H_JUD_2018A 03/15/2018 01:32:11 PM Committee Summary

Representatives Jackson and Roberts, co-prime sponsors, presented House Bill 18-1262, concerning the "Arbitration Services Provider Transparency Act".  Representative Jackson explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need.  Representative Roberts provided additional explanation of the bill. Representative Roberts responded to questions regarding the timing of the provision of information during arbitration proceedings.  Discussion ensued regarding amendment L.001 (Attachment A).

Mr. David Seligman, representing Towards Justice, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Seligman explained that HB 18-1262 is based on laws in other states, and provides for transparency. He provided background on arbitration laws, and discussed preemption in arbitration. Mr. Seligman responded to questions regarding certain arbitration regulations, and the effect of arbitration laws similar to HB 18-1262 passed in other states. Mr. Seligman responded to further questions regarding his interactions with arbitrators in Colorado, and the interplay between HB 18-1262 and the Uniform Arbitration Act. Discussion ensued regarding arbitration agreements built into contracts, and the amount of time it may take arbitrators to compile the information required to be reported by HB 18-1262. Discussion followed regarding the effect of the bill on arbitration fees, and the bill's enforcement measures.

Discussion continued regarding available remedies under HB 18-1262. Discussion ensued regarding the impact of the bill on "repeat player bias", and what constitutes forced arbitration. Mr. Seligman discussed the need to update arbitration laws, and responded to questions regarding arbitration language in employee handbooks.

Ms. Maya Mintzer, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Mintzer related the circumstances of her father's recent hospitalization, and discussed the arbitration agreement that the hospital attempted to impose. Ms. Mintzer responded to questions regarding the conditions under which the arbitration agreement was offered.

Ms. Michelle Webster, representing the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, testified in support of HB 18-1262. She discussed arbitration in the context of employment, and related benefits of the bill.  Ms. Webster responded to questions regarding how employment arbitration is biased against employees.

Ms. Regina Jones, representing the NAACP, testified in support of HB 18-1262.  She discussed the arbitration agreement associated with her employment, and other arbitration agreements binding on her family.  She discussed the need for transparency.  The committee recessed.

The committee returned to order. Representatives Beckman and Buckner, prime sponsors, presented HB 18-1065 concerning discipline of a Department of Human Services Employee when the employee is found to have mistreated a vulnerable person.  The bill was heard for action only.  The committee heard testimony on the bill at its February 8, meeting. Mr. Tony Gherardini and Ms. Sara Wager, representing the Department of Human Services, explained the effect of amendment L.003 (Attachment B).

The committee recessed.

The committee returned to order. The committee returned to considering HB 18-1262. Ms. Anne Meier, State Long-term Care Ombudsman, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Meier responded to questions regarding the frequency with which health care-related arbitration issues arise. She discussed the utility of arbitration, and supported transparency for consumers.

Ms. Christina James, representing 9to5, testified in support of the bill. Ms. James discussed sexual harassment in a former workplace, and the use of mediation and arbitration for sexual harassment complaints. Ms. Jones responded to questions regarding the conflict between a nondisclosure agreement and HB 18-1262.

Ms. Peg Perl, representing the Women's Lobby of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. She discussed the use of arbitration clauses in employment contracts, to include the mandated use of arbitration in civil rights cases. She spoke in support of oversight and transparency, as enabled by the bill.

Ms. Alma Jones and Mr. Sean Dormer, representing the Colorado Trial Lawyer's Association, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Jones related her experiences in suing a health insurance company over an automobile settlement, and discussed the need for more transparency in such cases. Mr. Dormer provided further details on the case, and supported the transparency elements of HB 18-1262. Mr. Dormer addressed questions raised during earlier testimony. He explained how the bill would improve the arbitration process. Mr. Dormer responded to questions regarding the details of Ms. Jones' case.

Mr. Dan Katz, representing COPIRG, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Katz discussed the increased use of arbitration, and the need to boost transparency. Mr. Katz responded to questions regarding the source of the increased use of arbitration clauses, and the types of arbitration information disclosed in states that have adopted laws similar to HB 18-1262.

Mr. Scott Wilkinson, representing the Colorado Association of Home Builders, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Wilkinson discussed the potential unintended consequences of the bill's reporting requirements, and explained how the bill would abrogate an arbitration-related court decision. Discussion ensued regarding a provision in HB 18-1261 that allows disqualification of an arbitrator. Discussion returned to the previously referenced court decision.

Mr. Daniel Combs, representing the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, the Colorado Civil Justice League, and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, testified in opposition to HB 18-1262. Mr. Combs explained how the current arbitration system is fair and transparent, and discussed the potential for the bill to negatively impact the civil justice system. Discussion ensued regarding an amendment that may address one of Mr. Combs' concerns. Discussion followed regarding preemption issues created by the bill. Discussion turned to how information about arbitrators is disseminated under current law.

Mr. Kenneth Bennington, representing JAMS, testified in opposition to HB 18-1262. Mr. Bennington discussed the processes observed by his firm, and the timing of injunctive relief. He also discussed a deficit of arbitrators, and registered some concerns with HB 18-1261. Mr. Bennington responded to questions regarding the qualifications and ethical guidelines that arbitrators must meet, and the burdens that would be placed on his firm by HB 18-1262.

Ms. Marianne Lizza-Irwin, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified on HB 18-1262, explaining some amendments that would benefit the bill. She also expressed some concerns with the bill. Ms. Lizza-Irwin responded to questions regarding the number of arbitration cases that have been resolved in the last five years in Colorado. Discussion ensued on this point, and on forthcoming amendments that may address the Colorado Bar Association's concerns.

Mr. Scott Guthmann, representing the AFL-CIO, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Guthmann discussed an arbitration agreement that a national bank required of its customers, and explained how the bill will improve transparency in arbitration matters.

Mr. Adam Fung, representing the AFL-CIO, testified in support of HB 18-1262. Mr. Fung discussed the case of the national bank alluded to by Mr. Guthmann, and lent his support to HB 18-1261.

Mr. Barry Roseman, representing the National Employment Lawyers Association, testified in support of HB 18-1262. He addressed issues raised during earlier testimony, and lent his support to HB 18-1261. Mr. Roseman responded to questions regarding the use of arbitration with certain fee stipulations, and certain concerns raised by the Colorado Bar Association on the bill.

Discussion ensued regarding amendment L.001.

Representative Roberts explained the effect of amendment L.002 (Attachment C).

Various committee members provided their positions on HB 18-1262. Representatives Jackson and Roberts provided closing remarks in support of the bill.

The committee recessed.

The committee returned to order. Representative Weissman, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 18-1261, concerning the "Colorado Arbitration Fairness Act".  Committee members received a packet of supporting information (Attachment D), and amendment L.001 (Attachment E).  Representative Weissman explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need.  Representative Weissman responded to questions regarding the potential for the bill to increase court dockets by redirecting arbitration cases to the courts, and the model for the disqualification language in the bill.

Discussion continued regarding the disclosure language in HB 18-1261.

Mr. Kevin Rhoades, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Rhoades discussed a recent scandal during which certain private information was stolen from a credit reporting agency, including his private information, and the arbitration clause included with the agency's products. He discussed arbitration clauses associated with the products of other companies.

Ms. Christina James, representing 9to5, and Mr. Ben Lebsack, representing the Colorado Trial Lawyers' Association and the Plaintiff Employee Lawyers Association, testified in support of the bill.  Ms. James discussed the benefits of the bill in terms of employment sexual harassment cases. Mr. Lebsack discussed what causes certain disparities in experiences when using various arbitration services.  Mr. Lebsack responded to questions regarding the need for legislation at the federal level to address arbitration issues. Discussion ensued on this point.

Mr. Ed Shackelford, representing the Colorado Senior Lobby, and Mr. Danny Katz, representing COPIRG, testified in support of HB 18-1261. Mr. Shackelford discussed the potential impact of the bill on cases involving assisted living facilities and condominiums, and related his experience with arbitration. Mr. Katz explained that the bill creates high standards of impartiality

Ms. Melody Moreshed, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. She discussed a student loan provider's control over arbitration and fees associated with the process. Ms. Anne Meier, State Long-term Care Ombudsman, testified in support of HB 18-1261. Ms. Moreshed responded to questions regarding her experiences with arbitration.

Ms. Alma Jones, representing herself, and Mr. Sean Dormer, representing the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Jones drew on her testimony for HB 18-1262 concerning an auto accident, and discussed her difficulties with the company involved. Mr. Dormer discussed the impact of arbitration legislation in other states, and pressure that companies apply in the arbitration process. Discussion ensued regarding arbitration as a cost driver in the housing market, and the impact of insurance costs.

Ms. Marianne Lizza-Irwin, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified in opposition to HB 18-1261. Ms. Lizza-Irwin expressed some concerns about the bill, and discussed some amendments that may improve the bill. Ms. Lizza-Irwin responded to questions regarding the potential for the bill to be amended to her satisfaction.

Mr. Daniel Combs, representing the Colorado Civil Justice League, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, the Colorado Competitive Council, and the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, testified in opposition to the bill. He discussed the breadth of the injunctive relief language in HB 18-1261

Mr. Barry Roseman, representing the Plaintiff Employee Lawyers Association, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Roseman compared ethical considerations between arbitrators and judges, and addressed concerns with the bill raised during earlier testimony. Discussion ensued regarding the potential conflict of HB 18-1261 with current laws that address recusal.

Representative Weissman explained the effect of amendment L.001.

The committee recessed.

The committee returned to order.

Representative Herod provided her position on HB 18-1261. Representative Weissman provided closing remarks in support of the bill.

Representatives Foote and Wist, prime sponsors, presented House Bill 18-1243, concerning enactment of a civil rape shield law. Representative Foote provided background on the issues addressed by the bill, and explained the need for the bill. Representative Wist provided input on the bill's merits.

Ms. Pamela Maass, representing herself, and Ms. Jane Klingensmith, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Maass explained the function of rape shield laws, and discussed the need to extend the law in Colorado to civil suits. Ms. Maass responded to questions regarding civil cases in Colorado where the rape shield law was necessary. Committee members received a letter from the Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center in support of the bill (Attachment F). Ms. Klingensmith recounted her experiences as a sexual assault victim subjected to tactics in court that would have been precluded by a rape shield law.

Ms. Anna Crawford, representing the Colorado Women's Lobby, and Ms. Medha Gudavalli, representing the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, testified in support of HB 18-1243. Ms. Crawford cited some data on sexual assault, and discussed the need for the legislation. Ms. Gudavalli discussed reasons why sexual assault victims avoid reporting crimes, and pressure facing those who report the crimes. She discussed the merits of the legislation. Discussion ensued regarding the rate at which rapes are reported to the police and prosecuted.

Ms. Jennifer Anderson, representing the Department of Law, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Anderson explained why the department supports the bill.

No amendments were offered to HB 18-1243. Various committee members, and the co-prime sponsors, provided closing remarks on the bill.

The committee recessed.

Representatives Wist and Foote, prime sponsors, presented House Bill 18-1211, concerning controlling Medicaid fraud.  Representatives Wist and Foote explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need. Representative Foote responded to questions regarding the position of the district attorneys on the bill.  Representative Foote explained the effect of amendments L.001 (Attachment G), L.002 (Attachment H), L.003 (Attachment I), L.005 (Attachment J), L.006 (Attachment K), and L.007 (Attachment L). He responded to some questions about the amendments. Ms. Jennifer Anderson, representing the Department of Law, addressed questions regarding the functions of the district attorneys and the Attorney General under amendment L.006. Representative Foote provided input on the issue. Discussion ensued regarding the funding arrangement under amendment L.006.

Mr. Robert Booth, representing the Department of Law, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Booth discussed the role of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, and provided input on the effect of HB 18-1211.

Ms. Anne Meier, State Long-term Care Ombudsman, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Meier discussed the function of her office, and reporting requirements in conjunction with the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

Ms. Jeanette Hensley, representing the Colorado Senior Lobby, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Hensley discussed the importance of Medicaid to senior populations, and the prevalence of fraud in Medicaid. Ms. Christina Johnson, representing the Colorado Senior Lobby, testified in support of HB 18-1211. Ms. Johnson discussed a case of Medicaid fraud perpetrated by a health care provider she sought care from, and patterns in Medicaid fraud.

Mr. Fred Miles, representing the Colorado Health Care Association , testified in support of the bill, with amendments. Mr. Miles discussed some concerns his organization had with the bill, that are addressed by the amendments. He noted the deleterious effects of Medicaid fraud.

Representatives Wist and Foote provided closing remarks in support of HB 18-1211.

Representative Weissman, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 18-1109, concerning discretionary parole of special needs offenders. Representative Weissman explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need. Committee members received a memorandum on special needs parole, produced by the Department of Corrections (Attachment M); a fact sheet supporting the bill (Attachment N); and amendment L.004 (Attachment O). Representative Weissman responded to questions regarding the position of victims rights organizations on the bill, and special needs parole legislation in other states. Discussion ensued regarding the types of offenses that are eligible for special needs parole.

Ms. Christina Rosendahl, representing the Department of Corrections, and Ms. Maureen Cain, representing the Office of the State Public Defender, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Rosendahl discussed the types of offenders that may be impacted by the bill, and the benefits of the legislation. Ms. Cain provided input on the population affected by HB 18-1109. Ms. Rosendahl responded to questions regarding the number of inmates that would qualify for parole under the bill.

Representative Weissman explained the effect of amendment L.004. Representative Weissman responded to questions regarding who has standing to raise competency in conjunction with a compassionate release.

Representative Weissman provided closing remarks in support of HB 18-1109.