BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2052
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2052 (Gonzalez)
As Amended August 18, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |53-18|(May 28, 2014) |SENATE: |27-8 |(August 21, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: INS .
SUMMARY : Expands the categories of peace officers to whom
statutory "presumptions of compensability" apply. As passed by
the Assembly, this bill :
1)Repealed the listing of the specific categories of peace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)Replaced 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.
The Senate amendments :
1)Revise and recast the Labor Code section that governs hernia,
pneumonia, and heart condition related presumptions of
compensability.
2)Exclude most part-time peace officers from receiving the
benefits of most 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.
AB 2052
Page 2
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;
c) Tuberculosis;
d) Exposure to a biochemical substance; and
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 Senate Appropriations
Committee, the extension of worker's compensation presumptions
beyond the six categories of peace officers specified in current
law would 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.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments were
intended to narrow the scope of the bill by eliminating some
part-time peace officers from many of the benefits of
presumptive injuries. The Senate amendments attempt to
identify those part-time peace officers less likely to suffer
certain presumptive injuries, and narrow the bill by excluding
these part-time employees from the bill's expansion of peace
officer presumptions.
2)Background on presumptions. Presumptions have never been
AB 2052
Page 3
intended to create work related injuries when, in fact, the
injuries in question are not work related. Rather,
presumptions of compensability have been adopted 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
presumptions.
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.
3)Are all peace officers similarly situated? The premise of
this 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?
Is it logical to presume that a hernia must have been work
related even though these employees do not carry the heavy
load of equipment that street officers carry?
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086
FN: 0005037