BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2052|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2052
Author: Gonzalez (D)
Amended: 8/18/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/25/14
AYES: Hueso, Wyland, Leno, Padilla, Mitchell
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-18, 5/28/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Workers compensation
SOURCE : Peace Officers Research Association of California
DIGEST : This bill expands the existing workers compensation
presumptions to include all classes of full time 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.
CONTINUED
AB 2052
Page
2
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 five 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.
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.
This bill extends the existing workers' compensation
presumptions to all full time peace officers in the State of
California. This includes:
1. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control enforcement agents;
2. Cal-Expo Police;
3. Medical Board of California and Board of Dental Examiners
investigators;
4. Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Insurance,
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Public Employees'
Retirement System, and Department of Managed Health Care
investigators;
AB 2052
Page
3
5. Municipal Utility District Security guards;
6. Welfare Fraud and Child Support investigators;
7. Sergeant-at-Arms of both legislative houses;
8. Bailiffs of the courts;
9. Security officers of Hastings College of Law; and
10.Regularly employed law enforcement officer of the Oregon
State Police, the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and
Public Safety, or the Arizona Department of Public Safety,
under specified circumstances.
Prior legislation . AB 1035 (Perez, Chapter 15, Statutes of
2014) 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 skin infections, or a bloodborne
infectious disease.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the extension
of worker's compensation presumptions beyond the six categories
of peace officers specified in existing law will result in
substantial costs for state departments. The exact magnitude is
unknown, but could total in the millions of dollars annually
across all state departments employing peace officers.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/14)
Peace Officers Research Association of California (source)
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
AB 2052
Page
4
Los Angeles County Deputy Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local
685
Los Angeles Police Protective League
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 : (Verified 8/21/14)
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Coalition on Workers' Compensation
California State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco
City of Cerritos
CSAC Excess Insurance Authorities
League of California Cities
Rural County Representatives of California
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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 this bill addresses this by extending current
presumptions to all classes of peace officers.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that, under existing
AB 2052
Page
5
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, 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-18, 5/28/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dickinson, Fong, Fox, Garcia,
Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gray, Hagman, Hall, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, John A. Pérez, V. Manuel
Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Grove, Jones, Logue,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Olsen, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Eggman, Frazier, Gordon, Harkey, Linder,
Melendez, Nestande, Patterson, Vacancy
PQ:k 8/21/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****