Call or email us anytime
(805) 484-0333
Search Guide
Today is Saturday, September 25, 2021 -

News Articles

Committee Passes Bills Targeting Gender Bias in PD Awards, Safety Worker Presumptions

  • State: California
  • Topic: Top
  • - Popular with: Employer
The California Assembly Insurance Committee on Wednesday passed a bill that would triple the maximum…

Purchase this story for only $7.99!

Add to Cart

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


Log in to post a comment


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.
Christopher Lear Nov 3, 2016 a 7:58 am PDT

Maybe the rating for prostate cancer is higher than for breast cancer because the effects of prostate cancer, such as possible urinary incontinence, etc. have a greater effect on the person's ability to work than that for breast cancer. Maybe? Absent the psychological effects of either, the physical effects are certainly different and I don't think anyone with any intelligence would argue that the physical effects of prostate cancer are absolutely identical to the physical effects from breast cancer. Since they are different, then the impairment rating for each should be different, and should be based upon the effect on the activities of daily living. Am I missing something here?

As for the safety officer presumptions, I am often puzzled why they need any presumption. Those that lobby on their behalf always argue how obvious it is that the safety officers sustain these injuries on the job. If it's that obvious, then they shouldn't need a presumption. Yes? Just another way their union has the legislature by the balls. Say no to their proposed presumption bill and you can forget getting their money for your campaign next go around. It has become one of the third rails of politics in California. Never go up against the CCPOA and expect to win an election.

Anonymous Nov 3, 2016 a 7:58 am PDT

I see this bill as being very gender bias. So if a man has osteoporosis or some other condition that overlays those mentioned in this bill apportionment is okay. I can't compare breast and prostate cancer but both have severe consequences for each person inflicted with the disease. The whole point of reform was to give the employer an offset for underlying conditions that caused or contributed to the injury. California is one of the rare states that allow cumulative trauma claims. To deny an employer apportionment in CT claims by this means will just drive rates higher and give employer's more reasons to avoid our aging work force. Whom will the employer higher a 20 to 40 something person or a 50 plus person whom likely already has the underlying medical conditions? Has anyone even explored how difficult it is for some of our older baby boomers to get a job? Seriously, by limiting this apportionment when many of these conditions already exist in our older workers is just going to give another disincentive for someone to hire an older worker.

Upcoming Events

  • Sep 27-29, 2021

    WILG 2021 Annual Convention

    Get linked to a national network of 1,100 workers' compensation attorneys representing millions o …

  • Sep 30, 2021

    Partnersource Employers' Virtu

    PartnerSource Employers Conference 2021: Announcing a Super New Theme Is it a bird? Is it a plane …

  • Oct 3-6, 2021

    AASCIF 2021 Annual Conference

    Save The Date! AASCIF 2021 Annual Conference October 3-6, 2021 New Orleans Marriott New Orleans, …

Workers' Compensation Events

Social Media Links

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