BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 1035
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 1035 (John A. Pérez)
          As Amended  April 22, 2014
          Majority vote
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |     |(May 20, 2013)  |SENATE: |35-0 |(April 28,     |
          |           |     |                |        |     |2014)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
               (vote not relevant)
           
           Original Committee Reference:    L. GOV.  

           SUMMARY  :  Extends the statute of limitations for filing by  
          dependents of specified public safety officers for workers'  
          compensation death benefits.

           The Senate amendments  delete the Assembly version of this bill,  
          and instead:

          1)Provide that the dependents of active firefighters and  
            specified peace officers who die as a result of certain  
            medical conditions have 420 weeks from the date of injury, but  
            in no case more than one year from the date of death, to file  
            a claim for workers' compensation death benefits.

          2)Specify that dependency is a factual matter that is determined  
            by the status of the claimant at the time of death of the  
            public safety officer.

          3)Limit the conditions which for these public safety officers  
            are presumed to be work-related, for which the extended  
            limitations period applies, to the following:

             a)   Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA);

             b)   Tuberculosis;

             c)   Bloodborne infectious diseases; and

             d)   Cancer.

          4)Require the date of injury for any of these conditions to have  
            been during the employee's active service.









                                                                  AB 1035
                                                                  Page  2

          5)Specify that the extended limitations period does not apply to  
            cases that have been adjudicated, finalized, or for which the  
            existing limitations period lapsed on or before December 31,  
            2014.

          6)Adopt a January 1, 2019, sunset date for the extended  
            limitations period.

          7)Express the intent of the Legislature that the Administrative  
            Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation collect data  
            prior to the sunset date for the purposes of determining  
            whether the extended limitations period established by the  
            bill is adequate for the families of fallen public safety  
            officers.


           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Provides for a comprehensive system of workers' compensation  
            benefits for workers who suffer injury or illness that arise  
            out of or in the course of employment.

          2)Provides generally that the employee has the burden to prove  
            that an injury or illness is work-related.

          3)Establishes a rebuttable presumption that certain conditions,  
            including the medical conditions for which the bill  
            establishes an extended limitations period, are work-related  
            when suffered by specified firefighter and peace officer  
            employees.

          4)Provides generally that a claim for workers' compensation  
            benefits must be filed within one year of the date of injury.

          5)Establishes for a limited number of conditions extended  
            periods within which the claim must be filed, which in the  
            case of cancer is up to 240 weeks after the employee has  
            terminated employment.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown.  This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the  
          Legislative Counsel. 

           COMMENTS  :

          1)Purpose.  The purpose of this bill is straightforward - it  








                                                                  AB 1035
                                                                  Page  3

            recognizes that the advancement of medical science has allowed  
            patients who suffer certain serious diseases to battle those  
            diseases, often for long periods of time.  This is  
            particularly true of cancer, which can go into remission for  
            years before finally taking the patient's life.  For certain  
            public safety officers who contract cancer, their survivors  
            can be unfairly denied workers' compensation death benefits  
            simply because the officer successfully battled the cancer for  
            longer than the statute of limitations period.  The bill is  
            designed to remedy this unfairness.

          2)Non-cancer conditions.  Although the bill includes  
            tuberculosis, MRSA, and other bloodborne infectious diseases  
            within the new extended limitations period, it is unlikely  
            that many of these cases will extend beyond the current  
            limitations period established for those conditions.  Of  
            course, anything is possible, and a public safety officer  
            could succumb to one of these conditions later than the  
            current limitations period.  However, the primary objection to  
            the bill by opponents is based on increased workers'  
            compensation costs for public employers.  Thus, the primary  
            issue presented by the bill is the extent to which extending  
            the limitations period for cancer cases is justified by the  
            added costs that might be incurred.

          3)CHSWC study.  The Commission on Health and Safety and Workers'  
            Compensation (CHSWC) recently heard a presentation that sought  
            to quantify the costs of extending the limitations period for  
            filing workers' compensation death benefit claims for  
            firefighters and peace officers.  While the report is  
            currently in draft form, the current rough estimate on the  
            cost of extending the limitations period for filing for  
            workers' compensation death benefit claims is that it will  
            impact approximately 20 firefighters and peace officers and  
            cost between $4.25 million and $5 million per year.  While the  
            estimate was based on an extension to 480 weeks (10 years),  
            rather than 420 weeks, the estimate remains a likely range.   
            Opponents note that this study has yet to be finalized.

          4)NIOSH study.  The National Institute on Occupational Safety  
            and Health (NIOSH) released a study of cancer incidence in  
            firefighters, looking at more than 30,000 firefighters, making  
            it one of the largest studies in this area.  The sample  
            included firefighters from San Francisco, providing direct  
            applicability from the study to California's workers.  The  








                                                                  AB 1035
                                                                  Page  4

            NIOSH study found elevated cancer incidence (6% to 12%  
            increase) and mortality (10% to 18% increase) when compared to  
            the general population.  This included digestive cancers (10%  
            to 25% increase in incidence; 18% to 34% increase in  
            mortality) and respiratory cancers (8% to 24% increase in  
            incidence; 4% to 17% increase in mortality).  Opponents do not  
            dispute these findings, but point out that the bill applies to  
            all cancers that afflict any of the public safety officers  
            covered by the bill.

          5)Related legislation.  AB 2052 (Gonzalez) of the current  
            legislative session, was recently passed by the Assembly  
            Insurance Committee.  It is currently in the Assembly  
            Appropriations Committee.  AB 2052 proposes to expand the list  
            of peace officers who receive the benefit of the various  
            presumptions that certain conditions are compensable.   
            Currently, the Labor Code specifies which of the numerous  
            classes of peace officers employed by various state and local  
            governments benefit from presumptions.  AB 2052 provides that  
            all peace officers as defined in the Penal Code should be  
            treated equally with respect to obtaining the benefits of the  
            presumptions.  Opponents are concerned that, were AB 2052 also  
            enacted, the costs associated with AB 1035 would be  
            substantially higher than current estimates.

          6)Prior legislation.  AB 2451 (John A. Pérez) of 2012, would  
            have allowed dependents of a firefighter or peace officer who  
            dies of certain occupational ailments to file for workers'  
            compensation death 480 weeks from the date of injury.  AB 2451  
            was vetoed by Governor Brown.  In his veto message, Governor  
            Brown cited the fiscal impacts and the lack of data.  The veto  
            message, in part, provided: 

                . . . . This measure seeks to redress a problem whose  
               scope is not fully knowable. Proponents cite the case  
               of the firefighter who dies a lingering and painful  
               death from cancer and note that if that death occurs  
               even one day past an arbitrary statute of limitation -  
               originally established in 1913 - the surviving  
               dependent family members are denied substantial death  
               benefits. 

               Meanwhile opponents decry any expansion of this nearly  
               100 year old limitation as wildly fiscally imprudent,  
               opening the doors to fiscal ruin and damnation of our  








                                                                  AB 1035
                                                                  Page  5

               efforts to restore fiscal sanity to our state. . . .

               What is needed is rational, thoughtful consideration  
               of balancing the serious fiscal constraints faced at  
               all levels of government against our shared priority  
               to adequately and fairly compensate the families of  
               those public safety heroes who succumb to work-related  
               injuries and disease. . . . .

               I understand that the National Institute for  
               Occupational Safety and Health is in the midst of one  
               of the largest studies of firefighters and risks of  
               death from cancer and other job related disease ever  
               conducted.  It is my sincere hope that this study, as  
               well as data collected through our comprehensive  
               reform of the workers' compensation system, will  
               provide a basis to make a more informed policy and  
               research based decision on this question in the  
               future.

            AB 1373 (John A. Pérez) of the 2013-14 legislative session was  
            similar to AB 2451.  It was also vetoed by the Governor.  The  
            Governor stated: 

               This measure is identical to the one I vetoed last  
               year. 

               At that time, I outlined the information I wanted to  
               see before I would be in a position to properly  
               evaluate the implications of this bill. The  
               information is still forth coming.

               It is not clear whether the studies noted above  
               satisfy the Governor's call for more information by  
               which to evaluate the proposal.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Mark Rakich / INS. / (916) 319-2086


                                                               FN: 0003229 












                                                                  AB 1035
                                                                  Page  6