BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2052
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 2052 (Gonzalez)
As Amended August 27, 2014
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |53-18|(May 28, 2014) |SENATE: |27-8 |(August 21, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |58-16|(August 25, | | | |
| | |2014) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: INS.
SUMMARY : Expands the categories of peace officers to whom
statutory "presumptions of compensability" apply.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
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.
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.
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1)Repealed the listing of the specific categories of peace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.
FISCAL EFFECT : 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
AB 2052
Page 3
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
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 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
AB 2052
Page 4
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?
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
This bill expands the categories of peace officers
that are eligible for worker's compensation
presumptions.
Current workers' compensation law provides coverage to
certain categories of peace officers and firefighters
for presumed compensable injuries. These
presumptions, which include cancer, heart disease,
pneumonia, hernia, bio-chemical illness, tuberculosis,
and meningitis, were enacted in response to the types
of hazards which these workers face. Over the course
of many decades, California has expanded both the
diseases and the kinds of safety employees which these
presumptions cover.
This measure seeks to expand coverage to dozens of
additional categories of officers without real
evidence that these officers confront the hazards that
gave rise to the presumptions codified in existing
law. Presumptions should be used rarely and only when
justified by clear and convincing scientific evidence.
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Rakich / INS. / (916)
319-2086
FN: 0005694