BILL ANALYSIS
AB 586
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 586 (Ma)
As Amended March 23, 2010
2/3 vote. Urgency
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(June 2, 2009) |SENATE: |33-0 |(June 17, 2010) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |11-1 |(June 23, 2010) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: INS.
SUMMARY : Corrects a drafting error that accidentally excluded
certain safety officers in San Francisco from receiving "4850"
benefits.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of the bill, and
instead:
1)Narrow an exclusion of certain safety officers employed by the
City and County of San Francisco from the law that provides full
pay for up to one year for these officers if injured on the job.
2)Provide that the change in the law proposed by the bill is
retroactive to January 1, 2010 (the date that the law being
corrected became effective.)
3)Adopt an urgency clause.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for a comprehensive system of workers' compensation
benefits for employees injured on the job, including temporary
disability benefits equal to 2/3 of usual wages, subject to a
cap.
2)Provides most peace officers and firefighters with a special
benefit of full pay for up to one year for temporary disabilities
AB 586
Page 2
incurred on the job.
3)Excludes public safety officers employed by the City and County
of San Francisco.
FISCAL EFFECT : Undetermined.
Comments : AB 1227 (Feuer) of 2009 (Statutes 2009, Chapter 389)
amended Labor Code Section 4850, the provision that grants safety
officers the special "full pay" disability benefit. Prior to AB
1227, only safety officers covered by specified retirement systems
qualified for "4850 time." AB 1227 changed this limitation,
applying Section 4850 to all safety officers unless specifically
excluded. In general, the exclusions applied to officers who
already had a 4850-like benefit. Certain safety officers in San
Francisco fit this category, but the language in the bill drew a
circle around officers who previously had 4850 benefits, and who
did not have alternative 4850-like benefits. The bill is designed
to correct this drafting error.
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086 FN:
0005021