AB 2378, as amended, 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
P3 1of temporary disability payments or maintenance allowance
2payments while the public safety officer or firefighter is recovering
3from a disability arising out of and in the course of his or her duties.
4(f) The Legislature, in enacting AB 338, did not intend to limit
5or reduce the amount of payments made to a public safety officer
6or firefighter during his or her period of temporary disability.
7(g) In January 2013, California’s Court of Appeal, First District,
8Division
4, issued a ruling in County of Alameda v. Workers’
9Compensation Appeals Board (Knittel) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th
10278, which linked the limitations on temporary disability indemnity
11payments established by Section 4656 of the Labor Code and the
12payments provided under Article 6 (commencing with Section
134800) and Article 7 (commencing with Section 4850) of Chapter
142 of Part 2 of Division 4 of the Labor Code.
15(h) Knittel starkly contradicts a longstanding, prevailing
16authority on this issue, including several Workers’ Compensation
17Appeals Board decisions, that determined that the leave of absence
18afforded under Article 6 (commencing with Section 4800) and
19Article 7 (commencing with Section 4850) of Chapter 2 of Part 2
20of Division 4 of the Labor Code is not a temporary disability
21indemnity benefit, and, therefore does not count against an
22industrially
injured public safety officer’s allowable number of
23compensable weeks of temporary disability indemnity payments.
24(i) In rendering Knittel, the court attributed this new
25interpretation aggregating both the temporary disability indemnity
26payments and the salary in lieu payments to public safety officers
27
(Article 6 (commencing with Section 4800) and Article 7
28(commencing with Section 4850) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
294 of the Labor Code) to the subtleties of the language changes
30found in AB 338.
31(j) This interpretation has also disenfranchised and potentially
32created a disability bias against the small number of public safety
33officers and firefighters who suffer severe industrial injuries as a
34matter of course and rely upon the in lieu of salary payments in
35addition to the temporary disability indemnity afforded to all
36workers under the California system.
37(k) It is imperative that the Legislature abrogate the holding in
38Knittel and restore the Legislature’s intent to limit aggregate
39temporary disability indemnity payments under Section 4656 of
40the Labor Code
for a single injury causing temporary disability
P4 1without disturbing the in-lieu payments afforded under Article 6
2
(commencing with Section 4800) and Article 7 (commencing with
3Section 4850) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 4 of the Labor
4Code.
Section 4656 of the Labor Code is amended to read:
(a) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury
7occurring prior to January 1, 1979, causing temporary disability
8shall not extend for more than 240 compensable weeks within a
9period of five years from the date of the injury.
10(b) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring
11on or after January 1, 1979, and prior to April 19, 2004, causing
12temporary partial disability shall not extend for more than 240
13compensable weeks within a period of five years from the date of
14the injury.
15(c) (1) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury
16occurring on or
after April 19, 2004, causing temporary disability
17shall not extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a
18period of two years from the date of commencement of temporary
19disability payment.
20(2) Aggregate disability payments for a single injury occurring
21on or after January 1, 2008, causing temporary disability shall not
22extend for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of
23five years from the date of injury.
24(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), for an employee
25who suffers from the following injuries or conditions, aggregate
26disability payments for a single injury occurring on or after April
2719, 2004, causing temporary disability shall not extend for more
28than 240 compensable weeks within a period of five years from
29the date of the injury:
30(A) Acute and chronic hepatitis B.
31(B) Acute and chronic hepatitis C.
32(C) Amputations.
33(D) Severe burns.
34(E) Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
35(F) High-velocity eye injuries.
36(G) Chemical burns to the eyes.
37(H) Pulmonary fibrosis.
38(I) Chronic lung disease.
39(d) (1) The
employee benefits specified in Article 6
40(commencing with Section 4800) and Article 7 (commencing with
P5 1Section 4850), are payable in addition to the maximum aggregate
2disability
payments established in this section. This subdivision
3applies to all claims, regardless of begin insertthe end insertdate of injury.
4(2) In enacting this subdivision, it is the intent of the Legislature
5to abrogate the holding in County of Alameda v. Workers’
6Compensation Appeals Board (Knittel) (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th
7278.
O
98