BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2230
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE
Tom Daly, Chair
AB 2230
(Chu) - As Introduced February 18, 2016
SUBJECT: Workers' compensation: language interpreters
SUMMARY: Provides that interpreters, when needed in the
workers' compensation system, may be selected by the applicant.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that an injured employee who is not proficient in
English and therefore needs an interpreter has the right to
select the interpreter of his or her choice in the following
circumstances:
a) When the employee has been requested by the employer or
a workers' compensation judge to submit to an examination
by a physician;
b) When receiving treatment from the employee's treating
physician;
c) When formal administrative proceedings are being
conducted on the injured employee's case; and
AB 2230
Page 2
d) When a deposition of the injured employee is being
conducted.
2)Allows the injured employee to select the interpreter for
other witnesses who are being deposed or testifying at
administrative proceedings.
3)Authorizes the employer to select an interpreter in any of
these circumstances if the injured employee does not.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides for a comprehensive system of employer-paid benefits
for employees who suffer injuries or conditions that arise out
of or occur in the course of employment.
2)Establishes procedures for obtaining medical care and a system
for resolving disputes that includes pre-trial depositions,
employer-requested medical evaluations, and administrative
adjudication of disputed issues before workers' compensation
judges.
3)Entitles an injured employee who is not proficient in the
English language to an interpreter paid for by the employer.
4)Requires interpreters to be certified.
5)Requires the Administrative Director (AD) of the Division of
Workers' Compensation (DWC) to establish a fee schedule for
interpreting services.
AB 2230
Page 3
6)Allows an employer or insurer to contract for services,
including interpreting services, at compensation below the fee
schedule.
7)Prohibits an interpreter from disclosing to any person who
was not an immediate participant in the communication anything
about what was interpreted.
FISCAL EFFECT: Undetermined impact on state workers'
compensation costs.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose . According to the author, the current system allowing
employers to select interpreters for injured workers is highly
problematic for both the injured worker and their legal
representatives. Injured workers should be able to enjoy the
services of interpreters whose sole duty is to them. A major
concern of lawyers who represent injured workers is that an
interpreter employed by the employer might disclose
confidential client information or communications to the
employer.
2)Fee schedule . The regulations adopted by the DWC to implement
changes in the rules governing interpreters after SB 863
(Statutes 2011, Chapter 363) authorize the employer to
contract for and supply interpreter services, and establish
appropriate fees. However, it is lawful for employers to
enter into contracts with interpreters or firms that provide
interpreters at a cost below the established fee schedules.
In essence, the schedule is the default price, but parties may
agree to lower or higher prices by mutual contract. One
AB 2230
Page 4
common way that employers control workers' compensation costs
is to enter into agreements with firms guaranteeing a volume
of business in exchange for a discounted price. Opponents of
the bill argue that by allowing the injured employee to select
the interpreter, costs will rise because it will defeat the
ability of employers to enter into discount contracts.
3)Conflict of interest . Proponents argue that an interpreter
selected and paid by the employer faces a conflict of
interest. In theory, there could be a conflict. However,
opponents point out that existing statutes specifically
mandate impartiality, and the Codes of Ethics of interpreter
certifying bodies have similar ethical rules. Opponents
suggest that there is no evidence of any systemic problem that
requires turning current practice on its head.
The bill itself could present the potential for conflicts.
Allowing the recipient of services free choice to select
providers is a consistent concern in the workers' compensation
system. For example, employers are allowed to establish
networks of physicians and other health care services,
including contracts that include compensation below fee
schedule. In most circumstances, injured workers are required
to obtain treatment from these networks. Cost containment,
elimination of incentives for abusive billing practices, and
assuring quality in the services provided are the primary
policy reasons behind the laws authorizing the use of
employer-arranged networks. Opponents maintain that there is
no reason to treat interpreter services any different.
4)Scope of bill . The bill does not authorize employee choice in
every circumstance that the law requires the employer to
provide interpreter services. Specifically, "medical-legal"
evaluations are not covered by the bill. According to
proponents, they crafted the bill to address only the most
critical situations where an interpreter should be chosen by
the employee. Some supporters, notably organized
AB 2230
Page 5
interpreters, have asked that the bill be expanded to apply to
medical-legal appointments, and other times when interpreters
are required.
5)Attorney-client communications . One area of particular
concern addressed by proponents is that employer provided and
paid interpreters might be susceptible to pressure from the
employer to disclose communications that would be covered by
the attorney-client privilege. As noted above, there is a
general prohibition in statute against an interpreter
disclosing to anyone not a part of a conversation the contents
of that conversation. One potential way to address the
concern that interpreters might be pressured to make these
disclosures would be to expressly add a protection in statute
concerning attorney-client communications that would provide
interpreters a specific response if that pressure should
arise. The author may wish to consider narrowing the bill to
specifically address the attorney-client communication issue,
and leave current law unchanged on the selection of
interpreters.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Applicants' Attorney Association (CAAA)
California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC)
California Workers' Compensation Interpreters Association
(CWCIA)
AB 2230
Page 6
Opposition
Acclamation Insurance Management Services
ACIC Insurance
AIA California Council
Alhambra Chamber of Commerce
Allied Managed Care
Associated General Contractors
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Chamber of Commerce
California Coalition on Workers' Compensation
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors
AB 2230
Page 7
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Camarillo Chamber of Commerce
Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
League of California Cities
National Federation of Independent Business
North Orange County Chamber of Commerce
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce
Small Business California
South Bay Alliance of Chamber of Commerce
Southwest California Legislative Council
Analysis Prepared by:Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086
AB 2230
Page 8