LIGHT DUTY WORK IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.

Regarding Senate Bill 96, it is of vital importance for correction officers to have up-to-date equipment that is reliable while performing duties in correctional facilities. Connecticut correction officers do carry weapons -- do not carry weapons while -- during most of their inmate supervision duties. Officers are reliant on their wits, and body alarms and often a radio. As you know, a single officer may have to supervise over 100 inmates at a time. The Department has made some progress in providing newer radios that work in facilities in the northern correction facility area. Staff in other facilities are still working with older radios that do not work in all parts of the facility and are not as reliable. We appreciate that you introduced this bill and urge you to please facilitate or urge Governor Rell to get properly working radios in all of our correction facilities.

We also appreciate you introducing the bill to mandate a Department of Correction light duty workers compensation program. Our jobs are difficult as correction officer employees. We do get hurt on the job. There is inherent danger. Often correction officer can come back to work, perform light duty for a short period of time when they physically recovered from a program of normal duty.

The Department has instituted a light duty pilot program that we would like to see in full implementation as we have worked together with the Department of Correction in MP4. It is unfortunate to lose good correction officers when legislature's Program Review Committee has reported that we are 20 percent front-line staff short when we don't need to be.

Both of these bills would keep the public and staff and inmates safer. Please feel free to ask questions.

REP. RYAN: Okay. Thank you.

I have -- obviously you were here for the testimony from the Department of Correction.

LISA FONTANO: I am.

REP. RYAN: You were. No, you were here for their testimony, right?

LISA FONTANO: Yes, I was.

REP. RYAN: So you heard them tell us that they've implemented a light duty program. And in your testimony you said you'd like to see it fully implemented. So are you saying that while there's a program it's not being used everywhere? Would you just clarify that for me?

LISA FONTANO: We have -- we have what we're calling a pilot program. We've basically correlated together with the State to work out the kinks of the program again together with the union and the State. And we've been doing that, I believe as Mr. Callahan spoke since October. And we've worked together. There's still a few kinks that we need to work out but we have worked together.

REP. RYAN: So there is a program. It is being -- it is being -- as you said it's a pilot program so they're looking to increase it. So this -- okay. So I guess I'm just a little confused about why we'd need this bill if it's already there and it's -- they're working towards fully implementing it.

LISA FONTANO: I think we're working towards that. Basically, as I stated I think there's a few kinks that the -- the State and the union just need to come together and work out. It's a newly -- it's a new program that we've instituted. I believe it's only been actually enforced for approximately three months that -- three to six months that we've worked through and each facility of the 18 facilities that we have and each facility has its own issues but we are working together to work them out.

REP. RYAN: Okay. That's good. And then going back to the radios. I think you're testimony covers what I had to ask about the radios. Okay.

Senator Prague has a question.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you.

So tell us about the light duty. What does that consist of?

LISA FONTANA: The Light Duty Program right now consists of no inmate contact -- no inmate contact. It -- there you go. What it consists of is there's no inmate contact and it's prior to going to a recoup post. We have --

SENATOR PRAGUE: Prior to going to a what?

LISA FONTANA: Recoup post. It would be -- we have what they call a recoup post.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Which is?

LISA FONTANA: Which is prior to going to full duty. It's kind of like a three stage program that we have now instead of a two stage program. It's basically a progression into going back to fully duty as a correction officer.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Yeah, but what do you do in light duty?

LISA FONTANA: Right now some of the officers do a mail review. We've discussed other posts that they -- they'd monitor cameras, answer phones. It's more sedentary duty.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay.

LISA FONTANO: Because we have officers that are on -- that use canes that are still in physical therapy. There's a variety of -- an array of different things that they -- but it's minimal filing, video review, basic things that you'd be able to sit in a chair that you would be able to conform to your -- what's more comfortable for you at the time.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay. Thank you.

LISA FONTANO: You're welcome.

REP. RYAN: Representative Lambert.

REP. LAMBERT: Thank you.

And thank you for coming today. When you're talking about the radios -- I had the pleasure of taking a tour in Brooklyn of the correctional facility. It's a beautiful building by the way.

LISA FONTANO: Thank you.

REP. LAMBERT: And I could see the necessity that that would have. Are you saying that -- right now that they're inadequate? Not enough? To bring this bill on for the -- to promote the -- is it a better system? What exactly -- could you just clarify exactly what the bill -- what you're asking for the radios?

LISA FONTANO: Defining money that's necessary is for better equipment. The equipment that we have is outdated right now. We have newer equipment in northern but we need the money in order to be able to spread that equipment throughout the entire facility. In all we have 18 facilities. I work in Cheshire and we have equipment that is probably well over 10 years old. There reliability of the equipment is -- is just not there for what's necessary for us to be able to perform out duties.

REP. LAMBERT: I mean that equipment is paramount to your safety.

LISA FONTANO: Absolutely.

REP. LAMBERT: Because that happens to be like a dormitory setting. And I could see how valuable a radio would be to everyone. And the question about light duty and having this program since November and you're saying it's adequately working. Will this be a contractual thing that's in your contract after this pilot program?

I guess, you're asking to have a bill and that would override any contractual between your union and the commission. So are you saying that it's not contractual right now or have you agreed to this pilot program being contractual after the pilot program is exhausted?

LISA FONTANO: Our contract's up in 2011. We haven't agreed to anything. It is still a pilot program. As I stated we're still working out the kinks. I think that it's something that the unions in the State ultimately would probably like to see that we would agree on as a contractual agreement as we do with everything else. But it's something that we're still progressively working through.

REP. LAMBERT: So there hasn't been any talk right now of this light duty program being contractual. There's no guarantee that --

LISA FONTANO: No. There's not. There's no guarantee at this point. No there hasn't been any guarantee.

REP. LAMBERT: And that's the reason why the bill is being submitted so that this way you're not going to depend on having it negotiated in. You're asking that it would be done by the State.

LISA FONTANO: I honestly can't speak on that. I personally didn't submit it.

REP. LAMBERT: But you're agreeing with the bill so you're --

LISA FONTANO: I am agreeing to the bill yes but -- yes.

REP. LAMBERT: Okay. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: She'd feel better with new radios.

Representative Esposito and then Representative Hewett.

REP. ESPOSITO: Good afternoon, Lisa. Approximately how many radios are there within the entire system? And do you have any idea --

LISA FONTANO: In the entire system?

REP. ESPOSITO: I know you said there's 18 facilities and --

LISA FONTANO: We have 5,000 correction officers, 18 facilities.

REP. ESPOSITO: So does each correction officer have a radio or is there only so many per facility.

LISA FONTANO: Yes. Per shift, I believe we have 75 officers -- I have six -- 14 -- I'd say we probably run 60 radios in my facility alone -- 60 radios on a shift.

REP. ESPOSITO: Okay. But I mean, the radios are transferred from employee to employee.

LISA FONTANO: From officer to officer; shift to shift. That's correct.

REP. ESPOSITO: So, I mean, it -- not necessarily 5,000 radios approximately with three shifts. Maybe --

LISA FONTANO: But you have -- the problem with that is you have radios that break, that don't have a charge, they're constantly out at repair. And the problem with the older models is that we probably have 20 to 30 radios out at repairs right now that are just constantly overturned because the account for repair is astronomical in compared to what we used to have. So to keep what we need we're not meeting the necessity of what we need now to have radios for everybody. And that would be in my facility alone that I can speak of.

REP. ESPOSITO: And on the 5063, the light duty --

LISA FONTANO: Yeah.

REP. ESPOSITO: I'm trying to read it quick enough to understand. If they have a program that's kind of working now and they're working on it --

LISA FONTANO: Yes.

REP. ESPOSITO: You know, what would the bill do other than say that you have to have something in place. I mean, if they're working on a plan now how much quicker will this bill make you work on the plan. It's still going to have to have the -- all the mechanics worked out as the bill -- as the program progressing. So I'm only trying to understand as was mentioned earlier, what's the need of the bill if -- if the union and the DOC is working on the language and getting the kinks out of it. But that's just a comment.

LISA FONTANO: No. Understandable. I understand, Representative.

REP. ESPOSITO: Thank you.

REP. HEWETT: How are you doing today?

LISA FONTANO: Good. How are you?

REP. HEWETT: Good. With the radios, can you give me an example of -- because I know it's in the prison setting so I first of all want to take off my hat to you for just working in there. I couldn't do it. There's no way. Can you give me an example of what happens with a radio that you know that something's got to be done. I mean just an example, some kind of breakdown in communications or --

LISA FONTANO: Actual transmissions don't take place.

REP. HEWETT: Okay. From one person to --

LISA FONTANO: From one person to the other. From one individual to control. The actual radio itself just fails so you're not able to use it for communication. Only one-way communication is able. It -- there's multiple things that will happen to it.

But the main problem with the older radios that we have is just they're outdated. They're too old. We just -- with the -- it's something that's used 24-7. It's not something that's ever given a break.

So it's not like a car battery where it's able to actually rest and take a break. It's something that we use 24-7 to maintain the orderly business that we do. It's something that we need.

REP. HEWETT: Is there people within the prison system that has better radios than what you do?

LISA FONTANO: Up in northern right now they have the newer systems and that's what we're requesting the bonding money for so we that we could have the systems throughout the entire state of all 18 facilities.

REP. HEWETT: Do you have any idea of why northern got better radios than your prison?

LISA FONTANO: I just believe that that was the facility that was chosen. That's our level five facility. That's our high security facility so I believe that that was the facility that was chose to use those radios first. And basically it just started there and that was when the money stopped and we just weren't able to facilitate the rest of the State.

REP. HEWETT: Because I know it would pretty rough for you to call in for back-up because somebody is just fighting and you can't -- and the transmission doesn't go through. That would be a pretty rough time there. Thank you.

LISA FONTANO: Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Thank you, Representative Hewett.

Anybody else have questions? Senator -- Representative Prague and then Senator Guglielmo.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you. You know, I came in late and it was just called to my attention that the acting Commissioner, Brian Murphy from the Department of Correction testified that the DOC is presently in the process of purchasing and replacing radios. Did you know that?

LISA FONTANO: I do now.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay. So that should be some comfort to you.

LISA FONTANO: Thank you.

SENATOR PRAGUE: You don't have to wait until the legislation passes. So I think that's really good. In 2008 the Department of Corrections received $2 million in bond funding to begin the replacement process. So it's already there.

LISA FONTANO: Is that enough to cover all 18 facilities?

SENATOR PRAGUE: I can't keep track. Well I don't know that. I don't know the answer to that but if there's $2 million that was bonded and they're already beginning to replace the radios, I'll tell you truthfully you're lucky you got it when you did because if you were looking for it now it would be more difficult. And radios are important. There's no doubt about it. So thank you for coming in.

LISA FONTANO: Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Senator Guglielmo.

SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Just a quick question. Are there ever times when a correction's -- correction officer that has inmate contact would be on duty without a radio?

LISA FONTANO: Excuse me. Could repeat that -- I couldn't --

SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Yeah. Would there be any time right now when a correction officer -- correction's officer whose in contact with inmates is on duty without a radio? I mean, would there be situations like that under the present --

LISA FONTANO: Yes. Yes there is.

SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Really?

LISA FONTANO: Yeah.

SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Okay. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

Does anyone else have any questions?

Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: Yes. I -- just tying in with what Senator Prague said. It looks like we're also using federal funds of over $1 million this year in some sort seized assets funds also. So I think we're -- the Correction Department is understanding the problem and putting money into this program pretty rapidly. I don't know of too many other programs that have received over $3 million in funding in the last two years.

So -- at this point I probably would not be supporting this going forward unless someone can show me why $3 -- we're really falling behind or that they can actually purchase the radios faster or get them online faster than what they're currently doing.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

I think everyone's asked you a question now so I think you're all set.

LISA FONTANO: All right. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Thank you for coming in.

Nate Brown. He'll be followed by Michael Miles.

NATE BROWN: Good afternoon Senator Prague, Representative Ryan and distinguished members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. First I want to start off by saying my name's Nate Brown and I have recently taken over for Dave Mogley who most of you know who had some very large shoes to fill on my behalf. I'm here with the -- testifying on behalf of the Operating Engineers Local 478, an organization representing over 4,000 workers in the construction industry in Connecticut.

We first want to thank you for raising this bill. We feel that House Bill 5205 will help to keep the construction workers of Connecticut safer by expanding the OSHA 10 requirements for individuals so they can be updated on key safety practice -- practices, any new safety laws or regulations and to be updated on any new technologies. Requiring construction workers to undertake refresher training on a regular three year basis for four hours will keep them better informed with regard to changes in the safety in the construction industry. I think that you would agree that anything that will encourage safety or teach workers about safety is too sure to result in better work sites and reduction in injuries.

Local 478 believes that this improvement to the OSHA 10 statute will have a positive impact on workers' safety in the construction industry. Requiring individuals to undertake the refresher course on a more frequent basis will serve them -- will serve to inform individuals in the construction field on safer ways to do their jobs and will remind them just how dangerous their chosen field work can be.

Thank you for your consideration of this bill and for your continued interest in enhancing the safety of construction workers in the State of Connecticut. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

Do we have any questions from -- Senator Prague.

First of all, he's retired, right?

NATE BROWN: He's retired. Yes.

REP. RYAN: He did retire.

NATE BROWN: Yes. He's off to ski country.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Oh, well that's good. That's what I wanted to ask you. I wanted to just to make sure that he's well.

NATE BROWN: Oh he's fine. He's doing very well.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Good.

REP. RYAN: Is he in the Olympics?

NATE BROWN: No.

REP. RYAN: Any other questions?

Representative Lambert.

REP. LAMBERT: In your field as far as the training do they also go over the products that you use? Any safety on the chemicals or anything else that you would have to use that are updated so that would bring you up-to-date also on the dangers --

NATE BROWN: Sure.

REP. LAMBERT: -- of what you're working with.

NATE BROWN: Sure. A lot of times if there's something that's new, they will -- that will be included in the refresher -- the refresher course.

REP. LAMBERT: Are you handed out data sheets by the way of any new product?

NATE BROWN: No.

REP. LAMBERT: And you're still tail board safety meetings and you'd be bringing this new information to everybody?

NATE BROWN: Pertaining to ourselves as a -- as a local organization with our union members we do hold the classes that will update our members in the industry. They can take -- we hold an OSHA 10 right now. We hold an OSHA 30 class right now and that will give them the certificate to get on the projects that's required.

REP. LAMBERT: I would just strongly suggest if someone does give you a new product to use that you do ask for data sheets about -- so that you'd know --

NATE BROWN: Sure.

REP. LAMBERT: Thank you.

NATE BROWN: Sure.

REP. RYAN: Thank you, Representative Lambert.

Does anyone else have any questions?

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brown and good luck in your new position.

Mr. Miles followed by Robert Carter.

MICHAEL MILES: Senator Prague, Representative Ryan, members of the Committee, my name is Michael Miles. I am from West Hartford. I am a retired workers' compensation commissioner. I served from 1993 through part of 2004. I'm here to support Raised Bill 61 particularly with respect to providing authority for the Commissioner to authorize routine medical treatment.

Too often we have -- we did have and from what I understand we currently have and the situation is worsening. Situations where countless hearings are necessary with the Commissioner. I think that a previous witness, Ms. Mele talked about her problems. I can say that she's an extreme case but as far as routine treatment I believe this happens continually and routinely in the Workers' Comp Commission.

A commissioner recently stated that he spend 60 percent of his time trying to get medical treatment authorized. Someone will be in a -- in a work accident, have an accepted case, have a treating physician -- let's say as an example that treating physician recommends eight treatments of physical therapy. After (inaudible) the insurer or the PPO can veto this and it's been authorized by the commissioner, just come in and say we're not authorizing any further treatment.

We want a further report from the therapist to the doctor -- to them. This takes too much time. The patient's treatment goes backwards, losing the benefit of the treatment, situation deteriorating. And patient loses interest in even going back to the therapist. Now yesterday -- I'm going to testify to this because I saw it with my own eyes, heard it with my own years.

I was at a physical therapist not for a workers' comp case or an automobile accident case, just due to old age deterioration of my shoulder, a little bit, and I was having some physical therapy. She was interrupted -- it's a small physical therapy office; one secretary -- receptionist, one physical therapist.

She was interrupted a half a dozen times because of phone calls from either patients or mainly insurance carriers wanting more information as to the treatment. She says it happens all day long. And she said the same as what I said earlier, the patient is -- she can't treat the patient because there's no authorization.

You lose the patient. The patient deteriorates, just loses interest in the whole treatment. And I think that the PPOs have a financial interest in fostering this type of care. We see it over and over again. This act would give the commissioner the authority to grant reasonable, necessary treatment. Give them some discretion which isn't fair.

Now, on May 27, 1998, the previous chairman of the Workers' Comp issued a memorandum, 98-08 stating that once a physician is authorized to treat a patient under the Workers' compensation Act the physician may continue to treat the claimant without certification as long as the treatment is within the guidelines of the medical protocols.

I don't believe that that happens under the current administration. There's no enforcement. There's no (inaudible) to the remedial nature of the act which -- which -- number one requires that an injured worker receive reasonable treatment as well as benefits for lost time from work. So I would support this bill.

REP. RYAN: Thank you very much for your testimony.

Senator Prague has a question for you and Representative Lambert.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you, Mr. Miles for coming in.

MICHAEL MILES: You're welcome.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Is there anything we're missing in this legislation that would strengthen the issue giving people timely medical treatment mandating that the commissioners have the authority to say that the patient needs the treatment and it has to be done. I'm frankly sick and tired of the insurance industry denying care to people who need it.

And I'm not so sure that these PPOs that are contracted by the insurance industry ought to be the ones that are making any decisions about the injured workers treatment. I don't know, somehow or other they ought to be able to go to their own doctor.

But anyhow, I would really appreciate your comments on this issue, whether you agree or disagree or -- you know -- whatever you think. You've been a workers' comp commissioner for some time.

MICHAEL MILES: Thank you. I fully agree with you Senator. Pardon the frog in my weather -- you know -- my voice here. I think that is present in all types of medical treatment these days. So-called -- I'll say it -- bean counters at insurance companies dictating medical treatment based on the bottom line; dollars and cents. And it's pervasive in the Workers' Comp Commission.

I would say that some of this -- this legislation looking at -- I believe it's Section 3C-2, whenever there's an agreement in regard to compensation, et cetera. It's in the Bill 61. I think this would go a long way. Under Section B, medical or surgical service, a routine exam or treatment pursuant to Section 31-294D as amended by this act under any agreement.

And I think that would certainly strengthen the commissioner's ability to act and address so those concerns that you have about the bill being strong enough. I can't think it can be too strong. Of course there are other factors that -- that influence policy in the Workers' Comp Commission. And it is a remedial act to help the worker. It's not there for the benefit of the CBIA or the insurance companies to make a profit. It's for the worker to get some remedial relief.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you very much.

REP. RYAN: And Representative Lambert had a question.

REP. LAMBERT: I want to tell you how much I appreciate you coming forward today. So many rumors go on about the worker and the things that they do and it always looks like it's their fault. And as a commissioner -- I was a Vice President of a union at Bic and I can't tell you -- we used to do the workman's comp -- I can't tell you how many incidences that you have just witnessed yourself and are able to tell this commission how many times the poor person that has been injured and hurt cannot get treatment with -- because they just stall it and stall it. And it's so good to have someone who's on the other side seeing this firsthand to come in here and express what you've seen.

So I mean, you validate everything that this commission has been trying say about the poor worker on the bottom and why this legislation is so important. So I thank you so much because it's not just people -- you know -- that are injured.

People thinking, oh, they're working the system but you have been on the other side and you have seen the atrocities and the -- and it's just an emotional thing to me because I've seen so many people not get paid, wait it out because they can't see a doctor and then they finally say, I'll just do it on medical. And they never get compensated. And that's another sad issue. And I know you've seen that before.

MICHAEL MILES: It's a travesty. I agree with you wholeheartedly, Representative Lambert. It -- there have to be changes made within that Workers' compensation Commission to strengthen the commissioners to act and to act to do the right thing from their head and their heart without worrying about political ramifications.

REP. LAMBERT: I just want to thank you again because I know sometimes there's a lot of criticism when someone like you -- you know -- but you brought such an enlightenment to this issue that we have and that is proof and it needs to be fixed.

MICHAEL MILES: Thank you, Representative.

REP. LAMBERT: Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Thank you, Representative.

Do you have any other questions?

Representative Guglielmo.

REP. GUGLIELMO: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner.

Do you know if the Comp Commission could handle this additional work with the staff they have now? And obviously this would bring a lot more cases to them, I would think.

MICHAEL MILES: Are you talking about if this bill were to be passed?

REP. GUGLIELMO: Yes.

MICHAEL MILES: I think it would bring less cases to them because the commissioner would have the authority to approve the treatment, therefore a person doesn't have to ask for a formal hearing --

REP. GUGLIELMO: Okay.

MICHAEL MILES: have another hearing, get another report, have a pretrial hearing. Finally reach the formal list and hope that there's no further delay during that time. All the things that we've discussed take place where the person is not getting treatment. You had someone who testified here earlier. As I say, she had a very -- you know -- she was injured seriously and needed a lot of treatment but I was Commissioner in Hartford when her -- when she appeared before me many of times.

REP. GUGLIELMO: Okay.

MICHAEL MILES: And I think giving the commissioners that authority, that this bill would do, would result in less hearings and less staff.

REP. GUGLIELMO: Okay. Thank you very much.

REP. RYAN: Anyone else have any questions?

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Miles.

MICHAEL MILES: Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Next is Richard Carter followed by Linda Palermo. Oh yeah, it is Palermo. Okay.

ROBERT CARTER: Representative Ryan and Senator Prague. I'm Robert Carter, not Richard. And I'm a resident of Southbury and a partner in the law firm of Carter and Civitello. We represent injured workers. I'm here also to support the Raised Bill Number 61 which would facilitate the authorization of medical care for injured employees.

I've been doing this for more than 30 years now and I've worked on behalf of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association and the Bar Association in workers' compensation issues and I'm one of the authors of the treatise -- the two volume treatise on Connecticut worker compensation law and I'm currently teaching the workman's compensation course at the University of Connecticut Law School with my wife and with Chairman Mastropietro.

I've seen this problem with delay and authorization for medical treatment get worse and worse especially over the last 20 years. And it's gotten to be a substantial problem which you've heard for the last two sessions. The bill that's before you would go a long way to solving the problem and it would do it in a much simpler way than the bills you've seen in the previous couple of sessions.

As the commissioner said to you just now, one of the active commissioners at a recent Bar Association seminar said that about 60 percent of his time has to be spent on hearings on just exactly this, authorization of medical care and accepted cases. And we're only talking about accepted cases where -- you know -- there's no doubt that the person had an injury. But the delay in treatment has really huge effects.

For example one of our clients Art Beavis, who is an electrician had a fall and eventually had to have a knee replacement the Dr. (inaudible) did the knee replacement and he -- the -- if any of you've had knee replacements -- I hope not yet -- then you'll know that the most crucial thing is to get physical therapy right after it to regain as much range of motion as you can.

And so, Art Beavis had to be out six visits -- you know -- for physical therapy then the insurance company, Liberty, cut him off and said we're not going to authorize any more. And Dr. (inaudible) said this is crazy. You've got to -- you know -- if you don't do this it's going to have permanent damage. And he did have permanent damage. It took about five or six months to get the -- you know -- rest of the physical therapy authorized and at the end his doctor said, well yeah, you really -- he has much more permanent disability than he would have otherwise if you had just done the physical therapy.

So this bill would attack that problem. I wanted to first say for Senator Prague that Section 2 of this act would actually give the commissioners the ultimate authority to approve or deny medical treatment which has been denied by the administrator of the preferred provider organization -- the panel of the doctors.

So this would restore the commissioners' authority to decide what medical treatment is reasonably necessary. But to address the medical delays, the bill would give authority to the commissioner at an informal hearing to order -- to authorize routine medical treatment which they don't have now which is just an accepted treating physician to say, well yeah of course you can go back and go to the doctor or get drugs that the doctor has prescribed or physical therapy. That will solve a lot of the problems.

The -- the section would -- three would also clarify the existing law that no preauthorization for doctors visits is required. What has happened now is that the doctors have become afraid because they were denied payment unless there was preauthorization for a visit.

So they won't see patients without preauthorization. And this would restore clarity to the law so that people can rely -- doctors can rely on getting paid if they're the authorized treating physician. And -- and finally Section 3 of the act would provide where there is an authorized course of medical treatment -- for example the 15 or 20 sessions of physical therapy after a knee replacement that the doctor has ordered that if the insurance company as in Art Beavis's case is going to stop paying then they have to file the same form 36 that they file now if they're going to discontinue benefits through say temporary total disability. And they have to show some reason for discontinuing this -- you know -- fixed course of treatment that the doctor has -- has prescribed.

So I would urge you -- and the bill should not have any fiscal note this time. You know, it's only what the insurance companies are supposed to do anyway. It would relieve commissioners of huge congestion on their dockets because the stuff that should be automatic -- you know -- it largely -- I think -- will be automatic if this bill is passed.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

Do we have any questions from -- sorry about getting your first name wrong, Mr. Carter.

ROBERT CARTER: That's okay.

REB. RYAN: Senator Prague has a question.

SENATOR PRAGUE: You know, I don't know where the workers' comp commissioners could have turned for help before this bill came before us but there must -- we have a Healthcare Advocate in this State. Would that office be able to offer any kind of assistance when an injured worker needs treatment and the insurance companies deny that treatment or is he out of that picture all together?

ROBERT CARTER: I don't know, Commissioner -- I mean, Senator. The commissioners of course do have authority except -- you know -- except where it's limited by this preferred group provider's statute that's on the books. The senate -- the commissioners do have authority to order the medical treatment but the trouble is it will take eight months or a year to get the -- you know -- a formal hearing and the trial on it. And I've had defense lawyers who were being obstructed or their clients were being obstructed, sit there if they're the commissioner and said -- you know -- let the guy go back to the doctor. And they'll say, well commissioner you don't have the authority to order me to do that but you're going to have to do a formal hearing.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Does the Chairman of our Workers' Comp Commission have the authority to mandate the insurance companies to approve what the patient needs?

ROBERT CARTER: Not without the process that -- you know -- is already on the books. So we're not asking that that be -- you know -- the due process will still attach the way it does now. They can go try the case if they want but the commissioner now is certainly -- the Chairman is actively trying to educate insurers and doctors about what they ought to do but it would be really helpful to clarify the law and give the commissioners the authority for routine stuff just to say, well yeah, you have to authorize that.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Do you have any other questions for Mr. Carter?

Representative Lambert.

REP. LAMBERT: Thank you. Thank you for coming today. When you alluded to the fact that that individual that was delayed the treatment for his knee -- and I've known people who have had knee surgery so it's so imperative that they keep that motion and then they can gain flexibility. Now, from your opinion wouldn't it be cost savings if people were treated immediately the way they're supposed to?

We're not talking -- again you already mentioned that these are people that have been already approved that it was workman's compensation. We're not debating that. Excuse me. But if they'd gotten proper treatment at the end wouldn't they have less disability and wouldn't that actually save money if the treatment goes through in a timely manner?

ROBERT CARTER: Well, sure. I mean it's not rocket science. It's a matter of a cumbersome bureaucracy of insurance company injustice. And they have too many cases. It's not -- you know -- once in a while an adjustor will have it in for a client but it's more often it's just that the ball gets dropped.

Nothing happens and the bill is designed so it would make it automatic that it doesn't have to like get rubber stamped by an adjustor just because somebody wants to go back -- or needs to go back to the doctor. It's not malevolence it's just a mess. And that's why it would be good to -- to clarify.

REP. LAMBERT: So as the Commissioner has cited before that it actually would work faster, go through faster, and probably more in a timely manner. It would probably be -- actually save money. I'm just saying in the same way. If I have a disability on my knee and I'm getting 30 percent whereas I would've gotten only 10 percent, in the long run this is not going to increase -- it's not going to make -- this bill's not going to cost anything more. It's actually going to save.

ROBERT CARTER: It should save money for carriers. It should make people healthier and it should save time for the commissioners. Back surgeons tell us all the time, and they fuss about it in workers' compensation that because the person wasn't treated effectively and quickly, aggressively at first, then their long-term prognosis or long-term well-being is just greatly diminished in many, many cases.

REP. RYAN: Anyone else have questions?

Senator Guglielmo.

SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Just a quick question. Do we know how other states handle this. Is what this bill's asking for, is that common practice in other workers' comp states that handled how they -- other states handled their workers' comp cases?

ROBERT CARTER: They vary tremendously and I don't pretend to have researched the details of the law in other states. But I think it's gotten worse here than average, this particular problem, not the commission in general over the last decade.

SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Okay. Thank you.

ROBERT CARTER: I don't know the details of other states.

SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Thank you. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Thank you. Anybody else?

Thank you, Mr. Carter.

Next we have Linda Palermo and Joyce -- after her Joyce Wojtas.

LINDA PALERMO: Good afternoon honorable members of the Labor Committee and others in attendance. My name is Linda Ares Palermo of Stratford, Connecticut. I'm here today not only as an injured person suffering from a permanent disability which arose out of a work-related injury for -- at least 20 years ago who has been denied medical treatment, medicine, and physical therapy treatment and also as a citizen to speak in support of Senate Bill Number 61.

By way of background I am a licensed practical nurse. I still hold my license in good standing. I represented myself in my claim which was accepted in or around June of 2000 by a commissioner who is now deceased. Over that same period of time people who had on standing in the matter caused interferences to occur which I must add even with medical treatment they would call doctors and say I wasn't going to be there.

I -- and then we had various attorneys who appeared rather than keeping in separate the intent of the act were more interested in challenging my abilities through their misrepresentation of it. I wasn't continued to be denied my rights to medical treatment, medication, physical therapy and diagnostic tests. At the onset one of or possibly two commissioners directed I see a doctor that the respondent insurer and or other attorneys were familiar with.

On another occasion a commissioner ordered over the objection of the respondent carrier through their attorney that I was to see a neurologist for diagnostic testing for the purpose of making causal relationship of my back injury to my hip injury and lower extremities. The report supported the causal relationship. However, there was -- that was to no avail. I was -- I was granted social security income based on the work-related injuries.

Once my federal Medicare insurance was available and the fact that it had become more difficult for me to ambulate I called Medicare to question if they would allow me to receive medical treatment, physical therapy and tests under their umbrella. If so, I would want them to place a lien on my comp file so that the federal agency, Medicare would be appropriately reimbursed by the respondent insurance carrier.

However through gross misrepresentations my -- made by the respondent's attorney, the respondents carrier and commissioner, the Chair, who the lien remains unpaid however still intact. I as a former -- injured and former employee who was promised compensation through the employment agreement entered into with the employer continue to be denied proper medical, medicine and physical therapy, et cetera.

Therefore, based on the above facts I wholeheartedly support Bill Number 61 because injured workers would not have to wait for an insurer to preapprove diagnostic tests. Can I finish that word? That wasn't two minutes. Diagnostic testing of the injured area of the body parts -- where the body parts. It reduces delay in obtaining medical treatment recommended by the treating physician. It ensures -- insurers would not arbitrarily interrupt or deny their treatment recommended by a treating physician. Their treatment would not be interrupted while they were waiting for a hearing to reinstate that treatment. It requires insurers to support denials with competent medical evidence. It requires -- it would require a commissioners approval to discontinue authorized medical treatment. It gets injured workers back to work quicker after they have been healed properly.

Injured workers would acclimate better when returning to work after treatment that was not marked by delays, denials and interruptions. Injured workers would have a good workers' compensation experience with -- and would be more likely to go back to work. Employers would get timely medical treatment for their injured employees which is what they are paid -- what they pay the insurance -- insurers for.

Workers' compensation commissioners would have to use existing procedures. It has no physical impact. It gives commissioners more authority to authorize routine and non-invasive treatment at informal hearings. Commissioners would have the ability to review entire cases to make decisions concerning a disrupted treatment. It improves the commissioners' ability to put treatment into the hands of the treating physician.

It makes the workers' compensation more efficient and effective. To which, I must add, commissioners must stay in step with the intent of the Workers' compensation Act, not breach it. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

Do we have any questions for Ms. Palermo?

Thank you. I think you made your case very well.

LINDA PALERMO: Thank you very much.

REP. RYAN: I appreciate your coming in.

LINDA PALERMO: Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Joyce and then followed by Paul Costello.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Mr. Chairman is it all right if I -- Cam Champlin joins me in this testimony?

REP. RYAN: No.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Good afternoon members of the Labor Committee. My name is Joyce Wojtas. Here representing the Mechanical Contractors Association of Connecticut and Local 777 and also with me is Cameron Champlin representing Local 777. We're here this afternoon to go on record in support of House Bill 5205 which will require an OSHA four hour refresher course be given to employees who perform work on Public Works projects every five years after they've taken an initial 10 hour or 30 hour OSHA training course.

This is a good step in the right direction and the bill as drafted, we heard many comments and concerns from various groups in the industry and also from the Department of Labor. So, we have some recommendations for an amendment to the bill to try to address the concerns and those will be; one, the trainer mentioned in the original bill is officially called an OSHA authorized construction outreach trainer, two, the four hour supplemental training course we would like to include an update of revised or new OSHA safety standards, a review of the OSHA focus four and a review of the topics listed in OSHA CFR1926 that are deemed appropriate by the OSHA authorized construction outreach trainer.

We also would require the OSHA authorized trainer to issue a completion card to the trainee rather than a certificate of completion. That would allow the trainee to carry that particular card in his wallet on the construction site. We would require the OSHA trainer to register with the Department of Labor and to pay a registration fee of $150. The trainer would also submit a registration form with the copy of the trainer's OSHA authorization card and outlining the course -- an outline of the course or courses to the Department of Labor.

We would require the Department of Labor to provide registration numbers to the trainer and -- and a form so the trainer could order the completion cards for a cost of $1 each. We would also require the registered trainer to maintain records of all persons who complete the refresher training course.

Currently with the ten-hour training, most trainers do retain those records also when they teach the OSHA federal, OSHA training course of ten hours or 30 hours. However, OSHA purges their files after five years. That's -- I heard this from John Barrasso who's a trainer. And so they keep all their records. We would also establish a $1,000 penalty for any person who provides training for this course who is not registered and approved by the Department of Labor.

We request -- I have given copies of the amendment to the staff. I'm not -- I don't -- I didn't have copies for everyone but there are copies available and we would be willing to answer any questions. And Cam if you have anything to add.

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: I think you did an excellent job. I'm just here for moral support. One thing you were going to do, you were going to exempt --

JOYCE WOJTAS: Oh, in the -- our amendment we -- we didn't mention the state and federal OSHA trainers, those people that are employed by the state or the federal government. I don't know if we need a specific exemption from the fee for them. But we wouldn't want to be charging state employees or federal employees who are trainers and provide training the fee.

REP. RYAN: Okay. Now with this new recommendation for an OSHA authorized construction outreach trainer would that be the same individual -- have to be the person who does the initial ten hour course as well?

JOYCE WOJTAS: Correct. That's what it -- that's the official name.

REP. RYAN: So we've taken a simple system where we're going to have workers come back and possibly train their fellow workers and are now adding this level of training and registration for them to be able to do that. Because initially -- when we initially did the bill we were trying to keep it simple so people could get the course and I think we were allowing folks who might have taken the course to come back and train other people on the worksite and offer them the course and now this is going to make it that much -- more restrictive.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Excuse me. I -- it wasn't my understanding that -- I thought we were going to have the OSHA trainers do -- provide the training because the OSHA trainer is a -- is a whole different --

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: Higher level.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Much higher level of training. They have to go and be recertified or reauthorized every five years and they have to keep up -- this is to be a federal trainer. We certainly don't want to get away from that. We want that type of trainer doing all the training whether it be for the state established refresher course or the ten hour or 30 hour course.

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: And they also get the updates of anything that changes in that -- every four years or whatever it is that old one does.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Right.

REP. RYAN: Okay. I'll go back and look at that.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Whereas just a trainee or somebody that took that course would not get that.

REP. RYAN: Okay. We'll look at that and see.

Maybe I haven't -- maybe I'm not remembering it correctly but that was I thought --

Okay. Do we have any other questions?

Yes, Representative Lambert and then Senator Prague.

REP. LAMBERT: Thank you very much for coming. I have to agree with you. Someone who has taken that ten hour course is not going to have all the updated information to retrain someone. I mean, I had my degree in occupational safety and health and ten hours is just for the worker to familiarize himself with the upcoming -- updated. But if you're training someone, I think that level is completely different. And you made mention of the cards. So that would be something like a first aid card if you went out and got CPA or something to train.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Correct.

REP. LAMBERT: So it would just be a basic card and you'd be charging $1 for that.

JOYCE WOJTAS: And the only those that -- the people that register with Department of Labor would be able to order those cards. And -- I don't -- we didn't want to make it too complicated. I mean it could be done online but everyone was concerned that just anybody would be out there doing the training and issuing cards and we want it more controlled and that's why we came up with a registration fee for this; an annual registration fee and a charge for the card. And they would have to go.

And whether DOL would give them like a MasterCard that they could print up themselves but they're name -- they would have to sign the card when they issue it to the individual and also put their -- their DOL registration number.

They do get an ID number from the federal people -- federal OSHA for their OSHA authorized construction outreach trainer card. But their ID number is not on their cards so we felt in talking to the trainers that I was trying to work this out with that it wouldn't be a good idea to use that same number because somehow -- if the feds don't want it on the card then we certainly don't want to put it on the card that we're issuing for this state program.

REP. LAMBERT: And my last question on -- you alluded to the fact that the trainer would have to hold the documentation for the people that were qualified and pass -- successfully pass the course and you made mention of five years on the federal. How long was your recommendation because I was just -- it's not really here.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Well, excuse me. The -- the trainer would be -- everyone would have to do this every five years. The feds do it -- the do the ten -- they require the ten hour training and that's it. But we heard that they purge their files because remember they're keeping files from all over the country. So they purge their files about every five years.

So if you're an individual who's taking the ten hour course or the 30 hour there was issued a card -- an OSHA card from the federal level and you lose it it's hard -- you can't get a duplicate copy that easily if you're so many years out from that initial training. I would expect because this is going to be every five that everybody who gets it today five years from now those files could probably be purged. Although we -- I didn't get into that in the amendment but --

REP. RYAN: Senator Prague.

SENATOR PRAGUE: So, Joyce, where did this come from? I mean, we discussed this bill in the Labor Conference room and then all of a sudden you bring us this amendment with new language. Where did this come from?

JOYCE WOJTAS: It came from everybody -- everybody that's involved with this had concerns about how this was going to function and who was going to train and what the course would be about because the -- the bill itself doesn't say -- it really doesn't say that it has to be the OSHA standards. It says a number of -- it says safety and health and all. So all we've done is made some changes. Now when it came to administration of it how do you -- how do you just say anybody can go out there and teach the course?

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: There had to be some criteria and that's what the amendment does is spell out the criteria.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay. We'll talk about this at some point in time because --

JOYCE WOJTAS: Okay.

SENATOR PRAGUE: It's like we sat around and talked about it and got the bill together and -- who wrote this?

JOYCE WOJTAS: I'll take the ball.

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: Well not just her but there was a lot of input.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Yeah.

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: Senator from all factions, union and nonunion. They all were concerned about how this was going to go and of course the registration fee they wanted to make sure there was no fiscal note on it. So this was a consortium of industry people that put this together and Joyce of course was the one that wrote it all up.

JOYCE WOJTAS: And I know that --

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: And did a lot of research.

JOYCE WOJTAS: I know that LCO Eric will probably strangle me for some of my language but I was just trying my best under the circumstances because we didn't want -- we -- initially we thought we could leave everything up to the regulations but no one -- no one was comfortable with that -- you know -- just out there. How do you -- how do you go about it?

SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay.

JOYCE WOJTAS: But I mean we're open for -- you know -- discussions and -- but we would just like to see it done right and we want to ensure that the trainers are the appropriate people. We want to make certain that the Department can administer this without -- you know -- I mean, with the budget cuts and everything we felt if everybody paid a fee. And most of the trainers I talked to were willing to pay a fee. So we wanted it to come together as a -- a viable type of program.

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: But you're in charge so whatever you want to do we will certainly do whatever you decide is the best thing to do.

REP RYAN: I'm glad you kind of -- came to that -- it's good to come to that realization at this point and time. Now with these folks who are paying $150 are they going to be paid so that they --

JOYCE WOJTAS: They usually -- usually either it's someone who's hired by a particular union or a particular association or if you get a contract trainer, someone who just goes and does training -- you know -- they've gone through all the loops and hoops. Yeah. You'd put a fee down.

REP. RYAN: Loops and hoops?

JOYCE WOJTAS: You'd charge a fee for the training.

REP. RYAN: Okay. Because I think we were trying -- the initial bill I think we were letting people take it online as you mentioned earlier which -- so people would have it at their disposal and would be able to do it readily.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Well I -- these people are available. They all have the OSHA -- all I did was make it the official name. We called it the occupational safety and health authorized trainer but the official name is OSHA authorized construction outreach trainer. That's their -- that's what's on their card from the federal government.

REP. RYAN: Did you talk to OSHA before you drafted this amendment?

JOYCE WOJTAS: No. I talked to trainers, the ones who have been doing the training. OSHA doesn't -- what does OSHA care?

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: Because they don't --

JOYCE WOJTAS: OSHA does -- OSHA does a -- requires a ten-hour training and that's it for the --

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: And it never expires.

JOYCE WOJTAS: -- for the duration. You do the ten hour training and you're ready and that's it.

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: For life.

JOYCE WOJTAS: For life.

REP. RYAN: Okay. All right. Thank you.

Does anybody else have any questions?

Thank you.

Next --

PAUL COSTELLO: Good afternoon, Senator Prague, Representative Ryan, and members of the Committee on Labor and Public Employees. My name is Paul Costello. I'm the Apprentice and Training Director for the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers and National Electrical Contractors Association. The IBEW fully supports the requirements of OSHA 10 training for all workers on construction sites as stated in the current law. And we are here to support House Bill 5205, AN ACT CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION SAFETY REFRESHER COURSE TRAINING.

The IBEW was active in the writing of the original proposed bill and the amendments since the inception. And we did also have input to what Joyce is talking about so I might be able to shed a little light on some of it also. The OSHA outreach training program is designed to train workers in the basics of occupational safety and health and construction.

The ten-hour course raises the awareness of the hazards associated with construction work is only an orientation to safety and health. Workers must receive additional training on specific hazards associated with their jobs as stated by federal OSHA. Upon successful completion of the training the individuals are issued a course completion card with the date of completion and they do not expire according to federal OSHA.

I have been an OSHA outreach instructor since 2001 and been providing training to hundreds of construction workers each year with OSHA ten to 30 hours courses. CFR 1926 OSHA standards for construction is not updated annually or in its entirety when there is a revision. When there is a revision to the document it only pertains to one of the 26 subparts of the document.

The current reference to the electrical Section Subpart K covers the electrical section was revised in 1981. Since then we've had nine code changes to our national electrical code which it is based on. This is common throughout the construction standard. Many of the standards do not -- have not been revised since OSHA became law in 1971.

The majority of the mandatory topics OSHA requires an outreach trainer to present during a class have been include in Section 1-C of the House Bill 5205. Before our refresher course for persons that possess OSHA ten or 30 hour cards that have been issued prior will be addressed by the proposed topics. Requiring the trainer to be an authorized OSHA outreach trainer will ensure that the latest changes to the construction standards will be covered in the refresher courses.

This combined with weekly on-the-job safety training and yearly continued education requirements that include construction safety specific to the hazards associated with a worker's jobs will make certain workers receive the up-to-date information. This information is more relevant to the workers once they have completed the initial training required by OSHA. I'd be glad to answer any questions.

REP. RYAN: Okay. Thank you. Since you are an outreach trainer and you teach the current ten hour course, we're kind of talking about the fact that there is not yet a federal four hour course. Would you folks be required to design such a course or do you have something in mind? Is there something out there that you have a resource to start it?

PAUL COSTELLO: And that's actually what Joyce was leading to. That was a combination of a group of trainers that sat down actually a year ago and we did present something similar at last session with an outline. The problem is the federal card does not expire. The way the current legislation and laws pass that individual every five years will need to take an OSHA ten all over again. A lot of that information may not be the most important information. It's the history of OSHA -- you know -- how the law was enacted, when Nixon signed it into law and things like that. How the agency works.

We feel it's more important to train the workers in the specific hazards that they're associated with. And that's our feeling. The focus for mandatory language that OSHA requires an instructor to teach is they have mandatory language and then electives so depending on what my field as an electrician obviously we're going to put more of an emphasis on the electrical safety hazards.

A roofer will probably have more of an emphasis on possibly fall protection and the other things. So they do have mandatory language though that we all are required and that would that be the mandatory focus for -- it covers struck by, caught in-betweens, electrical safety and fall protection.

So those are things that are inherent to everyone in construction. Above and beyond that then you could get more specific into that industry's specific needs. And that's how that language was developed that Joyce has been talking about. The problem that people are running into is -- you know -- there are a number of providers but if the person's card is -- you know -- five years and one month out they can't go to work.

So now the thought is instead of having them to take an entire full ten hour course -- and a majority of the trades are required to do continuing education. I can speak for the plumbers and electricians. That is something that is mandatory in our continuing education construction safety. So each and every year as far as the electricians and every other year for the plumbers and fitters they are getting the safety training on the job toolbox talks, tailgates talks, Representative that I've mentioned. You know, these are all things that are common every day in the industry for us.

You know, so our feeling is the individual may not need to take the full ten hour course because OSHA does not have a refresher course. They only recognize the ten hour course and their feeling is it doesn't expire. To be honest, my first OSHA ten I received in the early 90s. You know, so it's -- there's definitely been changes.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

PAUL COSTELLO: I don't think we need to go through all of them.

SENATOR PRAGUE: I want to ask you a question totally unrelated to this issue.

PAUL COSTELLO: Okay.

SENATOR PRAGUE: But you --

PAUL COSTELLO: I'll try.

SENATOR PRAGUE: You as an electrician, what do you think of the courses that the tech schools offer to teach kids how to be an electrician?

PAUL COSTELLO: Well -- you know -- a number of us are part advisory committees. And we do participate in their curriculum review. They are doing a good job I think. And I think it's improving. And we also -- a number of us do training as far as safety training for the vo-tech schools. I just myself did Eli Whitney's OSHA ten for their senior class for the electricians.

I know the plumbers and pipefitters offer the training for them. So they are -- each of the state -- departments within our vo-tech system do have advisory committees where they do get input from the industry, both union and nonunion. So we do meet typically twice per year with each of the schools. They are required through their regulations to have these t-tech committees they're called. So they do get input.

SENATOR PRAGUE: And your input is looking up part of the curriculum adjustments?

PAUL COSTELLO: Reviewing, making recommendations possibly on new texts that's out, what we as employers are looking for as far as the students to be prepared. So they come to the industry to get support and see what new products, what new technologies may be coming out. They come to us to see where their students might have a deficiency. You know, what makes them marketable. What could they do to improve their schools?

SENATOR PRAGUE: Thank you.

PAUL COSTELLO: Thank you, Senator.

REP. RYAN: Does anyone else?

Representative Lambert.

REP. LAMBERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming today.

PAUL COSTELLO: Thank you.

REP. LAMBERT: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, my husband was a member for 33 years, so I do know that that training is very important. And daily they would refresh the training.

PAUL COSTELLO: Exactly.

REP. LAMBERT: So, and I also know under your title, Director of Apprenticeship, that's something we've lost. Today everyone has to be educated, walk out with a degree and then start to work. And -- I mean, in the technical school I think this is one of the things and I think you attested to it that the training is so important for these young people because that apprenticeship and journeyman. It's been lost.

PAUL COSTELLO: It has.

REP. LAMBERT: So, I thank you for your testimony.

PAUL COSTELLO: Thank you. I appreciate that.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

Does anybody else have any -- Representative.

REP. ESPOSITO: Paul, thank you for coming. As an OSHA trainer once you've -- once your students have completed the training, they're given a card and then they're registered with OSHA? Correct?

PAUL COSTELLO: Correct. Federal OSHA will retain those records on a five year basis.

REP. ESPOSITO: Okay.

PAUL COSTELLO: And Joyce was correct, they do purge their records over the five years.

REP. ESPOSITO: Okay. Now under the new proposal and under Joyce's amendment she's saying that the trainers should keep the records of all the refresher courses.

PAUL COSTELLO: Which they would be doing actually. As a trainer my records go back to the first classes we taught.

REP. ESPOSITO: Okay but my question would then be, who gets to review your records as to who had the training. What would happen if you moved out of State. Where do your records go?

PAUL COSTELLO: Sure.

REP. ESPOSITO: You know. So this would -- matter fact I made notes on my bill for us to talk about either during screening or the process of moving the bill forward. So I think that's another thing we have to worry about as to who's going to be able to say who was trained and when if the trainer leaves.

PAUL COSTELLO: Right. Okay. And I think that's something that if it stays within the agency they would have that record on who the individual was. I know if I have someone that lost a card I would have apply myself if I issued the card. Only the official trainer for that particular class can request a replacement card from federal OSHA. And I would envision the way the State would operate the same way.

REP. RYAN: Thank you, Representative Esposito.

PAUL COSTELLO: Anyone else?

REP. RYAN: Thank you, Mr. Costello. I appreciate the information you brought us today.

PAUL COSTELLO: Thank you. I appreciate it.

REP. RYAN: Pamela Pulchaski followed by Matthew Hallisey if he sits still long enough. Okay.

Good afternoon.

PAMELA PUCHALSKI: Senator Prague, Representative Ryan and members of the Labor Committee, my name is Pamela Puchalski and I am the coordinator for the Injured Workers Unite Coalition, a coalition of injured workers, labor unions, workers' compensation attorneys and occupational hygienists.

I come before you today to request that you vote favorably on Senate Bill Number 61, AN ACT REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT OF AN EMPLOYER OR INSURER PREAPPROVAL FOR THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS AND TREATMENT OF INJURED WORKERS.

The passage of S.B. Number 61 would reduce the delays, denials and interruptions to medical treatment that actually interfere with an injured workers ability to return to work. It would also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Workers' compensation Commission. I would like to point out that the details of this bill deal only with treatment of injured workers who have an accepted claim and an approved physician.

In general it is assumed that when an individual is injured that their injury should be immediately diagnosed and then appropriately treated. From a medical standpoint it is accepted that when an injury is not treated properly and in a timely manner that it can cause further injury especially when dealing with muscular, skeletal or neurological injures.

Commonsense would indicate that the most appropriate individual to choose what diagnostic tests and treatment are the most appropriate for that individual is the individual's treating physician. It is not the individual's health insurer. Why then is an individual who is injured at work being forced to wait for diagnostic tests and for the subsequent treatment which could return him or her to the workplace because the insurer who is not a medical practitioner is not approving them? Shouldn't the injured worker with a workers' compensation claim have at least the same access to treatment as the individual who is treated using his private health insurance?

You have heard and may hear more from numerous individuals about this bill but there are some voices who are missing here today who would like to be here to lend their support for S.B. number 61. These are the injured workers who have compensable claims but whose healing and ability to return to work was negatively impacted by delays and interruptions in their treatment.

There is the young mother who could have returned to work within a few months of her fall but who lost partial use of her hands and arms because the insurer refused to approve her physician's treatment plan even when they were informed that her condition would worsen. She is now not only unable to work, she is also unable to care for her children and cannot perform many basic tasks including dressing herself. She is on social security disability and will never be able to work as a nurse again.

Then there is the carpenter who fell off the scaffold. While waiting for an approval to get more diagnostic testing to determine whether or not he could receive the back operation his physician requested. He was denied the aquatic therapy which made his pain tolerable. When he finally got the test months later his spine showed more degeneration than was initially noted. And when he finally received his multilevel disk operation and fusion his surgeons informed him that there was even more degeneration because of the time lapse.

Unfortunately there are more stories like these that support the need for this legislation. There are more workers who have been injured on the job and who have compensable claims who have not received the timely and uninterrupted medical treatment that would have returned them to work and -- which would have potentially freed them of the pain and discomfort that they are now forced to live with for the rest of their lives.

Again, I urge you all to favorably vote Senate Bill Number 61 out of this Committee. It is a bill which has no fiscal impact and would make less work at a commission which is stretched to the limits by its present budgetary constraints. It is a bill that would help employers receive what they pay workers' compensation insurance premiums for.

It would help all workers receive what they are entitled by law to receive if they are in injured on the job. And it would give the Workers' Compensation Commission the ability to put treatment back into the hands of the treating physician which is where it belongs. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. It's very -- very good in bringing out these points.

Do we have any questions for Ms. Pulchaski?

Thank you. I think you -- your testimony covered it all I guess. Thank you.

PAMELA PULCHASKI: Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Next is Matt Hallisey followed by Dan Gorman.

MATTHEW HALLISEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Senator Prague, Representative Ryan and members of the Labor and Public Employees Committee. My name is Matthew Hallisey. I am Director of Government Relations and Legislative Council for Connecticut Construction Industries Association. I'm here to testify on behalf of -- for CCIA on behalf of its safety committee and -- on House Bill 5205, AN ACT CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION SAFETY REFRESHER TRAINING COURSES. And I'd like to thank the Committee for raising the bill.

I've also submitted written remarks on the bill and I've provided the Clerk with a copy of a proposed amendment for the Committee's consideration. It's a different one from what you've seen. We are -- we were not a part of the drafting of that amendment. We've reviewed it. We've seen it and we're not -- we're not opposed to it. Some of the things in there.

But this -- I recognize we're kind of operating on separate tracks and at some point I think we'll all get together. It's -- but we also reference the amendment in our written remarks too. And basically it -- what it would do is we would add -- we would just add a reference to a federal regulation, part 46 of the code of federal regulation 30 CFR 46. And this deals with surface mining in Connecticut.

The existing law deals with underground mining and we think it's more relevant, more appropriate for surface mining. And this is another alternative means of qualifying to perform work on this type of project. This is in exiting law right now, by the way, the underground work.

Basically we -- I just want to say you've heard from others on the bill. We support the bill and we -- the safety committee was really the ones that -- we think that originated the concept. I think we were working as you know, on separate tracks from others and we've gotten together before the Committee -- before the leadership of the Committee and we're hopeful that the bill will move forward with the amendment.

And you'll hear from a member of our safety committee who really was the -- I think the originator of the proposal, next, Mr. Gorman. And that's really all I wanted to say. I think we do support it. This -- obviously the whole issue is the card does not expire; the card from OSHA. And when -- the Department of Labor and enforcing the law as well as the statute right now says that you have to have ten hours of training within five years.

And if it's five years and a day or even five years you still have to go back for ten years -- ten hours of training. We don't think that makes a lot of financial sense. So we're thinking that this refresher training course would solve some of those problems. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Thank you. Now is Mr. Gorman going to have another amendment?

MATTHEW HALLISEY: I don't think so, no.

REP. RYAN: Okay. Just checking.

MATTHEW HALLISEY: He could probably talk to you about some of the details and answer some of the technical questions but -- but I think at some point we'll all -- there will be some consensus on this issue.

REP. RYAN: Well I would hope -- I think it's a good idea that we all sit down and -- yeah. Possibly before the -- we vote on it out of a Committee, we sit down and kind of bring this all together. So this is kind of coming as a surprise to us. I got distracted. What -- why'd you suddenly start talking about mining?

MATTHEW HALLISEY: Well, I -- this actually came from our safety committee as well. It was inadvertent that we didn't submit it in the original bill that was -- that was filed or asked for from the Committee. But that's in existing law in lines -- line 22 of the bill, 30 CFR 48. That actually -- I believe -- deals with underground mining. That's an alternative means of qualifying to perform work on these types of projects. We would like to add a reference to part 46 that would allow for surface mining. We think it's more --

REP. RYAN: Is this something that's really done in Connecticut?

MATTHEW HALLISEY: I'm sorry?

REP. RYAN: It's something that's done in Connecticut?

MATTHEW HALLISEY: Well at least the training is. This would be a training program approved by MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

REP. RYAN: Okay.

Anyone have any questions for Mr. Hallisey?

Thank you. Thank you, Matt.

MATTHEW HALLISEY: Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Mr. Gorman and he'll be followed by Mr. Tucker.

DAN GORMAN: Good afternoon Senator Prague, Representative Ryan and all the members of the Committee. My name is Dan Gorman and I'm here today to speak on House Bill 5205. I have a prepared statement and then I have some clarifications. As I said, my name is Dan Gorman and I'm the President of Safe at Work and a member of the CCI safety committee.

As a member of the committee that brought this bill forward I obviously have strong feelings about both its importance to the safety of the workforce and how it should be regulated. I want to recognize the State for also realizing the importance of continued safety training and education for employees by limiting the initial OSHA ten hour training to five years acceptance.

When I proposed this bill it was not to undermine the State's requirement for retraining but to offer a viable alternative to the full ten hour retraining every five years. After intense discussion and debate with the CCI safety committee whose members in and of themselves are all experienced construction safety specialists, we determined that the best solution would be to require four hours of retraining every three years.

We would like the retraining program to require that topics include high hazards such as the focus four and any new regulations or changes which have occurred between the retraining programs. Excuse me. We also agreed that the training should be conducted by an OSHA authorized trainer as they are the ones who could initially issue the ten hour card. And they receive updates and retraining through OSHA on a regular schedule.

I cannot stress how passionate I feel that the retraining should be done in three year increments and not the five as proposed. The need for continuous training can be identified by the number of injuries and deaths which occur each year in the construction industry simply because an employee did not recognize a hazardous condition or because they forgot the safety standards which they should have applied.

Most OSHA citations are not issued because someone willfully ignored a regulation but most often because an employee forgot about them. Having the retraining done in shorter cycles will help eliminate the possibility of employee safety amnesia and hopefully contribute to fewer injuries and fatalities in the workplace in the years to come.

Now I would also like to clarify a few points that have been brought up today, and again, the first one is what I just said. Our initial proposal through the safety committee was that the training be done on a three year interval. That would be after the five year requirement that the State had originally set. So you have five years on your first card and when that expires you would retrain and then -- at four hours and then retrain every three years thereafter.

I was not aware of some of the other proposals on the amendment until today but I -- I have no problem with basically any of them. They simply clarified that it would be an OSHA authorized outreach trainer which was the intent of the bill as we said OSHA trainers. I'm not sure where they came up with the fee and who's going to collect that and how it will apply. But I personally -- I can't speak for all the members -- I have no problem with the fee for either the trainer or the cards to be issued.

As they said earlier, all OSHA trainers are given an identification number, although not required to be put on the OSHA card by the trainer. That same number could be used as your identifying number so you would not have to reissue an additional number for any trainers that you have available in the program here in Connecticut. That's pretty much all I have at this point.

REP. RYAN: Do you have any questions for Mr. Gorman?

Senator Prague has a question.

SENATOR PRAGUE: So just to get this straight, Mr. Gorman, in my own mind, the original ten hour training will stay in place. The next training will be a four hour training in five years, a refresher?

DAN GORMAN: After the first -- yes. After the initial card is issued --

SENATOR PRAGUE: Right.

DAN GORMAN: -- we would allow as the State had written the program, we will allow that card to be accepted for five years. At the end of the five years we would then require a four hour refresher training or continued education as it's usually called. And then you would have to have that done every three years thereafter, eliminating or reducing the amount of time between the training sessions.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay. Okay. Never can have too much safety training.

DAN GORMAN: I don't believe so.

SENATOR PRAGUE: No. I agree.

DAN GORMAN: The more the better.

SENATOR PRAGUE: Okay. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: Yes, on this -- the four hour renewal that you're talking about, would that training be -- because you're only talking four hours more job specific than the overall ten hour training? In other words, if you have someone who is working on a lot of scaffolding type work that it would emphasize that versus an operating engineer who would be much more interested in cave-ins and confined spaces.

How would the four hour training, since again it's a small period of time -- could it be tailored to particular types of occupations or do you view it more as a general overview of job safety?

DAN GORMAN: As I see it, the initial ten hour is an awareness level to begin with and there are various topics that can be covered. OSHA has topics that are called required training topics which we must teach. Then they have elective topics which we're allowed to pick up on. The proposal would be such that we would review the focus for the high hazards which includes falls, electrical, struck by and caught between.

As I said, we would review any new rules or regulations or any changes that apply and then there would be enough time within that four hours to discuss with anyone the specific need. If a class was being done specific to one type of construction, for instance excavation construction compared to steel erection compared to electrical work in construction.

We could then make a determination that's specific training to that industry could also be included within the four hour program and in fact tailor it to their needs. And they still get all the information that we want to have under the original program as well.

REP. AMAN: You say we would decide. Who is the we would decide whether to include it or not?

DAN GORMAN: Well again, the bill as it's put forth has identified the focus four and the additional information on changes or new regulations. Then it would be up to the instructor working with the group that they have to determine what additional information needs to be given or what additional training needs to be done. Now the only specific to that is that the OSHA trainer will give them training directly from the OSHA standard, the 1926 construction standards.

So if again, for instance we were working with an excavation company that -- that does mostly excavation related work and they required that we review the excavation standards, we would take those directly from the 1926 OSHA construction standards under the excavation portion so it wouldn't be random information. It would be actual fact and information related to the OSHA standard.

REP. AMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. I -- having completed the OSHA ten course myself I wouldn't want to have to repeat it. Unfortunately we had several people in the class that were repeating it because it's a very long period of time. And I think that was one of the problems with the class. After a while it just kind of became a blur. It's sort of like a ten hour public hearing.

DAN GORMAN: Well we try to make it a little more exciting than that. But we do our best.

REP. AMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.

REP. RYAN: So we'll continue on.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Gorman.

DAN GORMAN: Thank you for your time.

REP. RYAN: Mr. Tucker followed by Mr. Lawler.

A VOICE: Mr. Tucker is not here.

REP. RYAN: Okay. He's not here.

Mr. Lawler are you here? Okay.

That brings us to Jasmin Basanti. No. No, because we want to get done here. Okay well that brings this public hearing -- come on I want to get that done just as you walk through the door. Good afternoon, Jasmin.

JASMIN BASANTI: Good afternoon Representative Ryan and Senator Prague.

REP. RYAN: Now you're going come in with a different message because it's a different speaker. Right?

JASMIN BASANTI: You're not that lucky. Good afternoon Senator Prague, Representative Ryan and members of the Labor Committee. My name is Jasmin Basanti and I am here to testify on Senate Bill 61. Kia Murrell sends her deepest regards. She's very upset that she couldn't be here to testify herself.

But not to make light of the issue in front of us. So this Senate Bill -- removing the requirement of employer or insurance preapproval for the provision of certain medical examinations and treatment to injured workers we believe is extremely costly and burdensome and limits employers flexibility when handling workers' compensation claims. Specifically I want to highlight two sections in the bill, Section 2E, 2F which grants the workers' compensation commissioner plenary authority to review decisions regarding the provision for denial of medical care.

Taking this away from the health care providers -- to take this sort of decision making away from health care providers would seem inappropriate and outside the realm of their expertise and role as adjudicators. Only healthcare providers should be the ones to make determinations regarding medical care.

Secondly, on Section 1B 421 removes the requirement that workers' compensation claimants seek employer or insurer for routine medical examinations and treatments. By removing the routine -- sorry by removing the employer or insurer preapproval process there are three harmful consequences that has been highlighted in the testimony before you but I'll just go through it quickly. It would eliminate the cost-savings and other benefits of the medical utilization review process because workers would be receiving -- could be receiving invasive or specialized medical care prematurely.

Secondly, it would allow injured workers to seek duplicative and unnecessary and inappropriate medical treatments without any limitation and lastly it would make routine examinations and treatments ripe for abuse by workers who have either received maximum medical approvement or wish to fleece the workers' compensation system.

So, in conclusion although the State purpose of Senate Bill 61 is to prevent undo delays for workers seeking routine medical treatment this very issue is currently under review by the Workers' compensation Commission which plans to release a new set of guidelines very soon. Therefore legislation may be premature and ill-advised.

So we believe that Senate Bill -- CBIA (inaudible) believes that Senate Bill 61 would be costly and burdensome on employers and therefore ask that you oppose this legislation.

Thank you very much for allowing me to testify before you today.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

Of course, did Kia explain to you that we have no trouble killing the messenger in this Committee?

JASMIN BASANTI: She did not tell me that. She said you guys would be really nice to me.

REP. RYAN: You should have got dismissed when she left. Yeah.

Okay. Do we have any questions?

REP. ESPOSITO: Yeah one.

REP. RYAN: Representative Esposito.

REP. ESPOSITO: You just made mention that its current -- the process is under review now by the Workers' compensation Commissioner who's going to issue some new guidelines. Well according to testimony that we received earlier in 1998, Chairman Franco issued a memorandum to this very issue which was completely ignored. So if you're going to issue guidelines again, what would be the mechanism to enforce the guidelines or compel the insurers to -- you know -- conform to what the guidelines are asking for?

JASMIN BASANTI: Representative Esposito, I would have to -- I will have to take this back to the expert on this issue. And I don't want to misinform you but I will definitely make sure that you receive an answer to that question. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Thank you.

Do we have any other questions?

Thank you. And thank you for taking Kia's place so we -- (inaudible).

JASMIN BASANTI: You guys have been very, very kind. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Did she call us kind?

A VOICE: Yes.

REP. RYAN: Okay. Okay. Once again, is Mr. Lawler here? Oh, there you are.

WILLIAM LAWLER: Hello. Good afternoon Representative Ryan, Senator Prague, and members of the Labor Committee. My name is William Lawler and I'm an injured worker from 1991. I've testified before on a couple bills and -- ever since 2007-8.

And I'm here on semi-opposition to Senate Bill Raised Number 61. The person that I'm opposed against -- to there is the reasonable and necessary clause. The other aspects of the bill seem to be in line with providing timely medical treatment to injured workers such that where a injured worker would be no longer terminated directly by the insurance carrier. It would require -- it would require the insurance carrier to notify the commission so there'd be an equal hearing. That's certainly a very good part of Senate Bill 61.

But it is my opinion that the inclusion of reasonable and necessary plenary review assessment of the medical facts now gives the same authority to the workers' compensation commissioners that the doctors now have in workers' compensation Section 31 294-D. So right now as it stands, the basis of the Workers' compensation Act, what makes people get well is the doctors issuing an opinion of what's reasonable and necessary, medical and surgical treatment to workers.

So -- and I think this whole accumulation of who speaks -- Commissioner Miles brought up that 1998 Chairman Franco report about -- you know -- you have to give these people the treatment they deserve and we forget about where these -- where this act actually takes action. And it is in that medical -- that medical care. If people could just make that function I don't think you'd need any more revisions to the entire system.

But what happened in my case, how I got denied my surgical treatment was -- well my case was a little bit different. I want to get into that where I'm at a little bit later with you in this discussion. But I would have had the treatment and I would have had the surgery and that's where the system fell apart for me. And it's --it happens to so many other -- so many other injured workers.

So there's no -- there's no way that the doctor -- what Nationwide did to me, I guess what I'm trying to say is they said we're going to deny, deny and deny. And you can either go to informal hearings, formal hearings, or whatever but once you get to a formal hearing we're going to still deny whatever the chairman says or the workers' compensation commissioner says you need. And we're going to force you into a civil court process. So that's the only alternative to get care is through the Superior Court process. Because workers' compensation is only an administrative agency. There's really no teeth.

So, you know, I see that everybody's trying to give them teeth but it -- I don't think reasonable and necessary care given to a commission is really going to help an injured worker. Because it is no proof that they're going to rule in the favor of an injured worker. They could turn around like me and rule against me. And that's what happened in 2005 in my case. The commissioner in a memo said that I was to get no more care. He said that on the telephone call.

As far as reasonable and necessary in the Alice Benoit case from 2007, Chairman Mastropietro stated that whether a proposed surgical procedure is reasonable is a question of fact for the commissioner to resolve. So Chairman Mastropietro's already said that it's the commissioner's decision already to decide whether or not a surgical or medical treatment is reasonable or not. So they're already operating on that level.

I feel that they're just looking for a confirmation from you in this bill that they can -- you know -- continue on with that -- that thought. I think the best thing this Committee could do for injured workers is to -- to authorize the review to determine if injured workers are currently getting what they're supposed to be getting.

I think it was South Dakota did that. They had injured workers come in. They actually paid injured workers -- I know you don't want to hear about that -- to come in and testify and tell their stories but it did show that there was a lot of -- a lot of people falling through the cracks and -- you know -- right now -- right now this is the book for the annotated decisions of all workers' compensation claims going back about 15 years.

So if you wanted to understand how workers' compensation would work you have to know everything that's in between these pages. This entire book okay, before you could represent yourself before the chairman of workers' compensation. And if you didn't know this entire book you'd also have to be responsible for knowing all of the State of Connecticut Superior Court and Civil Court decisions.

These are references -- the Superior Court decisions are referenced in this book as case precedence. So, they can throw so much at you that -- you know -- it's just not working. Basically that's what I'm trying to say. There's too much knowledge that one person has to know, even an attorney, to effectively to represent an injured worker to get benefits. So, it's a big mess and I hope you can sort through it. Thank you.

REP. RYAN: Well thank you for coming in and testifying.

Do we have any questions for Mr. Lawler?

Thank you, Mr. Lawler. Thanks for waiting so patiently.

Do we have anybody else who didn't sign up who we haven't called who would like to testify?

Hearing from no one, thank you all for coming here. I'll call this public hearing to an end.