BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 511
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
511 (Gipson) - As Amended April 20, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Insurance |Vote:|9 - 4 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill expands the categories of peace officers and other
public employees to whom statutory "presumptions of
compensability" apply. Specifically, this bill:
AB 511
Page 2
1)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.
2)Applies the same provisions to certain peace officers not
defined in Penal Code Sections 830 et seq., are entitled to
the benefit of the presumptions that certain diseases or
conditions constitute compensable injuries.
3)Specifies that custody assistants, correctional officers,
security officers, or security assistants employed by public
agencies are entitled to the benefit of the presumptions that
certain diseases or conditions constitute compensable
injuries.
4)Specifies that certain part-time peace officers are entitled
to the cancer presumption and to the presumptions relating to
exposure to certain biochemical substances.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Annual increased workers compensation costs of at least
several hundred thousand dollars, statewide across numerous
departments employing peace officers (variety of GF/special
fund/federal funds).
2)Annual increased workers compensation costs of at least
$200,000 statewide to each the California State University
(CSU) (GF/student fees) and $200,000 to the University of
California (UC) system (GF/student fees/other funds).
3)Assuming the presumptions apply to at least 15,000 peace
officers employed by local public agencies, annual increased
workers compensation costs in the range of at least $6 million
across counties statewide (local funds). The majority of
local peace officers to which this bill applies are probation
officers. Although the bill is keyed as a reimbursable
AB 511
Page 3
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, this bill ensures equal
treatment for all peace officers and similarly situated
professionals with respect to presumptions for workers
compensation. Proponents of this bill note that many classes
of peace officer did not exist when the presumptions were
first established. Rather than piecemeal additions to the
statute, the author argues all peace officers should be
treated the same. This bill is sponsored by the Los Angeles
County Professional Peace Officers Association.
2)Background. Current law creates presumptions to reflect unique
circumstances where injuries or illnesses appear to be
logically work-related, but it is difficult for the safety
officer to prove it is work-related. Presumptions are
rebuttable, but given that many injuries for which
presumptions exist can have a variety of causes, it is
difficult to prove they are not work-related. Thus, it is rare
that employers attempt to rebut presumptions. The absence of
a presumption does not mean an employee does not qualify for
workers' comp benefits, but that an employee must prove an
injury is work-related in order to qualify.
Current law includes presumptions for cancer, lower back
impairment, hernia, heart trouble, tuberculosis, pneumonia,
meningitis, and biochemical exposures. These presumptions
AB 511
Page 4
generally apply to a majority of peace officers employed by
public agencies including firefighters, police and sheriffs,
California Highway Patrol, and correctional officers. This
bill would expand current presumptions to additional peace
officers, including local probation officers, UC/CSU police
officers, and a variety of state investigators.
Some conditions for which presumptions exist are fairly common
in the general population, including cancer (2.8% of US
population), lower back impairment (prevalence estimates range
from 1.0% to 58.1% of adults), and heart disease (over 5% of
California adults and over 20% of US adults over 65).
Presumptions do not appear to have a strong evidence basis,
due in part to the lack of research that can conclusively
demonstrate whether certain job duties are associated with
increased risk of certain conditions. Instead, presumptions
are specified for certain classes based on the judgment that
some of them are likely work-related, but that workers will
generally not be able to meet the burden of proof, such as
proving a cancer was directly linked to job-related exposure.
Some work is ongoing to further explore job-related health
risks.
3)State-Reimbursable Mandate? This bill is keyed as a potential
reimbursable mandate. However, mandate claims are unlikely to
be successful, as increased employee compensation costs
mandated by state law that do not result in a higher level of
service to the public are not generally considered
reimbursable. According to a prior decision by the Commission
on modifications to Labor Code section 4850, a statute that
expanded the applicability of an existing workers'
compensation leave benefit to specified local safety officers,
"the California Appellate and Supreme Court have
consistently held that additional costs for increased
employee benefits, in the absence of some increase in the
actual level or quality of governmental services provided
to the public, do not constitute an "enhanced service to
AB 511
Page 5
the public" and therefore do not impose a new program or
higher level of service on local governments within the
meaning of article XIII B, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
"The workers' compensation program is a state-administered
program rather than a locally administered program, one
that provides a statewide compulsory and exclusive scheme
of employer liability, without fault, for injuries arising
out of and in the course of employment. [Certain Labor Code
provisions are] part of that comprehensive statutory
scheme. Moreover, although the claimants may be faced with
a higher cost of compensating their employees as a result
of extending the workers' compensation?benefits to
additional employees, this does not equate to a higher cost
of providing services to the public. Therefore, the
Commission concluded that [the statute] does not constitute
a reimbursable state-mandated program."
4)Opposition. Coalitions of local governments oppose this bill,
as do third-party administrators for workers compensation, the
California Coalition on Workers' Compensation, and the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Opposition states this
is a massive and costly expansion of presumptions, and that
they are aware of no objective analysis substantiating the
need for this bill.
5)Related Legislation. Last year, the Legislature passed AB 2052
(Gonzalez), which also proposed an expansion of the class of
employees entitled to certain presumptions of compensability.
AB 511 is broader than AB 2052, as it includes part-time peace
officers, non-Section 830 peace officers, as well as certain
classes of employee who are not considered peace officers.
Despite being narrower than AB 511, the Governor vetoed AB
2052. The Governor's veto message stated opposition to
expanding presumptions for entire classes of workers without
evidence that these officers confront the hazards that gave
rise to current presumptions, stating presumptions should be
used "rarely and only when justified by clear and convincing
AB 511
Page 6
scientific evidence." This bill does not appear to address
the veto message.
Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916)
319-2081