The California State Legislature is on Summer Recess, having considered over 2,600 individual pieces of legislation that were introduced at the beginning of the past legislative session. Some bills have failed to move through the process as required and will become two-year bills, which means that they are dead for the rest of 2023 but will again be eligible for consideration in 2024. Even though some bills have failed, the legislature will have a robust agenda when they return to Sacramento mid-August for the final month of the session.
Legislators, who are still settling into new accommodations as the capitol building is renovated, are working to address a growing deficit after years of robust budget surpluses. The Newsom Administration worked with legislators to plug the 2023-2024 budget hole with a combination of delays and cuts to spending that was already programmed in prior budget years, and without dipping into California’s “rainy day fund.” But the pain will continue if the state spirals into recession, which would likely trigger a multi-year budget deficit that would force painful cuts and erect barriers to the passage of new legislation.
In addition to budget woes, the Assembly saw a leadership change that was somewhat contentious. Speaker Anthony Rendon (D – Los Angeles), who was speaker for seven years, was pushed aside by Assemblymember Robert Rivas (D – Hollister). After a bit of maneuvering by the two members, an agreement was reached to change leaders following the passage of the state budget. On July 1, Speaker Rivas was sworn in, and then he announced his new leadership team shortly thereafter. Wholesale changes to committee chairs and members are expected to be announced sometime after the end of the legislative session.
Eyes are also on Governor Gavin Newsom as he takes a more prominent role in national politics in the lead up to the 2024 presidential election. While Governor Newsome insists he isn’t running, his trips to red states and visit to Fox News, not to mention his constant sparring with red state governors, has observers wondering whether he could be a replacement if President Biden drops out of the race.
In the midst of all this change, the California Legislature has been working through the bill proposals on a variety of subjects. CCWC has been very active this year and has managed to stop a handful of objectionable bills early in the legislative session, including the following:
- The introduced version of AB 594 by Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D – San Diego) would have allowed local prosecutors and city attorneys to enforce every provision of the labor code, including the state’s workers’ compensation laws. CCWC opposed this bill along with several other organizations, but removed our opposition when the bill was amended to exclude workers’ compensation.
- AB 597 by Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez (D – Pomona) would have expanded the existing PTSD presumption to include paramedics and emergency medical technicians. Similarly, AB 1107 by Assemblymember Devon Mathis (D – Hanford) would have expanded the same existing presumption to include several classifications of employees at the California Department of Corrections. CCWC opposed both pieces of legislation and neither bill progressed this year.
- The California Nurses Association once again introduced their bill to create a presumption for hospital workers who provide direct patient care in hospitals. AB 1156, this time authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D – Oakland), was aggressively opposed and even made the CalChamber’s notorious “Job Killer List”. The bill was defeated early this year, but it will be eligible to move once again in 2024.
Despite early success in this legislative session, CCWC is still opposed to several problematic legislative proposals impacting the workers’ compensation system. All of the proposals outlined below continue to move through the legislative process and have a chance of being signed by the governor and implemented in coming years:
- The California Applicant Attorney’s Association sponsored AB 1213 by Assemblymember Ortega (D – San Leandro), which would give injured workers extra eligibility for temporary disability benefits if they have UR denials or modifications overturned by IMR. Specifically, the bill would add the period between an UR decision and an IMR overturn of that decision to the 104-week cap on temporary disability benefits. For example, if a UR denial dated 1/1/2024 is overturned by IMR on 3/1/2024, then the injured workers would have 60 days added to the TD cap.
CCWC is opposed to this bill because it would add administrative burden to an already cumbersome system. Additionally, this is a very small problem impacting less that 1% of claims, but making this change could trigger more unnecessary IMR and cause additional delays for more injured workers than would be helped by the bill’s provisions.
Click here to read the CCWC Opposition Letter.
- The California Professional Firefighters sponsored SB 623 by Senator John Laird (D – Santa Cruz), which would expand California’s existing PTSD presumption to include dispatchers, other emergency communicators, and an extensive list of state-employed peace officers. The bill would also extend the sunset on the existing presumption by seven years to 2032 despite a continuing lack of objective evidence to support the policy.
CCWC’s opposition on the merits of the public policy has not convinced members of the legislature to vote against the popular firefighters’ union sponsoring the bill, but the state’s budget constraints could cause problems for the bill as it heads into the final stretch since the bill would add millions in new costs to state and local governments.
CCWC opposes presumptions in cases where there is no data to suggest that workers in a particular occupation are having problems with the normal workers’ compensation system properly determining compensability. In the case of PTSD, no such evidence has been presented.
Click here to read the CCWC Opposition Letter.
- Senator Dave Cortese (D – San Jose) introduced SB 636, which would require utilization review done by private employers to be conducted only by physicians licensed in California. The bill would not impact utilization review done by public agencies. According to the author and sponsor, they want to test the requirements on a limited scope of claims and then potentially expand the requirement in coming years.
The bill included a provision that would have required utilization review doctors to have the same standard of care for an injured worker as the primary treating physician. CCWC worked with an expansive coalition to oppose this provision aggressively and it was removed as the bill went through the Assembly Insurance Committee.
Click here to read the CCWC Opposition Letter.
The legislature returns from its summer recess on August 14, and they will have one month to move all remaining bills through the final stages of the legislative process and to Governor Newsom for signature or veto. The governor will have 30 days to decide whether to sign or veto bills once they are on his desk.