Relating to matters under the purview of the state, including unemployment benefits and civil torts

Under current law, the default maximum is the lesser of total wage credits accrued to the individual’s account during the individual’s base period or times the individual’s weekly benefit amount. The bill changes the maximum benefits payable to an individual eligible to receive unemployment compensation, when the state “off” indicator is in effect and the individual was laid off due to the individual’s employer going out of business at the factory, establishment, or other premises at which the individual was last employed, to the lesser of total wage credits accrued to the individual’s account or times the individual’s weekly benefit amount. Under current law, the maximum is the lesser of total wage credits accrued to the individual’s account or times the individual’s weekly benefit amount. The bill requires an individual to first satisfy a single one-week waiting period during the individual’s benefit year prior to receiving unemployment compensation. To satisfy the waiting period, the individual, with respect to the week in question, must otherwise be eligible for unemployment benefits from this state, must not have received or have payable unemployment benefits from this state, and must not be eligible for unemployment benefits from another state. The bill defines “misconduct” for the purposes of unemployment benefit determinations as a deliberate act or omission by an employee that constitutes a material breach of the duties and obligations arising out of the employee’s contract of employment. “Misconduct” is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of employees, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree of recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer. The bill also provides several examples of what constitutes “misconduct” by an individual. The bill modifies the percentages of an individual’s average weekly wage for insured work paid to the individual during the quarter of the individual’s base period in which the individual’s wages were highest, which the gross weekly wages for new work by the individual must equal or exceed for the new work to be considered suitable. Under current law, if an individual fails without good cause to apply for or accept suitable work, the individual is disqualified from eligibility for unemployment benefits. The percentages under current law are 100 percent for work offered during the first five weeks of unemployment; percent for work offered during the sixth through the twelfth week of unemployment; percent for work offered during the thirteenth through the eighteenth week of unemployment; and percent for work offered after the eighteenth week of unemployment. Under the bill, the percentages are 100 percent for work offered during the first week of unemployment; percent for work offered during the second through the third week of unemployment; percent for work offered during the fourth through the fifth week of unemployment; percent for work offered during the sixth through the eighth week of unemployment; and percent for work offered after the eighth week of unemployment. The bill provides that a decision of an administrative law judge may be appealed by any party to the unemployment appeal board or directly to the district court. Under current law, such appeals may only be made to the employment appeal board and then to the district court. The bill strikes language providing that a finding of fact or law, judgment, conclusion, or final order regarding a determination of eligibility for unemployment benefits is binding only upon the parties to proceedings and is not binding upon any other proceedings or action involving the same facts brought by the same or related parties before the division of labor services, division of workers’ compensation, other state agency, arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States. DIVISION II —— TORT LIABILITY. This division of the bill relates to tort liability, including noneconomic damage awards against health care providers, employer liability for an employee’s torts involving a commercial motor vehicle, noneconomic damages available against an owner or operator of a commercial motor vehicle, and pleading and discovery requirements related to punitive damages. Current law provides that in a civil action brought by a patient against a health care provider, the maximum amount of noneconomic damages that the patient may recover is $250,000, unless the jury determines that there is a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function, substantial disfigurement, or death, which warrants a finding that imposition of such a limitation would deprive the plaintiff of just compensation for the injuries sustained. In such a case, there is no cap on the amount of noneconomic damages that a patient may recover. The bill makes two changes to current law. First, the bill establishes that the definition of nonecomonic damages does not include the loss of dependent care due to the death of or severe injury to a spouse or parent who is the primary caregiver of a child or disabled adult. Instead, such damages are economic damages. Second, the bill provides a $1 million cap on noneconomic damages when the jury finds that there is substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function, substantial disfigurement, or death which warrants exceeding the $250,000 cap. The bill provides that an employer’s liability who is a defendant in a civil action involving a commercial motor for damages caused by negligence of an employee acting within the scope and course of employment shall be based on respondeat superior.2 (limitations on liability protection for negligent hiring), a trial court shall dismiss from the action any claim of the employer’s direct negligence in hiring, training, supervising, or trusting an employee, or other claim of direct negligence on the part of the employer for the employee’s harmful conduct, or other similar claims, if the employer stipulates that at the time of the event that caused the damages that the person whose negligence is the basis of the action is the employer’s employee and the employee was acting within the course and scope of employment with the employer. If an employer makes the stipulation with respect to an employee, and the employee’s negligence is found to have caused or contributed to causing the damages, the employer shall be adjudged vicariously liable for the resulting damages. Under current law, an employer is liable for an employee’s negligence and may be held responsible for direct negligence relating to hiring, training, supervising, trusting an employee, or other claims of direct negligence on part of the employee’s harmful conduct, subject to certain limitations contained in Code chapter 671 (negligent hiring —— limitations on liability). The bill limits the amount of noneconomic damages available against the owner or operator of a commercial motor vehicle. The division defines “noneconomic damages” to mean damages arising from pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of chance, loss of consortium, or any other nonpecuniary damages and “occurrence” to mean the event, incident, or happening, and the acts or omissions incident thereto, which proximately caused injuries or damages for which recovery is claimed. The bill provides that the total amount recoverable in any civil action for noneconomic damages for personal injury or death against the owner or operator of a commercial motor vehicle shall be limited to $1 million for any occurrence regardless of the number of plaintiffs, derivative claims, theories of liability, or defendants in the civil action.136A (medical malpractice).1 shall not be included in any initial claim for relief. A claim for punitive or exemplary damages may be allowed by amendment to the pleadings only after the exchange of initial disclosures and after the plaintiff establishes prima facie proof of a triable issue. After the plaintiff establishes the existence of a triable issue of punitive or exemplary damages, the court may allow additional discovery on the issue of punitive or exemplary damages. Under current law and under the bill, the mere allegation or assertion of a claim for punitive damages cannot form the basis for discovery of the wealth or ability to respond in damages on behalf of the party from whom punitive damages are claimed until the claimant has established that sufficient admissable evidence exists to support a prima facie case establishing, by a preponderance of clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence, that the conduct of the defendant from which the claim arose constituted willful and wanton disregard for the rights or safety of another.