MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-second Session
February 18, 2003
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Chairman Mark E. Amodei, at 8:00 a.m., on Tuesday, February 18, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark Amodei, Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Terry Care
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Department 9, Second Judicial District
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court
Elizabeth Neighbors, Ph.D., Director, Lakes Crossing Center, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources
Dr. Ted D’Amico, Medical Director, Department of Corrections
Dorothy Nash Holmes, Mental Health Programs Administrator, Department of Corrections
Chairman Amodei:
I will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 87.
SENATE BILL 87: Revises provisions pertaining to transaction of judicial business. (BDR 1-620)
The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Department 9, Second Judicial District:
We proposed S.B. 87 to the state judicial counsel, and they proposed it to you, in an effort to clarify the hours of court operation in district court. When the temporary protective order (TPO) statute was adopted, it provided a 24-hour, 7‑day operation to hear TPO applications. Unfortunately, it did not correct chapter 1 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) which deals with district court hours of operation. Senate Bill 87 is intended to square up district court hours of operation and permit consideration of TPO applications within the business hours of district court. We are concerned if we do not do this someone may challenge, on a technical basis, the validity of a TPO that has been issued under the other chapter.
Chairman Amodei:
Thank you, Judge Hardesty. Are there any questions?
Senator Care:
When you get into the communications end over the issuance of a TPO, is there a way to get it all on the record? Would these be ex parte communications, or would both counsels or parties be on the telephone with you?
Judge Hardesty:
Temporary protective orders initially are issued ex parte and there is a shortened hearing process thereafter. A written application process is used to form the basis of the communication, so we know what the communication was at the outset, and the basis for the initial issuance of the TPO. It is a practice that will occur regardless of the hour change.
Senator Care:
The change in statute does not go to the status or violation of a TPO, it only goes to the issuance of a TPO.
Judge Hardesty:
Yes, Sir.
Senator Care:
Would that be on the record?
Judge Hardesty:
No, it is not initially on the record.
Senator Care:
It is you and whoever is applying for the …
Judge Hardesty:
It is the master or the judge who is hearing the application. That is correct.
Chairman Amodei:
Are there any other questions for Judge Hardesty? Is there any other testimony on S.B. 87? Seeing none, the hearing on S.B. 87 is closed.
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO DO PASS AND PLACE S.B. 87 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei:
I will now open the hearing on Senate Bill 88.
SENATE BILL 88: Allows district judge to transfer certain civil actions to justice’s court under certain circumstances. (BDR 1-610)
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court:
I am present today in my previous capacity as chief judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court on which I served until September 31, 2002. Senate Bill 88 was requested by the Eighth Judicial District Court, regarding the transfer of certain civil actions from district court to justice court.
At present, the jurisdictional limit for justice court is up to $7500, and anything in excess goes to district court. Sometimes cases are filed in district court and the court determines the value of the case at $7500 or less. Although there is a procedure to transfer cases from justice court to district court, there is no procedure to do the reverse, from district court to justice court. In that event, all the district court can do is dismiss the case if it does not meet the jurisdictional limit. Many times it creates a hardship, such as a car accident, in which there is a 2‑year statute of limitations if the case is dismissed. If the party then attempts to refile in justice court, and it is beyond 2 years from the date the accident occurred, the case is barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, people are innocently victimized by not understanding the complexities of the jurisdictions of justice court and district court.
Senate Bill 88 would solve the problem because the statute of limitations would be told when the case is filed initially in district court. Should the district court determine the case does not have value in excess of $7500, it could order a transfer to justice court and, again, the statute of limitations would relate back to the date the complaint was originally filed in district court. As such, the rights of the party initiating the civil action would be protected when the case is transferred back to justice court.
This is a rare occurrence in district court and happens approximately ten times a year. When it happens there is prejudice, and district court judges wrestle with it in an attempt to ensure people’s substantive rights are not lost. We felt this was the only way to change the law to allow the transfer-back procedure.
The larger filing fee has been paid when the case is filed in district court. Although this would not require a filing fee to be paid in justice court, the fiscal impact is all General Fund dollars to the county. The amount of money is de minimis insofar as the filing fees to justice court. We urge the committee to pass S.B. 88.
Chairman Amodei:
Are there any questions of Judge Gibbons?
Senator Care:
I support the bill, however, someday I would like to see something done in regard to the “nether land” between $7500 and $10,000 specified in the rules of pleading, wherein I suggest the client may want to allege damages of $7500 and go to justice court because it can be done quicker.
Judge Gibbons:
That is true.
Senator Care:
It does not happen often, but it does happen.
Judge Gibbons:
It does happen and, of course, anyone has the option of accepting the cap of $7500 and going into justice court, which is probably a speedier process than going through the district court arbitration program.
Chairman Amodei:
I had the educational experience of being asked to carry a bill a couple of sessions ago by the trial lawyers to increase the justice court jurisdiction to $10,000. As fate would have it, one of the speakers at your investiture, Judge Nancy C. Oesterle, had strong feelings on increasing the jurisdiction of justice court that was workload related. Have you any thoughts about maintaining that jurisdictional amount?
Judge Gibbons:
The Supreme Court has no position on it and I do not think the district court in Clark County does either. Judge Hardesty could address it in regard to Washoe County. I am concerned it would increase the workload of justice court. I have not done any studies in regard to the number of civil cases or trials, but there would be an increase in the workload. I do not know how significant it might be. I know the justices of the peace have not proposed any raises.
When I started legal practice in 1975, the justice court limit was $350 and is now up to $7500. There has been an evolution over 25 years. Without knowing the studies on the ratio of amount of increase to workload, I could not comment on whether or not it would be a fair distribution.
Chairman Amodei:
The concern is in terms of access. Senator Care’s questions led into it in terms of making access to some sort of judicial venue available without having to go the full blown district court route, plus the time and expense involved.
One final question, could concern between the filing fee in district court and justice court be worked out by local rule?
Judge Gibbons:
Filing fees are addressed in NRS 19.031. There are allocations for the funds and a portion of them go to the county general fund, therefore, whether it comes from justice court or district court, it is the same for the counties. I do not know the actual administrative cost to the justice court. It is de minimis with the number of cases that would be transferred and I do not see it as a major issue. If it turns out to be an issue, perhaps it could be corrected in 2 years.
Chairman Amodei:
Are there any other questions for Judge Gibbons? Thank you, your honor.
Judge Hardesty:
Washoe County also endorses S.B. 88 and believes it would be more efficient to handle the remand of these cases. With respect to your comments and concerns regarding the other bill, which was off the topic but obviously important, we do not have a position on it. However, both the Eighth Judicial District Court and the Second Judicial District Court have a very effective alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program that picks up all cases under $40,000. Both districts have carefully reexamined the effectiveness of the ADR program. It provides quick access to justice in cases under $40,000 and, by rule, we have been able to accomplish a great deal in terms of pretrial management and quick access to hearings.
The other thing that has occurred is adoption by rule by the Supreme Court of a short trial program that assures people a jury trial conducted before four jurors. It usually takes less than a day and allows prompt determinations. We have had about six of them in our district since the rule was adopted and it has proven to be a very successful program.
Chairman Amodei:
I appreciate that, Judge. When you look at the programs that have begun in larger districts, in terms of case management and specialty areas, whether domestic relations or construction defects, or even things the court has had to administer to get through its workload, it seems to me that “hunkering down” on a very old jurisdictional limit on workload grounds is not something we have practiced in large districts or at the Supreme Court. You have come up with ADR programs and other such things. To continue to bring the focus to that amount and freeze it there after it has been that way for several decades is something I do not think comports with what we have been trying to do in terms of access and efficiency in other areas. Therefore, if there are workload issues in justice court with which we can help, we ought to do it. To use that jurisdictional amount as a discriminator is getting more difficult to defend in terms of the realities of $7500 in 2003.
Judge Hardesty:
Inflation has impacted that dollar amount from the time it was set.
Chairman Amodei:
Are there any other questions for Judge Hardesty or Judge Gibbons? Thank you, gentlemen. Is there any other testimony on S.B. 88? Seeing none, we will close the hearing on S.B. 88.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 88.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei:
I will open the hearing on Senate Bill 89.
SENATE BILL 89: Revises provisions governing determination of competency of defendant to stand trial. (BDR 14-603)
Judge Gibbons:
The Eighth Judicial District Court proposed S.B. 89 to allow either a justice court judge or a district court judge to make an assignment to Lakes Crossing Center to determine whether or not a person is competent to proceed with a preliminary hearing or trial. At present, if a person comes to justice court after a criminal complaint is filed and a determination is made, or there are initial reports the defendant is not competent, the case must be transferred to district court before there can be a transfer to Lakes Crossing Center. To complete all the paperwork and be placed on the court calendar takes approximately 2 weeks. Therefore, the defendant would remain in a county detention facility until the case actually goes through district court, and the district court makes a finding to refer the matter to Lakes Crossing Center.
If a person needs medication, or has issues that must be dealt with, the process is stalled going from justice court to district court. The same thing happens upon return. Let us say a criminal complaint was filed against a person and that person had not had a preliminary hearing. Let us assume there was a finding of competency and the person was sent back to the Clark County Detention Center. It would then go back on the district court calendar, the district court judge would make a determination the person was competent and remand the case back to justice court, which would take another couple of weeks. It is a needless waste of time for the proceeding to go through district court from start to finish.
Senate Bill 89 would permit justice court to make the assignment directly to Lakes Crossing Center and, likewise, if the proceeding is at justice court level, the person could come right back to justice court, bypass district court, and proceed forward with the case. It saves time to address the issues, get the competency evaluations done sooner, and make the determination as to whether or not a person is competent enough to proceed. It would save time, cut red tape, and so forth.
Chairman Amodei:
Are there any questions for Judge Gibbons?
Judge Hardesty:
I was glad to see S.B. 89 proposed by my colleagues in the Eighth Judicial District. This is the biggest time waster I have seen since I became a judge. The whole show comes up to ask the district court judge to hold a hearing on the assignment of the defendant for a competency evaluation. It is ridiculous and a complete waste of time. Meanwhile, the defendant is incarcerated while all this takes place. Often the defendant is incarcerated in the county jail, and not where he or she needs to be, either at Lakes Crossing Center, in our case, or Nevada Mental Health Institute (NMHI).
Chairman Amodei:
Are there questions for Judge Hardesty? Thank you, your honor.
Let the record reflect that Scott L. Coffee, Clark County Public Defender and Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and Rick R. Loop, Lobbyist, did not testify but expressed support for S.B. 89.
Is there any more testimony on S.B. 89? Seeing none, the hearing on S.B. 89 is closed. What is the pleasure of the committee?
SENATOR NOLAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 89.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei:
I will now open the hearing on Senate Bill 90.
SENATE BILL 90: Authorizes certain governmental entities to share certain records in their possession concerning defendants and offenders. (BDR 14-511)
Elizabeth Neighbors, Ph.D., Director, Lakes Crossing Center, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources:
I will present my written testimony (Exhibit C). The Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services (DMHDS) submitted S.B. 90 in an effort to facilitate services between the DMHDS and the Department of Corrections (DOC), and share the information. Essentially, S.B. 90 would allow the two agencies to request access to certain mental health and medical records from one another. Presently we are required to obtain releases of information from defendants or clients whom we serve. Senate Bill 90 includes a provision whereby should the court order us not to have access, we would not have open access, otherwise unlimited access would be allowed. Should the court deny access we would have to obtain oral or written consent.
We believe S.B. 90 would vastly facilitate our ability to provide continuity of care to individuals in the criminal justice system caught between the two agencies. There have been a number of experiences in which individuals have had to wait a considerable period of time before being treated because we were unable to access records. There have also been instances where services have been duplicated because tests were repeated at one or the other agency due to lack of quick access to information. Senate Bill 90 would allow us to facilitate and provide quicker and more efficient care to the people we serve.
We have also experienced instances where there is a need to evaluate an individual and we encountered reluctance to provide information. We need the information to corroborate our evaluations of competency. Senate Bill 90 would allow us to do it quickly and cut a significant number of days off time spent doing court evaluations.
Finally, current statute allows us to access information for individuals who have committed sexually‑related offenses.
I defer to the representative from the DOC. We support S.B. 90 and urge your support in seeing it through the Legislature.
Dr. Ted D’Amico, Medical Director, Department of Corrections:
There are barriers when attempting to keep people’s rights intact regarding their personal records which is the reason this law has never before been addressed. We have had difficulty keeping continuity of care and protecting the community. I think S.B. 90 would help us unite efforts between the DMHDS and DOC.
There is sometimes a delay in receiving treatment and S.B. 90 will clear it up. We support the bill and think it will be better for patients. Even though there is a confidentiality issue, the bill would help individual patients, both agencies, and the community in general.
Senator Care:
When would consent not be possible? At present, what would happen should a defendant not give consent to his or her medical records being turned over to the other agency?
Dr. D’Amico:
At the present time medical records are not released without the consent of the individual, with the exception of the law mentioned by Dr. Neighbors.
Dr. Neighbors:
In that event, our procedure is to return to court and request a court order if we feel it essential to complete an evaluation or provide care. It is a timely process.
Senator Care:
Has the court ever denied application for medical records?
Dr. D’Amico:
It goes through the normal process, ends up in a court order, and the court order is obeyed.
Senator Care:
Are there grounds in which a court would deny exchange of records between the two agencies? I do not want to do anything statutorily that courts might have reservations about performing.
Dr. D’Amico:
To my knowledge, that has never happened. I worked the systems in California, as well as Nevada, and never encountered that situation.
Senator Wiener:
You mentioned giving limited access to the medical records. In that vein, on page 2, line 11, section 1, subsection 2 of S.B. 90 there is language, “limited purpose,” therefore, you would have full access to the records for the limited purpose of evaluating and treating. Would you have access to everything in the file or only certain information? Based on the need for confidentiality and the right to protect the defendant, particularly when he or she does not have the mental capacity to understand right from wrong or know his or her rights, I am concerned there might be potential abuse because more information is available than is needed to do your job.
Dr. Neighbors:
We are under ethical constraints when we exchange information with another agency. Ultimately, by April 13, 2003, we must follow the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1997 (HIPAA) regulations which dictate we only ask for information essential to do evaluations and treatment within our facility. Therefore, when requesting information we do so within those parameters. Senate Bill 90 specifies the parameters are mental health and medical records and none other possessed by the Department of Corrections.
Senator Washington:
Section 2 of S.B. 90 provides authority to obtain records for potential medical services needed by the defendant. What is done at the present time when a defendant requires treatment or competency is determined?
Dr. Neighbors:
We initially request a release of information from the client. It is helpful to have the records upon the defendant’s arrival at the facility. At the present time, should the client refuse to release the information, we are required to return to the court that sent him or her to request access to the records. Absent that, we would have to wait until the defendant gives permission to access the records which may be a considerable period of time.
Senator Washington:
The defendant could actually lie in wait for treatment until the court makes a decision.
Dr. Neighbors:
That is correct, however, we would do what is needed in terms of tests and assessments which may repeat what was already done in the other agency in order to make recommendations regarding treatment.
So there is some duplication.
Dr. Neighbors:
Yes, there is potential for duplication of services should the defendant refuse access to the records.
Senator Washington:
Is it possible to go through a defendant’s guardian or designee who can sign for him or her in order to obtain records?
Dr. Neighbors:
Yes, we are legally obligated to do that if there is a legal guardian, however, it is not a frequent occurrence.
Senator Washington:
Would S.B. 90 speed up the process?
Dr. Neighbors:
Yes, it would speed up the process considerably insofar as the two agencies are concerned.
Senator McGinness:
Senate Bill 90 indicates records can only be accessed from a defendant who previously served a term of imprisonment under the supervision of the Department of Corrections and is committed to its custody. Therefore, by those two limits, the population for whom this can be done is limited.
Dr. Neighbors:
Yes, it specifically applies to our agency because we are the only one in the DMHDS that would have a person in custody in the criminal justice system.
Senator McGinness:
They would also have to have served a previous term of imprisonment.
Dr. Neighbors:
That is correct. They would have already been convicted and in prison in the state of Nevada.
Senator McGinness:
Senate Bill 90 states, “ … who is committed to the custody of or ordered to report to the Administrator or his designee pursuant to NRS 178.425 or 178.460.” What is the purpose of those references?
Dr. Neighbors:
They are NRS chapters that cover treatment and assessment for competency.
Senator Care:
Should S.B. 90 be enacted as written, would either the DMHDS or the DOC henceforth ask the defendant to consent to release of his or her records? What would be the point since the information could be exchanged in any event?
Dr. Neighbors:
Defendants are regularly requested to provide release of information during admission. There is a standardized admission form that makes the request of every person entering the facility. I would say, without exception, the defendant is always asked to sign a release.
Senator Care:
Ultimately the information would be available between the two agencies should S.B. 90 be enacted.
Dr. Neighbors:
That is correct.
Senator Care:
Perhaps we can save this for a work session. I would feel more comfortable with a statute that did not say a person is deemed to have waived his or her rights. It would be more or less that the privilege does not apply in the narrow circumstances where the two agencies need to share the information. I am bothered by language that statutorily says a person is deemed to have waived his or her rights after being asked whether he or she wants to consent, and he or she does not. We may want to recraft this in such a fashion to say the privilege does not apply. You already testified that no court has ever said, no, you cannot have the information. It sounds to me like you get it anyway.
Dr. D’Amico:
We will not change policy with regard to releasing records at the DOC. In other words, we will not add anything to our administrative regulations because of S.B. 90. We assume people will provide a release of their records before they go anywhere. In this instance, it will speed care for the mentally ill and connect us directly to the mental health people. There may be some duplication when the division requests records from us and we have already obtained a release and sent the records. It only applies to urgent cases in which the inmate is not mentally capable of giving consent and there is no guardian available. It just provides a mechanism to get the records to the other agency. That is the way I read the bill.
Dorothy Nash Holmes, Mental Health Programs Administrator, Department of Corrections:
Senate Bill 90 is designed to facilitate treatment of the defendant pretrial. Language should be added to facilitate discharge planning and treatment of defendants upon release. Approximately 13 percent or more of inmates have mental health issues and co-occurring disorder issues with substance abuse. Inmates return to the community where the only mental health treatment at the community level is offered at the local offices of state mental health.
We have received varying informal opinions from the Office of the Attorney General. We have called the Office of the Attorney General and asked whether or not we could provide “Joe Smith’s” records to Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health so they will know what kind of medication to give him. We have been told, no, there is no waiver because he is paranoid and will not sign the release. Consequently, they could not provide the records. We have then called a different attorney general and been told, yes, we may provide Mr. Smith’s records because it is a State agency. The language needs “tweaking” in order to work both ways, back and forth, and the DOC may provide records for treatment in the community by mental health.
Senate Bill 90 reads as though mental health can only obtain our records, but there is a need to provide the records as a person departs prison in order to receive proper treatment in the community by the DMHDS.
Chairman Amodei:
Senate Bill 90 also has a provision that when a person comes to the DOC, prior records from the DMHDS are available in a reciprocal context. However, this issue is different because the records of a patient with no criminal history could now be accessed in the same context. I am unsure whether it would be material if a person was in the DOC under those circumstances. I am concerned about people in the mental health system who have not been criminally convicted at that point in time, and records generated in a noncustodial or criminal justice sense would be made available to the DOC. I understand the reasons in regard to privacy issues and whether or not a person will be requested to sign a waiver. I see a couple of different scenarios that need to be considered.
There is also language regarding a designee that worries me, particularly in regard to the privacy issue. I can understand how, in her capacity, Dr. Neighbors would need it should S.B. 90 pass. However, “designee” means anybody the director designates. Anybody who has been in State government long enough knows the darndest people can pop up as designees. This may be something we want to give some thought to in terms of tightening up the legislation.
Senator Washington:
My concern is the word “deemed” and, in that context, who makes the determination the patient waived his or her right of confidentiality? “Deem” is a broad spectrum and based on what the Chairman said regarding the designee, the designee could deem the individual waived his or her confidentiality rights when he or she may not have done so. Who determines whether they did or did not?
Maybe the problem would be solved by just tweaking the language. On this side of the House you got it easy. If you take it on the other side of the House, you got troubles. So we better fix it over here first.
Dr. D’Amico:
Those are the reasons this issue becomes sticky. From a practical medical standpoint, we support S.B. 90 because it is a good thing for community and patients. The legal standpoint is not my area of expertise. Patient-doctor confidentiality and the rights of individuals are big issues and things on which I cannot comment. However, from a practical standpoint, S.B. 90 is a good vehicle to provide appropriate care for a patient coming out of the DOC into the mental health system.
Ms. Holmes:
I think Senator Care’s concern will address it. I agree that if we are not going to ask for a waiver, why have it in the law. The fact is, when we get people into the criminal justice system, whether they are at Lakes Crossing Center awaiting trial and sentencing, or whether they are in the DOC awaiting return to the community, our two agencies need to share their mental health treatment records for people to be properly treated. When people enter prison and we have no knowledge, or are not allowed to obtain knowledge of the treatment needed and the problems they have, they may be misdiagnosed and untreated. If they are being treated in prison with certain medications for certain conditions and we are unable to inform anyone of the information upon their release, they may experience problems in the community, especially if they confront a law enforcement officer and they have a medical issue.
This is a critical piece of legislation. There is a huge problem with a system in which many mentally ill people are put in jail and become part of the criminal justice system rather than receiving treatment. Patients will receive proper treatment if the two agencies can talk to each other in limited circumstances.
The waiver language should be omitted because the issue is not waiver. If a person refuses to give consent, the agency will go to court to obtain the records, and the court will grant the request. The information is needed in order to provide proper treatment. The waiver creates an unnecessary issue that implies they have the ability to withhold consent when they really do not. This is strictly for treatment purposes and the language provides for limited purposes of evaluation and treatment. It is not as if the entire criminal justice file and every operation the person had for a nonmental health issue is an issue. With a little drafting language the problems can be fixed.
Dr. Neighbors:
I concur and would be willing to work with the language. However, because people are sent to the division under the auspices of chapter 178 of NRS, I emphasize that the records would only be generated out of a forensic facility, not necessarily out of a civil hospital.
Chairman Amodei:
I suggest we revisit S.B. 90 in a work session context by a week from Friday. Dr. Neighbors indicated something along these lines already exists for sexual offenders. I request Mr. Wilkinson check into the civil rights issues on how to accomplish this in the proper context. I am sensitive to the practical concerns brought up in terms of being able to get the job done right, share information, and so forth. I want to make sure if we pass something it will not later be successfully challenged, violate civil rights, or get into confidentiality issues. We want to go on record that we were sensitive to the issues and dealt with them responsibly in work session.
Are there any more questions or testimony on S.B. 90? Seeing none, I will close discussion on S.B. 90 with the goal of revisiting it in work session.
For purposes of committee operation, members who are present the day of a meeting may inform the committee secretary of their wish to add their vote to bills voted upon while they were out of the room. The understanding will stand unless somebody has a problem with it, in which case we will formally revisit it.
There are three bill draft requests (BDRs) to be introduced by the committee with the same disclaimers on supporting the bill when it comes before the committee or on the floor.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 3-980: Provides that actions for personal injury must involve physical injury that is manifest or ascertainable. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 160.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 2-171: Makes various changes regarding fees charged and collected by county clerks. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 162.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 9-564: Removes requirement that lien claimant give notice to Department of Motor Vehicles regarding satisfaction of lien on aircraft, aircraft equipment or aircraft parts. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 161.)
Senator Titus:
Where did this BDR come from?
Chairman Amodei:
That is an excellent question and I do not know the answer.
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 3-980, BDR 2-171, AND BDR 9-564.
SENATOR CARE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei:
Is there any other business to come before the committee? Seeing none, the committee is adjourned at 9:03 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Barbara Moss,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman
DATE: