BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2052
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2052 (Gonzalez) - As Amended: April 8, 2014
Policy Committee: InsuranceVote:8-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill 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.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Assuming the presumptions apply to approximately 850
additional peace officers employed by the state, annual
increased workers compensation costs in the range of $450,000
statewide across numerous departments employing peace officers
(variety of GF/special fund/federal funds).
2)Assuming the presumptions apply to approximately 400
additional peace officers employed by the California State
University (CSU) and 400 employed by the University of
California (UC) system, annual increased workers compensation
costs in the range of $200,000 to CSU (GF/student fees) and
$200,000 to UC (GF/student fees/other funds).
3)Assuming the presumptions apply to approximately 15,000 peace
AB 2052
Page 2
officers employed by local public agencies, annual increased
workers compensation costs in the range of $6 million across
counties statewide (local funds). The majority of local peace
officers to which this bill applies are probation officers.
Although the bill is keyed as a reimbursable mandate, local
costs would likely not be reimbursed (see below for additional
discussion).
4)A portion of the increased workers compensation costs will
likely be offset by reduced costs for health care benefits
programs provided through public agencies listed above, since
peace officers will receive medical treatment through the
workers' compensation system instead of through health care
plans. Therefore, net costs to public agencies will likely be
slightly lower than the total costs those referenced above.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, this bill ensures equal
treatment for all peace officers with respect to presumptions
for workers comp, so everyone serving in active duty law
enforcement can receive the proper benefits and treatment for
work-related conditions. The proponents of this bill note
that many classes of peace officer - such as airport, school
district police, transit police, among others -did not exist
when the presumptions were first established. Rather than
piecemeal additions to the statute, the author argues all
peace officers should be treated the same. This bill is
sponsored by the Peace Officers Research Association of
California.
2)Background . Current law creates presumptions to reflect unique
circumstances where injuries or illnesses appear to be
logically work-related, but it is difficult for the safety
officer to prove it is work-related. Presumptions are
rebuttable, but given that many injuries for which
presumptions exist can have a variety of causes, it is
difficult to prove they are not work-related. Thus, it is rare
that employers attempt to rebut presumptions. The absence of
a presumption does not mean an employee does not qualify for
workers' comp benefits, but that an employee must prove an
injury is work-related in order to qualify.
Current law includes presumptions for cancer, lower back
AB 2052
Page 3
impairment, hernia, heart trouble, tuberculosis, pneumonia,
meningitis, and biochemical exposures. These presumptions
generally apply to a majority of peace officers employed by
public agencies including firefighters, police and sheriffs,
California Highway Patrol, and correctional officers. This
bill would expand current presumptions to additional peace
officers, including local probation officers, UC/CSU police
officers, and a variety of state investigators.
Some conditions for which presumptions exist are fairly common
in the general population, including cancer (2.8% of US
population), lower back impairment (prevalence estimates range
from 1.0% to 58.1% of adults), and heart disease (over 5% of
California adults and over 20% of US adults over 65).
Presumptions do not appear to have a strong evidence basis,
due in part to the lack of research that can conclusively
demonstrate whether certain job duties are associated with
increased risk of certain conditions. Instead, presumptions
are specified for certain classes based on the judgment that
some of them are likely work-related, but that workers will
generally not be able to meet the burden of proof, such as
proving a cancer was directly linked to job-related exposure.
Some work is ongoing to further explore job-related health
risks. A landmark study by the National Institutes of Safety
and Health (NIOSH) examining 30,000 firefighters for cancer
risk strengthens the scientific evidence that fire fighters
are at increased risk of certain cancers.
3)State-Reimbursable Mandate ? This bill is keyed as a potential
reimbursable mandate. However, mandate claims are unlikely to
be successful, as increased employee compensation costs
mandated by state law that do not result in a higher level of
service to the public are not generally considered
reimbursable. According to a prior decision by the Commission
on modifications to Labor Code section 4850, a statute that
expanded the applicability of an existing workers'
compensation leave benefit to specified local safety officers,
"the California Appellate and Supreme Court have
consistently held that additional costs for increased
employee benefits, in the absence of some increase in the
actual level or quality of governmental services provided
to the public, do not constitute an "enhanced service to
the public" and therefore do not impose a new program or
AB 2052
Page 4
higher level of service on local governments within the
meaning of article XIII B, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
"The workers' compensation program is a state-administered
program rather than a locally administered program, one
that provides a statewide compulsory and exclusive scheme
of employer liability, without fault, for injuries arising
out of and in the course of employment. [Certain Labor Code
provisions are] part of that comprehensive statutory
scheme. Moreover, although the claimants may be faced with
a higher cost of compensating their employees as a result
of extending the workers' compensation?benefits to
additional employees, this does not equate to a higher cost
of providing services to the public. Therefore, the
Commission concluded that [the statute] does not constitute
a reimbursable state-mandated program."
Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081