BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2253|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2253
Author: Coto (D), et al
Amended: 5/28/10 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUST. RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 4-1, 6/23/10
AYES: DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Leno, Yee
NOES: Hollingsworth
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-4, 8/12/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Ashburn, Emmerson, Walters, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 68-4, 6/2/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Workers compensation: cancer presumption
SOURCE : California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Professional Firefighters
CDF Firefighters Local 2881
Peace Officers Research Association of
California
DIGEST : This bill provides that an existing presumption
for a work-related injury shall be extended to specified
firefighters and police officers following termination of
service for a period of three months for each year of
service but not to exceed 120 months in any circumstance,
commencing with the last day actually worked in the
CONTINUED
AB 2253
Page
2
specified capacity.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Establishes a workers' compensation system that provides
benefits to an employee injured at work, irrespective of
fault. This system requires all employers to secure
payment of benefits by either securing the consent of
the Department of Industrial Relations to self insure or
by securing insurance against liability from an
insurance company duly authorized by the state.
2. Provides that, for 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.
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 has not
expired. The statute of limitations is different for
each employee, based on a formula that grants three
months for each year of service to that employer, with
the period commencing on the last date actually worked.
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.
6. Provides that the compensation that is awarded for
cancer treatment includes full hospital, surgical,
medical treatment, disability indemnity, and death
benefits, as provided by the Division of Workers
Compensation.
CONTINUED
AB 2253
Page
3
This bill:
1. Extends the five-year cap that modifies the three months
for one year of service 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.
Prior Legislation
AB 128 (Coto), 2009-10 Session, would have increased the
statute of limitations formula to run for each year served,
and would have also removed the cap of time accrued under
that formula. The bill was held under submission by the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
Extension of presumption Unknown, multimillions of
dollars General/
period for one type of in new costs
ongoingSpecial
work-related injury
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/16/10)
California Association of Highway Patrolmen (co-source)
California Professional Firefighters (co-source)
CDF Firefighters Local 2881 (co-source)
Peace Officers Research Association of California
(co-source)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Applicants' Attorneys Association
California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing
Committee
International Association of Fire Fighters
National Peace Officers and Firefighters Benefit
CONTINUED
AB 2253
Page
4
Association
Orange County Professional firefighters' Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/16/10)
Acclamation Insurance Management Services
Allied Managed Care
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Chamber of Commerce
California Coalition on Workers' Compensation
California Highway Patrol
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Cities of San Marcos, Santa Rosa, and Vista
County of Orange Board of Supervisors
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority (a California Joint Powers
Authority)
Department of Finance
Department of Industrial Relations
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Regional Council of Rural Counties
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
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 given the complex
synergistic effects of multiple compound exposures, as well
as the rapidly growing introduction of new chemicals and
industrial compounds into our environment. Consequently,
there is a critical need to strike the cap in current law.
Proponents note that recent scientific developments have
shown that the original statute of limitations provision is
contrary to the purposes of the presumption. Several of
the cancers most closely associated with the firefighters
and their profession have a latency period longer than 60
CONTINUED
AB 2253
Page
5
months. Proponents cite a review of "The Risk of Cancer in
Firefighters" by Anne L Golden, PhD, Steven B Markowitz,
PhD, and Philip J Landrigan, MD, MSc, as published in 1995
in the Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews ,
which found that the latency period for most of the
relevant cancers associated with exposure to chemical
carcinogens is likely to be at least three or four decades.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents of the bill, which
includes several public entities and associations of public
entities, 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, and that therefore the
bill makes any cancer any safety officer ever contracts
compensable through the workers' compensation system.
The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) is
also in opposition to this bill. DIR believes that this
bill would be a vast expansion of the cancer presumption
for fire fighters and peace officers, increasing the number
of non-industrial cancer cases found to be compensable
workers' compensation illnesses. DIR believes that this
expansion will increase costs to the state and local
agencies that employ firefighters and peace officers,
creating an unduly long period of unknown liability for
those agencies.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes,
Fuller, Furutani, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman,
Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries,
Jones, Knight, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller,
Monning, Nava, Nestande, Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Smyth,
CONTINUED
AB 2253
Page
6
Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Villines,
Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: DeVore, Gaines, Logue, Niello
NO VOTE RECORDED: Tom Berryhill, Harkey, Lieu, Norby,
Silva, Audra Strickland, Tran, Vacancy
PQ:mw 8/16/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED