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