BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2052
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE
Henry T. Perea, Chair
AB 2052 (Gonzalez) - As Introduced: February 20, 2014
SUBJECT : Workers' compensation: peace officers: presumptions
SUMMARY : Expands the categories of peace officers to whom
statutory "presumptions of compensability" apply. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Repeals the listing of the specific categories of peace
officers in six Labor Code sections that specify that certain
diseases, conditions or injuries are presumed to be work
related.
2)Replaces the listing of the peace officers who qualify for the
various presumptions with a citation to Penal Code Sections
830, et seq, a series of statutes that define all of the
various classes of peace officers, thereby qualifying all
peace officers to receive the benefit of the presumptions.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for a comprehensive system of workers' compensation
benefits to be provided to workers whose injuries or
conditions arise out of or in the course of employment.
2)Provides that the injured worker must establish that his or
her injury or condition was work related.
3)Establishes exceptions for certain firefighter and peace
officer employees to the requirement that the injured worker
establish that the injury or condition was work related, and
instead grants a presumption that the injury or condition is
work related.
4)Provides that the injuries or conditions that are presumed to
be work related for specified public safety officers include:
a) Cancer;
b) Heart trouble, pneumonia, or hernia;
AB 2052
Page 2
c) Tuberculosis;
d) Exposure to a biochemical substance;
e) Meningities.
5)Provides that the presumption of compensability in any of
these circumstances is rebuttable.
6)Defines, in Penal Code sections 830, et seq, the classes of
peace officers and other individuals who may exercise some
degree of law enforcement powers, ranging from city police,
county sheriffs, and Highway Patrol officers, to limited
function peace officers employed by various state agencies, to
officers not entitled to carry firearms or make arrests, but
who have the right to access law enforcement data bases.
FISCAL EFFECT : Undetermined.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose . According to the author, AB 2052 will ensure that
all peace officers are included in [the presumption statutes]
so that everyone that serves the duty of an active law
enforcement officer can receive the proper benefits and
treatment in case of injury or illness that may arise from
their employment. The intent is to change the way current law
(specifying which peace officers receive the benefit of which
presumptions treats presumptions) by providing that all peace
officers be treated equally with respect to all of the
presumptions that specified illnesses, conditions or injuries
are work related.
2)Background on presumptions . Presumptions have never been
intended to create work related injuries when, in fact, the
injuries in question are not work related. Rather,
presumptions of compensability have been adopted, beginning in
the 1970's, to reflect unique circumstances where injuries or
illnesses appear to logically be work related, but it is
difficult for the safety officer to prove it is work related.
There has clearly been some slippage over time from a rigorous
application of this rationale, but it remains the underlying
premise of presuming injuries or illnesses to be work related.
This is why the presumption statutes have extensive lists of
the peace officers who qualify - each category of peace
AB 2052
Page 3
officer has made the policy argument that they are similar to
existing recipients of the presumption, and should similarly
receive the benefit.
In this regard, the proponents of the bill note that many
classes of peace officer - such as airport policy, school
district police, transit police, among others - simply did not
exist when the presumptions were first established. Rather
than piecemeal additions to the statute, all peace officers
should be treated the same.
In addition, with very narrow exceptions for privately employed
firefighters for public facilities, presumptions of
compensability have been granted only to public safety
officers - fire and peace officer employees. Thus, the costs
of presumptions are borne only by state and local government
employers. (Federal employees in California who are
firefighters or peace officers do not have the benefit of
presuming certain injuries or illnesses are work related for
purposes of the federal compensation system.)
3)Presumptions are rebuttable . As a matter of law, public
employers have the opportunity to rebut the presumption, and
establish that the injury or condition was not the result of
employment. As a practical matter, however, presumptions are
rarely rebutted. Opponents argue that the virtual
impossibility of proving a negative - especially with respect
to the most commonly presumed injuries such as heart trouble
or cancer - renders the presumptions functionally conclusive.
4)Penal Code section 830, et seq . The bill expands application
of the presumption statutes to all "individuals" described in
Chapter 4.5, commencing with Section 830, of Title 3 of Part 2
of the Penal Code. This Chapter is a classification of a
broad range of public employees who have some degree of
authority to perform different degrees of law enforcement
activities. It includes some of the obvious peace officers:
city police and county sheriff's deputies (830.1), Highway
Patrol officers (830.2), state agency peace officers (830.3),
but also numerous public employees who are either NOT peace
officers at all (830.7, 830.9), or who have limited law
enforcement powers, such as the right to access criminal
history data bases (830.11, 830.12). The Chapter also
identifies numerous custodial or special purpose officers that
AB 2052
Page 4
are expressly defined as "public official" and expressly
described as not peace officers.
The author may wish to consider narrowing the application of the
bill to those portions of the Chapter that actually define
peace officers.
5)Are all peace officers similarly situated ? The premise of the
bill is that all of the various presumptions are statutory
benefits that are applicable to peace officers, and it makes
no sense to grant these benefits to some, but not all, peace
officers. However, opponents have pointed out that not all
peace officers are, in fact, the same. While the examples are
too numerous to list, a few are illustrative of the argument.
Welfare fraud investigators would be added to the list of
peace officers who would be entitled to the full range of
presumptions. Is it logical to presume that any cancer these
officers contract must have been work related? Or is it
logical to presume that a hernia must have been work related
due to the heavy equipment that street police must carry, but
that welfare fraud investigators do not? These and numerous
other examples are the reason why, according to opponents, the
law has been limited to those peace officers who have made the
policy argument that their unique circumstances suggest that
their injuries or conditions are likely to be work related,
but should be granted the presumption due to the difficulty of
proof in their specific cases.
6)Workers' compensation is not the only government-provided
benefit for these employees . Opponents have suggested that
the implication that these peace officers must be granted the
benefit of presumptions, or they will be left out in the cold,
is erroneous. First, the peace officer can always do what
every other employee must do - prove the injury or illness is
work related. Second, even if the peace officer cannot carry
that burden of proof, they have health insurance and other
employee benefits that assure their conditions can be treated.
7)Costs . It is clear that this bill would increase both state
and local government costs, as the class of peace officers who
would be the new recipients of the presumptions are employed
by both the state and local governments. The scope of the
increased costs is not clear at this point, but it is a
reasonable conclusion that there will be cases where
presumptions generate workers' compensation claims in cases
AB 2052
Page 5
that would not otherwise involve provable work related
injuries.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Peace Officer's Research Association of California (sponsor)
California Applicants' Attorneys Association
Opposition
California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
Rural County Representatives of California
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority
California Coalition on Workers' Compensation
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086