BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
Date of Hearing: July 8, 2009 2009-2010 Regular
Session
Consultant: Rodger Dillon Fiscal:No
Urgency: No
Bill No: AB 586
Author: Huber
Version: July 2, 2009
SUBJECT
Workers' compensation: public employees: medical conditions:
presumptions.
KEY ISSUE
Should the presumption that specified illnesses and injuries -
befalling certain police, safety, and firefighter public
employees - arise out of, and in the course of, employment be
applied to all police officers, as specified?
PURPOSE
To expand the applicability of all existing presumptions to all
peace officers, as defined in Penal Code Sections 830.1 to
830.38, in order to more readily provide these public employees
with workers' compensation coverage in the event the employees
suffer injury or illness.
ANALYSIS
Existing law:
1.Generally requires employers to secure the payment of workers'
compensation, including medical treatment, for injuries
incurred by their employees that arise out of, and in the
course of, employment.
2.Provides that, for the purposes of workers' compensation,
certain injuries, or medical conditions, suffered by specified
public employees shall be presumed to be injuries arising out
of, and in the course of employment. The conditions and the
categories of employees covered by the presumptions are
specified in Labor Code Sections 3212, 3212.1, 3212.2, 3212.3,
3212.4, 3212.5, 3212.6, 3212.7, 3212.8, 3212.85, 3212.9,
3212.10, 3212.11, 3212.12, 3213, and 3213.2. The employees
covered by these presumptions are certain peace officers,
firefighters, "safety" employees, and specified additional
personnel employed by state and local government. The
conditions for which there is a presumption include hernia,
heart trouble, pneumonia, cancer and leukemia, tuberculosis,
blood-borne infectious disease, illness or death from exposure
to certain biochemical substances, meningitis, Lyme disease,
and lower back impairments.
3.Provides all peace officers described in Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the
Penal Code with the presumption for blood-borne infectious
disease or methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
skin infection. Thus, all peace officers as defined in the
above Penal Code sections have at least one of the
presumptions that would be covered by AB586. Other peace
officers specifically named in the various Labor Code sections
granting workers' compensation presumptions of one type or
another include:
Members of a sheriff's office; Highway Patrol Officers;
district attorney's staff of inspectors and investigators;
peace officers of cities, counties, districts or other
public or municipal corporations or political subdivisions
(whether volunteer or partly paid); law enforcement members
of the warden service of the Wildlife Protection Branch of
the Department of Fish and Game; peace officers as defined
in Penal Code Sections 830.1, 830.2, and subdivisions (a)
and (b) of 830.37; peace officers designated under
subdivision (a) of Section 2250.1 of the Vehicle Code (if
POST-certified) while working for the Highway Patrol, county
probation officers; peace officers of the Department of
Corrections who has custodial or supervisory duties inmates
or parolees; peace officers of the Youth Authority who has
custodial duties or supervisory duties of wards or parolees;
Hearing Date: July 8, 2009 AB 586
Consultant: Rodger Dillon Page 2
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
peace officers as defined in Penal Code Section 830.5
employed by a local agency; peace officers as defined in
subdivision (b) of Penal Code Section 830.1 and subdivisions
(e), (f), and (g) of Penal Code Section 830.2; full-time
members of the University of California Police Department
who are POST-certified. These persons must be actively
engaged in law enforcement and generally may not be in
clerical or related roles.
4.Penal Code Sections 830.1 to 830.38 designates a significant
number of persons as peace officers, all of which are included
immediately above, but also many more, including:
Certain members of the University of California Police
Department and the California State University Police
Departments; members of the Department of Internal Affairs
of the Department of Corrections; designated employees of
the Department of Fish and Game; designated employees of the
Department of Parks and Recreation; the Director of Forestry
and Fire Protection and certain law enforcement employees of
the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; certain
enforcement officers of the Department of Alcohol and
Beverage Control; marshals and police appointed by the Board
of Directors of the California Exhibition and State Fair;
persons conducting law enforcement who are employed by the
Division of Investigation of the Department of Consumer
Affairs and investigators of the Medical Board of California
and the Board of Dental Examiners as designated by the
Director of Consumer Affairs; investigators of the
California Horseracing Board designated by the board,
provided their primary duty is as peace officers; all
investigators of the State Department of Health Care
Services, Public Health, Social Services, Mental Health, and
Alcohol and Drug Programs, the Department of Toxic
Substances Control, and the Public Employees Retirement
System provided that the primary duty is as peace officers
enforcing the law; numerous additional persons.
5.Provides that each of these presumptions may be rebutted by
the employer.
Hearing Date: July 8, 2009 AB 586
Consultant: Rodger Dillon Page 3
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
6.Provides that each of these presumptions, except
methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus skin infection
(MRSA), continues to apply after the employee leaves
employment for a period of three months for every year of
service, but in no event more than five years after
separation.
This Bill:
1.Provides that any of the existing presumptions that certain
conditions arose during the course of employment that are
applicable to specified fire and peace officer employees of
the state and local government would apply to all peace
officers as defined by Penal Code Sections 830.1 through
830.38 if they meet the service time or other requirements of
the individual Labor Code sections.
2.Provides that the existing presumptions that would be extended
to these peace officers involve cancer, hernia, pneumonia,
heart trouble, tuberculosis, blood-borne infectious diseases,
meningitis, and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus
skin infection (MRSA).
3.Subjects these new recipients of the benefit of the
presumptions to the same conditions as existing presumption
recipients
COMMENTS
1. Need for this bill?
Generally, the presumptions as described have been found by
the Legislature to be appropriate due to the special hazardous
circumstances that peace officers, firefighters and certain
others are regularly exposed to in the course of their service
to the public. Some peace officers who are not covered by one
or more of the workers' compensation presumptions may find
themselves working in circumstances similar to those of other
peace officers who are eligible for those presumptions in the
event of injury or illness. A case may be made that this
Hearing Date: July 8, 2009 AB 586
Consultant: Rodger Dillon Page 4
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
disparate treatment should be remedied. In addition, the
present language of several sections of code establishing the
presumptions refers to the departments in which peace officers
or other persons work as a means of identify who may be
eligible for the presumptions. This creates the necessity for
separately identifying employees who do not work in hazardous
circumstances to clarify these individuals are not potential
beneficiaries of the presumptions. By deleting most
references to the employing departments and focusing on the
exact category of persons eligible for the presumption, the
law may be made more concise and clear.
Committee staff is unable to determine at this point
approximately how many public employees at the state and local
level would gain eligibility for added presumptions.
2. Proponent Arguments :
The sponsor, Police Officers Research Association of
California (PORAC), notes that the Penal Code classifies peace
officers into several groups in the Section 830.1 through
830.38 series. The current law grants peace officers the
benefit of the presumptions of compensa-bility based upon who
employs them. A problem arises when a new agency employs a
peace officer, or a new authority is granted by the Penal Code
for officers to be granted peace officer status based on
existing classes of officer - the new peace officer categories
are not automatically included in the presumption statute.
This bill is designed to ensure that UC and CSU officers
obtain the same benefits as similar peace officers, but also
to structure the Labor Code so that it is the type of officer
and not the name of the employer that determines whether the
presumption applies. Other supporters emphasize that the
presumptions are rebuttable, thus allowing an argument to be
presented by employers that the illness or injury did not
arise from employment circumstances.
3. Opponent Arguments :
Opponents state that public employers already face the
daunting task of defending claims associated with presumptions
Hearing Date: July 8, 2009 AB 586
Consultant: Rodger Dillon Page 5
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
for safety officers throughout the state. The cost of some of
these claims run into the millions of dollars, with public
employers virtually unable to defend them due to the burden
associated with the presumption. AB586 would extend the
presumptions to employees like park rangers, housing authority
patrol officers, welfare fraud investigators, coroners, and
child support investigators. Thus, this bill, say opponents,
will significantly increase the costs to taxpayers and/or take
away funds for purposes related to public safety, roads, and
the social service safety net. They believe employers should
retain the discretion to accept or challenge the merits of
workers' compensation claims, but presumptions make this very
difficult.
4. Prior Legislation :
Numerous previous bills expanding one more particular
presumption.
5. Note: This measure has been double-referred to the
Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
Peace Officers Research Association of California (Sponsor)
California Applicants' Attorneys Association
California State Employees Association
Statewide University Police Association
OPPOSITION
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Coalition on Workers' Compensation
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
CSAC- Excess Insurance Authority
League of California Cities
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Hearing Date: July 8, 2009 AB 586
Consultant: Rodger Dillon Page 6
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
* * *
Hearing Date: July 8, 2009 AB 586
Consultant: Rodger Dillon Page 7
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations