BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2269
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE
Jose Solorio, Chair
AB 2269 (Adams) - As Introduced: February 18, 2010
SUBJECT : Workers' compensation: presumptions
SUMMARY : Extends the rule that heart related conditions that
afflict defined safety officers are presumed to be work-related
to "security officer" employees of specified facilities.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that the existing presumption that heart conditions
are job related for defined safety officers, including
security officers at Atascadero State Hospital, shall be
extended to security officers at the following facilities:
a) Coalinga State Hospital,
b) Metropolitan State Hospital,
c) Napa State Hospital,
d) Patton State Hospital,
e) Porterville Developmental Center,
f) Lanterman Developmental Center,
g) Sonoma Developmental Center,
h) Fairview Developmental Center, and
i) Canyon Springs Community Facility.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for a comprehensive system of workers' compensation
benefits to compensate employees who are injured in or during
the course of employment.
2)Provides that heart conditions suffered by certain safety
officers (police, sheriff, and firefighter employees),
including security officers at Atascadero State Hospital, are
presumed to be work-related injuries.
3)Allows an employer to rebut this presumption with medical
evidence that the condition is not work-related.
FISCAL EFFECT : Undetermined impact on the General Fund to the
extent that conditions previously not handled as workers'
compensation injuries become workers' compensation claims.
AB 2269
Page 2
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose . According to the author, and the sponsor the
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA), this
bill is necessary to conform existing law to the changes that
have occurred in the State Hospital system since the "heart
presumption" was initially enacted. According to the author
and sponsor, at the time the presumption was created,
Atascadero State Hospital was the only "forensic medical
facility" in the state and therefore there was no need to
include language broader than a specification of Atascadero
State Hospital. However, in the 40-some years since the heart
presumption was created, the State Hospital system has
expanded, and the very same class of employees that staff
Atascadero also staff numerous other facilities.
2)Peace officers employed at state mental health facilities .
According to CSLEA, the security officers employed at
Atascadero State Hospital are peace officers pursuant to
Section 830.38 of the Penal Code. These are fully
POST-certified peace officers, whose authority extends
throughout the state. The security officers employed at all
of the other facilities listed in the bill are also Section
830.38 peace officers. Thus, the argument is made that there
is no reason to treat the same type of employee at the same
type of facility any different than the way the Atascadero
employees are treated.
3)Nature of the affected facilities . There are two types of
facility impacted by the bill - state hospitals and
developmental facilities. The same class of peace officer is
employed at both type of facility, although there are larger
numbers of these employees at the state hospitals due to the
higher risk associated with the patient population. The
patients at these facilities include the following:
a) People who have been adjudicated to be incompetent to
stand trial,
b) People who have been determined to be not guilty by
reason of insanity,
c) People who have been determined to be not fit to be
released from the prison system,
d) People who have been determined to be sexually violent
predators, and
AB 2269
Page 3
e) People who are prisoners in the state prison system who
have been transferred to the facility for mental health
evaluations.
The most violent and dangerous of these populations are housed
in the State Hospital system. Those of lower risk may be
housed in the state's developmental system. As a result, most
of the employees affected by the bill are state hospital
employees, although some Section 830.38 peace officers are
employed in the developmental system.
4)Proposed amendment . The existing statute uses the term
"security officer" to describe the employees to whom the
presumption would apply. The proper term is "peace officer"
and the bill should be amended accordingly.
5)Opposition . The opposition objects to the concept of
presumptions of compensability, and believes that the "no
fault" nature of the system, and the rule that the workers'
compensation laws are to be "liberally construed" to extend
benefits to injured employees, are sufficient protections, and
that the injured employee should have to establish that the
condition is work-related. They believe this bill is a
"slippery slope" toward adding more presumptions of
compensability to the system.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
Opposition
California Chamber of Commerce
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA)
Allied Medical Care
Acclamation Insurance Management Services
Analysis Prepared by : Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086