AB 2378, as introduced, Perea. Workers’ compensation: temporary disability payments.
Existing law establishes a workers’ compensation system, administered by the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, to compensate an employee for injuries arising out of and in the course of his or her employment. Existing law requires that aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after certain dates be limited, as provided.
Existing law provides that whenever any member of the Department of Justice falling within the state peace officer/firefighter class is disabled by injury arising out of and in the course of his or her duties, he or she shall become entitled, regardless of his or her period of service with the Department of Justice to a leave of absence while so disabled without loss of salary, in lieu of disability payments under this chapter, for a period not exceeding one year. Existing law also provides that certain peace officers, firefighters, and other specified state and local public employees are entitled to a leave of absence without loss of salary while disabled by injury or illness arising out of and in the course of employment.
This bill would provide that the above-specified leaves of absence without loss of salary are payable in addition to the maximum aggregate disability payments for a single injury that is applicable to all workers. The bill would make these provisions applicable to all claims, regardless of the date of injury. The bill would also make related findings and declarations.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2following:
3(a) Under current law, the courts are compelled to liberally
4construe the workers’ compensation statutes with the purpose of
5extending related benefits for the protection of workers injured in
6the course of their employment, so long as the intent of the
7Legislature, as expressed in a particular statute, is not supplanted.
8(b) With the enactment of Assembly Bill 338 of the 2007-08
9Regular Session (AB 338), the Legislature expressly intended to
10ameliorate what was then the unintended consequence of unfairly
11penalizing an injured employee who returned to work that resulted
12from the two-year limit that was placed on
aggregate disability
13payments for certain single injuries causing temporary disability.
14(c) As introduced, the clearly stated purpose of AB 338 was to
15alleviate the penalty to injured workers pursuant to Section 4656
16of the Labor Code by increasing the maximum number of weeks
17of temporary disability payments for which an injured worker may
18be eligible, while also extending the time period of eligibility.
19(d) In enacting AB 338, the Legislature adopted a consensus
20solution that more closely upholds the purpose of the workers’
21compensation system, which, by design, encourages and supports
22injured workers in their efforts to return to work.
23(e) Article 6 (commencing with Section 4800) and Article 7
24(commencing with Section 4850) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
254 of the Labor Code, both of which govern industrially
injured
26firefighters and other local public safety officers, provide for a
27leave of absence for up to one year without a loss of salary in lieu
28of temporary disability payments or maintenance allowance
P3 1payments while the public safety officer or firefighter is recovering
2from a disability arising out of and in the course of his or her duties.
3(f) The Legislature, in enacting AB 338, did not intend to limit
4or reduce the amount of payments made to a public safety officer
5or firefighter during his or her period of temporary disability.
6(g) In January 2013, California’s Court of Appeal, First District,
7Division 4, issued a ruling in County of Alameda v. Workers’
8Compensation Appeals Board (Knittel) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th
9278, which linked the limitations on temporary disability indemnity
10payments established by Section 4656 of the Labor Code and the
11payments provided under Article 6
(commencing with Section
124800) and Article 7 (commencing with Section 4850) of Chapter
132 of Part 2 of Division 4 of the Labor Code.
14(h) Knittel starkly contradicts a longstanding, prevailing
15authority on this issue, including several Workers’ Compensation
16Appeals Board decisions, that determined that the leave of absence
17afforded under Article 6 (commencing with Section 4800) and
18Article 7 (commencing with Section 4850) of Chapter 2 of Part 2
19of Division 4 of the Labor Code is not a temporary disability
20indemnity benefit, and, therefore does not count against an
21industrially injured public safety officer’s allowable number of
22compensable weeks of temporary disability indemnity payments.
23(i) In rendering Knittel, the court attributed this new
24interpretation aggregating both the temporary disability indemnity
25payments and the salary in lieu payments to public safety officers
26
(Article 6 (commencing with Section 4800) and Article 7
27(commencing with Section 4850) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
284 of the Labor Code) to the subtleties of the language changes
29found in AB 338.
30(j) This interpretation has also disenfranchised and potentially
31created a disability bias against the small number of public safety
32officers and firefighters who suffer severe industrial injuries as a
33matter of course and rely upon the in lieu of salary payments in
34addition to the temporary disability indemnity afforded to all
35workers under the California system.
36(k) It is imperative that the Legislature abrogate the holding in
37Knittel and restore the Legislature’s intent to limit aggregate
38temporary disability indemnity payments under Section 4656 of
39the Labor Code for a single injury causing temporary disability
40without disturbing the in-lieu payments afforded under Article 6
P4 1
(commencing with Section 4800) and Article 7 (commencing with
2Section 4850) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 4 of the Labor
3Code.
Section 4656 of the Labor Code is amended to read:
(a) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury
6occurring prior to January 1, 1979, causing temporary disability
7shall not extend for more than 240 compensable weeks within a
8period of five years from the date of the injury.
9(b) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring
10on or after January 1, 1979, and prior to April 19, 2004, causing
11temporary partial disability shall not extend for more than 240
12compensable weeks within a period of five years from the date of
13the injury.
14(c) (1) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury
15occurring on or after April 19, 2004, causing temporary disability
16shall not extend for
more than 104 compensable weeks within a
17period of two years from the date of commencement of temporary
18disability payment.
19(2) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring
20on or after January 1, 2008, causing temporary disability shall not
21extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of
22five years from the date of injury.
23(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), for an employee
24who suffers from the following injuries or conditions, aggregate
25disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after April
2619, 2004, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more
27than 240 compensable weeks within a period of five years from
28the date of the injury:
29(A) Acute and chronic hepatitis B.
30(B) Acute and chronic hepatitis C.
31(C) Amputations.
32(D) Severe burns.
33(E) Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
34(F) High-velocity eye injuries.
35(G) Chemical burns to the eyes.
36(H) Pulmonary fibrosis.
37(I) Chronic lung disease.
begin insert
38(d) (1) The employee benefits specified in Article 6 (commencing
39with Section 4800) and Article 7 (commencing with Section 4850),
40are payable in addition to the maximum aggregate disability
P5 1
payments established in this section. This subdivision applies to
2all claims, regardless of date of injury.
3(2) In enacting this subdivision, it is the intent of the Legislature
4to abrogate the holding in County of Alameda v. Workers’
5Compensation Appeals Board (Knittel) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th
6278.
O
99