BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Senator Tony Mendoza, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1379 Hearing Date: April 13,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Mendoza |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 29, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Gideon Baum |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Workers' Compensation: depositions: interpreters
KEY ISSUE
Should the Legislature require that certified interpreters at a
workers' compensation hearing or deposition state the same
specific information on the record as certified interpreters at
a court proceeding?
ANALYSIS
Existing law establishes a workers' compensation system that
provides benefits to an employee who suffers from an injury or
illness that arises out of and in the course of employment,
irrespective of fault. This system requires all employers to
secure payment of benefits by either securing the consent of the
Department of Industrial Relations to self-insure or by securing
insurance against liability from an insurance company duly
authorized by the state.
Existing law provides that medical, surgical, chiropractic,
acupuncture, and hospital treatment, including nursing,
medicines, medical and surgical supplies, crutches, and
apparatuses, including orthotic and prosthetic devices and
services, that is reasonably required to cure or relieve the
SB 1379 (Mendoza) Page 2
of ?
injured worker from the effects of his or her injury shall be
provided by the employer.
(Labor Code §4600)
Existing law requires that, if the injured employee cannot
effectively communicate with his or her treating physician
because he or she cannot proficiently speak or understand the
English language, the injured employee is entitled to the
services of a qualified interpreter during medical treatment
appointments. Interpreter services must be paid for by the
employer or insurer.
(Labor Code §§4600(f) & 4600(g))
Existing law provides that WCAB or any party to the action or
proceeding, may, in any investigation or hearing before the
appeals board, cause the deposition of witnesses residing within
or without the state. To that end the attendance of witnesses
and the production of records may be required. (Labor Code
§5710)
Existing law also provides that, if the employer or insurer
requests a deposition and interpretation services are required
because the injured employee or deponent does not proficiently
speak or understand the English language, upon a request from
either, the employer shall pay for the services of a language
interpreter certified or deemed certified by law.
(Labor Code §5710(b))
Existing regulations require that, in order for an interpreter
to be paid to interpret at a hearing, deposition, or
arbitration, the interpreter must be certified by the State
Personnel Board or California court system and listed on their
respective websites. An interpreter can be provisional
certification if a certified interpreter cannot be found and one
of the following is applicable:
a) Both parties agree to a provisionally certified
interpreter; or
b) A workers' compensation administrative law judge or
arbitrator conducting a hearing or arbitrator finds that
the interpreter is qualified to interpret at the hearing or
arbitration The finding of the judge or arbitrator and the
basis for the finding shall be set forth in the record of
proceedings.
(California Code of Regulations, Title 8, §9795.1.5)
SB 1379 (Mendoza) Page 3
of ?
Existing law requires that a certified interpreter providing
interpretive services at a court proceeding must state the
following on the record:
1) The name of the certified or registered court
interpreter, as listed on his or her court interpreter
certification or registration.
2) His or her current certification or registration number.
3) A statement that the certified or registered court
interpreter's identification has been verified by the court
using a certified or registered interpreter identification
badge issued by the Judicial Council or other documentation
that verifies the interpreter's certification or
registration accompanied by photo identification.
4) The language to be interpreted.
5) A statement that the interpreter's oath was administered
to the certified or registered court interpreter or that he
or she has an oath on file with the court.
(Government Code §68561(f))
This bill would require that, if interpreter services are
required at a workers' compensation deposition or hearing, the
following information must be stated on the record:
1) The name of the certified or registered court
interpreter, as listed on his or her court interpreter
certification or registration.
2) His or her current certification or registration number.
3) A statement that the certified or registered court
interpreter's identification has been verified, by the
board or judge ordering the deposition, or by the party
giving testimony, or his or her representative, using a
certified or registered interpreter identification badge
issued by the Judicial Council or other documentation that
verifies the interpreter's certification or registration
accompanied by photo identification.
4) The language to be interpreted.
5) A statement that the interpreter's oath was administered
to the certified or registered court interpreter or that he
or she has an oath on file with the court.
SB 1379 (Mendoza) Page 4
of ?
COMMENTS
1. Need for this bill?
Interpreters and interpretive services have been a topic of
significant legislation in recent years. Most significantly,
SB 863 (DeLeon), Chapter 363, Statutes of 2012, required that
interpreters in the California workers' compensation system
must be certified. Prior to the passage of SB 863, nearly all
stakeholders reported significant fraudulent activity among
non-certified interpreters. For the purposes of hearings or
depositions, the certification must be done by either the
State Personnel Board (SPB) or the court system.
Recently, the Interpreters Guild of America (IGA), which is
the sponsor of SB 1379, has reported persistent interpretive
services fraud at both Workers Compensation Appeals Board
(WCAB) hearings and depositions. Specifically, IGA reports
that non-certified interpreters are interpreting at hearings
and depositions and signing in using the name and
certification number of someone else, or using their own name
but using someone else's certification number. This raises the
spectre of injured workers receiving interpreting services
from individuals who are fraudulently providing interpretive
services they are not qualified to provide, undermining the
workers' compensation system and victimizing an injured
worker.
SB 1379 seeks to address this by requiring that certified
interpreters in the workers' compensation system state the
same information on the record as certified interpreters at
court proceedings. The author and sponsor believe that
requiring that a certified interpreter state their name and
certification number on the record, as well as requiring that
the information is verified by a workers' compensation
administrative law judge or deposed party, and will ensure
that injured workers or witnesses that require language
assistance are receiving appropriate language services.
2. Proponent Arguments :
The sponsor of SB 1379, the Interpreters Guild of America
SB 1379 (Mendoza) Page 5
of ?
(IGA), reports that their members encounter significant
fraudulent activity among interpretive services providers at
several Southern California WCAB regional boards.
Specifically, IGA reports that non-certified interpreters are
fraudulently providing interpretive services at workers'
compensation hearings and depositions by either claiming to be
someone else who is a certified interpreter or by using a
certified interpreter's certification number as if it was
their own certification number. Both activities are illegal,
and the IGA argues that this fraudulent activity denies
injured workers access to lawful language services, as well as
undermines legally certified interpreters. IGA believes that
SB 1379 will help prevent this by bringing the WCAB into line
with the California court system in verifying an interpreter
is actually who they are and appropriately certified on the
record.
3. Prior Legislation :
SB 863 (DeLeon), Chapter 363, Statutes of 2012, was discussed
earlier.
SUPPORT
Interpreters Guild of America (Sponsor)
OPPOSITION
None on file.
-- END --