Insurer Groups Oppose Calif. Rebuttable Presumption Bill

Mr. Suchil said this bill would extend the presumption to private sector employees for the first time.

Currently, according to Mark Sektnan, vice president of the Association of California Insurance Companies (ACIC), injuries are covered by workers' comp, but the worker must prove that such injuries are work-related. He said this bill would shift the burden of proof to employers.

According to a digest of the legislation, the bill would apply to those "who provide direct patient care in an acute care hospital."

Injuries qualifying for rebuttable presumption would include blood-borne infectious diseases, neck or back impairment, the antibiotic-resistant staph infection (MRSA) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and H1N1 influenza virus.

Mr. Sektnan said there is evidence that about 90 percent of such claims are already accepted and paid by workers' compensation insurers.

In a letter opposing the bill, ACIC said, "Establishing the presumption of compensability for these private sector employees is unsubstantiated and unjustified. ACIC is not aware of evidence that hospital employees are not able to prove that their injuries arise out of and in the course of their employment."

"In the absence of any such evidence, hospital employees should follow the same standards for proving their claims that are followed by other employees," the organization's letter added.

In a statement, Mr. Suchil said, "This bill will add to the already increasing medical costs in California's workers' compensation system."

He said a similar bill last year did not make it out of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

This bill, he noted, was proposed by a union representing nurses in California.

A message left with the California Nurses Association was not returned.

AB 1994, sponsored by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, passed the Assembly Insurance Committee yesterday by an 8-4 vote, and it now goes to the Appropriations Committee.

The bill can be viewed at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_1994_bill_20100323_amended_asm_v98.html.

Mr. Suchil said AIA is also opposing AB 2490, which would require any agreement between an employer and a workers' comp insurer for dispute resolution or arbitration to specify that California law and venue will be used for all proceedings. Failure to comply with this new requirement would render the dispute resolution agreement void and unenforceable.

Mr. Suchil said in a statement, "AB 2490 needlessly interferes with an employer and carrier's right to contract, and select a form of arbitration. These agreements are for large commercial accounts which are carefully negotiated with insurers and involve risk managers, brokers and often legal counsel. There may be reasons beneficial to both parties to select another venue state or choice of law. Given California's competitive market, employers have a variety of companies from which to choose."

AB 2490, sponsored by Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, can be viewed at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2451-2500/ab_2490_bill_20100406_amended_asm_v98.html.