BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1696|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1696
Author: Bill Berryhill (R)
Amended: 5/11/10 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMM : 4-0, 6/30/10
AYES: DeSaulnier, Hollingsworth, Leno, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland, Ducheny
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 5/13/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Death benefits: payment duration
SOURCE : CDF Firefighters Local 1281
DIGEST : This bill extends workers compensation death
benefits until the youngest child reaches age 19 if the
parent served in specified law enforcement and firefighting
services, and was killed on duty.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1. Provides that in the case of one or more totally
dependent minor children, the death benefits under
workers' compensation shall continue until the youngest
child attains the age of 18, or until the death of a
child physically or mentally incapacitated from earning.
2. Specifies that in this instance, the death benefits
CONTINUED
AB 1696
Page
2
shall be paid in the same manner and amount as temporary
total disability indemnity would have been paid to the
deceased parent. The minimum payment of this benefit is
$224 per week.
This bill:
1. Extends the payment of death benefits under the workers'
compensation system until the youngest child attains 19
years of age if the child is still attending high school
and is receiving the death benefits as a child of any of
the following public safety officers killed in the
performance of duty:
A. An active member of a sheriff's office;
B. An active member of a police or fire department
of a city, county, or other public or municipal
corporation;
C. An individual who is primarily engaged in active
law enforcement activities and who has the power of
arrest or the power to serve warrants or to maintain
the custody of prisoners or inmates of county jails;
D. An active firefighting member of the Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection; and,
E. An active member of any county forestry or
firefighting department or unit.
2. Provides that the bill does not apply to a child of a
person whose principal duties are office work and do not
clearly fall within the scope of active law enforcement
or active firefighting services.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/1/10)
CDF Firefighters Local 1281 (source)
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Professional Firefighters
AB 1696
Page
3
California State Firefighters' Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/1/10)
California Coalition on Workers' Compensation
California State Association of Counties Excess Insurance
Authority
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
Sergeant Howard Stevenson became the first officer in the
history of the Ceres Police Department to die in the line
of duty, leaving behind a wife and two children. After his
tragic death, Sgt. Stevenson's family began receiving
workers' compensation survivor benefits. The author states
that, unfortunately, when the youngest child turns 18,
benefits ceased to be paid to the family placing an
immediate and considerable financial burden on the
household if the child is still living at home and
attending high school as was the case for Sgt. Stevenson's
family.
According to proponents, Sgt. Stevenson's daughter will
graduate high school in June, but her benefits expired last
year in June of 2009 when she turned 18 years of age.
According to proponents, this resulted in an unplanned
economic hardship for her family, requiring her mother to
increase her work schedule to meet the deficit in the
family's monthly budget. Proponents argue that these
dependent children have suffered greatly by the loss of
their parent and having the additional stress of severely
impacting the families' monthly income during this
difficult time is punitive.
Proponents argue that death benefits should be extended to
the totally dependent minor children of a deceased
firefighter or law enforcement officer until the youngest
child reaches 19 years of age, provided he or she is still
attending high school. In addition, proponents argue that
the federal government has already provided an exception
for situations such as this with respect to dependent
children who receive Social Security benefits. The Social
Security Administration allows a child to continue
receiving full benefits until he or she reaches age 19,
AB 1696
Page
4
graduates from high school, or ceases to attend high school
on a full-time basis via an exemption request form.
Overall, proponents argue that our public safety officials
put their lives on the line everyday to protect the health
and safety of all Californians, and in the rare and tragic
case of an officer's or firefighter's death, their families
should be provided with as much assistance as possible in
their time of greatest need.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to opponents, while
they are not opposed to the concept of providing benefits
to dependent minors, opponents feel that the provisions of
this bill go too far. According to opponents, while they
are certainly sympathetic to the plight of children whose
parents were killed in their capacity as public safety
officers, opponents cannot support an extension of death
benefits past the point where children legally become
adults. Opponents argue that death benefits for minor
children are specifically designed to carry the last minor
child of a deceased employee into adulthood, and while
there are many conceivable reasons that families would want
to extend these benefits past age 18, opponents simply
cannot support expanding the goal of death benefits past
the one marker that is consistent across all situations -
age.
Some opponents argue that there is no demonstrated reason
why this expanded benefit should be available only to the
children of public safety officers and argue that they can
identify no factor that makes the children of public safety
officers more deserving of additional survivor benefits
than the children of any other deceased employee. In
addition, opponents argue that a child who is still
attending high school at age 19 due to poor performance in
prior years would be eligible for additional benefits at
the employer's expense. According to opponents, a fair
compromise would be to provide death benefits until the end
of the school year during which the dependent minor turns
18. Overall, opponents are concerned about the additional
unnecessary exposure for death benefits that this bill
would create.
AB 1696
Page
5
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gilmore, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,
Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin,
Salas, Saldana, Silva, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland,
Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines,
Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Hagman, Niello, Skinner
PQ:nl 7/2/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****