HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1592

BYRepresentatives Sayan, Cole, O'Brien, Patrick, Walker, Jones, Wineberry, R. King, Winsley, Valle, Jacobsen, Wang, Basich, Fisher, Pruitt, Lux and Unsoeld

Authorizing workers' compensation for workers with asbestos-related diseases.

House Committe on Commerce & Labor

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (10)

      Signed by Representatives Wang, Chair; Cole, Vice Chair; Fisher, Jones, R. King, O'Brien, Patrick, Sanders, Sayan and Walker.

House Staff:Chris Cordes (786-7117)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE & LABOR JANUARY 21, 1988

BACKGROUND:

Workers who contract asbestos-related occupational diseases frequently have work histories indicating exposure to asbestos in several different employments.  These employments may be covered for workers' compensation purposes under more than one jurisdiction, such as the Washington industrial insurance law or the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.  If a dispute arises over which jurisdiction is responsible for coverage, a worker's claim may not be accepted by either jurisdiction until the liability question is settled.  If the Washington state fund determines that another insurer is liable to the claimant, the fund is not authorized to pay benefits on the claim.

Compensation for an occupational disease claim is based on the payment schedule that was in effect at the time the worker contracted the disease or was last exposed to injurious substances.  For many occupational diseases, the disease does not manifest itself for many years after the date that the worker was last exposed to the injurious substance.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  Until July 1, 1993, the Department of Labor and Industries is directed to pay industrial insurance benefits to any worker or beneficiary who may have a claim under the federal maritime laws because of asbestos-related disease if there are objective clinical findings to substantiate a claim for asbestos-related occupational disease and the worker's employment history shows injurious exposure to asbestos while working in employment covered under state law.  The department will make a determination of insurer liability and will pay benefits until the liable insurer begins payments or benefits are otherwise properly terminated.

Benefits will be paid from the medical aid fund with the state fund and the self-insurers each paying a prorata share.  Employees of the self-insurers will pay one-half of the share charged to self-insurers.

If the department determines that the liable insurer is the state fund, a self-insured employer or a federal nonmaritime program (except the federal social security act), the medical aid fund must be immediately reimbursed for costs and benefits paid to the claimant.

If the department determines that benefits are owed to the claimant under the federal maritime laws, the department is authorized to pursue the insurer on behalf of the claimant to recover the benefits due and, on its own behalf, to recover costs and benefits paid.  The department may not pursue recovery of benefits from the claimant unless the claimant receives his or her full entitlement under the federal claim, in addition to any benefits under the state claim.  The director may waive the recovery of benefits from the worker or beneficiary if recovery would be against equity and good conscience.

The provisions authorizing benefits do not apply if the worker or beneficiary refuses to assist the department in making a coverage determination.  If the worker or beneficiary fails to provide relevant information or if the worker refuses to submit to medical examination or fails to cooperate with an examination, the department is directed to reject the claim application.  Information obtained by the department for determination of coverage is not subject to release by subpoena or other legal process, except for release specifically authorized under the confidentiality of records provisions.

In any third party recovery by the worker or beneficiary, the department has a lien to the full extent that the medical aid fund has not been otherwise reimbursed by another insurer.  The department is not required to participate in the costs incurred in bringing the third party suit.

The rate of compensation for occupational disease claims filed on or after July 1, 1988, is established as of the date that the disease requires medical treatment or becomes disabling, whichever occurs first, without regard to the date on which the disease was contracted or the date the claim was filed.

The Department will report to the appropriate legislative committees on the asbestos claim program at the beginning of the 1993 legislative session.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The payment of benefits for the asbestos claim program is changed from the supplemental pension fund to the medical aid fund.  A provision is added terminating the program on July 1, 1993, and requiring a department study to be reported at the start of the 1993 legislative session.

Fiscal Note:      Requested January 21, 1988.

Effective Date:The act takes effect on July 1, 1988, and applies to all claims filed on or after the effective date as well as claims pending a final determination on that date.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Chuck Bailey, Washington State Labor Council;  Melanie Stewart- Gerla, Washington Self-insurer's Association; Brett Buckley, Department of Labor and Industries; Clark Blazer, Education Service Districts 101 and 112; Clif Finch, Association of Washington Business.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Peggy Lesser, City of Bremerton;  Sharon Rose Hansen, City of Everett;  Kathleen Collins, Association of Washington Cities.

House Committee - Testimony For:    There is a need to ensure that persons suffering from asbestos- related occupational diseases are receiving benefits and medical treatment when disputes arise over coverage responsibility between insurers.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The payment of compensation to workers before they are determined to be under state coverage should be addressed as a social cost through the general fund rather than through the industrial insurance system.