BILL NUMBER:  AB 1643
  VETOED	DATE: 09/30/2016




To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1643 without my signature.

This bill prohibits apportionment in cases of physical injury based
on pregnancy, menopause, osteoporosis, and carpal tunnel syndrome and
requires that breast cancer not be less than the comparable
impairment rating for prostate cancer.

I am vetoing this bill for many of the same reasons that I returned a
similar measure, AB 305, last year. This bill is poorly drafted and
reflects a seriously flawed understanding of both the workers'
compensation system and the nature of physical disability that may
result from a work-related injury. The bill would, among other
provisions, mandate that impairment ratings for breast cancer be no
less than the ratings for prostate cancer. It would also create broad
gender-based exceptions to the core principle of apportionment: that
employers are liable only for the permanent disability directly
caused by their employee's work-related injury.

This measure seeks to draw a false comparison between disability
ratings resulting from prostate and breast cancers, notwithstanding
that these organs neither perform analogous physiological functions
nor do their treatments result in similar physical limitations. There
is a wide disparity in impairment levels that may result among
individual women diagnosed with breast cancer and individual men
diagnosed with prostate cancer, and individuals of all genders
diagnosed with any form of cancer, depending on the stage at which
the cancer was diagnosed, the nature of the treatment, and the degree
and process of recovery. The suggestion that these two very
different conditions should be rated equivalently in all cases has no
basis in medical fact and upends the goals of ensuring consistency,
uniformity and objectivity in ratings supported by substantial
medical evidence.

On the issue of apportionment, this bill creates broad, gender-based
exceptions to the rule that employers are liable only for the
percentage of permanent disability directly caused by a work-related
injury. As written, the bill would prohibit apportionment to, and
thus require employers to pay for, a permanent disability that
actually resulted from pregnancy or menopause, or from osteoporosis
or carpal tunnel syndrome where these are preexisting conditions or
unrelated to work.













As I said last year, there is no place for gender discrimination in
the workers' compensation system. Current law, however, already
prohibits apportionment to risk factors, including gender, age, and
family history. There is ample opportunity within the workers'
compensation adjudicatory process for workers, their counsel, and
others to raise any concerns or allegations of improper and
impermissible gender discrimination in the medical evaluation or
apportionment process.

California's workers' compensation system strives to treat all
injured workers fairly and to ensure that all workers, regardless of
gender, are adequately compensated for any permanent disability
directly caused by work-related injuries. Rather than promoting
equality, the statutory changes proposed by this measure would create
new gender-based classifications and spur additional and costly
litigation, undermining the successful reforms enacted in 2012 and
the sustainability of the system.

I urge proponents of this bill to support efforts to educate medical
evaluators on current laws prohibiting bias and to collaborate with
my administration.

Sincerely,



Edmund G. Brown Jr.