MINUTES OF THE
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

	Sixty-eighth Session
	June 29, 1995


The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. 
James, at 1:45 p.m., on Thursday, June 29, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative 
Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the 
Attendance Roster.


COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Ernest E. Adler
Senator Dina Titus
Senator O. C. Lee

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4


STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst
Lori Story, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

William A. Prezant, Lobbyist, The Doctors' Company
Rick Dunn, Executive Director, Nevada Coalition Allied for Patient Protection
Bill Bradley, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Victoria D. Riley, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Sheila A. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the 
	Attorney General

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
James L. Wadhams, Lobbyist, American Insurance Association

Alice Molasky, Commissioner, Division of Insurance, Department of Business and 
	Industry

Senator James announced only one bill was agendized for the day, Assembly Bill 
(A.B.) 520.   Although the bill has not been referred to the committee yet, he said, 
the committee will hear it and possibly take action to be ratified later on the floor.

ASSEMBLY BILL 520:	Makes various changes to provisions relating to actions 
for medical malpractice.  

Senator James noted members of the committee should be familiar with many 
provisions of the bill, since it has been widely discussed in both houses.  He 
requested that members of each of the three parties involved participate while the 
committee reviewed the provisions.  

Those who came forward included William A. Prezant, Lobbyist, The Doctors' 
Company, who explained he represents one of the medical malpractice insurers in 
the state;  Rick Dunn, Executive Director, Nevada Coalition Allied for Patient 
Protection (NevCAP), who declared he represents a coalition of  physicians, 
insurers and other health care providers and organizations; and Bill Bradley, 
Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA).

Mr. Prezant explained the bill is the result of vigorous negotiations between the 
various interests and has been heard several times before the Assembly Committee 
on Judiciary which amended the bill in accordance with proposals from the parties. 
 He said the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means also reviewed the bill due 
to the fiscal impact.  

Mr. Bradley reviewed section 1, which he stated deals with emergency obstetrical 
care.  He explained if a pregnant woman delivers a baby in the emergency ward 
and the person treating her has not provided previous prenatal care, the care 
rendered is given in good faith, and damages to the baby are reasonably related to 
a lack of prenatal care, the person rendering assistance will not be liable.  The only 
time there will be liability, he said, is when there is gross negligence associated 
with treatment in the emergency room.  


Mr. Bradley stated Assemblyman John Carpenter had requested the provision due 
to concern women would arrive at rural emergency rooms without having had any 
prenatal care, or who may have had prior drug or other prenatal problems.  

According to Mr. Bradley, section 1, subsection 4 provides that a retired physician 
rendering voluntary care to indigents will not be liable unless his care amounts to 
gross negligence.  

Senator James inquired if Senate Bill (S.B.) 130 has been passed by the Assembly.

SENATE BILL 130: 	Clarifies immunity from liability granted to volunteers of 
charitable organizations.

Victoria D. Riley, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, responded it has 
been passed by the committee and has gone to the floor of the Assembly.  

Senator James asked if A.B. 520 includes the same provisions as S.B. 130.  Mr. 
Bradley answered they are slightly different. Senator James noted that in an 
amendment to S.B. 130 to provide immunity it was made clear that a volunteer 
would include physicians, and the immunity from liability would be absolute.   He 
asked how it will help to add the language in subsection 4 to A.B. 520.

Mr. Bradley replied S.B. 130 applies to a volunteer working for a charitable 
organization, while section 1, subsection 4 of A.B. 520 will broaden immunity for 
physicians performing any sort of voluntary work, not necessarily for a charitable 
organization.  He affirmed that is why the standard is different.

According to Mr. Bradley, section 2 will add 20 members of both the Nevada State 
Medical Association and the Nevada Trial Lawyers' Association to the screening 
panel.  He said section 3 will address a desire that the preferred practice is to 
submit an affidavit to the screening panel.  He acknowledged he and Mr. Prezant 
have some disagreement over the language.  

Mr. Bradley stated:


When the Legislature first considered this, there was a determination 
made that the decision to file an affidavit with your presentation was 
left up to the attorney.  We believe that should still be the case, and 
the language ... [is] inconsistent where it says the complaint must 
contain a clear and concise statement of the facts ... and then 
subsection (b) is an affidavit supporting the allegations of the 
complaint.

Mr. Bradley declared he opposes requiring an affidavit.  He opined the language can 
say "may," but he concluded no complaint will have to be filed and both interests 
will be protected with lines 7 through 9 on page 3 in which there is a provision that 
a complaint may be summarily dismissed.  

Mr. Prezant agreed that some plaintiffs' attorneys will submit a complaint without 
any expert medical testimony.  He said they often wait until the answer is filed by 
the defendants and then they file all the affidavits in reply to the answer.  He 
proposed that a certain obligation be imposed to try to get all the information out 
in the first instance, since the plaintiff has two opportunities to the single response 
allowed to the defendant.  

Mr. Prezant agreed that would be fair.  He stated, "We didn't say that a complaint 
shall be dismissed if it's not filed with an affidavit, because that puts the insurance 
division in a position where they have to make a decision."  He suggested providing 
that the medical-legal screening panel may summarily dismiss the complaint, which 
will give the panel some latitude to stop the "sandbagging" practices being utilized 
by attorneys he considers "not the better" ones.  He reiterated his opinion 
claimants should be required to file affidavits with their complaints.  

According to Mr. Prezant, that would put attorneys on notice that there is a certain 
obligation to file the affidavit, yet the screening panel will not be required to 
dismiss the case if an affidavit has not been filed. He declared that will "even the 
playing field."  

Senator James inquired what kind of case will be addressed by such requirements. 
 Mr. Dunn stated, "On this particular issue with the affidavit submitted by a 
medical expert, one of the concerns brought up by the Assembly judiciary 
committee was certain individuals who may not be able to afford that medical 
expert."  He voiced the understanding that usage of the word "may" was to deal 
with such situations in which the person could not afford the affidavit.  Otherwise, 
he said, the clear, concise statement and the affidavit would normally be a part of 
the complaint. 

If that is the analysis, Senator James stated, the only word continuing to bother 
him is the word "summarily."  Mr. Prezant agreed to striking "summarily."  

Senator James suggested it may be necessary to say, "that absent a finding of 
some circumstance or reason why the affidavit couldn't be given, the panel could 
dismiss."  He pointed out they could not dismiss if there was a bona fide reason 
why the affidavit was not included.  

Mr. Bradley responded that does not address his concern.  He stated, "My concern 
then is now you've got somebody making a finding, and the insurance 
commissioner's office does not want to make a finding."  He said, "The statutes 
say that lawyers cannot quote the law in the screening panel. We're not allowed 
to cite law or legal analysis."  However, he charged, it is done all the time.

Mr. Bradley asserted as soon as A.B. 520 passes, if an expert affidavit is not 
included, lawyers will cite the measure and will ask the panel to dismiss the case 
on that basis.  He opined if the language says "must contain" as written on page 
3, line 1, it will cause problems.  

Senator James again asked what circumstances might exist when an affidavit will 
be unattainable.  Mr. Bradley says if a person has a meritorious case but does not 
bring it to the attorney until there are only 2 weeks left, it is nearly impossible to 
obtain an affidavit because the attorney nearly always has to go out of state 
because local physicians refuse assistance.  He noted when poor people attempt 
to file complaints in pro per, they often fail to include affidavits.  He said a series 
of examples are contained in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) chapter 41 which do 
not require expert testimony.    

Mr. Bradley voiced the opinion it is best to file an affidavit, but he asserted it 
should not be mandatory.  He pointed out the problem does not arise often enough 
to really affect the findings, because only 18 percent of the cases brought to the 
panel are successful.   He stated it is very difficult even with the best expert, and 
if the plaintiff cannot find an expert, the defense lawyer should not be given the 
advantage to simply call for dismissal.     He declared, "The `must' language in line 
 1 is too onerous on people presenting their claims to the panel."

Mr. Bradley insisted the panel must be trusted.  He averred the three lawyers and 
three doctors on the panel have done a good job so far.  


Mr. Prezant responded the word "must" has always been in the statute, so any 
change will eliminate the requirement that a clear and concise statement of the 
case must be made.  He stated there has never been a complaint in which the 
attorney moved to dismiss a case because of failure to have a clear and concise 
statement of the case.   Regarding whether the panel may summarily dismiss a 
case, under what circumstance, he opined the panel will respond appropriately if 
there is a reason such as those cited by Mr. Bradley.  He opined the present 
wording does not permit the panel to arbitrarily dismiss a case.  

Mr. Dunn indicated testimony and discussions he has heard inclines him to believe 
the affidavit must be included as part of the concise statement, that both parts 
must be filed.  As a matter of clarification, he suggested new language be included 
to show the panel may dismiss the complaint, if that is the desire of the 
Legislature.  

Senator James noted some actions require verified complaints, but rarely are they 
verified by someone other than the plaintiff, which would make this measure 
unique.  Mr. Prezant responded, in a medical malpractice case, there is a statute 
that requires testimony of a medical expert in order prove a prima facie case except 
in four instances which are exceptions to the rule.  He explained the prima facie 
case requires expert testimony, so the attempt is being made in A.B. 520 to require 
that "all the cards be played on the table at the first instance."  He reiterated it will 
not be a mandatory dismissal because it will be left to the discretion of the three 
lawyers and three doctors to make that decision.  

Mr. Bradley made a suggestion which he hoped will satisfy both sides.  He said:

If we omit lines 5 and 6 ... then it would say the complaint must 
contain a clear and concise statement of the facts.  Then we go to 
the new language, `A screening panel may,' either summarily or 
not,`dismiss a complaint which is filed without an affidavit....'

Then we have both sides of the coin there.  You're not required to 
have an affidavit, but it's in the statutes that says, look now, if you 
don't, it may be dismissed.  And I think that takes care of both sides 
of the coin.

Senator James proposed part of line 5 and 6 will have to be included into lines 7 
and 8.  He suggested:


The screening panel may ... dismiss a complaint which is filed without 
an affidavit submitted by expert supporting the allegations of the 
complaint submitted by the medical expert.  

Mr. Prezant agreed to such wording.  Mr. Bradley insisted the burden must not be 
placed upon the insurance commissioner to ascertain whether the affidavit supports 
the allegations of the complaint.  Senator James opined it would not.  He 
suggested including a period after the word "malpractice" on line 4, and removal 
of the word "and."  He said on line 7 it would read, "A screening panel may 
dismiss a complaint which is filed without an affidavit submitted by a medical 
expert supporting the allegations of the complaint."  

Mr. Prezant reiterated that would be agreeable.  Mr. Bradley interjected, "Just to 
make sure that we agree that the intent is not that the insurance commissioner 
[will] have to make the decision on the quality of the affidavit."  Senator James 
pointed out the bill will designate that the screening panel make that decision.

Mr. Bradley stated the Division of Insurance had some concerns regarding 
confidentiality of members who serve on specific panels, and thus agreed to the 
new wording on lines 11 and 12, page 4.  He added lines 31 through 34 resolve 
another matter of concern.    

Mr. Bradley called the next section of new language at the bottom of page 4 
through the top of page 5 the "collateral source rule."  He noted that for any 
amount paid by a third-party payor, such as a medical insurer, the amount that the 
plaintiff receives in a judgment will be reduced by that amount unless there is a 
statutory lien that the third-party payor exerted upon the proceeds of the judgment. 
 He explained if there is a subrogation agreement or an agreement to repay the 
insurance company, the judge will not reduce the amount. 

Mr. Bradley voiced approval of the new language because it will require the 
plaintiff's lawyers to notify any third-party payor that in order to protect the client, 
a lien must be provided to be considered by the judge.  The amount returned by the 
jury will not be reduced by the amount of the lien, he said.


Mr. Bradley added there is agreed upon amendatory language which will protect the 
interests of the state.  Mr. Prezant stated the Division of Welfare was concerned 
that even though the burden would be placed upon the plaintiff to notify the party 
that may have subrogation rights, language should be included to require 
notification of the claimant by the insured.  He proposed an addition at the end of 
line 5 on page 5 to add, "Claimant shall notify any statutory lien-holder of the 
existence of the cause of action."  He said the Division of Welfare also agrees to 
that language.

Sheila A. Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the 
Attorney General, affirmed his statement.  

The next section to be reviewed by Mr. Bradley was section 6, subsection 4 on 
page 5.  He indicated it provides that when a finder of fact decides future economic 
damages based on evidence, he will reduce the amount to present value.  At that 
point, he said, the claimant has the right to elect either present value of the future 
economic damages in a lump sum, or he can agree to receive periodic payments 
provided through an annuity.

Senator James inquired what standard is used to discount to present value for the 
court to approve the actions of the trier of fact.  Mr. Bradley responded in his 
experience there has always been a motion for a new trial or to amend the verdict. 
 He stated if either side believes there was a problem with the verdict it can move 
 to amend the judgment.  

Senator James pointed out that would be a post-judgment motion, but he 
interpreted A.B. 520 to provide for approval by the court of a pre-verdict 
determination.   He asked, "If you had a verdict, and then the judge would enter a 
judgment on the verdict after he approves the discount to present value, is that the 
way you see it?"  Mr. Prezant and Mr. Bradley replied, "Yes."  

Senator James surmised, "The court would be acting under the same kind of 
standard as would set aside a jury's verdict," which he opined would be a very high 
standard.  Mr. Bradley agreed and indicated it would be the same standard a judge 
would use to amend a jury's verdict.  

For the record Mr. Bradley declared:


This does not make admissible annuity evidence.  All this says is that 
after the jury has reduced the amount to  present value, the claimant 
may then select the annuity provider and go forward with the election 
of an annuity.  And the other thing I want to make clear on the record 
is, this was never intended to waive any tax benefits of the qualified 
assignment of an annuity purchase.

Mr. Prezant voiced agreement with the tax portion, but stated he is not entirely 
sure that the annuity evidence portion is correct.  

Continuing, Mr. Bradley pointed out there are definitions of collateral sources  in 
section 6, subsection 6.  The next portion refers to claims, he said.  

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 4, testified 
on behalf of the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor.  He expressed 
gratitude that language involving the closed claims study in medical malpractice is 
included in A.B. 520.  

Senator Townsend declared his committee has done substantial research on the 
problem as a part of its analysis of jurisdictional insurance rates in general.  He 
acknowledged the jurisdiction over malpractice would be in the purview of the 
judiciary committee.   

Senator Townsend called attention to areas of the bill which he feels are extremely 
important.  He said:

First and foremost, under section 7 is the first sentence where `the 
interim finance committee is hereby directed to contract with an 
independent organization,' and this is where we must be very careful, 
`to conduct, in association with the authority of the insurance 
commissioner as set forth in [chapter] 679B of NRS, a study of claims 
in actions for medical malpractice....'

The issue that we must be very clear on is that the only ... authority 
that has jurisdiction to answer and look at a claim in insurance is the 
insurance commissioner.  So we have to make sure that ... if IFC 
[Interim Finance Committee] is  going to contract with a group that 
that authority of the insurance commissioner is transferable so that 
that contracting group can, in fact, go in and look at those claims.  


Senator Townsend related he had been informed by the Legislative Counsel Bureau 
(LCB) and numerous "hallway authorities" that is included in the language.  He 
reiterated he wants the record to show "that the authority of the insurance 
commissioner to go into the claims of a company that writes medical malpractice 
insurance will be transferable to an independent group that is contracting."  

Senator Townsend went on to declare:

The other thing that is crucial is that in perhaps sending legislative 
intent, either through our minutes or through a letter of intent from 
this committee, an appropriate definition go into that letter or those 
minutes that would assure the insurance companies that IFC is not 
going to contract with someone who may have a relationship with 
one of the competitors of the group that you're going to be looking at. 
 That obviously would be unfair, we don't need to finance marketing 
research of one company ... to the detriment of another company.  
They must be completely independent from all the companies, and 
that would be crucial.

Senator Townsend opined the language throughout page 6 is definitive and broad 
enough to get to the heart of the matter.  

Turning to section 8, Senator Townsend submitted $75,000 may be totally 
insufficient to complete a study.  He asserted the goal is to be sure the study is 
made.  He suggested a letter be sent to both the finance and ways and means 
committees requesting a larger appropriation.  

Senator Townsend pointed out areas under section 7, subsection 2 on page 6 
should be broad enough.  He advised the committee there are many things that go 
into setting a premium rate, and the legislative body must make an effort to 
determine what components drive those rates in order to determine what policy to 
adopt.  He asserted, "And in order to do that a study of this magnitude, and of this 
breadth and depth, must be undertaken."  

Senator Townsend offered the opinion it would be very easy for a committee such 
as commerce and labor to pass a no-fault bill, or it would be easy for a judiciary 
committee to pass tort reform because insurance premium rates are going up for 
medical malpractice and the result of that is too much litigation.   But, he 
reiterated, a legitimate study must be made to determine every component that 
drives the premiums in medical malpractice. 


According to Senator Townsend, the study is long overdue and the language in 
A.B. 520 should cover everything that needs to be considered.   He repeated his 
appeal to put letters of intent on the record and send them to the appropriate 
finance committee.

Senator Porter asked, "Sections 7 and 8 appear to be new and ... since it's not 
italicized, does that mean it's not going to be put in NRS?"  Senator Townsend 
replied, "If it's not italicized it won't be because it's an independent or an interim 
effort.  Traditionally we don't put those in because they go by the wayside after 
the study is completed."  

In response to Senator Adler, Senator Townsend repeated his assertion it is crucial 
to perform a study that is broad and deep enough for all parties involved to make 
legitimate decisions on all the facts by the 1997 session of the Legislature.  He 
admonished the parties to agree to abide by the result of the study before it is 
started.

Senator Townsend acknowledged not all parties may be completely satisfied, but, 
he asserted,  they all should have adequate opportunity to offer input and to make 
an attempt to agree on the result.  He noted they may determine there is too much 
litigation, or too much money may be involved and there must be tort reform, or 
they may feel there is too much bad medical practice going on and the board of 
medical examiners needs to require improvement and take hard action against those 
who do not improve.  He added the study could conclude there are too many 
problems in the insurance field, such as over-reserving.   Only a study of such 
magnitude can offer those determinations, he concluded.  

Mr. Prezant presented the committee with copies of a proposed amendment 
(Exhibit C) for review.   He noted language in the amendment provides for the IFC 
to authorize and fund the Division of Insurance to contract with an independent 
consulting actuary to make the study.    He agreed with Senator Townsend that 
insurance companies are only obligated to open their files to the insurance 
commissioner, and the first paragraph of his proposed amendment will meet that 
concern. 


Mr. Prezant offered the opinion it is important for the study to be conducted by 
someone who is knowledgeable,  has the necessary expertise in medical 
malpractice and has an actuarial background.  He said it may not be necessary for 
that person to review the files, but he would set the protocols for reviews and he 
would be the responsible person.  

The second paragraph of the amendment, Mr. Prezant said, deals with an advisory 
committee comprised of representatives of the IFC, the Nevada Trial Lawyers 
Association, the Nevada Medical Association, the Nevada Hospital Association, and 
the insurance industry.   He pointed out the goal of the study is to determine what 
is driving malpractice insurance premiums in the state.  He explained those involved 
in that goal should participate as part of the advisory committee and try to come 
to an agreement on how to deal with the issue prior to the start of the next 
legislative session. 

Senator Adler asked why the advisory committee is necessary in addition to the 
IFC.  Mr. Prezant responded it will be helpful to have the interests that lobby the 
Legislature about the issues involved in a dialogue prior to the session, rather than 
during the session.  

Mr. Prezant indicated  paragraph 3 of the amendment deals with criteria.  He voiced 
concern that the lobbyists and others concerned do not know what drives costs of 
insurance premiums because they are not actuaries.  He acknowledged each has 
his own point of view or agenda on the matter, but ultimately a certified actuary 
would be the best person to determine the criteria.  He stated, "Section 3 deals 
with the criteria in a permissive sense rather than a mandatory sense."

Senator Porter asked if the amendment regarding the advisory committee is a 
compromise as a result of the meetings held by Assembly committees, or if the 
amendment is something new.  Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Northwestern Mutual Life 
(NML) Insurance Company, responded that is an integral part of the study.  He 
admitted the parties have not reached concurrence on every aspect of the study, 
but the parties have agreed to a claims study.  

Mr. Hillerby suggested, rather than attempting to define all the elements of the 
study in the statute, it may be better to have experts work with the Division of 
Insurance to determine what elements should be covered, and how they should be 
stated,  in a request for proposal (RFP).


As an example, Mr. Hillerby called attention to the sentence beginning "Only 
aggregate data ... may be disclosed...." on line 9 on page 7 of A.B. 520.  He 
voiced agreement with the sentence, but then he noted line 22 on page 6 and 
asked how one aggregates the "names ... of defendants."   He declared the name 
of the defendant should have very little to do with the issue of what is driving the 
price of premiums for medical malpractice insurance.  He asserted suits and 
awards, and their frequency and severity, drive the cost.  

Senator James asked how it will be handled if the same person is the defendant
over and over again.  Mr. Hillerby asked how that would be done "in the 
aggregate," according to the bill.  As for the doctor who is repeatedly a defendant, 
Mr. Hillerby said by law that must be reported to the Board of Medical Examiners. 
 
Mr. Hillerby reiterated his belief it has never been the intent to disclose the names 
of defendants.  Mr. Bradley concurred, and explained that is why the language on 
page 7, subsection 5, indicates all identifying data must be kept confidential.  He 
voiced agreement with Senator James that if several claims are being brought 
repeatedly against individual physicians, the information should be available without 
identifying the physician so that it will become evident insurers are having a 
problem.    

Senator James said, "If you have the name, you can find out that doctor X has 14 
claims against him in a 10-year period, whereas the average doctor got none, or .1, 
and ... that helps policy makers decide that there is a problem with a few bad 
doctors spoiling the barrel for all the good doctors."   He surmised the statistics 
could be very helpful, as long as the doctors names are not released, only the fact 
that a certain percentage of doctors have been involved in a certain number of 
malpractice cases.

Mr. Prezant interjected that data is presently available through the physicians' data 
bank.  He iterated if the purpose of the study is to determine what is driving the 
price of medical malpractice premiums up, it will not be a physician who has 
several claims against him, because, he asserted, that physician will not be able to 
obtain any insurance.  He declared an insurer will not provide insurance to such a 
person.  

Senator James indicated the insurance company has to raise rates when they have 
had to pay many claims, which will be done before the questionable physician's 
insurance is canceled.   Senator James suggested such a physician may go from 
one insurer to another, at higher rates each time, before the insurers refuse all 
coverage.  


Mr. Prezant declared an expert actuary should be hired to make the determination 
what criteria should be used.  Senator James voiced concern with simply allowing 
an expert free reign to determine the criteria.  He pointed out Senator Townsend 
noted it could be any one of the interested parties, doctors, lawyers, insurance 
companies, or a combination, who are contributing to the rising costs.  Senator 
James stated knowing if there are bad doctors could be helpful.

Senator Townsend reiterated the importance of understanding that the seriousness 
of the problem is driving multiple public policy questions.    He pointed out this is 
not just an isolated problem in one session.  

Senator Townsend voiced concern with page 2 of the amendment regarding open 
claims, or closed claims subject to a court order of confidentiality, being reported 
to the insurer on a form.  He stated:

If we insulate, either through an actuary or, in this case, a form for 
open claims, I think there's always going to be a question in 
everyone's mind, was there something there that we should have 
found.  I'm not sure there is.  But those two things, I think, would 
beg the question.  And that's a concern to our committee with regard 
to the availability of this information.  

Senator James voiced agreement with Senator Townsend's remarks. 

Mr. Hillerby said his company checks any applicant's record in the national data 
bank to see what his claims experience has been, and if he has been a Nevada 
physician for a while, the company checks with the Board of Medical Examiners. 
 He stated the information is readily available if a doctor has had more malpractice 
problems than his share.

Mr. Hillerby stated, "The concern about the open claims ... is that there is data 
regarding strategy ... and whoever it is that is looking at the file is told that they've 
got to maintain confidentiality."  He added another concern is the dilemma posed 
when the Legislature mandates that an affidavit must be filled in that has been 
gleaned from open files or closed files, because, on the other hand, the court 
mandates that confidentiality must be maintained.  He asked, "Who do we obey in 
that kind of a conflict?"  


Mr. Hillerby proposed that the insurance company be allowed to fill in the data that 
discloses the information in the sealed claim.  He pointed out the insurance 
commissioner has the authority to perform an audit on open or closed claims to 
determine whether the insurer has given accurate information when he fills in the 
form.  

Senator Townsend responded if that is the case he would not have had to pay the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the millions of dollars in taxes he has paid them over 
the years because he could have simply told them that he would only show them 
what he wanted to show them.  He asserted the IRS should have the ability to 
review any documents, just as the information regarding funds used to pay claims 
by insurance companies should be open to review.    

Senator Townsend declared, "This comes directly out of the pocket of people who 
use medical services."  He said the information should be accessible because the 
funds used to pay claims by insurance companies are derived from premiums.  

Mr. Hillerby agreed it is important to have as much data as possible.  He declared 
his concern is with the claims that have been closed by the courts.  He said, 
"We've talked about the frequency and severity of claims for each year for this 10-
year study, the reserving practices.... [The] data you need to accomplish that is 
part of the RFP ... process."  

Mr. Hillerby asserted it is necessary to review what effect the medical-legal 
screening panel has had, the decisions, the amount of awards, the other costs 
involved, and what happens after those rulings come down.   He added it is also 
important to know the number of cases for which there was never a judgment 
because those costs also drive the system.    

Senator James noted an actuary is an expert on insurance and on risk.  He stated 
the actuary usually helps insurance companies decide whether to accept a given 
risk.  Mr. Hillerby responded the actuary performs a host of activities, such as 
advising clients what insurance they should carry.  

Mr. Prezant interjected there is an actuary who works for the Division of Insurance 
for the state who reviews all filings made by insurance companies to determine 
whether they are appropriate.  He said the actuary uses criteria all certified 
actuaries must use to make a determination of whether the filings are justifiable. 
 

Senator James suggested it would be limiting to have the study done by an 
actuary.  Mr. Prezant replied you need to have someone who understands the data 
if you want good data.  He declared the actuary will understand the data in an 
insurance company better than anyone else.  

Senator Townsend pointed out the bill provides for an oversight committee 
comprised of members of both the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary 
and of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways 
and Means.  He conjectured those who will bid on the task will attempt to convince 
the oversight committee of their qualifications and that they have the right 
personnel to carry out the task.   He asserted, "The marketplace will come in and 
try to determine what's the best way to do this.  To dictate that it's only an 
actuary may carve out part of the market that we would want to consider.  I'm not 
sure you'd want to do that. "

Mr. Prezant responded, "I think that this is a significant public policy issue, and I 
think if you're going to ultimately get the kind of data that you need to obtain from 
an insurance company, it would be appropriate to have someone who understands 
reserving practices."    He asserted  a lawyer would not understand the matter.  
 He insisted:   

If you really want to get to the real nut of all of this, if the trial 
lawyer's saying it's the reserving practices, if the insurance 
companies and the doctors [are] saying it's the severity and frequency 
of claims, and we're all trying to figure out to the satisfaction of this 
body, the Legislature, what is driving the cost, then I can tell you that 
an actuary is the best person, and the market place doesn't have 
anything to do with it if you're trying to get to the bottom line here. 

Senator Townsend replied:

And I may not disagree with you, but I think your argument ... is at 
the wrong forum.  I think that the argument that you're making, 
which is a good one, should be at the IFC forum where they're going 
to make that determination.   And ... for us to narrow this bill now, 
I think is premature.  That can be done at the level which I previously 
stated.  But I don't think statutorily you ought to narrow this bill at 
this time.  I think that you can argue that case in front of the 
members of this advisory board as well as IFC.

According to Mr. Prezant, another change included in the amendment involves the 
lack of inclusion of the incident reports, which is included in A.B. 520 on page 6 
at line 16.  He explained it deals with all reports of medical malpractice filed during 
the period, regardless of whether a claim was filed.   He said incident reports are 
those of a risk-management exercise utilized by insurance companies.  He stated 
 physicians are encouraged to let the insurance company know anytime there is a 
disagreement with a patient that they believe could lead to a claim of malpractice. 
 He declared that is a practice-management tool so the malpractice insurer can 
advise the doctor how to relate to the patient.  He noted that has nothing to do 
with a malpractice claim, it is merely a report of an incident, and it does not drive 
the cost of the insurance.  It is not reviewed by any actuary to make a 
determination of what the premium should be, he said, it is a risk-management 
device. 

Mr. Prezant opined the inclusion of incident reports will add nothing except to 
confuse the issues.  He stated there are countless numbers of reports.  He asserted 
those will be of no benefit to a study of malpractice. 

Senator Titus exclaimed she could not believe doctors would report to their insurers 
that they may be charged with malpractice.   Mr. Prezant responded it is required. 
 
Voicing disagreement with Mr. Prezant, Mr. Bradley opined incident reports are very 
important because they reflect when physicians believe they may have committed 
malpractice.  As an example, he said, as an attorney if he failed to file papers in a 
legal situation in a timely manner under the statute of limitations, as soon as he 
realized he had made the mistake he would call his insurance company and report 
the problem.  He reiterated it is very important to ascertain the status of medical 
malpractice in the state.  

To Senator Titus' observance that it would be interesting to know how many times 
doctors think they will be sued, compared to how many times they actually are 
sued, Mr. Bradley said, "I certainly think so."    Senator James voiced agreement 
that the perceived claims should be juxtaposed with filings to get a better grasp of 
the problem.


Senator James expressed concern regarding confidentiality.  He pointed out the 
information cannot be used in a market context.  Also, he said, no information can 
be revealed which would jeopardize attorney-client privilege or a work-product 
privilege.  He stated a claim file is essentially a litigation file, with all its analysis, 
and it should be held inviolate.  He noted he did not find that addressed in the bill. 
 
Mr. Bradley responded lines 8 and 9 on page 7 declares all identifying data must 
be kept confidential which he asserted will provide adequate protection of 
confidentiality.  However, he took issue with Mr. Prezant's proposal to keep the 
individual insurers confidential on the basis it is important to know what is 
happening with each company and what the differences are between them.    

Senator James reiterated his concern that the client work-product be kept totally 
privileged and confidential and cannot be revealed in any way.  Mr. Bradley stated 
it is envisioned that the survey be done as it was in Minnesota.  In Minnesota, he 
explained, the insurance commissioner devised a survey form with 26 questions, 
which was then used by examiners who went into each company and filled out the 
form.  He noted there was nothing concerning strategy in any of the questions in 
either Minnesota or in the study being contemplated for Nevada.

Mr. Bradley alleged no information regarding strategy is being reported, the 
Minnesota examiners consider only reserves and the effect the panel had on the 
case.  He asserted the information listed in section 7 of A.B. 520 is what should 
be included in a survey form.   He declared there will be no way for an attorney to 
learn anything about his particular case from the survey forms.  

Regarding confidentiality, Mr. Bradley stated his belief the reason for signing a 
confidentiality agreement is to avoid embarrassment for the physician and to 
prevent the attorney from "grabbing headlines."   He suggested confidentiality 
could be waived between his client and the insurance company in order to do the 
study without affecting confidentiality. 

Mr. Hillerby voiced concern because, he said, whatever questionnaire is developed, 
somebody will have read all the evidence in the work documents.  He stated the 
insurer is always required to submit information and attest to it by an officer of the 
company.  He said, "We can extract the data they want, swear to it, and the 
insurance commissioner, if you feel like that's necessary, could do a spot check to 
be sure the data was completed correctly."


Senator James responded confidentiality must be tight.  He noted there is nothing 
contained in the bill about confidentiality agreements or unlawful disclosure.  He 
agreed it is a matter of concern if someone looks at a litigation file, and he asked 
if the bill needs to be strengthened.  He averred, "That's treading on very protected 
area."

Mr. Bradley responded the issue is not trying to learn the strategy, the issue is 
trying to extract specific information.  He reiterated his opinion confidentiality is 
protected, but expressed a willingness to go as far as necessary to insure that there 
is confidentiality.   He stated the people who will be filling out survey forms will not 
be actuaries or attorneys, they will be people who are trained to fill out the forms. 
 

Mr. Bradley suggested those people will not be interested in the strategy of the 
case, they will only be interested in the reserves, the results of the screening panel, 
and what happened after the case went to the panel.  He proposed that the 
litigation file be separated.  

Senator James suggested it may be useful to add another amendment to indicate 
that attorney-client privilege, and work-product information, will be kept inviolate. 
 He pointed out there is no privilege with tax documents or the records that 
underlie them, but the person has an absolute privilege regarding mental 
impressions.  

Mr. Bradley responded another privilege should be fees for both defense and 
plaintiff attorneys.  Senator James  indicated his agreement. Mr. Bradley expressed 
concern regarding line 27 on page 6 regarding inclusion of attorney fees in the 
study.  

Mr. Prezant interjected, "This is language where there would be no individual 
identification, and hence there would be no disclosure as to what particular 
plaintiff, or what particular [person] paid those fees.  There would be no 
identification."  He noted it will be similar to the fact that there is no identification 
of the individual physician.  

Senator James asked if that refers to the fees incurred by the insurance company, 
or the fees paid by a plaintiff.  Mr. Bradley responded it will include both.  He said 
the claims file will not reflect the fee, but, he suggested, it is unnecessary for the 
fees to be included because it is known they will be between 25 percent and 40 
percent.  


Senator James asked how a claim file will disclose the fees of the plaintiff.  Mr. 
Bradley replied that is not included.  Senator James noted that means only the 
costs paid by the insurance company to defend the client will be known.  Mr. 
Prezant suggested there may be other documents with that information.  Senator 
James declared, "I understand that.  It's the attorney's fees and legal costs 
associated with the claim, and the defense of the claim, and I think that's 
relevant."

Senator James asked how court-ordered sealed files will be handled.  Mr. Bradley 
replied, "Those are the most important files, because those are the big-number 
cases."    Senator James explained he wanted to know what power the insurance 
commissioner has to break a court order directing that the files are sealed.  Mr. 
Bradley responded there is normally a stipulation as part of the settlement 
agreement, and the court does not order that the files be sealed.  He said:

What normally happens in this case, as part of the release, the 
plaintiff and the defendant agree to a confidentiality order.  There's no 
stipulation in front of the court.  The release agreement is the 
document.   And I feel satisfied that if information is kept confidential 
... we are living within the confines of that law.  If there's a problem 
with that, we'll go out and get waivers from our clients, every one of 
them, to release that information.

According to Mr. Bradley, the concern is that lawyers will release the figures to the 
press, which will embarrass the physicians and make headlines for the attorneys. 
 Senator James responded that issue will have to be addressed.  

Mr. Hillerby interjected many times in the negotiation process, the doctor 
negotiates the settlement with the understanding his name will not be revealed. 
 The bill, he noted, directs that the names be included in the study.   

Mr. Bradley pointed out the case is on file in the district court, and the names are 
known.  He declared the confidentiality order is only to stop the amount of the 
award from being made public.  He said the case in district court is not sealed.

James L. Wadhams, Lobbyist, American Insurance Association, identified his clients 
as those who do, or potentially would, write medical malpractice insurance 
coverage.  He called the issue being discussed ironic because he discussed it earlier 
in the morning with the chairman with regard to Senate Bill (S.B.) 505.

SENATE BILL 505:	Makes various changes in regulation of insurance.

Mr. Wadhams said a senator from the commerce and labor committee had 
proposed conducting the study under the authority of the insurance commissioner. 
 He stated the confidentiality agreements deal with disclosure to other parties, not 
to regulatory officials or to the IRS.  He said the data is available through the 
insurance commissioner.  

Although he agreed the point made by Mr. Bradley regarding names is valid, Mr. 
Wadhams declared  it is not germane to this situation.  He agreed the point is to 
learn the amount of money involved.  He explained when insurance companies 
submit rate applications, they must have all the data incorporated into the rate 
applications, which he surmised will make it easy to obtain the data.   He concurred 
there must be adequate protection regarding confidentiality to avoid "leaks in the 
system."  

Mr. Wadhams called attention to the fact no controls on the contracting parties are 
addressed in the bill, and the important thing is that the person accumulating the 
data must be someone who is competent, and it really does not matter whether the 
person is an actuary or a college student.  He pointed out the study will require not 
only a compilation of data, it will require an analysis of the data.  He surmised the 
committee will be more comfortable with someone who is qualified to analyze 
rates, just as, if the study is on the quality of medical care, it will be better to find 
someone who  can analyze the quality of medical care.  

Mr. Wadhams called attention to line 11 on page 6 which requires an analysis.  He 
suggested the compilation phase can be done by anyone with a proper 
confidentiality, non-disclosure agreement, and the analysis must be competent.  
Noting that both the Committee on Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce and 
Labor are struggling with a policy question, he asserted data and analysis must be 
credible and reliable in order to arrive at a proper policy decision.  

Mr. Wadhams declared a study in Minnesota has been largely discredited because 
the analysis of the data extended beyond what the data represented.  To prove his 
point, he left a sheaf of papers (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research 
Library.), including a copy of the Minnesota malpractice study, for the committee's 
perusal.  He warned the pitfalls in the Minnesota study must be avoided in Nevada.

Senator James opined no amendment will be necessary regarding a court order; 
 the information simply will not be available unless there is a waiver by both 
parties. 


Mr. Bradley related he had just signed a confidentiality agreement which states that 
the information shall not be disclosed to any other person.  He said that includes 
the insurance commissioner, and the only way the information can be released to 
the study is if both the physician and the client waive the confidentiality in order 
to benefit the state.  He declared, "If there's a problem with it, I think we ought to 
know about it so we can go to that lawyer and say, get this waived, we have to 
know this information."

While he voiced agreement with Mr. Bradley, Senator James said the discussion 
involves information that is submitted under different situations.  He stated if he 
represents a client who enters into a confidentiality agreement and a stipulated 
closed settlement, he would take anyone to court who attempted to break that 
confidentiality.  He said the fact that it might be the insurance commissioner would 
have no meaning to his client.  

Mr. Wadhams commended the senator for his position on client advocacy, yet he 
declared case law is equally as strong regarding the authority of the insurance 
commissioner, just as it is for the IRS.  

Senator James responded once the court issues an order he would advise his client 
to provide the information, but not prior to that time.  He pointed out it is possible 
the court could deny the request.  

Mr. Prezant noted he had tried to deal with that problem in the amendment by 
making the data obtained in conjunction with the study deemed confidential as to 
the individual plaintiffs and the individual insurers.   He acknowledged there may 
be some disagreement as to whether the individual insurance companies should be 
identified.  However, he reiterated the aim is to determine the gross numbers, with 
no regard for the identity of the people involved.  

Mr. Bradley related he has had four claims against one physician, and five claims 
against another physician, and one is still insured with the same company.  He said 
that goes to the fact the names will not be disclosed in the study, but there may 
be instances in which it will become noteworthy that a certain percentage of 
physicians are causing an inordinate percentage of the malpractice.  He asserted 
that information is necessary in order to understand the total picture.


 Summarizing, Senator James said, "The one thing we've distilled out of this is that 
we need some language in here to insure that the privileged information is 
protected better than we have."  As far as court-ordered closed matters, he 
asserted the Legislature cannot just invalidate all contracts of confidentiality.  

Regarding the association with the authority of the insurance commissioner, 
Senator James read NRS 679B.230, and asked if that will allow the commissioner 
to examine the records for purposes of the study.  Mr. Bradley replied that is why 
the reference to the statute is stated as such in the first paragraph of section 7. 
 

Mr. Prezant asked why the wording could not state that the IFC is directed to 
authorize and fund the insurance commissioner to enter into a contract with an 
independent organization, or whatever entity, in accordance with that section of 
the statutes and then go on from there.  Mr. Bradley replied, "Because then you 
have the insurance commissioner making the selection, and not Interim Finance 
[Committee], which was the intention behind this bill."

Senator James acknowledged he understands Mr. Bradley's statement, but 
reiterated he is concerned with the language "in association with the authority of 
the insurance commissioner."  He explained if an insurance company should 
challenge the study, and the court must interpret the language that the independent 
organization is in association with the authority, there may be some question in the 
court's mind whether there has been an express delegation.  

Mr. Bradley pointed out two of the three insurers in the state are present at the 
hearing.  Senator James responded that would not matter in a court of law.  

Mr. Bradley replied he would not object to placing the study under the authority of 
the insurance commissioner as long as the selection is made by the oversight 
committee.  Senator James suggested, then, that the language be changed to 
indicate it is pursuant to the authority of the insurance commissioner under NRS 
679B, with the selection to be made by IFC.

Alice Molasky, Commissioner, Division of Insurance, Department of Business and 
Industry, testified the division has some amendments designed to create efficiency 
within the screening panel, which she indicated she would save for another day. 
 

Ms. Molasky called attention to section 8, subsection 3, which provides authority 
to appropriate funds from the insurance examination fund.  She pointed out the 
section does not refer back to NRS 679B.290, which is the commissioner's 
authority to charge insurance companies for the cost of the examination.  She 
asserted without that authority the provision in A.B. 520 could deplete the 
examination fund, which has already been budgeted for the coming biennium, and 
for which the division must charge insurance companies an administrative override. 
 
Ms. Molasky proposed it be made clear that the expenses of the study will be 
charged back to the companies to be examined.  Mr. Hillerby noted Senator 
Townsend had made it clear that the IFC should be able to authorize additional 
expenditures if it becomes necessary, rather than taking funds from the 
commissioner's budget.  He said the language of the bill was not intended to 
require payment for the study out of the insurance division's budget.  

Senator James pointed out NRS 679B.290 says the expense of an examination of 
an insurer shall be borne by the person examined.  Mr. Hillerby responded that 
refers to a typical examination, and the study may be considered a special study 
rather than just an examination.  He added his concern regarding the wording.

Senator James asked if it is likely $75,000 will not cover the cost of the study. 
 Mr. Bradley interjected the ex-insurance commissioner testified before the Senate 
Committee on Commerce and Labor that the estimated the cost of a study similar 
to that done in Minnesota would be $90,000.  Mr. Hillerby noted the RFP should 
give an indication of the cost, and there should be some provision for additional 
funding for the study so it will not be borne by the three companies who presently 
write malpractice insurance in Nevada.  He declared, "If this is the public policy 
issue we think it is, there ought to be a broader base of funding."

Senator James inquired if the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means had 
discussed who would pay for the cost.  Ms. Molasky responded she was not 
present at the meeting and has no knowledge whether those concerns were raised, 
but she understands they were not.  She reported the Division of Insurance 
prepared a proposal that was submitted to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary 
which indicated if the division undertook the study using independent examiners 
it would cost approximately $80,754.  

Senator James opined it would not be completely fair to insurance companies to 
mandate the study and then make them pay for it.  He agreed it will not be the 
same as a typical examination, because it is an analysis of policy.  He asserted the 
examinations charged to insurers described in NRS 679B.290 are on-going 
regulatory examinations.   


Mr. Bradley concurred it has never been the intent to have the companies pay for 
the study.  He conjectured when the issue went to the Assembly Committee on 
Ways and Means they left the language intact in their rush to pass the measure 
along to the Senate.  

Because the committee is not a money committee, Senator James indicated he is 
inclined to leave the measure as is.  Ms. Molasky reiterated her concern because, 
she said, there is little appetite for the money committees or the industry to 
increase the administrative override, yet she feels that will have to be raised and 
charged against all insurance companies that will be examined.  Senator James 
offered to consult with members of the Senate Committee on Finance.  

Senator Porter pointed out that means that ultimately the customer will pay for the 
study.  Senator Adler suggested it will be up to the IFC to determine the source of 
the funding.  

Senator James returned the discussion to a review of proposed amendments.  He 
suggested retaining the word "must" on page 3, with which members of the 
committee indicated agreement.    Further down on page 3, he recalled, there had 
been some question as to whether a requirement for an affidavit should be retained, 
and a compromise had been reached to use language to have a clear and concise 
statement.  He stated:

We take out subsection (b), and we reword subsection - the flush part 
- to say that the screening panel may - take out the word "summarily" 
- dismiss a complaint which is filed without an affidavit submitted by 
a medical expert supporting the allegations of the complaint. 

He explained that will allow the panel to dismiss the complaint, but there is no 
requirement to file an affidavit.  He cautioned that means the complaint with no 
affidavit will be filed at the person's own risk.

At the end of section 6, subsection 2 on page 5, line 5, Senator James indicated 
an addition which would read, "The claimant shall notify any statutory lien holder 
of the existence of a cause of action."  He declared the language regarding 
confidentiality in section 7, subsection 2, (c)(5) on page 7 will be strengthened to 
indicate there will be no waiver of the work-product or attorney-client privilege, 
which he opined will allow separation of any mental impression to be removed from 
the files before they are turned over to the examiners.  

At the top of page 6, Senator James indicated the insertion in line 4 after the word 
"organization" the words "who shall, pursuant to the authority of the insurance 
commissioner, as set forth in [NRS] 679B, conduct a study."    

Mr. Bradley said:

I think if we don't say that normally when there's a dismissal it's 
without prejudice, the insurance commissioner is going to have to 
decide that, and we're trying to keep decisions away from the 
insurance commissioner.  If the panel dismisses it, I think we don't 
need to put it in the statute ... but the intent behind it should be 
without prejudice so that the insurance commissioner doesn't have to 
repeatedly decide motions whether to dismiss or not."

Senator James responded he believes it is without prejudice unless it is beyond the 
statute of limitations.  

Senator James announced his intention to call a floor meeting to take action along 
the lines just discussed.  He requested committee members to speak up if they 
have any questions or comments.  With no more comment, Senator James closed 
the hearing on A.B. 520.  He turned to the first reprint of a bill for which the 
Assembly proposed two amendments, Amendments No. 1340 and 1278 to 
S.B. 474.

SENATE BILL 474:	Revises provisions governing civil liability for wrongful acts and 
revises provisions relating to punitive damages.

Asked to explain the changes, Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst, called 
attention to the second page, lines 13 and 14, where she indicated the word 
"dangerous" was changed to "harmful," under the definition of "conscious 
disregard."   On the same page a new subsection 2 in section 4 is being added just 
before section 5, she said, which will state:

The limitations on liability set forth in subsection 1 do not apply to an 
action brought against an insurer who acts in bad faith regarding its 
obligations to provide insurance coverage.


Ms. Combs stated on page 3 lines 43 through 48 will be deleted, which will replace 
subsections 1 and 2 of section 8.  Senator James interjected "The employer's not 
liable for the action of an employee under the control or supervision of the owner 
or keeper unless ... there's a wrongful act which caused the death or injury which 
was foreseeable, and a preponderance of the evidence the owner did not excercise 
care for the safety of the patron," which he called a due-care standard.

According to Senator James, the Assembly added the owner or keeper of a hotel 
will be civilly liable for death or injury of a patron or other person on the premises 
caused by another person who is not an employee, under certain circumstances. 
 He explained that is language regarding a person who may come onto the premises 
and commit a rape or other crime.   He noted the liability applies if the act was 
foreseeable and the owner failed to exercise reasonable precautions, another due-
care standard.  

Senator James read the following language:

The court will determine as a matter or law whether the wrongful 
conduct was foreseeable and whether the owner or keeper had duty 
to take reasonable precautions.    

He stated that is language similar to what the Senate originally used, which will 
allow a summary judgment motion.  Continuing, he read:

For purposes of this section, an act is not foreseeable unless the 
owner failed to exercise due care, or where prior incidents of similar 
acts occurred on the premises and the owner had knowledge of those 
incidents and didn't do something to prevent those.

Senator James deemed the amendments to be largely technical.  He asked if the 
committee understood the amendments and had further questions or comments.

SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO CONCUR IN 
AMENDMENTS 
NO. 1340 AND 
1278 TO S.B. 
474.	 

SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR ADLER ABSTAINED.  SENATOR 
WASHINGTON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

	* * * * *

There being no futher business to come before the meeting, Senator James 
adjourned the hearing at 4:00 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:



	
Judy Jacobs,
Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:





Senator Mark A. James, Chairman


DATE: 						

Senate Committee on Judiciary
June 29, 1995
Page