Subscribe
Call or email us anytime
(805) 484-0333
Search Guide
Today is Monday, July 22, 2024 -

News Articles

Friday, June 3, 2016

Apportionment, UR Bills Pass First Major Votes

  • State: California
  • Topic: WEST
  • - Popular with: Legal
  • -  2 shares
Lawmakers in the California Assembly passed a bill proponents say will prevent gender discrimination…

Purchase this story for only $7.99!

Add to Cart

For access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.

4 Comments (7 Replies)

Log in to post a comment

Close


Do not post libelous remarks. You are solely responsible for the postings you input. By posting here you agree to hold harmless and indemnify WorkCompCentral for any damages and actions your post may cause.
George Corson Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

Maybe the Prostate value is too high, rather than Breasts being undervalued. That is also a legitimate contention in addressing fairness. Why don't we lower the Prostate value to twice the value of a single breast. Both breasts (usually a woman has 2) would equal a Prostate (usually a man has 1). If the woman has a preexisting mastectoctomy, fairness would dictate that she not get the industrial value of a double merely for a single. I mean, fairness is what these A/As are seeking, so give them fairness.

I am pretty sure that industrial Breast/Prostate cancer is limited largely to Public Safety Officers with a legal presumption. I am also inferring that the PD on a Breast/Prostate Cancer case is dwarfed by the TTD/Medical/FM value, and the Municipalities/SCIF are not losing sleep over the huge frequency of the issue. Turn this Women's Rights travesty into a Cost Savings campaign, and trumpet the total Employer/Carrier savings of like 100K per year on the 6-10 prostate cancer cases. Wait, what?

And OMG, is Post-Partum Depression ACTUALLY a real diagnosis, or is this merely women realizing that babies are complicated and not just cute. I was almost accepting Post-Partum as a legitimate medical problem, until the Legislature decides to tell me that it is all fake and completely non-apportionable. Candy got a hernia and her uterus fell out during childbirth, leaving her unable to lift a 10 lb infant? Not apportionable. Wait, what?

Will this HELP the cause of women over the age of 50? Osteoporosis apportionment won't be a problem, because no one will hire them. If her spine is going to crumble, or her hip is going to shatter, why buy that? Grandma apparently doesn't actually have a disability until she has a work injury, but Osteoporosis is (basically) age-related, so advanced age is the only material consideration. Good luck proving that on a hiring decision between 40 qualified people. 100 AARP women get passed over so that one women does not lose $5,000 to Orthopedic Apportionment. Wait, what?

George Corson Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

On review, I apologize for the typos. It was 4am, and I was pre-coffee.

Diane Worley Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

This is so offensive and misogynist. I am disappointed that Work Comp Central allows these kind of remarks. Maybe it is free speech but it is hateful and proves the point on why there is so much clueless gender bias rampant in the workers' comp system and what many women have to go through when they bring a claim for breast cancer or a back injury. So troubling on so many levels that people talk like this in 2016. Oh wait...I forgot for a minute who the Republicans have for their presidential candidate this year.

Monique Villano Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

Who is this jerk? I am ashamed that they are W/C defense!

Christopher Lear Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

First, the other folks replying here need to take it down a notch. I think the Republican candidate is an insulting fool as well, but also agree with the views of wcabdefense. I take his comments as pragmatic and an attempt (albeit, a weak attempt) at humor. As a male california worker, I am shocked and insulted that CAAA and our legislature would submit a clearly discriminatory bill. To equate breasts with a prostate de-values the effects of the loss of a prostate which is NOT the same as the loss of breasts. Loss of breasts surely have an effect on the psyche of most women, but we are not talking about the effects of daily living standard in the AMA Guides at this point when identifying the effects of those separate and completely distinct medical issues on those suffering from those consequences. To equate the prostate with breasts is a ridiculous joke and only a person with a childlike mind would attempt to say they should be valued the same. An arm is not an eye. An ear is not a foot. And a prostate is not two breasts. Nor should the law view them as such. The impairment percentage for each body part must be considered in light of the effects on the activities of daily living identified in the AMA Guides. Any woman who is insulted by the thought that a prostate might be worth more than their breasts tends to look at things through eyes that see discrimination where it doesn't exist. And wcabdefense's claim that employers will look at the issues of hiring older women is, unfortunately, true. We can choose to bury our head in the sand and say it shouldn't be true and that we will fight any case where it there is proven age discrimination, but it ignores the reality that the vast majority of cases will simply end up not being proven and older women in large numbers will suffer the consequences. Good job CAAA and Linda Sanchez. You've set women back years by showing that some of them cannot think things through logically and think with their emotions.

Kevin Yang Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

Bravo WCABDefense. You should expand your comment into a full blog entry on your site. CAAA will continue to use the "equality" card to push this along, but to anyone with a brain, this is obviously purely financial for them (otherwise, why not lower the prostate rating to match the breast rating?) and political for the assemblywoman.

Dr. Edwin Haronian Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

Oh. Wah. Did you actually post that? Post partum depression comment?

Kevin Yang Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

He did. Truth hurts (or at least offends). Work Comp MDs treat pregnancy (and associated changes in the mental state) as a 3rd rail when it comes to common sense apportionment. MDs never want to be the "bad guy" and don't care if they make the whole system look foolish as a result.

Anonymous Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

I'm sorry, I now feel that the male gender is so discriminated against by this bill. It puts women up on a pedestal above the rest of the mere males out there. You can't give women these protections above and beyond what a man gets. If this gets through it should be argued as sexual discrimination and is unconstitutional. Women aren't the only ones that suffer from these conditions. How can you possibly separate the two? Why should they be treated any differently then there male counterpart. I can't believe the legislature is so dumb founded that they can't see the obvious. At this point lets just do away with apportionment. We never get it anyway as it ends up inextricably intertwined. AA's just don't want to put up a fight to get the push over ALJ and PQME/AME to agree. I wonder if this covers transgender individuals. Let's face it being a male and apparently normal in society is a penalty in California. Perhaps it time to start fighting for our equal rights? I want presumptions and all the same protections as everyone else. Let's spread it to everyone not just a single sex. If you can't give it to everyone then you can't create an elite class above the rest of us based on gender or job. Breast cancer may not be that prevalent in males but they should have the same rights. Lets make this a gender equal/ job equal bill and see the governor will sight it. Everyone should be entitled to the same rights, same benefits and same compensation. While were out it lets put the urinals in stalls and make every bathroom gender neutral. Just my opinions.

Jerry Wells Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

Assembylwoman Gonzalez bill makes no sense from the standpoint of evaluating impact on function from a particular injury; hers is a purely political move which should, in a perfect world, have no place in the evaluation of disabilities in workers compensation. The disability rating for breast cancer and that for prostate cancer--or any form of cancer--should be based on an objective assessment, not on a desire to increase one's voter base.

Alas, our system has been politicized for decades--an example being the longstanding presumptions enjoyed by safety officers without regard to medical realities.

Christopher Lear Nov 3, 2016 a 2:58 pm PDT

Agree with you entirely.

Today’s News

Advertisements

Advertise with us

Now Trending

Jobs

Upcoming Events

  • Jul 29 – Aug 2, 2024

    76th Annual SAWCA Convention

    SAVE THE DATE! 76th Annual SAWCA Convention July 29 � August 2, 2024 Hotel Effie Sandestin 1 Grand …

  • Aug 14-17, 2024

    CSIMS 2024 Annual Dual Track C

    California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery (CSIMS) is combining its two conferences, PI …

  • Sep 23-26, 2024

    IAIABC 110th Convention

    The IAIABC invites you to the IAIABC 110th Convention, "Passport to Solutions". The IAIABC Convent …

Workers' Compensation Events

more

Social Media Links


WorkCompCentral
c/o Business Insurance Holdings, Inc.
PO Box 1010
Greenwich, CT 06836
(805) 484-0333