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