BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2253
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2253 (Coto)
          As Amended  May 28, 2010
          Majority vote 

           INSURANCE           11-1        APPROPRIATIONS      12-5         
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Solorio, Blakeslee,       |Ayes:|Fuentes, Ammiano,         |
          |     |Anderson, Caballero,      |     |Bradford,                 |
          |     |Charles Calderon, Carter, |     |Charles Calderon, Coto,   |
          |     |Feuer, Hagman, Hayashi,   |     |Davis, Monning, Ruskin,   |
          |     |Salas, Torres             |     |Skinner, Solorio,         |
          |     |                          |     |Torlakson, Torrico        |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Niello                    |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller,   |
          |     |                          |     |Nielsen, Norby            |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

           SUMMARY  :  Extends the statute of limitations on the existing  
          cancer presumption for safety employees to a period of time equal  
          to one year for each year of service.  Specifically,  this bill  : 

          1)Extends the five-year cap that modifies the three months for one  
            year of service statute of limitations formula to a 10-year cap.  


          2)Specifies that the provision of law establishing the cancer  
            presumption may be cited as the William Dallas Jones Cancer  
            Presumption Act of 2009.

           EXISTING LAW  : 

          1)Provides for a comprehensive system of workers' compensation  
            benefits for injuries that occur during the course of  
            employment.

          2)Provides that for specified safety employees (firefighters and  
            peace officers) cancer is presumed to have arisen during the  
            course of employment.

          3)Requires the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to find  
            that the cancer is employment-related unless the employer proves  
            that the cancer is not related to employment.







                                                                  AB 2253
                                                                  Page  2



          4)Specifies that for the presumption to apply, the safety officer  
            must be in service at the time the cancer manifests itself, or,  
            if the employee has separated from the employer, the statute of  
            limitations lasts three months for each year of service to that  
            employer.

          5)Provides that, regardless of the time period for the statute of  
            limitations calculated using the three months per year of  
            service formula, in no case shall the statute of limitations be  
            more than five years from the date last worked by the employee  
            for that employer.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, significant on-going costs to state and local  
          government to the extent this bill increases claims related to  
          cancer morbidity and mortality.  General Fund costs in the range  
          of low tens of millions of dollars to the extent additional  
          presumption claims are filed over time.

           

          COMMENTS  :   

          1)According to the author, in the course of performing their  
            job-related duties, firefighters and other public safety  
            personnel routinely come into contact with materials known to  
            cause various types of cancer.  Since the original cancer  
            presumption statute was enacted over two decades ago, research  
            and anecdotal information reveal that some industrially-caused  
            cancers actually manifest themselves well-beyond the existing 60  
            month statute of limitations.  

            Many factors play a role in the development of cancer, while the  
            importance of these factors is different for different types of  
            cancer.  A person's risk of developing a particular cancer is  
            influenced by a combination of factors, some of which include  
            one's exposure to cancer-causing agents in their environment, as  
            well as their exposure to cancer-causing agents in the  
            workplace.  In many cases, these factors act together or in  
            sequence to cause cancer.

            According to the sponsors of the bill, the California  
            Professional Firefighters, the original purpose of the  
            presumption, which was enacted over 20 years ago, was to  







                                                                  AB 2253
                                                                  Page  3


            recognize that it was probable that many cancers that afflicted  
            safety officers were job-related, but due to the passage of time  
            during the latency period, it was difficult to prove that  
            relation to the job.  Recent scientific developments, however,  
            have shown that the original statute of limitations provision is  
            too short because the cancers most closely associated with the  
            firefighters and their profession have a latency period longer  
            than 60 months.

          2)AB 128 (Coto) of 2009 proposed an extension of the cancer  
            presumption similar to what is proposed by this bill.  However,  
            AB 128 did not cap the "one-year for one-year of service"  
            formula for the statute of limitations at the 15 year time frame  
            proposed by this bill.  

          3)A number of public entities and associations of public entities  
            are opposed to the bill.  They cite a 2004 WCAB ruling that held  
            that the public employer must, in order to rebut the cancer  
            presumption, "explicitly demonstrate that medical or scientific  
            research has shown that there is no reasonable inference that  
            exposure to known carcinogen or carcinogens is related to [the  
            cancer] or causes the development of the cancer."  They conclude  
            that this standard makes it virtually impossible to rebut the  
            presumption.  Opponents further note that the presumption  
            applies to any cancer, and that the risk of cancer in the  
            general population greatly increases with age.  

          4)Primary costs associated with workers' compensation cancer  
            presumption claims include:  

             a)   Medical expenses.  While many retired safety officers have  
               employer-provided health insurance, the pension plan covers  
               those expenses unless it becomes a workers' compensation  
               case; and,

             b)   Death benefits.  Death benefits of up to $290,000,  
               depending on the number of dependents a cancer victim has,  
               are payable by the public employer, plus weekly payments of  
               over $950 per week for the support of minor dependents. 


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086


                                                                 FN:  0004750







                                                                  AB 2253
                                                                  Page  4