BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 996
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 996 (Public Employment and Retirement Committee)
As Amended March 26, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :39-0
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 5-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Furutani, Mansoor, Allen, | | |
| |Ma, Wieckowski | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Restates and clarifies existing County Employees'
Retirement Law of 1937 ('37 Act) regarding the rebuttable
presumption that heart trouble incurred by a safety member
arises from the safety member's employment.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, under the '37 Act, a system of industrial death and
disability benefits for safety officers and firefighters who
are injured, die, or develop an illness directly related to
the performance of their duties.
2)Requires that when a safety member, firefighter, or member in
active law enforcement who has been employed for five or more
years develops heart trouble, the heart trouble will be
presumed to have arisen out of, and in the course of, the
member's employment, therefore making the illness industrial
and qualifying the member for related industrial benefits.
3)Establishes industrial causation presumptions for cancer,
blood-borne infectious diseases, and illness due to exposure
to biochemical substances for safety officers, and states that
these presumptions may be rebutted by presenting evidence to
the contrary, but unless rebutted, the retirement board must
find that the illness was industrial.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the sponsor, the appellate court ruled
SB 996
Page 2
in Pellerin v. Kern County Employees' Retirement Association
(2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1099 that Government Code Section 31720.5
creates a rebuttable presumption that a heart condition incurred
by a safety employee arose out of the individual's employment.
Following the Pellerin decision, there was some confusion among
'37 Act county retirement system attorneys regarding the ability
to rebut the heart presumption with other evidence. The purpose
of this bill is to clarify existing law and make the statutory
language regarding the heart presumption consistent with other
presumptions within the '37 Act.
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN: 0004219