BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 667 (Jackson) - Disability insurance: eligibility: waiting
period
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 6, 2015 |Policy Vote: L. & I.R. 5 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 4, 2015 |Consultant: Robert Ingenito |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill does not meet the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 667 would (1) waive the 7-day waiting period for an
individual who has already served the 7-day waiting period for
the initial claim when that person files a subsequent claim for
disability benefits for the same or a related condition within
60 days after the initial disability benefit period, and (2)
require the Employment Development Department (EDD) to submit a
report regarding the effect of the modified waiting period to
the Legislature by January 1, 2020, as specified.
Fiscal
Impact: EDD indicates that it would incur one-time costs of
SB 667 (Jackson) Page 1 of
?
about $57,000 (Disability Insurance Fund) to implement the
provisions of the bill.
Background: Under current state law, the State Disability Insurance (SDI)
program provides short-term disability insurance (DI) and paid
family leave (PFL) benefits to eligible workers temporarily
unable to work due to non-work related illness or injury,
pregnancy, or childbirth. Individuals may also be eligible for
PFL to care for a seriously ill family member or to bond with a
new child. The SDI program is administered by EDD, and is a
state-mandated partial wage-replacement insurance plan funded
through employee payroll deductions. Eligible individuals can
receive disability benefits equal to one-seventh of their weekly
benefit amount for each full day during which they are
unemployed due to a disability if the director of EDD makes
specified findings, including that (1) they have made a claim
for disability benefits as required by authorized regulations,
and (2) they have been unemployed and disabled for a waiting
period of 7-consecutive days during each disability benefit
period. During this 7-day waiting period, no disability benefits
are payable.
Current law defines "disability benefit period" as the
continuous period of unemployment and disability beginning with
the first day for which the individual files a valid claim for
disability benefits, and provides that if an individual receives
two consecutive periods of disability due to the same or related
cause or condition and separated by a period of not more than 14
days, then they are considered as one disability benefit period.
Proposed Law:
This bill would change the current definition of a continuous
period of disability for State Disability Insurance (SDI)
benefit purposes. Currently, two consecutive periods of
disability due to the same or related cause or condition and
separated by a period of not more than 14 days are considered to
be one disability benefit period. If an individual takes a
disability leave, goes back to work for more than 14 days, and
then goes back out on a disability leave for the same condition,
that leave would be considered a new SDI claim and the claimant
must serve another unpaid seven-day waiting period. This bill
SB 667 (Jackson) Page 2 of
?
would increase the 14-day requirement to 60 days. The bill
would also require the director to submit a report regarding the
effect of the modified waiting period to the Legislature by
January 1, 2020.
Staff
Comments: EDD indicates that expanding the 14-day requirement
would have a minor impact to the DI Fund. While it is unknown
how many additional claims might be eligible for payment if the
recovery period were expanded, a review of the claimants who
file multiple claims in the same year for the same condition
revealed a very small amount of claimants filing multiple
initial claims for the same condition.
-- END --