LAO: Second Injury Fund 'No Longer Aligned' With Legislative Intent

State: California
Topic: Top
- Popular with: Insurance
- 0 shares

The nonpartisan fiscal and policy adviser to the California Legislature said the Subsequent Injury B…

Purchase this story for only $7.99!

Add to Cart

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

2 Comments

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.

Scott Rubel Jul 14, 2025 a 9:47 am PDT

It is fascinating that the employer community is whining about the current burden on the SIBTF. The main reason so many injured workers are seeking benefits from this fund is the significant reduction in workers� compensation benefits due to expanded apportionment enacted in 2004 under SB-899. The potential for this result was raised by the Applicant�s representatives in the WCAB�s en banc decision in Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604.
Escobedo was the WCABs seminal en banc decision addressing the proper interpretation of the expansion of apportionment under SB-899. In Escobedo, The WCAB summarized the Applicant�s concerns about the impact of expanded apportionment on the SIBTF (then known as the SIF). The WCAB dismissed Applicant�s assertion that expanded apportionment, �would cause a flood of SIF benefit claims to be filed under section 4751. This is because, in applicant�s view, apportionment to pathology would decrease the percentage of disability for which the employer is responsible, while the overall level of disability would remain unchanged, leaving the SIF responsible for the difference. We disagree.�
Clearly the WCAB was incorrect. Expanded apportionment has resulted in an increase in SIBTF claims as injured workers desperately seek a replacement for benefits lost under SB-899. Employers now want to drastically cut the benefits injured workers can recover from the SIBTF. On the other hand, they do not want to give up on their expanded apportionment that significantly reduces the compensation received in the claim against the employer.
As usual, the employer community wants to pick the pockets of injured workers and doom them to a lose/lose predicament.

Tom Martin Jul 14, 2025 a 10:28 am PDT

The historical perspective offered by this article starts in 1945, 80 years ago. But since history is being referenced as the "justification" for yet more takeaways from hard-working Californians, let's start in 1913, when injured workers gave up the right to an award of damages for full lost wages, daily pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in exchange for a generic system of "expeditious" average justice. Hardly "generous".