BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Senator Ben Hueso, Chair
Date of Hearing: June 25, 2014 2013-2014 Regular
Session
Consultant: Gideon L. Baum Fiscal:Yes
Urgency: No
Bill No: AB 2052
Author: Gonzalez
As Introduced/Amended: April 8, 2014
SUBJECT
Workers' compensation.
KEY ISSUE
Should the Legislature expand existing workers' compensation
presumptions to include all classes of California peace
officers?
ANALYSIS
Existing law establishes a workers' compensation system that
provides benefits to an employee who suffers from an injury or
illness that arises out of and in the course of employment,
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.
Existing law creates a series of disputable presumptions of an
occupational injury for peace and safety officers for the
purposes of the workers' compensation system. These
presumptions include:
Heart disease;
Hernias;
Pneumonia;
Cancer;
Meningitis;
Tuberculosis; and
Bio-chemical illness.
The compensation awarded for these injuries must include full
hospital, surgical, medical treatment, disability indemnity, and
death benefits, as provided by workers compensation law. These
presumptions tend to run for 5 to 10 years commencing on their
last day of employment, depending on the injury and the peace
officer classification involved. Peace officers whose principal
duties are clerical, such as stenographers, telephone operators,
and other office workers are excluded. (Labor Code §§3212 to
3213.2)
Existing law provides that the presumptions listed above are
disputable and may be controverted by evidence. However, unless
controverted, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board must find
is accordance with the presumption. (Labor Code §§3212 to
3213.2)
This bill would extend the above-mentioned presumptions to all
peace officers in the State of California . This includes:
a) Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control enforcement
agents; (Penal Code §830.2)
b) Cal-Expo Police; (Penal Code §830.2)
c) Medical Board of California and Board of Dental
Examiners investigators;
(Penal Code §830.3)
d) Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Insurance,
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Public Employees'
Retirement System, and Department of Managed Health Care
investigators; (Penal Code §830.3)
e) Municipal Utility District Security guards; (Penal Code
§830.34)
f) Welfare Fraud and Child Support investigators; (Penal
Code §830.35)
g) Sergeant-at-Arms of both Legislative houses; (Penal Code
§830.36)
h) Bailiffs of the courts; (Penal Code §830.36)
i) Security officers of Hastings College of Law; (Penal
Code §830.36) and
j) Regularly employed law enforcement officer of the Oregon
State Police, the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and
Hearing Date: June 25, 2014 AB 2052
Consultant: Gideon L. Baum Page 2
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Public Safety, or the Arizona Department of Public Safety,
under specified circumstances. (Penal Code §830.39)
COMMENTS
1. A Brief Discussion on Presumptions:
Presumptions for peace officers and firefighters have been a
part of workers' compensation law since 1917. While their
scope has grown, the fundamental idea behind each and every
presumption remains the same: these are injuries that are
intuitively likely to be job related, and therefore
occupational injuries compensable in the workers' compensation
system, but are difficult for the employee to prove. A good
example of this is the "heart trouble" presumption, which was
created in 1939: while many individuals suffer from heart
ailments for a variety of different reasons, the jobs we asked
firefighters and peace officers to fulfill are very stressful
and take a toll on their heart. Therefore, for these
individuals, the Legislative granted a presumption that a
firefighter or peace officer's "heart trouble" is
occupational.
However, not all presumptions were extended to all peace
officers. For example, while the bloodborne pathogen
presumption was extended to all peace officers, the cancer
presumption is currently limited to firefighters, sheriffs,
police officers, California Highway Patrol officers, and arson
investigation units. AB 2052 would extend the above-mentioned
presumptions to all peace officers in the State of California.
2. Staff Comments:
In extending existing workers' compensation presumptions to
all peace officers, AB 2052 raises several important
questions. These are discussed below.
Are All Peace Officers Exposed to Similar Occupational
Hazards?
Hearing Date: June 25, 2014 AB 2052
Consultant: Gideon L. Baum Page 3
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Historically, in crafting the current presumptions, sharp
distinctions have been made between California's peace
officers. As was noted above, the cancer presumption, which
was last amended in 2011, included firefighters, sheriffs,
police officers, California Highway Patrol officers, and arson
investigation units, excluding peace officers covered by other
presumptions, such as University of California (UC) peace
officers. Similarly, UC peace officers fall under the heart
disease, hernia and pneumonia presumption, but only after
serving 5 years. These distinctions may denote differences in
exposure to occupational hazards, as it is likely that a
bailiff of a court will be exposed to different occupational
hazards than a firefighter.
However, we simply do not know, as we lack any data on the
occupational hazards facing the peace officers who would fall
under the workers' compensation presumptions under AB 2052.
Unlike AB 1035 (Perez), which the Committee heard earlier this
year and was based on a study which identified specific costs
and population numbers, there are no studies which could
suggest the expected impacts of AB 2052. Noting the recent
decisions of prior Legislatures to make distinctions between
peace officers, as well as the lack of data to support backing
away from those prior distinctions, the Committee may wish to
consider if additional research is necessary to fully
understand the impacts of AB 2052.
Legal Questions on the Impacts of AB 2052:
Currently, the workers' compensation presumptions are extended
to classes of peace officers whose status is not situational -
police officers and sheriffs are always peace officers by the
nature of their position. Other classes of peace officers,
such as Municipal Utility District security guards and welfare
fraud investigators, are peace officers in specific
situations. It is unclear how this would impact current
workers' compensation presumptions. Would, for example, a
Municipal Utility District security guard who arrested an
individual and then suffered a heart attack six months later
be eligible for the presumption?
Additionally, AB 2052 extends presumptions within California's
Hearing Date: June 25, 2014 AB 2052
Consultant: Gideon L. Baum Page 4
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
workers' compensation system to non-California peace officers.
While out-of-state workers can be eligible to file within
California's workers' compensation system, this would be a
significant change in law in terms of peace officers
presumptions. Again, it is unclear how this would within the
existing structure of the workers' compensation presumptions.
3. Proponent Arguments :
Proponents argue that, when the presumptions were originally
created in the 1970s, the Legislature intended to include all
active peace officers. However, since the 1970s, proponents
note that several classes of peace officers have been created
which are outside of existing workers' compensation
presumptions. Proponents believe that these classes have been
excluded from current presumptions because they did not exist
prior to the original drafting, which the proponents believe
to be fundamentally unjust. Proponents believe that AB 2052
addresses this by extending current presumptions to all
classes of peace officers.
4. Opponent Arguments :
Opponents argue that, under existing law, the burden of proof
for presumed occupational injuries lies with the employer and,
due to the requirement of a liberal interpretation of workers'
compensation law by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
(WCAB), it is virtually impossible for a public employer to
dispute occupational causation of an injury. Opponents
further argue that this results in millions of dollars of
claims being paid where evidence is limited that the injury is
actually occupational. By expanding the number of peace
officer classes covered by the presumptions, opponents argue
that this will place even greater cost pressures on local
governments, taking away from their ability to fund services.
5. Prior Legislation :
Hearing Date: June 25, 2014 AB 2052
Consultant: Gideon L. Baum Page 5
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
AB 1035 (Perez), Statutes of 2014, Chapter 15, extends the
timelines that limit a dependent from filing for workers'
compensation death benefits if the deceased worker died of
Cancer, Tuberculosis, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA) skin infections, or a bloodborne infectious
disease.
SUPPORT
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
(Sponsor)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Probation Supervisors
California Applicants' Attorneys Association
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
California State Firefighters' Association
Hacienda La Puente Unified School District Police Officers
Association
Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local
685
Los Angeles School Police Association
Los Angeles School Police Management Association
Organization of SMUD Employees
Riverside Sheriffs' Association'
Sacramento County Probation Association
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
San Diego Community College Police Officers Association
San Diego Schools Police Officers
San Joaquin County Probation Officers Association
San Luis Obispo Employees Association
Santa Cruz County Probation Officers Association
State Coalition of Probation Organizations
The Glendale City Employees Association
Twin Rivers School Police Association
Ventura County Professional Peace Officers' Association
OPPOSITION
Hearing Date: June 25, 2014 AB 2052
Consultant: Gideon L. Baum Page 6
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Coalition on Workers' Compensation
California State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco
CSAC Excess Insurance Authorities
League of California Cities
Rural County Representatives of California
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Hearing Date: June 25, 2014 AB 2052
Consultant: Gideon L. Baum Page 7
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations