Laserfiche WebLink
AB 2052 Assembly Bill-Bill Analysis Page 2 of 6 <br /> disputable and may be controverted by evidence. However, unless <br /> controverted, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board must find <br /> is accordance with the presumption. (Labor Code 543212 to <br /> 3213.2) <br /> This bill would extend the above-mentioned presumptions to all <br /> peace officers in the State of California . This includes: <br /> a) Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control enforcement <br /> agents; (Penal Code §830.2) <br /> b) Cal-Expo Police; (Penal Code 4830.2) <br /> c) Medical Board of California and Board of Dental <br /> Examiners investigators; <br /> (Penal Code §830.3) <br /> d) Department of Consumer Affairs, Department of Insurance, <br /> Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Public Employees' <br /> Retirement System, and Department of Managed Health Care <br /> investigators; (Penal Code §830.3) <br /> e) Municipal Utility District Security guards; (Penal Code <br /> §830.34) <br /> f) Welfare Fraud and Child Support investigators; (Penal <br /> Code 4830.35) <br /> g) Sergeant-at-Arms of both Legislative houses; (Penal Code <br /> 4830.36) <br /> h) Bailiffs of the courts; (Penal Code §830.36) <br /> i) Security officers of Hastings College of Law; (Penal <br /> Code §830.36) and <br /> j) Regularly employed law enforcement officer of the Oregon <br /> State Police, the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and <br /> Hearing Date: June 25, 2014 AB 2052 <br /> Consultant: Gideon L. Baum Page 2 <br /> Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations <br /> Public Safety, or the Arizona Department of Public Safety, <br /> under specified circumstances. (Penal Code §830.39) <br /> COMMENTS <br /> 1. A Brief Discussion on Presumptions: <br /> Presumptions for peace officers and firefighters have been a <br /> part of workers' compensation law since 1917. While their <br /> scope has grown, the fundamental idea behind each and every <br /> presumption remains the same: these are injuries that are <br /> intuitively likely to be job related, and therefore <br /> occupational injuries compensable in the workers' compensation <br /> system, but are difficult for the employee to prove. A good <br /> example of this is the "heart trouble" presumption, which was <br /> created in 1939: while many individuals suffer from heart <br /> ailments for a variety of different reasons, the jobs we asked <br /> firefighters and peace officers to fulfill are very stressful <br /> and take a toll on their heart. Therefore, for these <br /> individuals, the Legislative granted a presumption that a <br /> firefighter or peace officer's "heart trouble" is <br /> occupational. <br /> However, not all presumptions were extended to all peace <br /> officers. For example, while the bloodborne pathogen <br /> presumption was extended to all peace officers, the cancer <br /> presumption is currently limited to firefighters, sheriffs, <br /> police officers, California Highway Patrol officers, and arson <br /> investigation units. AB 2052 would extend the above-mentioned <br /> presumptions to all peace officers in the State of California. <br /> http://www.leginfoma.gov/pub/13-14/bit Wasm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2052_01_20 140624_092044_sen_comm.Mm1 7/3/2014 <br />