BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    
                 Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
                               Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
          Date of Hearing: March 25, 2009              2009-2010 Regular  
          Session                              
          Consultant: Gideon L. Baum                   Fiscal:No
                                                       Urgency: No
          
                                   Bill No: SB 145
                                 Author: DeSaulnier
                         Version: As Proposed to be Amended
          
                                       SUBJECT
          
                               Workers' Compensation.
                                      KEY ISSUE
          Should language prohibiting various forms of discrimination in  
          the apportionment of industrial disabilities and delivery of  
          workers' compensation benefits be added to the Labor Code?
          
                                       PURPOSE
          
          To bar the consideration of race, national origin, gender, sex,  
          genetic predisposition, and certain other factors in the  
          delivery of workers' compensation benefits and the determination  
          of an apportionment of the causes of an industrial disability.
                                      ANALYSIS
          
           Existing law:
              a)   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.
             b)   Requires that a physician examine an injured employee  
               and, and when determining permanent percentages of  
               permanent disability, the physician must take into account  
               the nature of the physical injury or disfigurement, the  
               occupation of the injured employee, and his or her age at  
               the time of the injury, with consideration being given to  
               an employee's diminished future earning capacity. 
             c)   Requires that a physician make an "apportionment  
               determination" with respect to the permanent disability.   
               That is, the physician must find (a) what approximate  
               percentage of the permanent disability is caused by the  
               direct result of the injury arising out of and in the  
               course of employment, and (b) what approximate percentage  
               of the permanent disability is caused by other factors both  
               before and subsequent to the industrial injury.  If the  
               physician determines that the disability is partially the  
               result of these "other factors" the (degree of) impairment  
               rating must be reduced by the relevant percentage,  
               ultimately resulting in a lower permanent disability rating  
               and reduced permanent disability indemnity payments.
             d)   Provides that no person in the State of California  
               shall, on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group  
               identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation,  
               color, or disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal  
               access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to  
               discrimination under, any program or activity that is  
               conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any  
               state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives  
               any financial assistance from the state.  [Government Code  
               11135]
           
          This bill would:  
             a)   Prohibit the denial of workers' compensation benefits  
               claim if the employee's injury or death was related to the  
               employee's race, religious creed, color, national origin,  
               age, gender, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or  
               genetic predisposition;
           
              b)   Provide that race, religious creed, color, national  
               origin, age, gender, marital status, sex, sexual  
          Hearing Date:  March 25, 2009                            SB 145  
          Consultant: Gideon L. Baum                               Page 2
          Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations 
          
               orientation, or genetic predisposition shall not be  
               considered a cause or other factor of disability with  
               regard to any workers' compensation apportionment  
               determination; and  
             c)   Make findings on federal and state laws on  
               discrimination, previous reductions and denials in workers'  
               compensation benefits that would normally be prohibited in  
               a work environment as discriminatory, and declare the  
               intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to apply  
               existing workplace discrimination protections to workers'  
               compensation benefits.
                                      COMMENTS
          
          1.  Need for this bill?
            SB 145 seeks to tackle two different discrimination issues in  
            the workers' compensation system: denial of benefits due to  
            characteristics such as race or national origin, and  
            apportionment based on race or gender, rather than actual  
            documented evidence.
            The issue of the denial of benefits due to characteristics  
            such as race first came to the Committee's attention with the  
            denial of workers' compensation death benefits to the  
            surviving family of Taneka Talley late last year.  Ms. Talley  
            was murdered in March 2006 by a white supremacist while she  
            was opening a Dollar Tree store in Fairfield.  Dollar Tree's  
            insurer, Specialty Risk Services, argued that because Ms.  
            Talley's murder was racially motivated, and therefore  
            personal, despite the fact she was killed at the Dollar Tree  
            store and would not have been killed has she not been present  
            at the store.
            SB 145 seeks to address this issue with the addition of  
            language similar to Government Code 11135, which would  
            prohibit the denial of workers' compensation injury or death  
            benefits if the employee's injury or death was related to the  
            employee's race, religious creed, color, national origin, age,  
            gender, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or genetic  
          Hearing Date:  March 25, 2009                            SB 145  
          Consultant: Gideon L. Baum                               Page 3
          Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations 
          
            predisposition
            The second issue SB 145 seeks to address is the issue of  
            apportionment on the basis of "risk factors" - such as age,  
            race, sex, and genetic predisposition - rather than basing the  
            apportionment on actual documented and evaluated evidence of  
            pre-existing medical condition.  
            In the 2006 State Court of Appeals case of Vaira v Workers  
            Comp. Appeals Board (9 WCAB Rptr. 10,371), for example, the  
            court sent the case back to the Workers' Compensation Appeals  
            Board, stating that the physician who had done the  
            apportionment failed to base the apportionment on actual  
            medical evidence.  The physician based the apportionment on  
            the grounds that the individual in the case was an elderly  
            woman at high risk of osteoporosis and showing some evidence  
            of the condition.  However, the physician did not demonstrate,  
            with substantial medical evidence, the link between any actual  
            condition and the disability.  
            Dean Calbreath, in a February 17, 2008 article in the San  
            Diego Union Tribune, cited a number of similar instances of  
            improper apportionment procedures.  He highlighted one case  
            where a medical examiner cut a man's workers' compensation  
            payments in half because, as an African-American, he had a  
            "genetic" predisposition to high blood pressure or  
            hypertension.  
            Other examples Calbreath included:
             a)   In January of 2008, medical examiners at Kaiser  
               Permanente in San Diego cut down a food service worker's  
               claims for carpal tunnel syndrome because she had several  
               pre-existing conditions, including "being female." In the  
               past several years, medical examiners in other locales have  
               cited "female gender" as a reason for cutting carpal tunnel  
               claims, since women statistically report more problems than  
               men. 
             b)   In September of 2007, a medical examiner in Los Angeles  
               disallowed a third of a 52-year-old clerk's claims of  
               work-related stress on the grounds that her advanced age  
          Hearing Date:  March 25, 2009                            SB 145  
          Consultant: Gideon L. Baum                               Page 4
          Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations 
          
               made her susceptible to hypertension. 
             c)   In March of 2007, a medical examiner in Torrance  
               disallowed a portion of a cleaning woman's claims that her  
               work-related back injury had resulted in depression. The  
               examiner's reasons for slimming down the claim included  
               that she was a woman from Central America. "She's from El  
               Salvador and she is, as the pronoun indicates, a woman,"  
               the examiner said in a deposition. "She has a personality  
               disorder, which sadly might apply to all too many women.  
               And I must say, when it comes to Central America, it might  
               apply to more men than I would care to mention." 
             d)   A middle-aged Hispanic man who spent decades working for  
               a utility company injured his left shoulder and left leg on  
               the job. By the medical examiner's account, the worker was  
               involved in intense physical activity: "putting up (power)  
               lines, working underground, climbing up poles,  
               construction, maintenance of lines, kneeling, squatting."  
               But the examiner trimmed his claim, saying that his  
               injuries were also caused by his race, age and gender. "Age  
               plays a big role in what you determine the nonwork-related  
               factors are, even though he did work half of his life  
               there," the examiner said. "Some of these (factors) are  
               racially connected and some are gender connected."  "Is  
               part of his disability due to the fact that he's a man  
               versus a woman?" the worker's attorney asked. "Very likely,  
               yes." 
            SB 145 would require that apportionment could not be based on  
            race, religious creed, color, national origin, age, gender,  
            marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or genetic  
            predisposition alone - rather, apportionment would need to be  
            based on concrete medical findings.
          2.  Why does the language in this bill need to be placed in the  
            Labor Code, given that very similar language is currently in  
            Government Code 11135?
           
            Government Code 11135, which first came into law in 1977,  
            prohibits the denial of full and equal access to the benefits  
            on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group  
          Hearing Date:  March 25, 2009                            SB 145  
          Consultant: Gideon L. Baum                               Page 5
          Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations 
          
            identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color,  
            or disability of any program or activity that is conducted,  
            operated, or administered by the state, funded directly by the  
            state, or receives any financial assistance from the state.   
            This almost certainly includes the workers' compensation  
            system.
            However, in the workers' compensation arena, which involves  
            thousands of persons and which is governed primarily by the  
            Labor Code, there seems to be substantial misunderstanding of  
            the proper, legal procedures for apportionment and benefit  
            delivery.  Placing nearly identical language in the Labor Code  
            will help to clarify the law prohibiting discrimination and  
            make the specified language more evident to those who look to  
            the Labor Code for guidance in making decisions relating to  
            workers' compensation.  In addition, this bill adds the terms  
            "genetic predisposition", "marital status", and "gender" to  
            the protected classes for the purposes of apportionment, terms  
            that are not in existing code.
          3.  Does this bill place new responsibilities on employers, making  
            them responsible for medical conditions (with associated  
            costs) for which they are not currently responsible?
            No.  While the Taneka Talley case was settled by the Dollar  
            Store, it is likely that the Courts would have found that it  
            falls within the guidelines of Labor Code 3600.  As for  
            apportionment, this bill prohibits discrimination on the basis  
            of generalized "risk factors," which is almost certainly  
            currently illegal under Government Code 11135.   
            Apportionments determined through an evaluation of the actual  
            medical evidence, establishing a clear, causal link between  
            the condition and the disability are, and will continue to be  
            appropriate and lawful.  Therefore, both changes are largely  
            clarifying existing law.
          4.  Double Referral to the Senate Judiciary Committee:  
            If SB 145 is passed out of the Senate Labor Committee, it will  
            next be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
          Hearing Date:  March 25, 2009                            SB 145 
          Consultant: Gideon L. Baum                               Page 6
          Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations 
          
          5.  Proponent Arguments  :
            
            The California Applicant Attorneys Association (CAAA), the  
            sponsor of the bill, argues that before SB 899 (Poochigian) of  
            2004, which was a major overhaul of the workers' compensation  
            system, employers could not penalize an injured worker for a  
            pre-existing condition if it did not impair the worker's  
            ability to do his or her job.  Since SB 899, however, the CAAA  
            reports that apportionment has occurred on the basis of risk  
            factors, such as race, gender, or age, regardless of symptoms  
            or if the risk factors had any affected the ability of an  
            individual to do his or her job.  CAAA believes that SB 145  
            will bring the workers' compensation apportionment process in  
            line with federal and state anti-discrimination law, and  
            ensure that the apportionment process can continue without  
            penalizing workers on the basis of discriminatory risk  
            factors. 
          6. Opponent Arguments  :
            The Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) believes that SB 145  
            would undermine the fundamental workers' compensation reforms  
            contained in SB 899 of 2004 (Poochigian).  CalChamber argues  
            that SB 899 was a reaffirmation of the concept of  
            apportionment, and that prior to SB 899 apportionment was  
            significantly weakened due to court decisions.    Moreover,  
            CalChamber argues that the sponsors of SB 145 have made the  
            false argument that the current system of apportionment in  
            California allows for discrimination, as Labor Code Sections  
            4663 and 4664 do not allow for discrimination based on  
            protected classes.  CalChamber also believes that SB 145 would  
            muddy apportionment law and increase workers compensation  
            costs.
          7.  Current Legislation:  
            AB 1093 (Yamada) would prohibit the denial of workers'  
            compensation benefits solely because the motivation of what  
            caused the employee's injury or death was related to the  
            employee's immutable characteristics.  It is currently on the  
            Assembly First Reading file.
          Hearing Date:  March 25, 2009                            SB 145  
          Consultant: Gideon L. Baum                               Page 7
          Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations 
          
          8.  Prior Legislation  :
            SB 1115 (Migden) of 2008 would have barred the consideration  
            of race, national origin, gender, sex, genetic predisposition,  
            and certain other factors in the determination of an  
            apportionment of the causes of an industrial disability.  It  
            was vetoed by the Governor.
          
                                          
                                       SUPPORT
          
          California Applicant Attorneys Association (Sponsor)
          American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,  
          AFL-CIO
          California Communities United Institute
          California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO 
          California Nurses Association
          California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
          Glendale City Employees Association
          Organization of SMUD Employees
          San Bernardino Public Employees Association
          San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
          Santa Rosa City Employees Association
          
                                     OPPOSITION
          
          Acclamation Insurance Management Services
          Association of California Insurance Companies
          California Chamber of Commerce
          California Chapter of the American Fence Contractors'  
          Association
          California Fence Contractors' Association
          Engineers Contractors' Association
          Flasher/Barricade Association
          Marin Builders' Exchange 
          Hearing Date:  March 25, 2009                            SB 145  
          Consultant: Gideon L. Baum                               Page 8
          Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations 
          
                                        * * *
          Hearing Date:  March 25, 2009                            SB 145  
          Consultant: Gideon L. Baum                               Page 9
          Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations