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 --