BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2052
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2052 (Gonzalez)
As Amended April 8, 2014
Majority vote
INSURANCE 8-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Perea, Bradford, Ian |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Calderon, Cooley, | |Bradford, |
| |Dababneh, Frazier, | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| |Gonzalez, V. Manuel Pérez | |Eggman, Gomez, Holden, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Allen, Beth Gaines, Olsen |Nays:|Bigelow, Donnelly, Jones, |
| | | |Wagner |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
AB 2052
Page 2
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;
c) Tuberculosis;
d) Exposure to a biochemical substance;
e) Meningitis.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
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
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
AB 2052
Page 3
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, "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) 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
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 police, school
AB 2052
Page 4
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)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
AB 2052
Page 5
proof in their specific cases.
5)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.
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086
FN: 0003626