While cities and local government attempt to dig themselves out of self-inflicted holes, the legislature is threatening to makes matters worse by extending the statute of limitations for a presumptive death benefit claim filed on behalf of firefighters or peace officers, at a detrimental fiscal consequence for employers.
AB 2451, sponsored by Speaker John Pérez would eliminate the 4 ½ year statute of limitations on work-related death benefits for public safety employees who die of diseases presumed by law to be job-related. Opponents fear that there would be no limitation under the law “on the period of time between the employee’s exposure to and presumable death from heart disease, cancer, tuberculosis or blood borne pathogens.”
As a result, employers, in this case state and local government, “would see a significant increase in cost for death benefits for injuries that may not be job related, but because these are presumptive injuries it would be nearly impossible for the employer to refute the claim.”
In a letter in April from a coalition that includes, among others, Representatives of Counties (CSAC) and Cities (California League of Cities), sent to Assemblymember Jose Solorio of the Assembly Insurance Committee, they argue: “Current law requires death benefit claims for workers’ compensation to be commenced within one year of: the date of death when death occurs within one year from the date of injury; the date of the last furnishing of workers’ compensation benefits when death occurs more than one year from the date of injury; or, the date of death when death occurs more than one year after the date of injury and workers’ compensation benefits have been furnished.”
“We believe that liberal standards for public safety officers already allow employees to get fairly compensated on the basis of a disease presumption when that injury is presumed to have job causation,” they argue.
“AB 2451 would increase workers’ compensation costs for counties alone by roughly $60 million annually… at a time when local governments are struggling to provide vital services,” the letter continues. “This bill also erodes the original intent of the Workers’ Compensation Act and subsequent reforms to the system enacted in 2004, designed to provide fair and timely benefits to injured employees at a reasonable cost to employers.”
The Sacramento Bee issued two editorials in the last week in opposition. They argue because the bill removes the statute of limitations from job-related survivor death benefits for peace officers and firefighters, a firefighter could retire in 2012 at age 53, and 25 years later they could die of a heart attack.
Writes the Bee: “Although there is a presumption in current law that heart ailments in firefighters and cops are job-related, there had been no evidence of a heart condition for either retiree before the fatal attack.”
They add: “Their deaths occurred well beyond the 4 1/2-years-after-injury statute of limitations that governs job-related death benefit eligibility today. Nonetheless, under this bill their survivors could claim a death benefit worth a quarter of a million dollars at minimum.”
Realistic? Hard to know.
The Bee goes further: “It goes even further. If there are no survivors, the state can claim the benefit, with the money to be deposited into the uninsured employer benefit fund.”
As the Bee notes, proponents argue “this bill would help provide for a widow whose firefighter or police officer spouse dies prematurely of cancer six years after filing a workers’ compensation claim, just a little beyond the current 4 1/2-year statute of limitations for a death benefit. Supporters insist the widow should not lose the death benefit because modern medicine allowed her husband to linger beyond the statute of limitations.”
However, they continue: “Its practical effect is to give every police officer, every firefighter, every prison guard or park ranger a taxpayer-funded life insurance policy. To pay for that extraordinary benefit, services will have to be cut. In some jurisdictions, even police and firefighters could be laid off to pay for it.”
That’s the point that seems to be missed on the proponents of this bill. There probably are reasonable scenarios under which the current time period is too short. But there are practical reasons for statutes of limitations, and one is that the necessary evidence becomes less direct at some point.
Proponents argue, “In some cases, the exorbitant costs caused by AB 2451 could actually end up costing public safety jobs.”
The Assembly Insurance Committee stated the following in their analysis of the fiscal effect of this bill: “Undetermined but likely major new obligations, potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars to both state and local governments as a result of the substantial increase in the number of peace officers and firefighters who would now be eligible for a death benefit.”
In fact, the Bee notes “Incredibly, it was never even heard in the fiscal committees of either house, so its fiscal implications were never fully vetted.”
Three cities have already filed for bankruptcy protection, the governor is pushing for a tax increase, and the cities that have not filed for bankruptcy, like Davis, sit on the edge, having to cut $8 million in spending.
Writes the Bee: “Despite pleas from local officials worried about the future solvency of their cities and counties, the bill zipped out of the Assembly on a 69-4 vote. It passed out of the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee 5-0.”
This one isn’t just on the Democrats. As the Bee notes, “It was a bipartisan outrage. Republicans and Democrats alike voted for this bill.”
In a follow-up editorial on Sunday, the Bee reported, “A spokesman for Pérez says amendments are being prepared to soften its financial impact.”
They add, “Yet for now, it remains a fiscal train wreck. Lobbyists for cities and counties say there are no changes contemplated that could eliminate the considerable economic hardships this bill places on already struggling local governments.”
“In ordinary times, this bill would be a gross overreach. Yet with so many cities, counties and the state facing economic peril, it’s a complete outrage. That the Democratic speaker would introduce such a measure and that the Republican leader, Assemblywoman Connie Conway of Tulare, would vote for it makes it a bipartisan outrage,” the Bee opines.
“It’s a sorry indication of how legislative leaders are out of touch with the economic burdens that their constituents – including cities – are confronting,” they conclude. “This bad bill is only one vote and the governor’s signature away from becoming law.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks to the Bee and the Vanguard for bringing this to our attention.
If I had a Republican representing my district in the state assembly I would be screaming in the phone at them for voting for this bill.
Don’t we have a league of California cities? Where is the lobbying? I can’t understand why our cities are not pounding on these idiot legislators to make sure they don’t continue to vote for stupid bills that accelerate our march toward bankruptcy. Well, maybe I can understand why Democrats do it… no doubt there is union campaign money at stake. But why would Republicans vote for it? Maybe our state legislature is infested with RINO imposters also getting their pockets filled by soft union money.
In any case, this is an outrage. We need to throw the bums out of office.
Jeff
[quote]Thanks to the Bee and the Vanguard for bringing this to our attention.[/quote]
Agreed. I think this is a very important issue.
[quote]In any case, this is an outrage. We need to throw the bums out of office.[/quote]
And here is where I think a more nuanced view might be of benefit. Perhaps this is not a case of an “infested” state legislature, but rather a less than sensible way of dealing with a real issue. It seems to me, not knowing the background of the existing law, that perhaps a 4.5 year statute of limitations is an unreasonably short time line.
Many medical advances in recent years have prolonged life for many diagnosis which previously had very short life expectancies. One example. What about the survivors of a fireman who needs a heart lung transplant on the basis of smoke inhalation injury, but then lives to 5 years although in an incapacitated state. No survivor benefits for the widow and children even though causation is clear just because he was able to be sustained for six months longer than the statute of limitations ? My thought would be not to demonize those who are voting to address this problem, but rather to work for a more reasonable time line ( not infinite) given current medical practices with improved short term prognosis.
What do you think Jeff ?
Medwoman: 4.5 years is enough in my opinion. But, even if, as you say, a change is justified because of medical advances (more evidence of the US having the greatest healthcare system in the world), we simply cannot afford to give firefighters more.
The scenario you paint tugs at the heartstrings of all reasonable people.
But, looking at it from a rational perspective:
– Firefighters are already well compensated based on the risks of the job.
– Firefighters know the risks of the job.
– The risks of the job have steadily declined as we have advanced construction codes, hazardous material handling laws and fire codes.
– Since firefighters are highly compensated, they should be saving money to care for their family.
– They retire early, and so why do tax payers need to carry additional burdens of funding the related additional probability of health issues occurring? As a hypothetical, what if we required all firefighters to work until 4.5 years short of their life expectancy? In this case they would have death benefit coverage as employees.
I have term life insurance to cover my family expenses should I die. I have long term disability insurance to cover my family expenses should I get sick or injured and cannot work. My term life insurance and disability insurance terminates about the time my long-term debt obligations are met and I retire, and I am living off my retirement savings. Should I get sick and die at that point, my spouse – assuming she is still living – would simply live off that retirement savings.
But, the BIGGEST problem is that cities are going bankrupt or heading toward bankruptcy and the state Assembly just hit them with increased expenses. Are they tone deaf? Are the just ignorant? I don’t frankly know or care at this point. I am angry. I think we need to fire the entire bunch of them and start over.
Medwoman, are you ok with this if it results in more teachers being laid off? What will that teacher do for death benefits?
They can buy life insurance like everybody else.
Jeff
[quote]– Firefighters are already well compensated based on the risks of the job.
– Firefighters know the risks of the job.
– The risks of the job have steadily declined as we have advanced construction codes, hazardous material handling laws and fire codes.
– Since firefighters are highly compensated, they should be saving money to care for their family.
– They retire early, and so why do tax payers need to carry additional burdens of funding the related additional probability of health issues occurring? As a hypothetical, what if we required all firefighters to work until 4.5 years short of their life expectancy? In this case they would have death benefit coverage as employees. [/quote]
Agree with all, and would counter:
1) Firefighters children may not be aware of, nor do they control their parents choice of careers. They still need to be taken care of when a parent dies.
2) Agree that risks have likely declined. This doesn’t affect the individual who is injured and therefore is irrelevant to this discussion.
3) What about the firefighter who is very young in his career, say first or second year on the job and hasn’t had
the opportunity to save ?
4) Obviously the one’s who are so grievously injured as to be dying within 5 years are not the ones who are retiring
early.
Although I don’t dispute your points, I simply do not think most of them are relevant to a discussion of the most equitable solution for this relatively small group of individuals who have clear cut cases of reduced life expectancy due to clearly work related injuries.
[quote]Medwoman, are you ok with this if it results in more teachers being laid off? What will that teacher do for death benefits?[/quote]
I believe that I prefaced my statement by saying that I think this is a misguided effort. Perhaps I did not phrase that clearly enough to convey that I am not only not “ok” with this and believe it is a significant issue, but only that I disagreed with what I see a a non productive “throw the bums out” approach to complex problems that you seemed to be advocating.
Medwoman: I admit that “throw the bums out” was hyperbole. But seriously, we need to start letting these politicians understand how pissed we are at their continued increased committments to these public sector workers already grossly overpaid.
Don’t you agree with Rusty… they can just purchase their own life insurance with their $225,000 per year total compensation and their retirement with 90% pension with zero health care costs.
Keep in mind that many of these FF get another job after retiring at such and young age.
Jeff
[quote]Don’t you agree with Rusty… they can just purchase their own life insurance with their $225,000 per year total compensation and their retirement with 90% pension with zero health care costs.
Keep in mind that many of these FF get another job after retiring at such and young age.[/quote]
As someone who has seen the value ( or in many instances ) the lack there of of medical insurance, I have a different perspective on purchased insurance than Rusty would appear to.
However, again, and not totally tongue in cheek, I think that the issue of retirement regardless of age and post retirement health care costs is irrelevant to this discussion for the very simple and obvious reason that dead fireman do not retire. This is the limited group whose survivorst this bill is addressing. Bringing in retirement issues which obviously do not apply is a separate issue and nothing but a red herring in this discussion.
Contact the governor. [url]http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php[/url]
I would just say, I don’t think life insurance should have to cover the negligence of others. But I do think the limitation was in general reasonable at 4.5 years. Longer than that, it becomes more difficult.
medwoman, it is not a red herring, because the point is that we already provide rich enough pay and benefits that the FF can fund his own life insurance policy to cover his families expense needs for when he dies. If he is working when he dies, the family gets the employer-paid benefits. If he dies within 4.5 years after he retires at age 50, and his death is determined to be work related, then his family receives death benefits. To mitigate the risk that he might die after 4.5 years after retirement – regardless if it is determined work-related or not – he should have a supplemental life insurance policy that he pays for.
Why is it that you and others think we should pay for so much of the financial well-being of public sector workers when the rest of us have to cover our entire financial nut. Here is the list of job-related fatality rates:
1. Fisherman – 111.8
2. Loggers – 86.4
3. Structural Iron and Steel Workers – 86.4
4. Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers – 70.7
5. Farmers and Ranchers – 39.5
6. Roofers – 29.4
7. Electrical and Power Line Installers – 29.1
8. Drivers/Sales Workers and Truck Drivers – 28.2
9. Garbage Collector Workers – 22.8
10. Police and Sheriff Patrol – 21.8
From the BLM data, it looks like FF fatality is about 16.2.
So, if we are going to extend benefits to FF, what about those with riskier jobs?
Jeff, because they feel they’re entitled public workers. How many have streesfull jobs in many different fields? I would venture to say that almost everyone feels their jobs are somewhat stressfull. Should everyone then be covered a lifetime for heart attacks and strokes?
Jeff
[quote]Why is it that you and others think we should pay for so much of the financial well-being of public sector workers when the rest of us have to cover our entire financial nut. Here is the list of job-related fatality rates:
1. Fisherman – 111.8
2. Loggers – 86.4
3. Structural Iron and Steel Workers – 86.4
4. Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers – 70.7
5. Farmers and Ranchers – 39.5
6. Roofers – 29.4
7. Electrical and Power Line Installers – 29.1
8. Drivers/Sales Workers and Truck Drivers – 28.2
9. Garbage Collector Workers – 22.8
10. Police and Sheriff Patrol – 21.8
From the BLM data, it looks like FF fatality is about 16.2.
So, if we are going to extend benefits to FF, what about those with riskier jobs?[/quote]
That is exactly right ! I don’t ! What I believe is that a society as rich as ours should protect the well being of all of it’s members, not just the public employees. I think that you believe that an appropriate function of government is to protect all of its citizens from foreign attack. I agree. It is just that I believe that it is also an appropriate function of government to protect its citizens from starvation, lack of adequate housing, lack of medical care……
So what we have here is not a disagreement that some such receive special benefits while others do not, what we have is a basic disagreement about the role of government in meeting specific needs.
David
[quote][quote]But I do think the limitation was in general reasonable at 4.5 years. Longer than that, it becomes more difficult.[/quote][/quote]
On what are you basing the 4.5 years number ? It seems completely arbitrary to me . Is there any supportive information that suggests that it would become more difficult at 5 years, or 10 years, or for that matter, 2 years?
[i]”They can buy life insurance like everybody else.”[/i]
Every city employee in Davis gets life insurance as a “free” benefit, now.
If you ever thought that public employee unions were good for the public or you ever thought that all the money that public employee unions pay to Democrats in order to corrupt them did not really corrupt them, and you have half a brain, this bill alone should change your mind.
The Democrats are running our state into the ground. We have a legislature which is owned by the trade unions and the public employees. We have a Democratic governor who has not yet done a thing to buck the unions which paid for his campaign (and that has surprised me, because as Mayor of Oakland Brown was quite different, quite courageous, where as governor he has been cowardly).
If you ever were going to cast one vote to just say enough is enough, then vote for John Munn of Davis this year and throw the union lackey Mariko Yamada out of office. She has been an unmitigated disaster for cities and counties and she has been especially uncaring about Davis.
If a public safety employee is DIAGNOSED with a condition, during the current 4.5 year period, and if it is DOCUMENTED to the employer and/or PERS within that window, it is my understanding (based on other parts of the Bee’s reporting), it matters not that they actually succumb to the condition at a date after the 4.5 year window. They still would qualify.
What about a public safety employee who retires young, starts smoking, drinking, and/or becoming morbidly obese, and succumbs to an illness brought on by their post-retirement activities (or lack thereof)? As the legislation is proposed, they (or, more correctly, their survivors) could still get the money even though their service was not the cause. That would be bad public policy even in much ‘richer’ times.
I know of a police captain who, during their service, smoked heavily, was obese (tho’ probably not fitting the “morbidly” class), and drank like a fish off-duty. At retirement, they tried to claim the ‘job-related’ presumption. The City fought it, and won, but it was an expensive, time-consuming process. The “presumption” provision in existing law is pretty generous, as the employee does not have the burden of proof. The employer/PERS does.
BTW medwoman, re-read the articles… it is ALL about post-retirement mortality.
Rifkin… the amount of LI for most (if not all) city workers is significantly smaller than what exists/is proposed in the current legislation. The city’s cost to provide this coverage is negligible. I believe that only one PS employee died “in the line of duty” (and that was in the 50’s (Cantrill). I know of one city employee who succumbed due to complications of a job-related injury (fairly recently). I know of one city employee who died at their own hand while working for the city, but as I recall, was a part-time employee who was not afforded the coverage.
hpierce
I re read not only the article and comments but also the specifically recommended alteration of language:
[quote]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 5406 of the Labor Code is amended to read:
5406. (a) Except as provided in Section 5406.5, 5406.6, or
5406.8, the period within which may be commenced proceedings for the
collection of the benefits provided by Article 4 (commencing with
Section 4700) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 is one year from any of the
following:
(1) The date of death if death occurs within one year from date of
injury.
(2) The date of last furnishing of any benefits under Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 4550) of Part 2, if death occurs more than
one year from the date of injury.
(3) The date of death, if death occurs more than one year after
the date of injury and compensation benefits have been furnished.
(b) Proceedings under subdivision (a) shall not be commenced more
than one year after the date of death, nor more than 240 weeks from
the date of injury.
SEC. 2. Section 5406.8 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
5406.8. In the case of the death of a firefighter or peace
officer from an injury, as defined in Section 3212, 3212.1,
3212.6, or 3212.8, the period within which proceedings may be
commenced for the collection of the benefits provided by Article 4
(commencing with Section 4700) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 is one year
from the date of death.
[/quote]
Could you please direct me to the part that states that this is applicable only to retirees? I was interpreting it to also include those who could not work based on work related illness prior to retirement. Wouldn’t be the first time I have been in error.
I thought it was all directed at retirement. I assume, like hpierce, that someone on LTD from job-related injury or illness would have their family covered… I think the kids are covered until they are 22 and the spouse until she is 65, and then the benefit changes for the spouse. I think the same is true for someone diagnosed with a work-related injury or sickness that continues to work by dies on the job. The only situation I am not sure of is someone with a diagnosed condition but still fit to work (not on LTD) dies after retirement and the doctor says the death was caused by the condition.
But again… just purchase a 40-year term life insurance policy at 35 or 40 year of age. That is the rest of non-privilaged workin’ stiffs have to do.
Rich wrote:
> The Democrats are running our state into the ground.
> We have a legislature which is owned by the trade
> unions and the public employees.
While I agree with everything Rich said we can’t forget the Republicans (many of the “tough on crime members of the GOP are getting a lot of cash from cops) and the trial lawyers who I’m sure are also behind this change in the law.
As Jeff mentioned many (my unofficial survey says most) cops and firefighters that “retire” at 50 with a ~$10K/month pension get a job with another department making another ~$10K/month so they can get a second pension when they retire at ~65.
I bet we will see a cops family suing both Davis and Roseville for
the stress that caused his heart attack at 80. It is sad that this will probably pass (just like the public safety retirement “disability” scam) cops and firefighters will get even more money (pushing many of them closer and closer to the “top 1%”)…
[quote]That is the rest of non-privilaged workin’ stiffs have to do.[/quote]
The thing is, I don’t think all of us “non-privileged workin’ stiffs ” should have to do that either 😉
medwoman… are you saying society should finance the payment of over $250,000 for every man/woman/child in the US who dies? No matter the cause and the individual’s contribution to their death?
I also see no reference to 4.5 years… have not looked up the legislation… going by the Bee accounts, as I said. If they are wrong, so am I
“But again… just purchase a 40-year term life insurance policy at 35 or 40 year of age. That is the rest of non-privilaged workin’ stiffs have to do.”
BINGO!
hpierce
[quote]medwoman… are you saying society should finance the payment of over $250,000 for every man/woman/child in the US who dies? No matter the cause and the individual’s contribution to their death?[/quote]
Certainly not. But I am saying that when the support for a family is lost, there should be reasonable support for the remaining family members so that they do not have to rely on family members ( who may or may not exist) or charity ( which may or may not be offered) to avoid hunger, loss of home, or medical care. I firmly believe that this is is one of the legitimate purposes of a society is to provide security to its members. We are not all fortunate enough to have been born into circumstances that provide us with this security privately. I do believe that this is a legitimate role of the government when people genuinely cannot care for themselves.
“On what are you basing the 4.5 years number ? It seems completely arbitrary to me . Is there any supportive information that suggests that it would become more difficult at 5 years, or 10 years, or for that matter, 2 years? “
I agree it seems completely arbitrary. I’d like to understand the basis for that number better and I am not opposed to changing it. What I am opposed to is having there be no limitation.
medwoman wrote:
> I do believe that this is a legitimate role of the government
> when people genuinely cannot care for themselves.
I’ve said many times we would live in a better place if the government spent more time trying to get parents to take care of their kids than just giving out money.
I’ve done a lot of work with at risk kids and almost none of them have a Dad around and close to half don’t even have a Mom around (“Granny” or “Auntie” or Foster parents are raising them).
Yesterday I read that the Government is giving money to the kids of a guy worth ~$27 million dollars.
http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/08/17/pete-stark-defends-social-security-payments-to-his-kids-delinquent-dues/
SOD: I sit in on a lot of trials and often they involve young latino males. Often they have a large contingent of family in the audience. Almost never do they have adult males.
On the one hand it sounds nice to say that parents need to take better care of their kids. On the other hand, we’ve stepped in to raise kids for parents who simply cannot do it. I don’t think it’s merely a matter of will, I think there are serious issues that a lot of parents never dealt with that inhibit their ability to properly raise their kids. So I have no answer.
SOD
“I’ve said many times we would live in a better place if the government spent more time trying to get parents to take care of their kids than just giving out money. “
On this we are in complete agreement. The problem is, how does one achieve that goal and still manage to feed the children who are already her, and those who have not yet arrived without providing money if their parents are unable to, many times through no fault of their own.
I have spent much of my career trying to address the most basic underlying problem. There remains a 50 % unintended pregnancy rate in our country. Until we are willing to address this issue openly through our media, education system, churches , and in our own homes, I do not see how we can hope to lessen the number of children whose parents do not have the will or the capacity to care for them. We have part of the solution right in front of us in the form of safe, effective, reversible means of contraception. And yet while there are scores of ads for Cialis and
Viagra on TV with no media or public commentary, we have young women labelled “sluts” who are only calling for sensible access to means to avoid having children they are unprepared to support.
I know I am significantly off topic. Feel free to pull comment as you see fit Don.
Had to meditate on this subject for a while. I worked for S.C.I.F. in the 80’s. I’ve the utmost respect for firefighters & the myriad of ailments that they willingly suffer to perform their jobs. They are constantly risking their lives, exposing themselves to deadly chemicals, performing emergency medical care, and of course, fighting fires. I think that firefighters deserve the “presumption”.
And, I rarely saw any firefighter “malinger.” They got right back to the job they loved. Find another way to balance the budget. Don’t punish the firefighters.