A Senate panel approved a last-minute proposal Wednesday that could upend the business community with as much Capitol drama as the forced-dues union measure that Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed in the opening weeks of the session.

Senate Bill 258, a late bill introduced just two and a half weeks before the legislature is scheduled to adjourn, passed the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on a party-line vote. The bill is sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Peter Groff, D-Denver, who is also the chairman of the committee.

“I had thought the trial lawyers were done with their sneak attacks after they went after the home builders and the doctors,” said Senate GOP Leader Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs. “It looks like they have at least one more assault on the business community left in them.”

SB 258 is a wide-ranging measure that changes Colorado’s worker’s compensation law. The bill contains a number of provisions that the business community has objected to. More offensive though, say critics, is the closed-door, fast-tracked methods that the bill’s proponents have used.

“If Gov. Ritter meant what he said in his veto letter on HB 1072 about uniting and building consensus, then he must be absolutely livid about this bill,” said McElhany. “Worker’s comp law and the way we control costs is pivotal to helping our businesses compete. Surely Governor Ritter knows that.”

The section of the bill drawing the most criticism would severely restrict employers’ ability to defend against specious injury claims by workers-comp lawyers. It requires that physicians who are called in to be expert witnesses to review or rebut a workers-comp case must be paid according to the same fee schedule that they would receive as workers-comp doctors.

Critics argue that this deters expert witnesses from agreeing to review cases. In most professions, expert testimony is paid a significantly higher rate than their normal wages in order to compensate them for the time away from work and liability, the bill’s critics said.

 “We are very concerned that we will not be able to hire the expert witnesses we need in order to defend or deter fraudulent claims,” said Virginia Morrison Love, who represents the Colorado Competitive Council, a consortium of employers and chambers of commerce throughout the state that is affiliated with the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.

Love also reiterated that the business community was not consulted on the bill, and was not offered any time to assess the impact of it.

“This is a major technical bill, there’s two weeks until the end of session, and we can’t give you our full analysis today,” said Love. “We only saw an outline of the bill on Thursday.”

“I know that the claimants’ attorneys are looking for easier ways to game the system, but cutting the legs out from expert testimony rebuttals isn’t just gaming the system – it’s a violation of the due process rights of employers,” said McElhany. “I just can’t believe that Gov. Ritter would be in favor of this.”

He continued, "When he vetoed 1072, Governor Ritter said he opposed the way ‘the bill’s proponents made no effort to open a dialogue with the opponents.’ I’m hoping he still feels that that’s the wrong way to do things."

Another section of the bill belies to the Democrat’s pro-business façade, said McElhany. Section eight of the bill requires doctors to inform patients of their right to see a different doctor for their workers-comp case.

Physician choice in worker’s compensation claims has been a hotly contested topic since 2005. Another bill this session, House Bill 1176, has formed a bipartisan compromise on the issue.

“The ink's not even dry on HB 1176 and they're already trying to change the terms,” said McElhany. “I’m deeply disappointed by this bill.”