►
From YouTube: 4/21/2021 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
A
The
public
is
strongly
encouraged
to
submit
written
testimony
in
advance
of
the
meeting
by
emailing
the
assembly
committee
on
commerce
and
labor
members
and
presenters
and
people
here
in
the
audience.
Please
remember
to
silence
your
electronics
committee.
Members
will
be
using
their
electronics.
Please
know
that
is
not
a
sign
of
inattention
or
disrespect.
That
is
how
many
of
us
view
exhibits
and
the
bills
that
we
are
hearing
today,
presenters
who
are
with
us
on
zoom.
A
Please
remember
to
be
muted
at
all
times
and
unmute
yourselves
to
speak
and
then
promptly
mute
yourself
when
you
are
done,
and
if
you
could
please
keep
your
cameras
on
so
that
we
can
continue
to
see
if
we
need
to
call
on
you
if
a
member
has
a
question.
Thank
you.
Everyone
again
and
let's
begin
with
our
first
agenda
item
today
we
have
three
bills
that
we
will
be
hearing.
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
35,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
private
investigators
licensing
board.
C
Thank
you
chair,
and
it
is
lovely
to
be
here
in
person.
Thank
you,
chair
hoagy
and
members
of
the
committee.
For
the
record.
My
name
is
jessica
adair.
Thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
present
senate
bill
35
a
bill
to
modernize
the
private
investigator
licensing
board,
commonly
known
as
the
pilb.
I
am
joined
virtually
by
kevin
ingram.
The
executive
director
of
the
pilb
in
1969,
the
nevada
legislature,
passed
sb-67,
a
bill
that
mandated
that
quote.
C
The
chairman
of
the
board
shall
be
the
attorney
general
or
deputy
attorney
general
designated
by
the
attorney
general
to
act
in
such
a
capacity.
End
quote.
The
statute
had
previously
required
that
the
chief
officer
of
the
nevada
highway
patrol
service,
chair
of
the
pilb,
according
to
the
lcb
research
division,
the
1969
senate
committee
on
transportation,
did
not
keep
minutes
of
its
meetings.
So
the
reasons
for
the
statutory
change
may
be
lost
to
history.
C
Much
has
changed
in
nevada
over
the
past
52
years
since
the
pilb
was
placed
in
the
ag's
office,
the
population
has
grown
to
3
million.
The
legislature
no
longer
typically
accepts
exhibits
via
western
union
telegram,
and
the
attorney
general
can
no
longer
serve
more
than
two
terms
as
the
times
change.
So
too
must
the
pil
be
in
2007.
The
nevada
state
legislature
passed
a
b
531,
which
removed
the
attorney
general
as
chair
and
created
a
separate
fund
in
the
ag's
office,
so
the
pilb
could
have
some
control
over
its
finances.
C
Fortunately,
those
minutes
do
exist.
Ab-531
was
sponsored
by
then-attorney
general
catherine.
Cortez-Masto.
Testimony
indicates
that
the
relationship
between
the
pilb
and
the
ag's
office
was
unique
even
14
years
ago.
No
other
occupational
licensing
board
was
financially
connected
to
the
ag's
office,
nor
was
the
aeg
a
member
of
any
other
licensing
board,
let
alone
serving
as
its
chair.
C
The
bill
before
you
today
adopts
authorizing
language
that
is
customary
for
many
other
occupational
licensing
boards
that
manage
their
own
funds
in
accordance
with
state
laws
and
fiduciary
obligations.
The
pilb
has
a
professional
staff,
fully
capable
of
managing
its
own
affairs,
and
the
existing
system
only
serves
to
create
needless
bureaucracy.
C
Thank
you
for
the
question,
assemblywoman
jessica,
for
the
record.
That
is
a
great
question
and
I
don't
know
so.
Last
session
we
were
not
able
to
submit
our
own
bdrs
they're
pre-filed
by
the
previous
attorney
general.
We
did
work
with
mr
ingram
to
submit
a
or
to
amend
an
existing
bill.
D
Thank
you,
chair
assemblywoman,
kasama
assembly
district
2.,
so
this
is
basically
making
it
a
self-funding
division
or
department,
and
it
looks
like
the
funds.
None
will
revert
back
to
the
general
fund.
It
will
just
remain
in
this
account.
How
much
is
currently
allocated
to
to
this
division
right
now,
funds
on
hand
for
this
division.
C
Thank
you
for
the
question
jessica.
Dare
for
the
record
so
currently
the
pilb
does
not
receive
any
general
fund,
but
you
are
correct
that
the
interest
that
is
gained
on
this
account
does
usually
refer
to
the
general
fund.
This
bill.
It
would
not
revert
to
the
general
fund,
and
that
was
the
exact
question
that
we
answered
in
front
of
the
senate
finance
committee.
When
this
bill
was
heard
on
the
senate
side,
I
believe
when
that
was
taken
up
in
senate
finance.
D
C
I
think
thank
you
for
the
question
jessica
there
for
the
record,
so
so
no
and
I
apologize
if
I
was
my
answer-
was
not
clear
so
right
now
the
pilb
is
already
self-funded
and
they,
I
believe,
have
reserves
up
to
six
months
on
hand
and
I'm
gonna.
Let
mr
ingram
correct
me
in
this
answer
so
right
now
there,
the
pilb
does
not
receive
any
general
fund.
It's
already
self-funded.
C
The
only
change
to
the
general
fund
would
be
the
interest
on
the
account
that
is
currently
sitting
in
the
ag's
office
as
it
is
now,
and
that
interest
is
about
thirty
thousand
dollars
a
year.
That
goes
to
the
general
fund,
but
it
is
already
a
self-funded
agency
that
is
funded
by
fees
from
licenses
for
the
pre,
the
folks
who
are
applying
to
become
licensed
through
the
pilb,
but
I'd
like
mr
ingram
to
weigh
in
here,
because
this
is
his
area
of
expertise.
E
Thank
you,
jessica,
kevin
ingram
for
the
record.
You
are
correct,
mr
mayor,
that
we
currently
have
a
reserve
funding
of
about
five
and
a
half
months
on
hand
right
now.
916
000,
our
annual
budget
right
now
is
about
a
2.6
million
dollar
budget
and
we're
required
to
carry
the
funds
over
from
the
previous
year
to
start
the
funding
for
the
next
fiscal
cycle,
which
again
starts
july
1..
E
Without
that
reserve
there
by
being
self-funded,
we
would
start
with
a
zero
balance
and
not
be
able
to
pay
the
bills.
So
we
carry
forward
any
remaining
balance
and
traditionally
it's
around
the
900
000
mark
right
now,
as
the
budget
sits,
we
have
about
1.2
million
in
the
budget
right
now,
that's
the
average
throughout
the
year
and
that's
what
accumulates
the
30
000
in
interest
for
the
state
general
fund,
once
removed
from
the
general
fund
and
set
up
as
all
the
other
boards
and
commissions
are.
E
We
are
totally
self-sufficient
with
covering
all
the
bills
as
we
do
now.
The
change
would
be
that
we
would
no
longer
be
part
of
the
state's
fiscal
system
and
therefore
would
have
to
set
up
our
own
bank
account
to
be
able
to
pay
and
receive
funding.
A
F
A
F
A
C
A
Okay
members.
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
senate
bill
90..
I
see
that
we
have
senator
hardy
here
with
us.
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
90,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
regulation
of
providers
of
health
care.
Welcome,
senator
hardy,
thank
you
for
joining
us
when
you're
ready.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
saw
the
sign
that
says
use
hand
sanitizer
before
you
use
the
button
to
speak,
we're
in
a
new
world.
I
appreciate
all
of
you
being
here
and
appreciate
the
opportunity
we
have
to
be
close
to
each
other
and
someday.
I
look
forward
to
not
having
a
mask.
G
It
is
not
unusual
for
any
professional
board
to
deal
with
complaints
without
merit
and
in
the
case
of
a
physician
being
investigated
for
even
a
complaint
without
merit,
the
physician
will
have
to
admit
to
having
been
quote
investigated
for
every
licensed
application
or
credentialing
form
for
an
insurance
network.
This
must
be
justified
and
verified,
which
slows
down
the
process
to
be
to
allow
to
be
allowed
to
treat
patients.
G
G
G
G
G
A
H
Hardy
hi,
my
name
is
dallin
hilton
and
I
am
a
nevadan
and
a
second
year
medical
student
at
toro
university
nevada.
I
intend
to
do
my
residency
here
in
nevada
after
medical
school,
and
I
also
intend
to
practice
here.
My
concern
is
that
if
anyone
contacts
the
board
with
a
complaint,
we
then
have
a
stigma
of
being
investigated
for
the
entirety
of
our
careers,
regardless
of
whether
the
complaint
was
notorious.
H
H
So,
if
the
complaint
is
without
merit
is
not
carried
forever
by
the
physician,
the
physician
will
not
carry
the
stigma
of
having
been
investigated
for
the
rest
of
his
or
her
career.
The
boards
will
still
look
into
complaints
and
take
actions
on
the
ones
that
merit
such
just
as
they
do
now.
This
is
just
a
change
in
the
wording
to
benefit
physicians
and
to
prevent
unintentional
or
unmerited
stigma.
H
I
Thank
you,
chair
hello,
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
for
the
record.
My
name
is
student,
dr
ryan
briggs,
and
I
am
a
second
year
medical
student
at
toro
university
in
nevada.
I
conducted
research
relating
to
this
topic
last
summer
and
you'll
find
our
poster
in
the
exhibits.
I
am
in
nevada
and
I
hope
to
match
into
a
nevada
residency
to
stay
in
practice
in
southern
nevada.
I
have
two
daughters
who
will
be
entering
into
the
clark
county
education
system.
I
The
oldest
has
expressed
her
desire
to
be
a
doctor
too,
as
a
future
practicing
physician
in
nevada.
I
am
in
support
of
sb90
I'm
concerned
that
if
anyone
contacts
the
board
with
a
complaint
within
the
board's
jurisdiction,
then
I
will
be
stigmatized
with
an
investigation.
Even
though
the
board
closes
the
complaint
with
no
action,
we
found
that
that
the
majority
of
complaints
are
closed
without
action.
This
means
that
physicians
will
have
to
answer
to
the
affirmative
when
asked.
A
I
Okay,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
for
the
record.
My
name
is
student,
dr
ryan
briggs.
I
am
a
second
year
medical
student
at
toro,
university
nevada.
I
conducted
research
relating
to
this
topic
last
summer
and
you'll
find
my
poster
in
the
exhibits.
I'm
a
nevadan
and
I
hope
to
match
into
a
nevada
residency
to
stay
in
practice
in
southern
nevada.
I
have
two
daughters
who
will
be
entering
into
the
clark
county
education
system
and
the
oldest
has
expressed
her
desire
to
be
a
doctor,
as
well
as
a
future
practicing
physician
in
nevada.
I
I
am
in
support
of
sb90
and
concerned
that,
if
anyone
contacts
the
board
with
a
complaint
within
the
board's
jurisdiction,
then
I
will
be
stigmatized
with
an
investigation.
Even
if
the
board
closes
the
complaint
with
no
action,
we
found
that
the
majority
of
complaints
are
closed
without
action.
This
means
that
physicians
will
have
to
answer
to
the
affirmative
when
asked
if
they
have
been
investigated
by
potential
employers
or
hospital
systems
with
which
they
are
applying,
even
though
no
wrongdoing
was
discovered,
this
could
affect
physician
retention
in
the
area
where
there's
already
a
physician
shortage.
I
As
my
colleagues
mentioned,
there
is
already
precedent,
there's
already
precedent
for
sb
90.
in
2017
assembly
bill
474
created
a
review
and
evaluation
of
complaints
relating
to
controlled
substance.
Prescriptions
under
that
law,
a
physician
does
not
have
to
claim
an
investigation
was
opened
if
the
executive
director
of
a
healthcare
governing
board
determines
that
the
licensee
has
not
issued
a
fraudulent,
illegal
or
unauthorized
or
other
or
otherwise
inappropriate
prescription
for
a
controlled
substance
senate
bill
90
will
standardize
that
all
complaints
be
treated
equally
under
the
law.
A
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
my
question
and
I'm
not
sure
who
would
be
best
suited
to
answer.
It
is
with
respect
to
the
investigations
and
I
don't
know
how
it
works,
and
so
I'm
I'm
asking
if
there's
an
investigation
is
the
conclusion
that
it,
the
the
claim,
was
without
merit
or
is
the
conclusion
that
they
were
without
sufficient
information
to
decide
one
way
or
another,
because
there's
a
difference.
If
there
are
several
similar
complaints
and
it's
one
person's
word
against
another,
that
doesn't
mean
it
was
without
mayor.
J
G
And
if,
if
you
may,
madam
chair,
could
I
have
dr
attorney
wendell
havens,
answer
that
or
give
his
testimony
at
the
same.
K
K
K
The
process
is
that
when
a
a
complaint
is
received,
there
is
a
judgment
made
is
in
the
in
the
board
process
of
whether
or
not
it's
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
board.
K
That
complaint,
then,
is
investigated
or
if
it's
a
involved,
controlled
substance,
it
by
law
goes
to
the
executive
director
or
the
executive
director's
designee,
and
then
that
it
is
further
information
is
obtained.
If
the
board
determines
that
there
is
insufficient
information
to
proceed
with
the
complaint,
then
the
claim
is
closed.
K
If
the
the,
if
there
is
sufficient
information
or
with
additional
expert
testimony,
there
is
sufficient
information
to
proceed,
then
a
formal
complaint
is
filed
against
the
licensee.
That's
how
the
process
works
for
to
answer
the
speaker's
question,
so
it
either
goes
forward
or
it's
closed
and
by
going
forward
a
formal
complaint
is
filed.
K
Claims
complaints
that
don't
have
sufficient
information
to
go
forward
and
that
are
closed
from
being
labeling
the
licensee
as
it
has
been
as
one
that
has
been
investigated,
rather
than
a
review
and
evaluation
conducted,
so
it
seems
reasonable.
This
applies
it's
going
to
go
and
assume.
If
it
passes
it
will
go
into
629,
so
it'll
actually
apply
to
all
the
title:
54
boards
and
occupations.
J
J
K
Secretary,
thank
you.
Yes,
weldon
havens.
Speaking
as
an
individual,
the
there
is
no
distinguishing
between
a
claim
that
is
without
merit
or
one
that
has
insufficient
evidence
to
proceed
to
a
formal
complaint.
J
Thank
you
and
one
one
more
follow-up,
and
this
is
a
practical
question
about
how
it
happens:
real
life.
If,
if
a
physician
ultimately
has
an
investigation
that
is
sustained
or
or
results
in
the
filing
of
a
formal
complaint,
would
they
then
be
able
to
go
back
and
look
at
any
of
the
previous
complaints
that
were
closed
to
see
if
it
was
involving
similar
conduct,
even
if
they
don't
have
to
acknowledge
it
because
it
wasn't
sustained
if
there
was
ultimately
one
that
was,
would
they
have?
K
Yes,
so
I'm
on
an
investigative
committee
for
the
board
again,
I'm
not
speaking
to
the
board,
there's
wild
and
havens.
I'm
sorry
again,
speaking
to
the
speaker,
the
answer
is
yes,
I'm
on
an
investigative
committee
of
the
board
and
we
receive
these
complaints
and
the
results
of
inquiry
into
the
complaint
and
we
have
when
we
make
a
judgment.
A
And
I
I'm
gonna
follow
up
on
what
speaker's
line
of
questions
were
mr
havens
and
so
the
you're,
taking
it
from
an
investigation
which
is,
if
they're,
if,
if
it's
found,
if
the
complaints
found
not
to
be
legitimate,
they
the
investigation
is
closed
and
it's
not
public.
Would
the
information
in
a
review
and
evaluation
be
public
or
private.
K
If
the,
if
there
is
no
action
well
inhabitants
to
the
chair,
if
there
is
no
action
taken,
that
is,
if
it
is
closed,
then
that's
not
available
to
the
public
currently
and
with
sp
90.
It
would
be
the
same.
A
K
L
I
hope
you're
doing
well
so
in
reading
the
bill-
and
I
had
a
lot
of
the
same
questions
that
that
speaker
had,
I
guess
I'm
gonna
go
to
the
portion
of
the
bill
where
this
just
doesn't
affect
doctors,
there's
a
lot
of
different
citations
in
here
for
a
lot
of
different
boards,
and
I
was
just
wondering
senator
hardy-
have
the
other
boards
weighed
in
on
this,
because
this
isn't
specifically
for
the
board
that
you're
here
and
a
member
of,
but
not
speaking
on
behalf
of,
but
I'm
just
wondering
was
this
circulated
to
the
other
boards
and
what
were
their
thought
processes
on
this,
because
each
board
believe
me.
G
L
And
fiscal
notes
relate
to
state
funding
and
all
boards
are
self-funded
so
naturally
there
wouldn't
be
a
fiscal
note.
So
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
My
my
concern
lies
with.
We
are
making
a
decision
that
will
impact
a
number
of
different
boards
across
the
spectrum.
That
may
not
have
this
particular
problem.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
B
G
Thank
you
assembly
when
o'neill
so
the
way
I
look
at
this
if
you're
a
physician
and
you
go
anywhere
and
apply
for
anything,
there's
little
boxes
that
you
check.
One
of
those
boxes
is,
have
you
ever
been
investigated,
so
this
is
if
they
are
reviewed
and
evaluated
and
that
they
have
not
had
a
problem
that
did
not
go
above
review
and
event
and
evaluation,
then
they
would
still
be
able
to
say
no.
I
have
not
been
investigated.
A
F
F
F
N
F
F
O
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
nice
to
be
here
on
the
80th
day
of
their
session,
my
name
is
keith
lee.
I
represent
the
state
board
of
medical
examiners.
We
are
the
licensing
and
regulatory
authority
over
the
allopathic
physicians,
nrs
630,
nrs,
chapter
630.,
and
I
just
want
to
clear
up.
O
We
take
no
position
on
the
on
the
policy
issue
you're
addressing
here,
but
at
least
my
understanding
of
where
we
went
in
the
testimony
and
the
answers
and
the
questions
today
is
that
might
be
some
confusion
with
respect
to
what
complaints
there
are
and
how
they're
handled-
and
if
I
may,
madam
chair,
there
are
essentially
two
types
of
complaints
we
refer
to
them
as
as
complaints,
one
is
a
complaint
that
we
call
a
consumer
complaint.
That
is
a
complaint.
O
O
It
doesn't
matter
what
the
complaint
is,
but
it's
opened
and
then
the
first
question
that
is
is
looked
at
is:
does
this
complaint
address
an
issue
that
the
board
of
medical
examiners
has
jurisdiction
over,
for
instance,
one
that
commonly
comes
in,
for
which
we
have
no
jurisdiction
under
chapter
630
is
a
is
a
billing
issue,
the
doc
over
billed
me
whatever?
O
O
The
second
type
of
complaint,
of
course,
is
the
one
that
that
were
where,
after
the
initial
investigation,
it
is
determined
there
is
a
potential
practice
act,
violation
or
probable.
The
the
statute
reads
a
reasonable
basis
for
it.
I
believe,
then,
that
complaint
is
open.
It's
investigated.
O
It
either
goes
to
hearing
or
non-punitive
action
or
is
dismissed
at
any
case
once
that
formal
complaint
is
filed
that
complaint
all
the
information
gathered
pursuant
to
that
complaint
and
the
ultimate
disposition
is
a
matter
of
public
record,
and
that
is
what
any
physician
or
any
licensee
has
to
report.
If
to
answer
the
question,
have
we
ever
been
investigated
with
that
man?
I'm
sure
I'll
try
to
answer
any
questions,
but
I
hope
that's
not
muddied
the
water
but
clarified
it,
but
I'll
I'll
try
to
answer
any
questions.
A
L
Madam
chair
good
afternoon,
mr
lee,
it's
very
nice
to
see
you
in
the
building.
Thank
you
so
you're
speaking
from
the
md
side
of
the
equation.
That's
that's
the
board.
That
you're
with
are
you
aware?
Is
this
same
provision
within
the
do
board
is
because-
and-
and
you
heard
my
concerns
earlier-
that
we're
making
a
change
that
I
believe
they're,
seeing
in
one
board
that
may
not
necessarily
hold
true
in
other
boards.
O
Nice
to
be
here,
assemblywoman
carlton
nice,
to
see
you
and
all
of
my
friends
and
some
of
you
I
have
not
yet
met.
I
hope
I
get
be
able
to
meet
you.
I
I
don't.
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
question.
I
do
know-
and
you
know
you
know
as
well
as
any
of
us-
that
we
have
tried
over
the
years
to
match
chapter
630
and
chapter
63,
so
that
if
it
applies
to
an
md,
it
I'd
apply
to
a
do
as
well,
and
so
so
I
can't
really
speak
to
that.
O
I
haven't
looked
at
that.
Maybe
dr
hardy
can,
but
I
know
our
goal
has
always
been
to
match
the
two,
and
so
if,
in
fact
it
has
been
matched,
then
I
would.
I
would
suspect
that
what
I've
related
to
you
is
how
we
handle
complaints
and
what
becomes
confidential.
What
becomes
public
would
be
the
same,
but
I
that's
presumption
on
my
part.
L
And
thank
you
and
I
know.
Over
the
years
we
have
tried
to
align
those
two
boards
as
much
as
possible
every
session
there's
usually
some
type
of
tweak.
That
needs
to
be
done.
So
I
think,
that's
probably
one
of
the
answers
to
a
number
of
these
questions
that
we
need
to
address
moving
forward.
But,
as
I
said
earlier,
my
big
concern
is
that
there
are
a
lot
more
boards
impacted
than
just
the
do
board.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
Members
any
other
questions
I
do
have
one
for
you,
mr
lee.
You
had
mentioned
that
when
a
complaint
comes
to
the
board,
if
it's
a
consumer
complaint
you,
the
first
thing
you
have
to
do
is
determine
whether
you
have
jurisdiction
over
that
complaint.
What
type
of
complaints
do
you
have
jurisdiction
over?
You
mentioned
a
billing
complaint,
you
don't
what
would
be
some
of
those
complaints.
O
Madam
chair
keith
lee
for
the
record,
I
don't
think
I
could
detail
them
now
without
looking
at,
they
are
provided
in
the
practice
act,
chapter,
630
and-
and
I
I
I
don't
know
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
it's
generally
with
respect
to
the
quality
of
care.
Whether
it's
been
a
malpractice
potential
malpractice,
sometimes
it
has
to
do
with
with
with
records
themselves.
O
As
many
of
you
are
aware,
we
have
a
a
substantial
health
record,
keeping
policy
both
in
the
state
and
under
hipaa
and
the
federal
so
there's
oftentimes
violations
with
respect
to
that.
But
I
think-
and
this
is
just
my
presumption
more
than
anything
madam
chair-
is
that
probably
most
of
the
complaints
have
to
do
with
the
quality
of
care.
O
With
your
permission
manager,
what
I
will
do
is
send
to
to
all
of
you
and
your
committee
committee
secretary.
The
provisions
of
chapter
630
that
that
are
would
constitute
a
violation
of
the
medical
practices
act.
A
That
would
be
great,
mr
lee,
if
you
could
send
it
to
our
committee
secretary
or
committee
manager,
so
she
can
distribute
it
to
the
committee
members.
I
do
have
a
couple
of
more
questions
for
you,
mr
lee,
so
so
you
had
also
mentioned
that
a
consumer
complaint
comes
in
and
you
you
have
jurisdiction
over
it.
You
assign
internal
investigator,
but
if
there
is
no
basis
to
go
forward,
then
you
don't
go
forward.
It's
not
considered
an
investigation.
They
don't
have
to
report
that
so
they
would
never
have
to
check
that
box.
A
That
says
they've
been
under
investigation
because
there
was
no
merit
for
an
investigation,
so
that
kind
of
alleviates
that
part,
I
think
that
they
were
trying
to
address
and
then,
if
there
is
enough,
merit
to
open
an
investigation.
That's
because
there
was
something
there
to
open
an
investigation
and
then
that's
when
they
would
go
unto
a
hearing.
A
And
if
the
hearing
outcome
was
you
know
there
was
you
know
it
wasn't
sufficient
or
you
know
there
was
no
merit,
then
it
would
remain
closed,
but
they
would
still
have
to
check
that
box
that
we've
been
investigated,
but
we
were
not
found
guilty
of
the
investigation,
okay
and
so
now,
if
sb
90
passes,
then
the
consumer
complaint
comes
in.
There's
no
there's
insufficient
merit.
So
then
that
that
goes
away.
But
if
there
is
merit
it
goes
to
the
investigation.
A
O
Madam
chair
keith
lee
for
the
record.
That's
my
understanding
of
you
are
correct
of
the
first
part
of
of
how
we
handle
it
under
current
law
and,
as
I
read
sb90,
I
think
the
way
you
you
stated
it
is
is
accurate,
the
but,
and
I
I
guess
I
and
I've
looked
at
sp
90
and
I've
read
it
and
I
believe
I'm
correct
in
that.
O
If
the
complaint
that,
if
the
informal
complaint
the
replay
the
complaint
we
received
pursuant
to
0.307
proceeds
to
a
formal
complaint,
then
I
think
under
sb90,
that's
still
a
reportable
that
the
the
practitioner
would
then
still
have
to
check
the
box
that
he
or
she
has
been
investigated.
If
I
understand
sb
90
correctly,.
A
O
A
F
A
P
Nothing
to
project
on
the
screen,
I'm
reading
from
notes
on
my
computer.
If
that's
okay,
all
right,
thank
you!
So
much
shareholding
and
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
commerce
and
labor.
My
name
is
melanie
schaible.
I
represent
the
ninth
district
of
the
senate
in
nevada
and
today,
I'm
here
to
present
senate
bill
103
for
your
consideration,
which
prohibits
property
insurers
from
discriminating
based
on
the
breed
of
dog
at
a
property.
P
Unfortunately,
some
dogs
are
unfairly
deemed
dangerous
or
vicious
solely
because
of
their
breed.
However,
animal
experts
will
tell
you
that
dogs
are
not
born
inherently
vicious.
Rather,
they
are
trained
to
behave
in
a
dangerous
manner
in
2013.
The
nevada
legislature
recognized
this
to
be
true
and
acted
by
banning
dog
breed
discrimination
and
nrs
202.500.
P
Currently,
21
states
like
nevada,
prohibit
local
authorities
from
adopting
or
enforcing
an
ordinance
or
regulation
that
deems
a
dog
dangerous
because
of
its
breed
alone.
In
2019,
we
again
enacted
pet-friendly
legislation
to
ensure
that
no
family
ever
has
to
choose
between
their
home
and
keeping
an
animal
family
member
assembly
bill.
161
made
it
clear
that
a
homeowner's
association
could
not
prohibit
a
unit
owner
from
keeping
at
least
one
pet
within
his
or
her
residence
subject
to
the
reasonable
restrictions
on
pet
ownership
and
senate
bill.
P
367
of
the
2019
session
authorized
a
tenant
of
housing
acquired,
constructed
or
rehabilitated
with
any
money
from
the
account
for
low
income
housing
to
keep
one
or
more
pets
within
his
or
her
residence.
Although
nevada
has
made
strides
to
become
a
pet
friendly,
state
residents
are
still
finding
themselves
in
a
position
where
insurance
companies
are
making
them
choose
between
being
able
to
obtain
or
afford,
or
maintain
property
insurance
or
give
up
their
dogs
to
animal
shelters.
P
Many
insurance
companies
consider
a
dog's
breed
when
deciding
whether
to
offer
an
individual
homeowners,
insurance
or
the
rate
they
will
charge.
Even
though
research
has
demonstrated
that
there
is
no
reliable
data
supporting
making
a
distinction
between
breed,
nor
is
there
evidence
that
insurance
claims
for
these
breeds
is
financially
significant
for
insurers
in
a
list
of
factors
utilized
in
underwriting
homeowner
policies
provided
to
me
by
the
american
property
casualty.
Insurance
association
breed
of
dog
is
nearly
unique
in
its
targeted
application,
based
on
a
homeowner's
lifestyle
decisions
unrelated
to
the
condition
of
their
home
or
property.
P
P
If
you
have
these
having
a
wood
furnace
or
wood
stove
having
a
swimming
pool
operating
a
business
in
your
home
and,
finally,
the
type
of
pets,
you
home,
the
type
of
pets
you
own,
apparently,
insurance
underwriters
are
concerned
about
whether
homeowners
have
mutts
adopted
from
the
local
shelter,
but
do
not
consider
whether
homeowners
keep
loaded
guns
in
an
accessible
area
of
their
home.
When
determining
the
amount
of
insurance
they're
going
to
charge.
P
The
chart
in
the
opposing
testimony
also
does
not
provide
any
connection
between
the
cost
of
a
dog
bite
claim
of
the
alleged
breed
of
dog
and
the
delegate
of
dog
involved.
A
rise
in
the
volume
or
cost
of
dog
bite.
Claims
on
the
whole
does
not
indicate
that
a
certain
breach
breed
is
more
dangerous
than
others.
In
addition,
the
written
testimony
provided
by
the
national
association
of
mutual
insurance
companies
has
absolutely
no
citations
to
any
scientific,
academic
or
other
authorities
to
support
its
claim
that
certain
breeds
of
dogs
are
more
dangerous
than
others.
P
P
P
In
closing,
I
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
this
bill
and
I
urge
your
support.
I'm
also
joined
by
susan
riggs
of
the
american
association
to
prevent
cruelty
against
animals
and
if
you
will
allow
her
to
provide
some
comments
and
elucidate
the
importance
of
the
bill
and
the
and
the
structure
of
the
policy.
Thank.
A
A
P
Dixon
is
here
to
answer
questions,
but
if
we
could
get
miss
riggs
back
online.
A
Q
Oh
good,
okay,
it's
strange
because
I
tested
my
mic
before
too
well
good
afternoon,
chair
hodagi
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
susan
riggs
and
I'm
senior
director
of
state
legislation
with
the
aspca
and
thank
you
senator
scheibel,
for
your
comments.
As
mentioned
in
2013,
this
esteemed
body
passed
assembly
bill
110,
sponsored
by
your
colleague,
the
honorable
james
orenshall,
the
bill
prohibited
government
regulation
of
dogs
based
upon
breed
throughout
the
state
in
favor
of
a
paradigm
that
addressed
the
nature
of
an
individual
dog
based
upon
its
behavior.
Q
At
that
time,
then
assembly
member
orange
law
was
quoted
as
saying
it
has
always
been
a
bad
public
policy
to
enact
ordinances
that
target
a
certain
breed
of
dog.
Without
considering
that
individual
dog's
actions,
the
statement
captures
the
growing
consensus
among
both
the
public
and
private
sector
that
breed
specific
laws
have
failed.
At
the
time
of
ab-110's
passage,
there
were
14
states
that
explicitly
prohibited
re-specific
regulation
of
dogs,
and
this
number
has
now
grown
to
21
states
and
many
many
jurisdictions
throughout
the
country.
Q
So,
first
identification
by
breed
by
appearance
is
wholly
imperfect,
endeavor
even
by
experts.
The
national
canine
research
council
has
written
extensively
about
the
weakness
of
visual
identification
of
dog
breeds,
citing
numerous
expert
studies.
The
overwhelming
conclusion
is
that
it
is
highly
flawed
if
you're
in
doubt.
I
challenge
each
of
you
to
do
a
web
search
for
breed
identification.
Q
Quizzes,
like
the
one,
that's
included
in
our
letter
to
you
in
support
of
sv103
and
try
your
hand
at
it,
even
as
an
animal
welfare
professional,
I'm
regularly
unable
to
identify
the
breeds
featured
in
the
quizzes
that
said,
property
insurance
companies
regularly
rely
upon
visual
identification
of
dog
breeds.
So,
as
the
saying
goes,
garbage
in
garbage
out
the
reliance
on
breed
in
determining
insurance
coverage
results
in
is
inaccurate
and
inequitable
outcomes
that
should
be
corrected.
Q
The
approach
has
been
shown
time
and
time
again
to
be
short-sighted,
knee-jerk
reaction
to
regulation
that
does
no
does
more
to
degrade
public
safety
than
improve
it
and
nevada
has
already
acknowledged
the
facts
and
sciences
and
determin
in
an
existing
dangerous
dog
law,
and
yet
the
law
isn't
as
effective
as
it
could
be.
As
long
as
households
with
restricted
breeds
are
denied
insurance
coverage,
it's
important
to
note
that
this
bill
would
not
hinder
insurance
companies
underwriting
of
particular
risks.
Q
Q
Furthermore,
the
legislation
specifically
reserves
insurers
latitude
to
cancel,
refuse
to
issue
or
renew
or
to
increase
premiums
for
households
in
which
a
residence
dog
of
any
breed
has
been
found
to
be
dangerous.
Pursuant
to
section
202.500
and
in
direct
response
to
conversations
with
industry
groups,
we
have
amended
the
bill
in
the
assembly
to
broaden
the
standard
under
which
an
insurance
company
can
underwrite
potential
risks
associated
with
dogs.
Q
As
such,
it
strikes
a
reasonable
balance
between
insurers
underwriting
autonomy
and
the
various
ill
effects
of
insurance
companies,
treating
all
dogs
of
certain
breeds
as
bad
dogs
and
punishing
the
people
who
live
with
them.
Wisely.
Nevada
state
law
has
for
years
required
government
entities
to
create
more
effective
policies
for
regulating
dangerous
dogs.
We
ask
for
your
eye
vote
on
sb
103
to
ask
companies
providing
property
insurance
in
your
state
to
be
held
to
the
same
standard.
A
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and,
and
thank
you
senator
good,
to
see
you
here
and
thank
you.
I
actually
think
this
is
a
sound
policy.
I
noticed
in
one
of
the
exhibits,
the
listing
of
brees,
akita
of
of
of
which
was
one
of
them
and
I
have
to
say
I
had
an
akita
for
14
years.
That
was
the
sweetest
dog
I've
ever
had,
but
I
also
have
a
lab
right
now.
J
That
is
a
terror,
and
so
my
my
question
is:
would
this
prohibit
a
decision
based
not
specifically
on
the
breed
for
breed's
sake
but
size,
because
I
think,
if
you're
in
a
community,
for
example
with
small
children-
and
there
are
some
limitations,
because
a
big
dog
might
not
be
aggressive
but
might
be
a
big
dog
that
might
be
more
prone
by
virtue
of
its
size
to
to
result
in
an
injury
to
a
child,
for
example?
Would
this
pro
prohibit?
J
I
mean,
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
if
I
move
into
an
apartment-
and
I
have
a
dog-
that's
12
pounds,
but
it's
a
puppy
and
it
ends
up
being
a
breed,
a
great
name,
and
so
over
time.
It's
going
to
get
bigger
there.
I
guess
I'm
wondering
if
there
is
a
use
for
inquiry
into
a
breed
for
the
purpose
of
assessing
it,
not
because
of
the
danger
of
the
breed,
but
because
it
might
be
big
and
they
might
have
an
issue
with
wanting
to
to
not
have
a
large
dogs,
for
example.
P
Thank
you
for
the
question
melanie
scheible
for
the
record,
and
I
think
that
the
answer
can
kind
of
be
found
in
nrs
202.500,
which
is
the
dangerous
and
vicious
dogs
policy
or
the
statute
in
nevada,
and
the
short
answer
to
your
question
would
be
that
they
can
still
inquire
about
the
size
of
the
dog.
That
is
still
a
valid
consideration.
P
But
the
this
positive
question
is
whether
or
not
the
dog
is
dangerous
or
vicious,
so
size
could
certainly
play
into
danger,
but
nrs
202.500
gives
both
parties,
whether
you
know
and
which,
in
this
case,
would
be
a
person
who
owns
a
pet
and
an
underwriting
company
or
insurance
underwriter,
both
of
them
opportunities
to
go
through
a
series
of
factors
that
weigh
the
animal's
dangerousness.
So,
for
example,
a
very
large,
very
young,
very
active
dog,
might
also
be
different
from
a
very
large,
very
old
and
feeble
dog.
P
Q
So
existing
nevada
law
actually
does
prohibit
insurance
companies
from
utilizing
underwriting
standards
that
are
arbitrary
and
capricious,
and
so
in
order
to
there's
no
prohibition
in
sb-103
from
asking
about
that.
But
they
would
need
to
establish
that
there
is
a
relationship
between
the
size
of
the
dog
and
the
propensity
to
bite
and
that
that's
exactly
at
the
heart
of
why
we
brought
sb
103
forward.
What
often
happens-
and
some
of
you
may
have
received
emails
from
folks
asserting
you
know
certain
dangers
associated
with
certain
breeds
of
dogs.
B
Duran.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
senator
scheivel,
for
bringing
the
bill
forward.
My
concern
is
what
are
some
of
the
circumstances
that
an
insurer
would
be
allowed
or
are
canceling
your
policy
out,
and
does
it
just
the
dog
portion
of
it
or
is
it
your
entire
policy.
P
If
I'm
understanding
the
question
correctly
you're
asking
what
what
the
current
practices
that
we're
trying
to
stop
and
what
we
are
seeing
is
that
there
are
individuals
who-
and
I
think
this
is
you-
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
what
you
meant
to
do.
But
you
bring
up
another
interesting
point
where
individuals
who
are
not
disclosing
animals
on
their
property
or
not.
P
Giving
accurate
information
to
insurance
companies
about
the
types
of
dogs
that
are
on
their
property
are
able
to
renew
their
insurance
policies,
which
are
generally
homeowners,
insurance
policies
or
renters
policies
that
cover
your
basic
property
and
casualty
insurance.
For
you
know,
that's
what
most
of
us
walk
around
carrying
and
then
people
who
honestly
tell
their
insurers.
P
Oh
I
got
a
and
akita
this
year
will
suddenly
see
that
their
policy
has
been
cancelled
and
they
will
that
insurer
will
refuse
to
renew
the
policy
or
they
will
refuse
to
renew
that
particular
policy
and
say
you
have
to
buy
this
more
expensive
policy.
If
you're
going
to
have
an
akita
in
this
house
that
we
previously
insured
at
this
other
rate
and
if
I'm
not
sure
if
I
said
that
I'm
melanie
scheible
for
the
record.
P
It
would
generally
happen
during
the
renewal
phase
that
that
the
policy
would
be
canceled
and
that
would
be
a
different
provision
of
nrs,
which
I
am
also
learning
about.
As
a
new
member
of
commerce
and
labor
on
the
senate
side
and
what
information
the
insurance
company
is
required
to
share
with
you.
D
Thank
you
chair.
I've
had
dogs,
my
my
whole
life,
and
when
I
was
younger,
I
had
a
labrador
that
must
have
been
a
cousin
to
speaker,
fryerson's
lab
because
it
wanted
to
kill
every
dog
it
ever
saw,
which
is
unusual
for
for
labs.
But
my
question
is
when
I
I
I'm
looking
at
the
chart
presented
by
the
insurance
company
and
it
talks
about
the
15-year
us
dog
bite
fatality
chart
from
2005-2019,
and
I
understand
what
the
testimony
has
been
about.
D
Perhaps
there's
no
scientific
evidence
as
to
why
one
dog
is
more
vicious
than
another,
but
it
shows
here
the
fatality
chart
and
clearly
it
shows
you
know
an
overwhelming
percentage
for
certain
breeds
and
so
how?
How
does
that
all
work
when
the
insurance
companies
are
risk?
You
know
they
use
risk
analysis
for
their
pricing
and
it
seems
to
me,
like
that's
just
a
fact
of
what
they're
dealing
with.
D
How
do
you
work
with
the
insurance
company
when
they're
trying
to
I
mean
insurance
is
risk-based
pricing?
How
does
this
fit
into?
This
seems
to
me
this
is
just
factual,
so.
P
Thank
you
for
the
question.
This
is
melanie
scheible
for
the
record,
and
I
wish
I
could
make
a
determination
as
to
whether
or
not
it
was
factual.
What
I
asked
apcia
for
was
the
data
that
they
utilized
to
input
to
their
actuarial
calculations
because
insurance,
as
you
said,
it
is
a
risk-based
cost
assessment,
and
so
you
have
to
be
using
some
kind
of
number.
I
asked
them.
Do
you
utilize
this
number
and
they
said?
No,
that's
that's
from
dogbites.org.
P
I
don't
know
where
this
number
comes
from
and
if
you
hear
frustration
in
my
voice,
it's
because
I
am
frustrated.
I
am
willing
to
engage
in
a
robust
conversation
with
the
insurance
industry,
about
the
data
that
they're
utilizing
and
you
know
I'm
open
to
to
learning
new
facts
and
adjusting
the
the
bill
and
even
adjusting
my
position.
But
what
we
haven't
been
presented
with
are.
Okay,
here
are
statistics
from
a
reputable
source.
We
utilize
this
statistic
to
calculate
this
risk,
whereas
we
can
do
that
with
other
things
we
can.
P
They
can
provide
us
with
information
in
car
insurance
and
saying
that
okay,
cars
without
seat
belts,
not
that
there
are
any
anymore,
but
you
know
we
can
look
at
the
transportation
authorities,
numbers
on
accidents
of
certain
kinds
of
cars
or
cars
of
certain
features
or
without
certain
features.
We
can
look
at
the
number
of
homeowners
claims
that
come
from
a
roof
made
of
a
certain
material,
and
we
can
talk
to
the
fire
department
about
roofs
that
tend
to
catch
on
fire
and
don't
catch
on
fire.
P
Q
So
again
the
citation
is
missing,
so
we
really
don't
know
where
the
data
is
coming
from,
but
I
can
tell
you
based
upon
experience,
the
data
that
has
been
utilized
in
prior
correspondence
hasn't
utilized
any
scientific
methodology
for
identifying
what
the
actual
breed
is.
Q
Bull
is
not
necessarily
at
all
a
pit
bull
and
you
will
find
that
that's
the
case,
time
and
time
again,
and
there
have
been
many
many
scientific
studies
that
that
support
the
fact
that
visual
identification
is
a
very
accurate
way
to
proceed
with
making
policy,
and
that
is
why
so
many
states,
and
so
many
jurisdictions
now
preclude
that
and
just
rely
upon.
The
behavior
of
the
particular
individual
dog.
A
Thank
you
thank
you
and
senator
scheible.
I
just
just
because
I
need
to
keep
the
record
clear,
but
I
am
looking
at
one
of
the
exhibits
provided
and
the
chart
that
shows
the
number
of
bytes
for
breeding.
Just
for
the
record
clear,
because
you
said
there
was
no
citation,
it
does
have
a
citation
on
there.
P
I
I
I
and
are
we
looking
at
th?
This
is
melanie's
tribal
for
the
record.
Is
this
the
exhibit
dated
wednesday
april
21st?
This
isn't.
This
is
new
and
I
do
see
what
you're
referring
to
for.
If,
if
I
could
clarify.
P
Okay,
melanie,
I
will
for
the
record.
I
am
looking
at
a
letter
dated
today
wednesday,
the
21st
of
april
from
the
american
property
casualty
insurance
association,
and
indeed
they
have
cited
to
a
study
from
the
mid
90s
from
the
cdc
they
provided
a
link
to
that,
and
I
see
that
the
the
chart
that
they've
put
in
their
letter
is
also
available
at
that
link.
A
B
You,
madam
chair,
thank
you
senator
schreibel,
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
I
have
a
question.
The
bill
itself
does
not
prohibit
an
insurance
company
from
asking
an
owner
of
an
animal,
their
history
if
they
have
been
sort
of
repeatedly
sued
for
dog,
for
dog
bites
or
for
to
determine
whether
or
not
that
owner
needs
a
higher
level
of
insurance
as
a
lifelong,
don't
dog
and
animal
owner
and
rescue
owner.
P
P
M
Yes,
thank
you
so
much
madam
chair
and
thank
you
senator
schaible
good,
to
see
you
in
this
committee
and
in
person
here
and
so
as
I
summarize
what
this
bill
is
doing.
We're
essentially
we're
we're
moving
from
blanket
prohibitions
against
a
breed
to
behavior,
and
I
appreciate
you
referencing
nrs
202.500,
because
I
do
read
here
to
follow
up
with
my
colleague
that
there's
you
actually
have
it
written
in
under
section
one
subsection:
two
that
that
they
can
ask
that
the
insurance
company
can
ask
about
the
the
basis
of
a
particular
dog.
M
So
that's
that
piece
of
asking
about
past
behavior,
according
to
nrs
202.500..
Now
I'm
looking
at
nrs
202.500
and
cross-referencing
it
with
your
subsection
three,
which
is
an
insurer,
may
not
ask
or
inquire.
Let's
see,
I'm
sorry
back
to
that
subsection
two.
So
they
can
ask
based
on
whether
or
not
the
dog
is
known
to
be
dangerous
or
vicious.
So
then
that
puts
it
on
the
owner
to
answer
honestly
right.
So
so
we
can't
ask
you
know:
hey
how
many
dogs
do
you
have
and
what
breeds
are
they?
But
we
can
ask.
P
P
So
this
bill
in
particular
does
not
create
a
special
sanction
or
a
special
penalty
for
answering
a
question
about
a
dog
owned
or
harbored
on
the
property,
inaccurately
or
untruthfully.
But
you
know
just
like
any
other
question:
if
there
is
intentional
fraud
or
deceit
that
could
have
criminal
liability
and
could
certainly
have
civil
liability
with
the
insurance
company
there-
and
something
else
I
think
is
important
to
point
out-
is
that
nrs2
2.500.
P
It
could
and
would
be
utilized
by
the
the
person
who
owns
the
dog,
but
it
also
gives
the
opportunity
for
an
insurance
company
or
another
third
party
to
utilize
the
same
criteria
in
in
developing
their
own
position.
So
a
way
that
we
might
see
that
play
out
is
if
there
is
a
particular
animal
with
a
particular
problem
and
the
insurance
company
wants
to
raise
somebody's
rates
that
insurance
company
could
conduct
an
investigation,
which
I
know
sounds
very
formal.
P
But
what
I
mean
is
you
know
if
they
pulled
the
information
from
the
two
court
cases
or
the
one
police
report
that
shows
that
the
dog
meets
these
requirements,
then
that's
sufficient,
you
don't
need
a
certificate
of
viciousness.
You
just
need
to
meet
the
the
elements
set
forth
in
nrs
202.500
and
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
M
Madam
chair,
yes,
thank
you.
I
think
you
answered
my
question
that
at
least
in
this
legislation
we
don't
have
any
kind
of
penalty
attached
for
the
owner,
not
being
honest,
but
there
that
might
find
fall
somewhere
else
and
that's
something
I
could
follow
up
with
insurance
industry
on
and
then
follow-up
question
so
again.
Reading
this,
and
particularly
the
word
canceling
or
refusing
to
renew,
stood
out
to
me,
there's
nothing
in
this
legislation.
A
And
I
have
a
question
just
following
up
on
my
colleagues
question,
so
I
know
the
insurance
companies
can
ask
those
qualifying
questions.
They
can't
ask
about
breed,
but
they
can
ask.
Does
your
dog
have
a
record?
Have
they
previously
bitten?
Anyone
before
you
know?
Does
the
county
have
any
records
of
them
acting
dangerously?
A
P
Melanie
shy
before
the
record-
and
I
think
that
is
the
kind
of
case
where
an
insurance
company
would
be
able
to
deny
that
claim,
and
that
would
go
through
the
normal
legal
process
that
any
insurance
company,
any
insurance
provider
and
an
insured
person
go
through
whenever
a
claim
is
denied
based
on
inaccurate,
false
fraudulent
information
and
I'll
just
compare
it
to
a
car
insurance
again,
you
know
if
I
fill
out
if
I
get
car
insurance
by
stating
that
I've
never
been
involved
in
an
accident
and
I'm
involved
in
an
accident,
and
I
try
to
get
my
insurance
company
to
cover
it
that
might
provoke
them
to
do
more
record
searching
than
they
did
when
they
first
provided
my
insurance,
if
they
discovered
that
actually,
I
was
involved
in
a
car
accident
six
years
ago.
P
There
was
a
judgment
against
me.
I
didn't
report
it
to
them.
When
I
first
got
my
car
insurance,
I
think
they
very
likely
would
then
refuse
to
cover
my
the
accident
I'm
asking
to
cover
at
this
time
and
they
would
likely
win
in
court
because
I
didn't
disclose
the
earlier
accident,
even
though
they
asked
me
about
it.
So
it's
not
a
perfect
comparison,
but
I
think
that
those
structures
of
the
law
are
already
in
place
to
protect
insurance
companies
from
that
kind
of
fraud.
A
P
A
A
F
R
Yes,
chair
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
angela
pelvic
and
I
represent
the
combat
wounded
veterans
of
the
purple
heart
in
nevada,
the
65
to
70,
000,
disabled
american
veterans,
state
of
nevada
and
I'm
the
current
chair
of
the
legislative,
united
veterans
legislative
council,
which
represents
250
000
veterans
in
our
state,
you're,
probably
wondering
why
we're
interested
in
this
bill.
Many
of
our
veterans,
both
young
and
old,
have
service
dogs
and
some
service
dogs
in
training,
and
they
are
all
breeds.
R
Some
of
those
that
are
even
highlighted
in
the
reports
today
are
some
of
the
breeds,
so
all
dogs
can
be
friendly
and
all
dogs
can
be
safe
and
good
to
be
around.
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
the
testimony
that
sometimes
it's
the
owners
that
make
the
dogs
the
way
they
are,
but
we're
in
support
of
sb
103
and
all
the
veterans
in
our
state
need
this
bill
to
pass.
Thank
you.
F
F
F
S
Thank
you,
madam
seniors
here
and
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
elizabeth
jay
and
I
am
providing
testimony
on
support
of
the
bill.
I'm
calling
in
on
behalf
of
heaven
can
wait.
We
are
a
las
vegas-based
non-profit
that
serves
animals
and
their
families
for
the
past
20
years.
Heaven
can
wait,
has
worked
towards
ending
euthanasia
in
our
community
through
providing
life-saving
spay
and
neuter
services,
as
well
as
high
impact
adoption
and
foster
programming
focusing
on
animals
who
may
be
considered
at
higher
risk
for
euthanasia
in
a
typical
shelter
environment.
S
Unfortunately,
we've
found
that
dogs
view
to
be
bully
breeds
are
more
likely
to
be
found
in
the
shelter
environments
and
more
likely
to
come
through
our
adoption
programme.
Our
top
priority,
when
facilitating
adoptions
is
to
make
sure
that
dogs
who
graduate
from
our
program
find
families
who
are
the
right
fit
for
them.
Although
these
dogs
may
have
special
needs
or
medical
requirements,
this
does
not
mean
that
they
are
any
less
deserving
of
a
loving
home.
S
There's
nothing
more
discouraging
in
our
line
of
work
than
to
find
a
loving
and
caring
home
for
a
dog
only
to
find
that
the
home
is
unsuitable
because
of
outdated
and
unfounded
beliefs
about
the
behaviors
of
certain
breeds.
In
our
larger
effort
to
provide
equitable
accesses
to
resources
for
animals
and
their
families.
We
believe
that
banning
insurance
for
breed
restrictions
will
allow
us
to
better
serve
our
community
and
keep
the
aforementioned
animals
out
of
shelters.
S
F
N
N
F
N
N
Dangerous
dog
statues,
which
we
already
have
in
leash
laws,
do
but
free
discrimination
does
tear
loving
families
apart,
resulting
in
good
dogs
being
surrendered
into
our
sheltering
system.
It
clearly
harms
dogs
and
nevadans
who
love
them.
These
good
dogs
then
sit
in
kennels
for
longer
periods
of
time,
because
breed
discrimination
reduces
available
loving
homes.
There
is
nothing
sadder
and
more
frustrating
than
finding
a
loving
home
for
a
dog
who
already
has
a
loving
home.
It
is
a
depressing
waste
of
time.
Energy
and
very
limited
resources
in
animal
welfare.
N
Here
is
a
real
life
example
from
dozens
of
examples
that
happens
in
our
adoption
center.
Each
and
every
year
a
broken
man
comes
in
with
his
two
young
daughters.
He
is
shut
down
and
defeated.
His
daughters
are
sobbing
soaking,
the
fur
of
their
beloved
rescue
mixed
breed
dog,
who
is
licking
their
tears
away,
which
only
makes
their
crying
worse.
N
This
dog
has
been
by
the
man's
side
as
his
life
has
taken
a
turn
for
the
worst.
He
has
lost
his
job.
His
wife
died
two
years
earlier
and
the
dog
who
comforted
him
and
his
young
daughters
through
life's
tragedies
now
also
has
to
leave
them
because
the
only
affordable
apartment
he
can
find
doesn't
allow
pit
bulls.
N
His
well-trained
sweet,
friendly
dog
has
a
blocky
head
and
the
landlord
says
they
can't
allow
him
because
their
insurance
won't
cover
pit
bulls.
Is
it
a
pit
bull?
Maybe
maybe
not,
but
regardless
this
dog
is
not
a
safety
risk.
He
is
a
loving
family
member,
but
it
doesn't
matter
because
this
man
is
now
forced
to
surrender
him
and
he
feels
like
a
failure
and
the
worst
dad
in
the
world.
Please
pass
this
bill
and
keep
nevada's
families
together.
A
We
appreciate
your
testimony.
We
do
have
to
move
on
to
the
next
caller.
I
have
a
few
people
signed
up
to
testify,
but
if
you
do
have
your
testimony
in
writing,
I
would
appreciate
it
if
you
could
send
it
to
our
committee
manager
so
that
she
can
include
it
in
the
meeting
record.
Thank
you,
ms
dobbs
broadcasting.
Next
caller,
please.
F
T
T
Such
discrimination
can
lead
to
a
difficult
decision
of
either
giving
up
their
dog
or
potentially
going
homeless.
The
dogs
that
are
affected
are
typically
wonderful.
Family
dogs
who
score
higher
on
temperament
testing
than
any
other
favorite.
The
many
other
favorite
feeds
additionally,
government
organizations
such
as
the
cdc
and
non-profit
organizations
such
as
american
society
for
the
prevention
of
animal
cruelty
have
conducted
studies
that
conclude
that
specific
rediscrimination
is
ineffective.
T
Furthermore,
it
also
does
not
address
the
real
underlying
issue
of
irresponsible
pet
ownership.
The
key
components
of
preventing
dog
fights
or
aggressive
behavior
are
appropriate,
socialization
and
training
with
other
dogs
and
people,
neutering
and
proper
education
for
pet
owners
and
other
community
members.
T
As
somebody
who
teaches
and
works
with
kids
frequently
at
our
camps.
When
people
walk
past
with
dogs,
many
kids
want
to
go
pet
dogs,
but
we
make
sure
to
tell
our
campers
that
it's
important
to
always
ask
owners
first
and
to
not
overcrowd
the
dog.
This
is
not
always
in
knowledge
or
frequently
pause.
As
a
result,
it's
far
more
important
to
not
recognize
specific
dog
breeds
nor
dog's
weight
but
irresponsible
or
negligent
owners
and
lack
of
education.
I
urge
you
to
pass
this
bill
for
the
sake
of
both
responsible
owners
and
dogs.
A
Thank
you
broadcasting.
I
would
now
like
to
come
back
to
testimony
and
support
on
zoom.
Mr
dixon.
I
see
that
you've
joined
us
when
you're
ready.
I
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
on
commerce
and
labor.
My
name
is
jeff
dixon
for
the
record.
That's
juliet
echo
foxtrot,
foxtrot
delta,
indigo
x-ray,
oscar
november,
I'm
the
I'm.
The
nevada
state
director
for
the
humane
society
of
the
united
states
and
we
are
in
support
of
sb-103
breed
discrimination
and
housing
is
one
of
the
obstacles
keeping
pets
with
their
people
and
people
who
want
a
pet.
It
creates
more
surrenders
by
and
by
reducing
the
available
homes
for
shelter
animals.
I
I
It
is
not
easy
for
customer
for
consumers
to
choose
their
insurance
firm.
We
have
a
high
share
of
people
who
don't
own
their
homes
and
a
high
share
of
homeowners
who
live
in
hoas
landlords
in
hoa
have
their
own
insurance
policies,
leaving
individuals
and
families
to
the
dictates
of
insurance
policies
that
they
did
not
choose.
I
We
support
breed
neutrality
because
there's
no
reliable
evidence,
as
others
have
pointed
out,
showing
a
predictive
relationship
between
genetics
and
by
propensity,
given
that
lack
of
evidence
what
explains
rediscriminatory
policies
for
one.
It's
obvious
that
most
of
these
dogs
listed
tend
to
be
relatively
large
and
powerful,
and
they
can
be
effective
for
certain
activities
that
require
aggression
when
they
are
conditioned
and
trained
from
a
very
young
age.
These
include
military
and
police
dogs,
guard
dogs
and,
sadly,
fighting
dogs,
but
they
have
been
conditioned
and
trained
for
those
activities.
I
I
They
know
a
reliable
ratings
can
be
obtained
from
a
dog
bite
story
involving
a
stigmatized
breed
like
a
pit,
bull
type
dog,
a
breed
which
in
turn
is
associated
with
stigmatized
people,
but
most
dog
bites
are
not
even
reported
and
they
contribute,
but
they
contribute
to
the
public's
perception,
but
they
don't
add
up
in
the
data,
which
is
partly
why
researchers
and
institutions,
like
the
cdc,
have
said
they
can't
find
a
relationship
between
breed
and
risk.
I'll
point
out
to
the
impact
that
these
the
breed
discrimination
has
on
people
there's
an
exhibit.
I
I
submitted
title
of
rediscrimination
questionnaire
responses
where
I
asked
nevada's
to
share
their
experiences
with
breed
discrimination
and
housing.
You'll
find
some
heartbreaking
tales
in
there
and
further
predis
breed
neutrality,
reduces
housing
and
security
for
people
and
pets
by
not
imposing
the
cruel
choice
on
people
between
their
pet
and
the
best
housing
choices
they
have,
and
it
affirms
our
support
for
the
human
animal
bond,
which
many
of
us
here
already
enjoy.
I
Insurance
firms
have
the
opportunity
to
show
their
work
and
convince
the
insurance
division
that
there
is
a
relationship
between
by
propensity
and
breed,
but
absent
that
evidence.
We
need
to
be
a
state
that
opposes
rediscrimination
and
honors
the
lives
of
animals
and
the
strong
bonds
we
create
with
them.
Thanks
for
your
time,.
A
F
R
My
name
is
mark
segment
s-e-k-t-n-a-n
and
I
represent
the
american
property
casualty
insurance
association.
Apcia
is
a
national
church
trade
representing
a
broad
cross-section
of
the
insurance
industry.
Writing
all
property
and
casualty
lines.
Apci
poses
all
legislative
restrictions
on
underwriting
tools
which
help
insurers
determine
risk.
Apcie
also
poses
legislative
or
regulatory
efforts
that
would
require
insurers
to
wait
for
a
potentially
devastating
personal
injury
loss
before
being
able
to
decide
whether
to
provide
or
continue
to
provide
coverage.
R
Apcia
understands
the
concerns
of
those
who
advocate
for
restrictions
on
underwriting
based
on
dog
ownership.
Some
people
believe
that
insurers
should
avoid
the
assumption
that
a
dog
may
be
vicious
merely
because
of
breed,
and
they
want
to
ensure
coverage
is
available
for
those
who
may
face
the
risk
of
a
significant
liability
claim.
There
is
no
evidence
that
dog
owners
are
consistently
unable
to
obtain
homeowners
insurance.
The
proponents
acknowledge
there
are
companies
that
will
cover
these
types
of
dogs.
Consumers
should
always
shop
around
for
the
policy
that
best
meets
their
needs.
R
Maybe
a
better
solution
is
to
have
the
division
of
insurance
put
together
a
list
of
companies
that
cover
these
types
of
dogs
and
posted
on
the
division's
website.
We
did
offer
these
suggestions
in
the
senate,
but
they
were
not
accepted
in
the
90s.
The
center
for
disease
control
conducted
the
only
neutral
study
on
the
relationship
between
dog
between
breeding,
dog
and
fatalities.
The
study
found
conclusive
evidence
that
a
small
number
of
breeds
are
involved
in
the
majority
of
cases.
R
R
The
data
also
showed
the
average
amount
paid
on
these
claims
is
over
50
000
dog
bite
cases
make
up
a
full
twenty
five
percent
of
the
cost
of
claims
paid
under
the
liability
portion
of
a
homeowner's
policy.
Insurance
companies
must
be
able
to
properly
underwrite
and
rate
risk.
A
choice
to
have
a
dog
is
a
voluntary
one.
R
R
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
sam
quask
committee
council,
nrs
686,
a
.290
prohibits
an
applicant
or
other
person
from
knowingly
or
willfully,
making
a
false
or
fraudulent
statement
or
representation
in
or
with
reference
to
any
application
for
insurance
and
the
penalty,
for
that
is
a
category
d.
B
M
Thank
you
for
that
answer,
madam
chair.
Just
a
quick
follow-up!
Yes
thank
you
and
do
you
you
cited
some
statistics
of
the
cost
and
I'm
certainly
sensitive
to
that
for
the
insurers.
But
do
you
have
any
evidence
that
you
can
speak
to
that
shows
if
those,
for
example,
the
25
of
liability
portion
of
homeowners
policies
that
you
said
have
to
deal
with
dog
bites?
A
P
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
their
time.
I
appreciate
everybody
taking
a
close
look
at
this
bill
and
I
want
to
let
you
know
that
I'm
always
available
to
discuss
in
further
detail
and
answer
for
other
questions.
I
also
would
like
to
note
that
there
is
available
on
nellis
a
an
exhibit
that
was
uploaded
in
the
senate
commerce,
labor
committee
on
monday
march,
8th
from
the
oh,
no,
the
canine
research
council
addressing
some
of
the
sorry,
the
national
canine
research
council
action
fund.
A
A
I
would
like
to
remind
those
president
and
listening
that
the
period
for
public
comment
is
an
opportunity
to
discuss
general
matters
that
fall
within
the
purview
of
this
committee.
The
public
has
already
been
given
time
to
support
or
oppose
specific
legislation.
We
open
and
close
hearings
on
bills
so
that
we
establish
a
record
of
the
public
testimony
on
the
bill.
If
you
direct
your
remarks
to
issues
over
which
this
committee
has
no
oversight,
I
will
ask
you
to
redirect
your
remarks
or
terminate
them
be
respectful
of
committee
members.
A
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Committee
members.
Again
it
was
so
nice
to
see
you
all
in
person
for
our
first
in-person
committee
meeting.
We
will
have
an
agenda
on
friday.
You
guys
should
be
receiving
it
this
afternoon.
Please
be
on
the
lookout
for
the
meeting
time.
It
will
not
be
at
our
regularly
scheduled
1
30,
so
just
make
sure
you
notice
the
meeting
time.
Thank
you.
We
are
adjourned.