WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED AS
SOON AS WE GET A COUPLE OF
MEMBERS TO SHOW UP. SO UM, WE'LL
JUST WAIT UNTIL WE GET WE GET A
FEW GET A FEW FOLKS, AND WE ALSO
NEED NEED AN AUTHOR AS WELL. I
THINK A COUPLE OF THE SENATORS
HAVE OUR STAR STARTING THEIR OWN
COMMITTEES THIS MORNING AT THE
SAME TIME, SO JUST A LITTLE BIT
OF AN ORGANIZATION ISSUES SO
WE'LL GET STARTED HERE SOON.
SURE. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO
GET STARTED THIS MORNING.
WELCOME EVERYONE. I WILL BE
SERVING AS COMMITTEE CHAIRED.
TODAY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CORA WILL
BE FILLING IN FOR MR DALEY.
TODAY WE HAVE 11 BILLS ON THE
CALENDAR, FOUR OF WHICH ARE ON
CONSENT. NOTE THAT WE WILL NOT
BE. WE WILL NOT BE TAKING PHONE
IN TESTIMONY TODAY, AND THOSE OF
YOU WHO WISH TO TESTIFY ARE
ENCOURAGED TO COME TO ROOM 4 37
TO DO SO. I WOULD LOVE TO BE
ABLE TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM. IF
WE HAD EVEN ONE OTHER MEMBER TO
BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT, UM,
SINCE SENATOR CORTES DE IS ALSO
HAVING TO SHARE HIS OWN
MEETINGS, WE ARE GOING TO GET
STARTED. UM ON HE'S GOING TO BE
PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER TWO FOR
SENATOR ATKINS AND THEN IN HIS
OWN BILL ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR TO
START PRESENTATION. SO SENATOR
CORTESI.
OH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. IT'S MY
PLEASURE TO PRESENT SP 11 27 ON
BEHALF OF PRO TIM ATKINS, WHICH
WILL IMPROVE THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION SYSTEM FOR INJURED
PUBLIC SAFETY WORKERS SO THAT
THEY MAY ACCESS SECURITY NEED
AND DESERVE TO BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE PROTECTING OUR
COMMUNITIES. OUR FIREFIGHTERS
AND PEACE OFFICERS PUT
THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY EACH
AND EVERY DAY. THAT THEY REPORT
TO DUTY. I THINK WE ALL KNOW
THAT TO PROTECT THESE WORKERS.
LEGISLATURE ESTABLISHED
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS IN THE
WORKERS COMP SYSTEM TO
STREAMLINE CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
REDUCE FRICTIONAL COSTS WITHIN
THE SYSTEM. FAIR AND EXPEDITIOUS
ADJUDICATION OF THESE CLAIMS
BENEFITS THE WORKERS SEEKING
TREATMENT AND THEIR EMPLOYERS,
SAVING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
COSTS TO BACKFILL FOR THE
INJURED FIREFIGHTER. MINIMUM
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE
DEPARTMENTS MEANS THAT EACH DAY
A FIREFIGHTER IS OUT WITH AN
INJURY OR ILLNESS. ANOTHER
FIREFIGHTER MUST COVER HIS OR
HER SHIFTS, OFTEN RESULTING IN
OVERTIME TO BACKFILL, THE
INJURED FIREFIGHTER. REGRETTABLY
TODAY, INJURED WORKERS CONTINUE
TO EXPERIENCE DELAYS AND DENIALS
THAT PREVENT THEIR CLAIMS AND
ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE FOR
MOVING FORWARD IN A TIMELY
MANNER. AMENDMENTS TO SB 11 27
REDUCED THE TIMELINE FOR
ACCEPTANCE OR DENIAL OF
PRESUMPTIVE INJURY CLAIMS TO 75
DAYS AND ADJUST PENALTIES. TO
$50,000 FOR EMPLOYERS, INSURERS
AND THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS.
WHEN THEY UNREASONABLY DENY
PRESUMPTIVE INJURY CLAIMS. SB 11
27 INSURERS THAT TEMPORARY
DISABILITY AWARDED FOR CANCER
CLAIM IS ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE
INJURED FIREFIGHTER OVER TIME
ISABEL THEIR ILLNESS BY REMOVING-THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
CANCER CLAIMS AND BY ALLOWING UP
TO 240 COMPENSABLE WEEKS FOR
THOSE SUFFERING FROM
OCCUPATIONAL CANCER, WHERE THAT
CANCER IS CAUSED A TEMPORARY
DISABILITY. OVER THE PAST FIVE
YEARS. CALIFORNIA'S EXPERIENCE
CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES AGAIN AS
WE ALL KNOW. THEY'VE TAKEN A
HUGE TOLL ON FIREFIGHTERS AND
THEIR FAMILIES. 14 OF THE
LARGEST 20 WILDFIRES IN
CALIFORNIA HISTORY OF OCCURRED
IN THE PAST 10 YEARS, CAUSING
TENS OF BILLIONS IN INSURANCE
PAYOUTS IN ECONOMIC DAMAGES.
URBAN AND RURAL FIREFIGHTERS ARE
EXPOSED TO THE DEVASTATION OF
HOMES AND TOWNS, HUMAN SUFFERING
AND TRAUMA. DANGEROUS CONDITIONS
AND EXTREME FATIGUE. THIS IS OUR
NEW NORMAL. IT IS SUCH A
LEGISLATURE IS BEING CALLED UPON
TO UPDATE THIS IMPORTANT LAW IN
ORDER TO PROTECT OUR FRONTLINE
HEROES. PROTIUM ATKINS EXPRESSES
HER APPRECIATION TO THE CHAIR
AND THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT FOR
THE INPUT AND EARLY FEEDBACK
THAT LED TO THE AMENDMENTS. TO
THIS BILL AS IT'S NOW IN PRINT.
WOULD BE TO PRESENT THIS BILL IN
PERSON. OUR BRIAN RICE.
PRESENTLY CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS, THE
SPONSORS OF SPLM 27 LIEUTENANT
MAGALY CHAU. C B FROM THE SAN
FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT. AND
OF COURSE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK ON SB 11
27. MY NAME IS BRIAN RICE AND
THEN THE PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS
REPRESENTING MORE THAN 30,000,
FIREFIGHTERS AND EMS PERSONNEL.
WE'RE ALSO THE PROUD SPONSORS OF
THIS MEASURE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
THANK SENATOR CORTEZ. AND
SENATOR HERTZBERG AND CERTAINLY
SENATE PROTEST M. TONI ATKINS
AND ALL THE CO AUTHORS OF THIS
MEASURE FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP ON
THIS CRITICAL ISSUE WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIRMEN AND
THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
ENGAGEMENT AND THE WORK ON THIS
MEASURE. WORKERS COMPENSATION
PRESUMPTIONS THEIR INVALUABLE,
INVALUABLE PROTECTION FOR
FIREFIGHTERS AND OTHER WORKERS
WHOSE JOBS ARE INHERENTLY
DANGEROUS AND COME WITH HIGH
AMOUNT OF PERSONAL RISK. RIGHT
NOW. FIREFIGHTERS ARE NOT
EXPERIENCING THAT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WHEN DEALING
WITH THE PRESUMPTIVE INJURY OR
ILLNESS, IT'S MUCH MORE COMMON
FOR AN EMPLOYER, THEIR INSURER
OR THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR TO
INITIALLY DIDN'T DENY A
PRESUMPTIVE CLAIM. AND FACE
REALLY NO MATERIAL RISK OF
INCURRING PENALTIES IF THAT
CLAIM IS ULTIMATELY ACCEPTED,
INJURED FIREFIGHTERS AND THEIR
FAMILIES ARE CARRYING THE
PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL COST OF
THESE UNREASONABLE DENIALS. AND
THEY'RE BEING ASKED TO SPEND
THEIR TIME NOT ONLY FIGHTING
THEIR ILLNESS BUT FIGHTING THE
SYSTEM IN AND REALLY, TO WHAT
END. SB 11 27 PROPOSALS TO
ADDRESS THESE UNFAIR PRACTICES
BY REFORMING THE TIMELINES
REGARDING THE DETERMINATION FOR
COMPENSABLE BILITY. OF A
PRESUMPTION AND BY INCREASING
THE PENALTIES FOR ACTIONS DEEMED
BY A JUDGE TO BE UNREASONABLE
AND UNREASONABLE DENIAL OF
BENEFITS, LASTLY, BUT NOT LEAST
SB. 11 27 WILL ENSURE THAT
FIREFIGHTERS WHO HAVE RECURRING
CANCER DO NOT HAVE TO RACE THE
CLOCK FOR A TEMPORARY DISABILITY
PROTECTION TO RUN OUT. YOU'LL
HEAR MORE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE
OF THAT FROM MY COLLEAGUE, SAN
FRANCISCO FIRE LIEUTENANT SADIE
AT THE HEART OF THIS LEGISLATION
IS THE FACT THAT WORKERS'
COMPENSATION PRESUMPTIONS THEY
ARE SPECIAL AND AFTER A CAREER
OF SACRIFICING HEALTH AND SAFETY
FOR THE GOOD OF THEIR COMMUNITY
. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS DESERVE
TO HAVE THEIR CLAIMS TREATED AS
SUCH, WE UNDERSTAND THE
OPPOSITION CONTINUES TO RAISE
CONCERNS WITH THE MEASURE. THEY
SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIM THAT
PROCESS HAS ALREADY TAKE LONGER
THAN NIGHT. THE CURRENT 90 DAY
TIMELINES WILL ALSO SAYING THAT
THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS WORKING
AND NEARLY ALL CLAIMS ARE
GRANTED ANYWAY. WITH THAT
ASSERTION DOES NOT COVER IS THAT
WHILE A CLAIM MAY EVENTUALLY BE
ACCEPTED, THERE ARE MONTHS IN.
IN FACT, YEARS OF LEGAL BATTLE
STRAIN WORRY AND TRAUMA
INFLICTED ON THE CLAIMANT AND
THEIR FAMILIES, AND I STAND
BEFORE YOU NOT ONLY AS A UNION
PRESIDENT BUT AS A FIREFIGHTER,
A PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTER. UM I
DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER
CONVERSATION WITH A FIREFIGHTER
OR THEIR OR THEIR FAMILY ABOUT
THE IMPENDING FIGHT COMING UP
OVER IN MANY CASES, CANCER OR
HEART. HEART LUNG DISEASE
BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS NOT GEARED
TO TAKE CARE OF HIM THE WAY THAT
IT WAS INITIALLY DESIGNED ALL
THOSE YEARS AGO. WE'RE NOT
ASKING FOR A BLANK CHECK. WE'RE
JUST ASKING FOR A FAIR SHAKE. I
THINK WE HAVE WORKED ALL
TOGETHER. TO COME UP WITH, UM, A
PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT
CERTAINLY ADDRESSES THAT AND I'M
HUMBLED TO SIT HERE BEFORE YOU
AND URGE AND ASK YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT ON SB 11 27 AND, UM
LIEUTENANT SADIE. IN HERE.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK
THIS MORNING REGARDING SB 11 27
. MY NAME IS MCGAULEY, SADIE AND
I AM A 24 YEAR VETERAN
FIREFIGHTER OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
FIRE DEPARTMENT. I'VE SPENT MY
CAREER IN BUSY URBAN STATIONS
RESPONDING TO FIRES AND OTHER
EMERGENCIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
I WAS FIRST DIAGNOSED WITH
BREAST CANCER IN EARLY 2016
DURING MY ROUTINE MAMMOGRAM
SCREENING. DURING MY INITIAL
PERIOD OF TREATMENT. MY FOCUS
WAS ON MY HEALTH AND MY FAMILY
AND MAKING SURE THAT I CAN GET
BACK TO WORK AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE. USED THE TEMPORARY
DISABILITY TIME THAT WAS
AVAILABLE TO ME TO SEEK
TREATMENT AND AFTER THREE
SUCCESSFUL IMPACT AMIS AND
RADIATION PROCEDURES I WAS
DECLARED CANCER FREE. AFTER A
CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH FOR FOUR
YEARS I WAS UNFORTUNATELY FOUND
TO HAVE BREAST CANCER. MM. AH
BREAST CANCER ONCE AGAIN IN 2021
COME ON. AND THE SPREAD OF MY
CANCER MEANT THAT I WOULD NEED A
AH! DOUBLE MASTECTOMY. I HOPE.
IT WAS DURING MY SECOND BOUT
WITH THIS CANCER THAT I WAS
INFORMED THAT MY TEMPORARY
DISABILITY TIME HAD EXPIRED,
WHICH IS SOMETHING I DIDN'T EVEN
KNOW WAS POSSIBLE AND THAT THIS
ADDED ADDITIONAL STRESS AND
UNCERTAINTY TO AN ALREADY
DIFFICULT TIMES. BECAUSE THIS
CANCER WAS DETERMINED TO BE A
RECURRENCE OF THE PREVIOUS
BREAST CANCER. I COULDN'T I
COULDN'T FILE FOR ADDITIONAL
TEMPORARY DISABILITY. LEAVING ME
WITHOUT OPTIONS OTHER THAN TO
USE MY OWN SICK TIME AND MY OWN
VACATION TIME FOR THE EXTENDED
PERIOD NEEDED. THE SURGERY AND
HEALING TIME FOR A DOUBLE
MASTECTOMY IS EXTENSIVE, AND IT
IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF
MY SURGERY AND MY MANY YEARS ON
THE JOB. AND CAREFULLY SAVING MY
TIME THAT I WAS ABLE TO COVER IT
ALL. ANOTHER FIREFIGHTER MAY NOT
BE SO LUCKY. I'VE GOTTEN THROUGH
MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE SUPPORT
OF MY FAMILY AND MY BROTHERS AND
SISTERS IN THE FIRE SERVICE. BUT
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT THINGS LIKE AN EXPIRATION
DATE OF THEIR DISABILITY TIME
WHILE BATTLING CANCER. AS
FIREFIGHTERS. WE ARE EXPOSED TO
ALL KINDS OF TOXIC MATERIALS.
THAT ARE KNOWN TO INCREASE THE
RISK OF CANCER, BUT WE FACE THIS
WILLINGLY. BECAUSE WE LOVE OUR
JOBS. WE LOVE WHAT WE DO, AND WE
LOVE SERVING OUR COMMUNITIES.
I'M STILL WORKING AS IT IS NOW.
I LOVE IT. THIS BILL WILL ALLOW
MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO FOCUS
ON GETTING BETTER WITHOUT HAVING
TO WORRY OF WHETHER THEY WILL BE
LUCKY ENOUGH. TO GET SICK AGAIN
IN THE RIGHT TIME FRAME OR
WHETHER THEY WILL BE LEFT WITH
NO RECOURSE IF IT'S TOO LATE.
FOR THESE REASONS. I URGE YOUR
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL. SB 11 27.
THANK YOU. WELL THANK YOU SO
MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING
WILLING TO SHARE YOUR YOUR
STORY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO
ANY OTHER TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT
OR ANY OTHER ADD ONS FOR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, MITCH STEIGER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION IN
SPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO
COMMITTEE AND CHAIR. MY NAME IS
VINCENT CASTELLANA FOR THE STEAK
FOR THE AMERICAN FEDERATION FOR
STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES IN SUPPORT OF A SENSE
OF SENATE BILL 11 27. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, SAYING NONE.
I'M GONNA ASK. ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION? COME
ON UP. JUST A GANDEL IT YOU
KNOW, WE ARE OPERATING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE NOW.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
FAITH GORGEOUS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITIES HERE TODAY IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO SB 11
27. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
AUTHOR THE CHAIR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND STAFF FOR YOUR TIME
TO MEET WITH US AND TO HEAR OUR
CONCERNS AND FOR THE RECENT
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE AN
IMPROVEMENT TO THE BILL. HOWEVER
BECAUSE THE BILL FAILS TO
ACKNOWLEDGE ALL ASPECTS OF
STATUTORILY REQUIRED
INVESTIGATIONS, EMPLOYERS WILL
BE FORCED TO PROVISIONALLY DON'T
DENY MORE CLAIMS AND INJURED
WORKERS WILL HAVE LESS ACCESS TO
EMPLOYER FUNDED MEDICAL CARE.
THIS BILL ALSO ADDS SIGNIFICANT
COSTS AND TIME TO RESOLVE
WORKERS CLAIMS DUE TO THE
LENGTHY LEGAL PROCESS TO ADDRESS
PENALTY PROVISIONS CREATED BY
THE BILL. CALIFORNIA LAW
REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO
INVESTIGATE CLAIMS AND
REGULATIONS EXPRESSLY STATE THAT
EMPLOYERS MUST FULLY AND FAIRLY
GATHER THE PERTINENT INFORMATION
WHETHER THAT INFORMATION
REQUIRES OR EXCUSES BENEFIT OF
PAYMENT. WHILE AWAITING
STATUTORILY REQUIRED INFORMATION
AND ADMINISTRATOR MAY BE FORCED
TO PROVISIONALLY DENY A CLAIM
WHILE THEY UNTIL THEY HAVE A
CONFIRMED DIAGNOSIS OF
INDUSTRIAL CAUSATION, WHICH IS
STILL REQUIRED EVEN FOR
PRESUMPTIVE INJURIES. BY
DECREASING THE INVESTIGATION
PERIOD. THIS BILL ALSO DECREASES
THE TIME AND INJURED WORKER
RECEIVES UP TO $10,000 OF FREE
EMPLOYER FUNDED MEDICAL CARE
WHILE THEIR CLAIM IS REVIEWED.
SO THIS BILL DOES INCLUDE THE
COVID PRESUMPTION, WHICH APPLIES
TO ALL EMPLOYERS WITHIN THE
STATE. THIS BILL TARGETS
TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND
CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ARE COVERED
BY PRESUMPTIONS THAT ARE LARGELY
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND APPLICATION
. THIS BILL WOULD MANDATE THAT
PUBLIC EMPLOYERS EMPLOYEES
EXCUSE ME RECEIVED FIVE TIMES
THE AMOUNT OF PRIVATE SECTOR
EMPLOYEES FOR THE SAME INJURIES.
SINCE THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF
AN UNREASONABLE DENIAL, EACH
DENIAL OF A REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION WILL BE LITIGATED AS
IN REASONABLE AT A MINIMUM,
DRASTICALLY INCREASING COST FOR
EMPLOYERS AND DELAYING THE
ADJUDICATOR OF ADJUDICATION OF
ALL CLAIMS FOR WORKERS WHILE
THEY WAIT ON A CLOGGED LEGAL
SYSTEM. THIS PROVISION IS
RETROACTIVE AS WELL BY LIMITING
THE INVESTIGATION PERIOD FOR THE
MOST COMPLEX CLAIMS. SB 11, 27
HAMSTRINGS AND EMPLOYERS
INVESTIGATION ALL BUT
GUARANTEEING THERE IS LEGALLY
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE
LEGITIMATE CLAIMS OR DENY
INVALID OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS. WE
ARE TROUBLED BY THE CONCEPT OF
THREATENING LITIGATION AND
PENALTIES FOR DOING THE WORK OF
APPROPRIATE CLAIMS INVESTIGATION
, WHICH AMOUNTS TO COERCION, BAD
FAITH CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION AND
A GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS. IN
ADDITION TO TAX FREE WAGES AND
PENSIONS AVAILABLE TO SAFETY
OFFICERS, THIS BILL PROPOSES
BASELESS MULTIPLIERS THAT CREATE
TAXPAYER FUNDED BONUSES FOR
DELAYS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF AN
EMPLOYER'S CONTROL. WHILE WE
REMAIN WILLING PARTNERS TO
IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES WITHIN THE
SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE TD ISSUE
THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED. DRASTIC
CHANGES TO EMPLOYER FUNDED
MEDICAL CARE AND BENEFITS
LARGELY FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS. IT
REQUIRES DATA, THOUGHTFUL REVIEW
AND ROBUST STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT. THIS BILL HAS FAILED
THOSE METRICS AND FOR THOSE
REASONS WERE OPPOSED. THANK YOU
. ONE MORE. I KNOW. THERE WAS
TWO MINUTES ONLY DID TWO MINUTES
. I THINK I'VE ALLOWED A LITTLE
BIT LONGER THAN TWO MINUTES. BUT
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS JASON SMELTER HERE
ON BEHALF OF CWC IN PRISON
FIRST. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT
OUR MEMBERS HAVE PROFOUND
RESPECT FOR PEACE OFFICERS AND
FIREFIGHTERS AND ALL OF THE
INJURED WORKERS FOR WHOM FOR
WHOM WE ADMINISTER CLAIMS. I DID
THAT JOB 20 YEARS AGO PRIOR TO
BEING A LOBBYIST, AND I CAN TELL
YOU THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING
THAT JOB. HAVE GOOD INTENT, NOT
BAD INTENT. TO BE CLEAR. THE
DATA SUGGEST THAT EMPLOYERS ARE
ACTUALLY DOING A GOOD JOB OF
TIMELY PROCESSING WORKERS'
COMPENSATION CLAIMS, NOTABLY 85%
OF CLAIMS HAVE A DECISION BY DAY
45. 97% OF CLAIMS HAVE A
DECISION BY DAY 90 86% OF CLAIMS
ARE ACCEPTED BY DAY 90. THE DATA
ALSO SHOWS THAT IT'S SYSTEM
PROBLEMS AND NOT BAD EMPLOYER
BEHAVIOR THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR DELAYS. BUT I'M GOING TO
COME BACK TO THAT. TO BE CLEAR.
EMPLOYERS ARE NOT OPPOSED TO
POLICY SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD
ALLOW US TO MAKE BETTER
DECISIONS MORE QUICKLY. WE JUST
DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL
DOES THAT. IT'S IN THAT SPIRIT
THAT WE'VE ASKED TO MEET WITH
THE AUTHOR AND SPONSOR FOUR
TIMES. HERE'S WHAT WE HEARD IN
THE TWO MEETINGS. WE HAD FIRST
THEY AREN'T INTERESTED IN
COMPREHENSIVE REFORM. SECOND WE
WERE TOLD THAT THERE IS JUST A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT THE
PROBLEM IN THE BILL. WELL IF THE
GOAL IS TO SPEED UP DECISIONS
AND THE WORKERS COMPENSATION
SYSTEM WE BELIEVE THAT SYSTEM
REFORM ACTUALLY IS NECESSARY.
YOU CAN'T JUST CHANGE 92 75 HOPE
FOR THE BEST. THAT'S NOT HOW THE
SYSTEM WORKS. SECOND THERE ARE
OBJECTIVE PROBLEMS WITH SB 11 27
THAT RESPECTFULLY ARE NOT A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION GOING TO
TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THOSE
NUMBER ONE STATE RUN SYSTEM THAT
MUST BE USED TO RESOLVE MEDICAL
DISPUTES. WHEN YOU'RE DEALING
WITH COMPENSABLE ITTY IS BROKEN
. THERE IS A 2019 STATE AUDITOR
REPORT THAT DETAILS EVERY
PROBLEM WITH THAT CURRENT
SYSTEM, AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN
IMPROVED. AND TO TOUCH ON A FEW
OF THOSE WORKERS EXPERIENCED
DELAYS WHEN THERE AREN'T ENOUGH
QUÊ ARMY DOCTORS FINDING FROM
2014 TO 2018 THE NUMBER OF QUÊ
ME DOCTOR SHRINK BY 12% WHILE
THE NUMBER OF REQUESTS INCREASED
BY 37% REPLACEMENT PANEL IS WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN THE FIRST PANEL OF
DOCTORS ARE UNAVAILABLE FOR AN
APPOINTMENT LIKE THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE. STATE PROVIDED
PANELS. THE NUMBER OF THOSE
REPLACEMENT PANELS INCREASED TO
19,000 YEAR. TRIPLED BETWEEN
2014 AND 2018. THE QUALITY OF
THOSE REPORTS, THE AUDITOR FOUND
ARE POOR. THOSE ARE NOT EMPLOY
YOUR ACTIONS. THOSE ARE THE
STATE MANDATED, STATE CONTROLLED
SYSTEM THAT IS NOT SERVING
EMPLOYERS AND NOT SERVING
INJURED WORKERS. THE LAST THING
MR CHAIR AND THANK YOU FOR THE
EXTRA LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TIME.
THE BILL IS IN NAKED CONFLICT
WITH THE REGULATIONS THAT
DICTATE THIS PROCESS. THIS IS
NOT A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
THIS IS A FACT. IF YOU LOOK AT
THE REGULATIONS IT CURRENTLY
ANTICIPATES 100 AND 10 TO 120
DAYS FOR THE PROCESS OF SECURING
A PANEL. SCHEDULING AN
APPOINTMENT AND DELIVERING THE
REPORT. WE BEAT THAT TIME FRAME.
97% OF THE TIME AND GET THIS
DONE DESPITE THAT, DESPITE THAT
MISALIGNMENT SB 11 27 DOES
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DEAL WITH
THAT PROCESS. FOR THOSE REASONS
, AND THOSE REASONS ALONE. WE
ASK YOU TO VOTE NO. ON THIS
BILL, WE WOULD BE HAPPY. TO
CONTINUE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW
TO MAKE QUICKER AND FASTER,
BETTER DECISIONS. BUT THIS BILL
DOES NOT DO THAT, AND WE WILL BE
BACK HERE IN A FEW YEARS TALKING
ABOUT IT. THANK YOU. AND JUST
FOR THE MEMBERS THAT HAVE COME
IN. WE ARE ON SB 11 27 BY
SENATOR ATKINS, UM AND SENATOR
CORTESI IS THE ONE PRESENTING,
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE ADD
ONS FOR OPPOSITION. UM JUST YOUR
NAME. UH AND YOUR POSITION NAME.
YES HI THERE. DANNY RITTER ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PROPERTY
CASUALTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
AND CAL CHAMBER AND OPPOSITION.
THANKS. THANK YOU. LAWRENCE
GAITAN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, AND
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS THERE, BUT ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS,
THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION, THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
BASED ADMINISTRATORS, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. IT'S SEEING NO OTHER
ADD ONS. WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. IF THERE
ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE. UM WE JUST WANT TO
MAKE MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THE
CHAIR DOES SUPPORT THIS MEASURE
TODAY. UM WE HAVE NOT MADE IT TO
WHERE WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
UM AS WE ARE OPERATING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE FOR NOW, AND SO
WE'RE GOING TO HOLD ON TO THIS
BILL WILL COME BACK WHEN WE
ESTABLISHED A QUORUM, AND THEN
WE'LL TAKE A MOTION AND A SECOND
AND THEN WILL VOTE, BUT WE WILL
MOVE NOW ONTO, UH, SENATOR. YOUR
YOUR BILL, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER
FOUR. SB 2 13, PLEASE PRESENT.
WELL THANK YOU AGAIN, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS ARE PLEASED TO
PRESENT SP 2 13, WHICH WILL
CREATE STREAMLINED ELIGIBILITY
FOR WORKERS COMPENSATION FOR
THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO PROVIDE
DIRECT PATIENT CARE. IN ACUTE
HOSPITAL SETTINGS AND FACE HIGH
RISK OF ILLNESS AND INJURY ON
THE JOB. INCLUDING CONDITIONS,
SUCH AS SUCH AS INFECTIOUS
DISEASE, MUSCULOSKELETAL INJURY
AND COVID 19. WORKERS COMP
PRESUMPTIONS CURRENTLY EXIST IN
CALIFORNIA LAW FOR FIRST
RESPONDERS IN MALE DOMINATED
PROFESSIONS, INCLUDING LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE IN THOSE
PROFESSIONS. WE KNOW FOR
WHATEVER HISTORICAL REASONS TO
THIS DAY 90% OF THOSE EMPLOYEES
ARE MALE. WHILE NURSES AND
HEALTHCARE WORKERS
OVERWHELMINGLY WOMEN. ALSO. NOT
COINCIDENTALLY, PERHAPS 90%
WOMEN BLACK, THE SAME PRESENT
PROTECTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS. SB
2 13. IS NOT ENTIRELY ABOUT NEW
PRESUMPTION. SO IT'S ABOUT
EXTENDING SIMILAR WORKERS
COMPENSATION PRESUMPTIONS AGAIN
SIMILAR COMPENSATION. TO NURSES
AND OTHER HEALTH CARE WORKERS.
AND IN DOING SO, THIS BILL BILL
SEEKS TO MODERNIZE OUTDATED
LAWS. AND ACHIEVE GENDER EQUITY
IN OUR STATE AROUND THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND THIS
PARTICULAR COMPENSATION. I'LL
TALK ABOUT THAT SOME MORE.
MOMENTARILY. BUT I THINK IT'S
FOR THIS REASON THESE GENDER
EQUITY ISSUES THAT WE'VE SECURED
THE SUPPORT OF THE CHAIR OF THE
CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
WOMEN'S CAUCUS, NANCY FOWLER,
THE LOS ANGELES DEMOCRATIC PARTY
, THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
HOME TO THE SECOND LARGEST
PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM IN
CALIFORNIA. IN MY OFFICE IS
COMPILED AND SHARED WITH YOU
WITH YOUR OFFICE IS EVEN MORE
EXTENSIVE RESEARCH TO JUSTIFY
EACH SPECIFIC PRESUMPTION
INCLUDED IN THE BILL. LET ME
THEN JUST PAUSE TO SEE THAT AS
SOME OF YOU HERE. NO. I
PREVIOUSLY SERVED 12 YEARS ON
THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. WHICH AGAIN RUNS
ONE OF THE LARGEST PUBLIC
HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED
STATES. MULTIPLE HOSPITALS,
MULTIPLE CLINICS, THOUSANDS OF
HOSPITAL WORKERS. IT'S ALSO A
COUNTY THAT IS A VERY ROBUST
PRIVATE SECTOR HOSPITAL SYSTEM,
SO I'M ACUTELY AWARE OF EQUITY
ISSUES THAT PERVADE OUR
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM AND HAVE FOR A
VERY LONG TIME. IN THE BACK,
ACTED TO ADDRESS THOSE IN MY OWN
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORK. EXISTING
LAW. ONLY PROVIDES CERTAIN TYPES
OF FRONTLINE PROFESSIONALS. AS I
WAS SAYING EARLIER. WITH
ELIGIBILITY FOR WORKERS
COMPENSATION PRESUMPTIONS. THIS
INCLUDES EMPTY PARAMEDICS,
FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE
OFFICERS. ALL OF WHICH ARE
CURRENTLY MALE DOMINATED FIELDS
, AS THEY EMPHASIZED EARLIER,
ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. SEVEN OUT
OF EIGHT POLICE OFFICERS ARE MEN
19 OUT OF 20 FIREFIGHTERS ARE
MEN. THREE OUT OF FOUR MTS ARE
MEN. MEANWHILE FRONTLINE WORKERS
WHO WORK IN HEALTHCARE SETTINGS
SUCH AS NURSES, THOSE ON THE
FRONT LINES OF THE PANDEMIC OVER
THE LAST TWO YEARS ARE NOT
ENTITLED. TO ANY WORKERS'
COMPENSATION PRESUMPTIONS. THIS
IS DESPITE THE FACT THAT NURSES
PROTECT THE SAME POPULATION
LITERALLY IN OUR HOSPITALS AND
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS PROTECT
OUT IN THE FIELD. NINE OUT OF 10
REGISTERED NURSES ARE WOMEN.
THAT'S A FACT. LIKE POLICE AND
FIRE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES. JOBS
ARE PHYSICALLY DEMANDING,
LIFTING AND REPOSITIONING THEIR
PATIENTS FREQUENTLY EXPOSED TO
JUST AS MANY OF BLOOD BORNE
PATHOGENS FROM NEEDLE PRICKS AND
TOXIC CANCER CAUSING CHEMICALS.
REQUIRED TO SAVE OR PROLONG THE
LIVES OF ACUTELY SICK PATIENTS.
pHAVE PROVIDED THE STUDIES ALL
THE WAY ALONG. THROUGH OUR OWN
HOUSE IN HERE INTO THE ASSEMBLY
THAT DEMONSTRATE THOSE FACTS,
ACCORDING TO THE BUREAU OF LABOR
STATISTICS IN 2020 WORKPLACE
HAZARDS THAT REQUIRED AT LEAST
ONE DAY OFF WORK TOTAL TO 20 FOR
FIREFIGHTERS AND 200 FOR POLICE
OFFICERS, THE TOTAL FOR
REGISTERED NURSES WITH 78,740.
THE CORE OF THIS BILL IS SIMPLE.
SB 2 13 RECOGNIZES AND ADDRESSES
THE CLEARING INEQUITY IN
CALIFORNIA'S WORKERS'
COMPENSATION SYSTEM. EQUITY IS
ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN ALL FRONTLINE
PROFESSIONALS WHO FACE THE SAME
RISK OF ILLNESS AND INJURY DUE
THE NATURE OF THEIR WORK. ARE
GIVEN THE SAME GUARANTEED
BENEFITS. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE A
POINT EARLIER ABOUT THIS BEING
THE SAME POPULATION. WHEN AN E M
T. SHOWS UP. IN AN AMBULANCE AT
AN EMERGENCY ROOM. IT MOVES A
PATIENT. FROM THE GURNEY. FROM
THE MTS OVER TO THE NURSES WHO
ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT PATIENT
INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. THERE'S
A LIFT TEAM. THEY'RE THE NURSES
, OF COURSE, HAVE TO MOVE THAT
PATIENT TO BRING THEM INTO THE
EMERGENCY ROOM IN THE FLASH OF
THAT SECOND THAT MOMENT. ALL
WORKERS COMPENSATION
PRESUMPTIONS. END. THE MOMENT.
THOSE MALE FIREFIGHTERS,
PREDOMINANTLY MALE MOVE THAT
PATIENT OVER INTO THE HANDS OF
PREDOMINANTLY WOMEN NURSES. WHAT
KIND OF LEGAL FICTION IS THAT?
THAT SAYS SOMEHOW, SOME WAY. THE
LIFTING. BY THOSE E M. T S OF
HOURS, ONE SET OF COMPENSATION
PRESUMPTIONS, BUT THE LIFTING BY
THOSE MOSTLY WOMEN NURSES
REQUIRES NONE AT ALL AS A MATTER
OF LAW. OPPONENTS MAY ARGUE THAT
THE BILL WILL RESULT IN A
SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN
FRAUDULENT CLAIMS AND BANKRUPT
HOSPITALS. THIS IS NOT TRUE.
CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ALL
PRESUMPTIONS AND BILL CAN BE
REBUTTED. EMPLOYERS HAVE THE
ABILITY TO DISPUTE ANY CLAIM AND
SP 2 13 EXPLICITLY PROTECTS AN
EMPLOYER'S RIGHT TO DO SO. THIS
ROUTE. BILL ISN'T ABOUT AWARDING
MORE CLAIMS WE'VE HEARD EVEN
FROM THE OPPOSITION. WE MAY HEAR
TODAY THAT 90% OF THESE CLAIMS
ARE AWARDED, SO IT'S REALLY NOT
ABOUT BANKRUPTING ANYBODY. WHAT
THIS IS ABOUT IS EXPEDITING
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN.
WHO ARE WORKING AS FRONTLINE
WORKERS. THERE'S NO REASON NOT
TO DO THAT. THE 10% THAT ARE IN
QUESTION CAN BE REBUTTED AND
THEY WILL BE REBUTTED. WE KNOW
THAT IN THE WORLD ALLOWS THAT
RIGHT HERE TO TESTIFY WITH ME
TODAY IS CURTIS LANG,
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR THE
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION.
NATIONAL NURSES UNITED A F L C I
O THANK YOU, SENATOR. MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I'M CURTIS PLAYING
WITH THE CALIFORNIA NURSES
ASSOCIATION, THE PROUD SPONSORS
OF SB 2 13. WE THANK SENATOR
CORTESI FOR HIS LEADERSHIP AND
BRINGING FORTH THIS MEASURE. SB
2 13 IS MUCH NEEDED LEGISLATION
THAT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL
PROTECTION BY WAY OF WORKERS
COMP PRESUMPTIVE ELIGIBILITY FOR
HEALTH CARE WORKERS ON THE FRONT
LINES AND SEEKS TO ACHIEVE
PARITY BETWEEN PREDOMINANTLY
FEMALE RNS AND HOSPITAL WORKERS
AND PREDOMINANTLY MALE
FIREFIGHTERS, POLICE OFFICERS
AND OTHER FIRST RESPONDERS OR
FRONTLINE WORKERS. AS THE
SENATOR MENTIONED. BY THE NATURE
OF THEIR PROFESSION, NURSES AND
HEALTHCARE WORKERS ARE IN
CONSTANT DANGER OF BEING
DIRECTLY EXPOSED THE SAME
HAZARDS. AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED. I WON'T GO OVER THOSE
AGAIN, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT
NURSES ACTUALLY SPEND MUCH MORE
TIME WITH THESE PATIENTS IN
FACILITIES, NURSING THEM BACK TO
HEALTH. DOES INCREASING THEIR
RISK AND EXPOSURE TO HAZARDS AND
ILLNESSES, YET THEY DO NOT
QUALIFY FOR THE SAME PROTECTIONS
AFFORDED TO PREDOMINANTLY MALE
FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE
OFFICERS. OPPOSITION TO THIS
MEASURE INDICATE THAT HOSPITALS
ARE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS AND
THUS THERE'S NO NEED FOR
PRESUMPTIONS FOR WORKERS IN THE
HOSPITAL ENVIRONMENT OR SETTING
HOWEVER, DATA DOESN'T SUPPORT
THIS ARGUMENT AS OF JUNE 17TH,
CALIFORNIA LOCAL HEALTH
DEPARTMENTS HAVE REPORTED
165,350 CONFIRMED. POSITIVE
COVID CASES AND 580 DEATHS AND
NURSES AND HEALTHCARE WORKERS.
THIS FIGURE INCLUDES ON THE JOB
EXPOSURE, SO IT'S APPARENT THAT
HOSPITALS DO NOT PROTECT
HEALTHCARE WORKERS, UM FROM
THESE ISSUES, AND IN FACT, OVER
THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WHEN
COVID 19 1ST STARTED OUR NURSES
HAD TO BRING IN HEALTHCARE
WORKERS HAD TO BRING IN THEIR
OWN PPE. TRASH BAGS AND OTHER
THINGS, SO THAT'S AN INDICATION
THAT HOSPITALS DO NOT DID NOT
PREPARE. TO PROTECT THEIR
WORKERS FROM COVID 19.
ADDITIONALLY MANY WHO OPPOSED
THIS MEASURE STATE THAT THERE IS
A COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT
THE CURRENT PROCESS IS NOT
WORKING, AND THERE'S NO DATA TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT WORKERS COMP
CLAIMS HAVE BEEN DENIED.
NEVERTHELESS OUR MEMBERS REPORT
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH ACCESS
TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION
SYSTEM. DATA FROM WORKERS'
COMPENSATION CARRIERS DO NOT
CAPTURE THE MANY INSTANCES WHERE
NURSES DO NOT EVEN FILE REPORTS
OR CLAIMS. BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS
SO BURDENSOME OR WHEN AN
EMPLOYER TELL THE NURSE THAT
THEIR INJURY WAS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY WORK RELATED, AND
THEREFORE THEY DO NOT FILE
EMPLOYERS OFTEN TELL NURSES TO
USE THEIR OWN PIG, SICK LEAVE
AND OTHER TIME INSTEAD OF
APPROPRIATELY USING WORKERS
COMPENSATION. UM OPPONENTS, ALSO
OF THIS MEASURE ARGUE THAT
CREATING PRESUMPTIONS FOR
HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES WOULD
INCREASE COSTS FOR EMPLOYERS. AS
THE SENATOR MENTIONED MANY OF
THE HIGHER COST IN THE CURRENT
SYSTEM OR DUE TO THE WORKER'S
COMPENSATIONS MEDICAL REVIEW
PROCESS. THE MEDICAL REVIEW
PROCESS INCLUDES A DOCTOR
COMPLETE MUSEUM REPORT, THEN
WORKERS COMPENSATION SENT IT OUT
TO AN OUT OF STATE DOCTOR WHO
THEN EVALUATES THE PAPERWORK TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY. THIS
PROCESS COSTS MONEY AND DELAYS
IN THE SYSTEM AND ALSO MOST MOST
IMPORTANTLY, DURING THIS PROCESS
, ENTERED WORKERS BEAR THE COST
AND FINANCIAL BURDEN FROM NOT
WORKING WHILE TRYING TO RECOUP.
ACTUALLY TO REDUCE THE COST AND
RISK ASSOCIATED WITH WORKPLACE
INJURIES AND ILLNESSES.
EMPLOYERS NEED TO ADDRESS SAFETY
AND HEALTH BY CREATING AND
CREATING AND IMPLEMENTING
EFFECTIVE INJURY AND ILLNESS
PREVENTION PROGRAMS. I PPS.
TAKING THIS APPROACH TO LOST
CONTROL WILL MAKE THE WORKPLACE
SAFER, INCREASE WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND OVERTIME COSTS,
REDUCE TURNOVER RATES AND
MINIMIZE THE RISK OF OSHA FINES.
LOST CONTROL STARTS WITH AN
AUTHENTIC COMMITMENT FROM
MANAGEMENT. COVID AS I MENTIONED
COVID 19 HAS EXPOSED THE FACT
THAT I PPS AREN'T APPROPRIATELY
PRIORITIZED BY HEALTHCARE
EMPLOYERS WRAP UP HERE.
ABSOLUTELY. PARTICIPATION OF I.
P. P S AND PROVIDING WORKERS
COMPENSATION PRESUMPTIONS WILL
PROVIDE THE PROTECTIONS THAT
FRONTLINE HEALTHCARE HEALTHCARE
WORKERS DESERVE. FOR THESE
REASONS. TÍNH RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE TODAY ON SB 2
13, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY
HAVE. THANK YOU. AND THEN WE'RE
GOING TO GO TO, UM, ADD ONS, SO
JUST YOUR NAME YOUR ORGANIZATION
AND YOUR POSITION, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MONICA MILLER ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
NURSE ANESTHETISTS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MORNING
CHAIR AND MEMBERS PAT WHELAN,
ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY HERE ON
BEHALF OF YOU, NAK AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS MITCH
STEIGER WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION IN SPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. MEGAN
SUPERS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. COMEDIAN CHAIR
PENTECOST ELENA FOR THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, NANCY
PAVARINI ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIAN SUPPORT. GREAT,
THANK YOU. AND SEEING NO MORE
ADD ONS IN SUPPORT. WE'RE GOING
TO MOVE TO WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. AND SO IF THERE ARE
TWO WITNESSES, I'VE GIVEN A
LITTLE BIT OF GRACE BECAUSE WE
HAVE NOT YET GOTTEN TO CORUM.
BUT IF WE GO TOO FAR, THEN I'M I
WILL CUT YOU SHORT. GOOD MORNING
, MR CHAIR AND COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU. I DID TRY TO KEEP IT SHORT
. BUT I MAY HAVE A FEW ADD ONS
NOW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH
YOU REGARDING SENATE BILL 2 13.
MY NAME IS VALERIE LAKEY. AND
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT AT MAYOR'S HOSPITAL.
APRIL HOSPITAL IN NORTHEASTERN
SHASTA COUNTY. WE ARE A DISTRICT
HOSPITAL IN A CRITICAL ACCESS
HOSPITAL. I ACTUALLY MADE THE
FOUR HOUR TRIP HERE THIS MORNING
BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT TO US
AS IT IS OUR RURAL COLLEAGUES.
AS A RURAL HOSPITAL. OUR STAFF
IS COMMITTED TO THE FRONT LINES
TO PROVIDING CARE TO CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTS THAT LIVE OUTSIDE OF
THE URBAN POPULATION. WE SERVE A
POPULATION THAT IS CHRONICALLY
UNDER SERVED. THAT IS THE REASON
I AM HERE TODAY IN OPPOSITION OF
SENATE BILL 2 13. AS YOU KNOW,
THE CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMP
SYSTEM IS A NO FAULT SYSTEM
DESIGNED TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR
AND MANAGE WORKPLACE INJURIES,
ILLNESSES AND EXPOSURES. NOW WE
KNOW THAT NO MEDICAL SYSTEM IS
PERFECT. AND IF THE PROPONENTS
HAD BROUGHT FORWARD EVIDENCE AND
DATA TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT
INJURY INCIDENTS INCIDENTS IS
HIGHER AT HOSPITALS AND DENIALS
ARE HIGHER AT HOSPITALS. WE
WOULD WORK TOGETHER TO DEVELOP A
ROBUST LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION. BUT
ALL THE AVAILABLE DATA SHOWS
THAT THERE ACTUALLY IS A HIGH
ACCEPTANCE RATE OF CLAIMS FOR
MANY OF THE AREAS ADDRESSED IN
SB, 2, 13 AND OTHER AREAS ARE
RARELY OR NEVER CLAIMED AS
EMPLOYMENT RELATED. IN FACT, IN
OUR HOSPITAL, AND I CHECKED
AROUND WITH MANY OF THE OTHER
SMALL RURAL HOSPITALS ARE DENIAL
RATE IS LESS THAN 2% AND ON THE
AVERAGE THE CALIFORNIA HOSPITALS
, IT'S BETWEEN SEVEN AND 9. AND
OTHER SECTORS OF, UM, INDUSTRY
IS BETWEEN 10 AND 12. UM
PROPONENTS OF 2 13 POINT TO A
HIGHER POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO
HAZARDS, BUT THEY CAN'T POINT TO
A HIGHER INJURY INCIDENTS. I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY LIKE TO
DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE POINTS
THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. UM I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THE PRESUMPTIVE
ELIGIBILITY IN SOME OF THE OTHER
SECTORS WAS APPOINTED BECAUSE IT
WAS A PREDOMINANTLY MALE
PROFESSION. I BELIEVE THAT THE
DIFFERENCE THERE IS THAT WHEN
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FIRST
RESPONDERS AND HOSPITALS, YES,
HOSPITALS DO YOU HAVE A MUCH
MORE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT? WE
ARE VERY INTERESTED IN THE WELL
BEING OF OUR STAFF. IT'S A
PRIORITY AND WE OPERATE WITH
THINGS LIKE CONTROLLING OUR
AIRFLOW. OUR TEMPERATURE ARE
ACCESSED BY PATIENTS AND
VISITORS. AND WE CONTINUALLY
WORK TO IDENTIFY AND DEBATE
HAZARDS. WE FOR ONE, AND MANY OF
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE VERY, VERY
STRONG, I PP PROGRAMS AND WE
WORK VERY CLOSELY. WITH OUR
INSURANCE PROVIDERS TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE'RE PROVIDING PROPER
SAFETY MEASURES MEASURES AND WE
DO FOCUS ON OUR PERSONAL
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND OTHER
WORK PROCESSES TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE CAN KEEP OUR EMPLOYEES SAFE.
AS FAR AS COVID THE COVID
EXPOSURES IN OUR FACILITY LESS
THAN 12% HAS BEEN WORK RELATED.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STUDY BY
THE UNIVERSITY OF U. C S F, IT
WAS 19% OF THEIR CLINICAL STAFF
THAT IT WAS A WORK RELATED
EXPOSURE. WE ARE FINDING IN OUR
RURAL FACILITIES, ESPECIALLY ITS
COMMUNITY. EXPOSURE IS WHAT WERE
THE COVID. POSITIVE COVID IS
COMING FROM, SO SIMPLY PUT. I
JUST THINK THAT THERE REALLY IS
NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL. SO I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR SUPPORT IN
OUR POSITION. WITH A NO VOTE ON
SENATE BILL 2 13. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU WILL ALLOW FOR ONE
MORE WITNESSES AND WITNESSING
OPPOSITION. HI, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. PETER
CONNELLY WITH THE L. A COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. EXCUSE ME
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO DATA SP 2
13 L. A COUNTY IS IN A UNIQUE
SPOT. WE OPERATE FOR COUNTY
HOSPITALS AND IN 19 HEALTH
FACILITIES WITHIN THE COUNTY. SB
2 13 EXPOSES A MAJOR COST TO THE
COUNTY AND THOSE PUBLIC
HOSPITALS, EMPLOYEES IN OUR
HOSPITALS AND OUR CARE
FACILITIES CURRENTLY HAVE ACCESS
TO CALIFORNIA IS NO FAULT
WORKERS COMP SYSTEM, WHICH IS
ROUTINELY AND LITERALLY APPLIED.
AS OF THIS VERSION OF THE BILL,
AS MANY HAVE STAYED BEFORE.
THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT
DATA PROVIDED THAT IT SHOWS ITS
PROVISIONS ARE NECESSARY TO
ENSURING PROPER CARE FOR THIS
POPULATION OF EMPLOYEES. L A
COUNTY CONSERVATIVELY ESTIMATES
THE COST OF PROVIDING A CANCER
PRESUMPTION TO THIS POPULATION-OF EMPLOYEES AT 8 10 MILLION
ANNUALLY WOULD INCREASE COSTS BY
6.4 MILLION ANNUALLY FOR THE
MUSCULOSKELETAL PRESUMPTION AND
FOR ALL OF THE PRESUMPTIONS
INCLUDED IN THE BILL. ABOUT TWO
MILLION ANNUALLY. WE WOULD URGE
THE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER THESE
COSTS AS WELL AS THAT LACK OF
DATA AND OPPOSING SB 2 13 TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'LL GO TO THE ADD ONS FOR
WITNESS FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN
OPPOSITION. JUST YOUR NAME
ORGANIZATION IN YOUR POSITION.
HI THERE. DENNY RITTER ON BEHALF
OF A PC TO THE AMERICAN PROPERTY
CASUALTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
AND THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. FAITH BORDERS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITY, AS OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. DINNER SLOPER FOR THE
UNITED HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
POST. THANK YOU. JASON SMELTERS
, CCW SEE IN PRISON A POST THANK
YOU. SPREAD NOWHERE REPRESENTING
STANFORD HEALTHCARE AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THINK, MR TIME REMEMBER
SARAH BRIDGE ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS AND THE
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION HERE IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AARON TAYLOR ON BEHALF
OF MEMORIAL CARE HEALTH SYSTEMS
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. JONATHAN CLAY AND BAPTIST
SCRIPTS, HEALTH AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. KATHLEEN SORIANO ON
BEHALF OF THE KECK MEDICINE AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. COLLECTING WITH THE SILICON
VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR. MEMBERS WANT
TO PARTICULAR HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION? RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND SEEING NO OTHER FOLKS
THAT WISH TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION. WE'RE GOING TO BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. JUST
AS A REMINDER. WE'RE STILL
OPERATING AS A SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE
NOT YET ESTABLISHED A QUORUM.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE MR CHOLERA. UM
UH, I WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED.
YES. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I WANT
TO THANK THE SENATOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I
ACTUALLY SERVED WHEN I WAS IN
THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, SERVED ON
THE PENSION BOARD WHEN WE WHEN
WE USED TO HAVE ELECTED
OFFICIALS ON IT FOR OUR PUBLIC
SAFETY. UM AND WHEN I THINK
ABOUT EVEN WITH THE REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION, THERE ARE PLENTY OF
CLAIMS SMALL PERCENTAGE,
RELATIVELY SMALLER PERCENTAGE,
WHICH IS A GOOD THING, BUT THERE
WERE THERE WERE CLAIMS THAT
WOULD BE CONTESTED BY THE CITY.
AND UM AND REBUTTED. IN SOME
CASES THE CITY WOULD WIN. BUT I
JUST THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT
IF THERE WASN'T A REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION FOR THOSE
FIREFIGHTERS, UM AND POLICE
OFFICERS. UM HOW MUCH HOW MANY
MILLIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT?
ON THOSE CLAIMS BEING
ESSENTIALLY LITIGATED, YOU KNOW
, IN THESE PENSION BOARDS THAT
STILL EXISTS AND STILL REVIEW
THAT, AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT
THIS, I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY
HAS MENTIONED. ABOUT EXPEDITING
ACCESS WHEN THERE'S BEEN A
SOMEONE OF AGREEMENT THAT MOST
CLAIMS ARE ALREADY UM, BEING
ACCEPTED. AND FOR THE, UM
THERE'S ALREADY A HIGH
ACCEPTANCE RATE. AND THERE WOULD
BE A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION FOR
THOSE THAT THERE MAY BE
DISAGREEMENT ON THERE'S STILL AN
OPPORTUNITY. UM TO BITE THEM,
AND I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT
THAT OKAY, WELL, THERE MIGHT BE
SOME CLASS INVOLVED IN THAT. BUT
THE REALITY IS I THINK THE COST
RIGHT NOW ARE TWOFOLD. THERE'S A
LOT OF ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF COST
THAT EMPLOYERS AT THE SPEND WHEN
CLAIMS ARE MADE. MM ABSENT THE
REBUTTABLE, PRESUMPTION ON
CLAIMS ARE ULTIMATELY UM,
ULTIMATELY MAY VERY WELL
ULTIMATELY BE APPROVED, AND MOST
DO AT LEAST BASED UPON THE
ANALYSIS, IT LOOKS LIKE, UM,
THERE THERE'S MOST OF THEM ARE
APPROVED THINK THEY EXPLAINING
THE ACCESS CAN BE GOOD FOR BOTH
PARTIES. BOTH FIRST OF ALL THE
NURSES, OF COURSE, BECAUSE THEY
pMOVING ON MORE QUICKLY TO
REHABILITATE HELL AND IF
APPROPRIATE, BACK IN THE
WORKFORCE AND FOR THE EMPLOYER
TO QUICKLY EXPEDITE THESE CLAIMS
IN A IN A WAY THAT I THINK MORE
EFFICIENT FOR THEM AS WELL. IN
TERMS OF HOSPITAL ENVIRONMENT
BEING IN CONTROL ONE VERSUS THE
OTHER VERSUS C, PLEASE.
FIREWOOD HAVE YOU? WELL
CERTAINLY THE THOSE ARE THE THAT
THOSE ARE THE APPLES, ORANGES
COMPARISON BEING MADE, BUT THE
APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON OR
OTHER INDOOR CONTROLLED
ENVIRONMENTS. OUR HOSPITAL
ENVIRONMENTS LIKE AN OFFICE
ENVIRONMENT OR OTHER
ENVIRONMENTS THAT CAN BE
OTHERWISE CONTROLLED OR
WAREHOUSE, A GROCERY STORE. AND
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES? AND I
THINK WE ALL KNOW ESPECIALLY
OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS,
BUT THE DIFFERENCES ARE IN A
HOSPITAL ENVIRONMENT FROM THOSE
OTHER. CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS
AND, FRANKLY, THE FACT THAT IT'S
A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT EVEN
HELPS THE BENEFITS THE EMPLOYER
EVEN MORE BECAUSE OF THE
REGULATIONS TO HELP DECREASE THE
LIKELIHOOD OF ACCLAIM COMING
FORWARD AND BEING SUCCESSFUL,
BECAUSE I THINK EVERYONE AGREES
THAT WE WANT TO CREATE A SAFE
AND TO MAINTAIN A SAFE
ENVIRONMENT. FOR THE BENEFIT OF
NOT JUST OUR FRONTLINE WORKERS
IN THE HOSPITALS, THE NURSES AND
OTHERS BUT FOR THE PATIENTS AND
GUESTS AS WELL. AND I THINK
ULTIMATELY THIS IS ALSO ABOUT
DIGNITY AND RESPECT. I THINK
RESPECTING NOT JUST THE WORK OF
OUR FRONTLINE HEALTHCARE WORKERS
THAT ARE IN THE HOSPITAL IS NOT
JUST THE FIRST RESPONDERS
OUTSIDE THE HOSPITALS, AND I
THINK AS A SENATOR CORRECTLY
MENTIONED PREDOMINANTLY FEMALE
WORKFORCE THAT WE HAVE HAILED AS
HEROES OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS, AND YET AS THEY COME
FORWARD, ASKING FOR OUR SUPPORT
AND ASKING FOR US TO SUPPORT
THEIR EFFORTS. I THINK WE NEED
TO BE THERE FOR THEM, AND I
THINK THIS CAN BE DONE IN A WAY
THAT AGAIN, UH, ALLOWS A MORE
EFFICIENT PROCESS ALLOWS FOR
CLAIMS TO BE PROCESSED MUCH MORE
QUICKLY. AND STILL ALLOWS FOR A
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION FOR THE
EMPLOYER IF CLAIMS ARE NOT
APPROPRIATE. AND SORT OF WENT IN
APPROPRIATE WILL CERTAINLY BE
HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION. THANK
YOU, MR KARA AND THE OTHER
MEMBER, WHICH IS TO MAKE A
COMMENT OR ASK A QUESTION. UM,
MR RODRIGUEZ. YET. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, SENATOR.
YOU KNOW, I'M I'M REALLY
CONFLICTED ON THIS BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, JUST KIND OF THINKING
ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN YOUR
PRESENTATION REGARDING, UH FIRST
RESPONDERS. MTS MEDICS.
FIREFIGHTERS BRINGING THE
PATIENTS IN AS A TAKE A LOT OF
YOU KNOW, I'VE WORKED OVER 30
YEARS AND THAT INDUSTRY RIGHT?
AND UM, I CAN TELL YOU TIME AND
TIME AGAIN OF ALL THE THOUSANDS
OF PATIENTS ARE BROUGHT TO
SEVERAL HOSPITALS ACROSS THE
BOARD. AND FIRST OF ALL MY HATS
OFF TO THE NURSES, RIGHT? THEY
ARE VERY LIFESAVING PART OF THE
DYNAMIC AND CARING FOR PATIENTS
, BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU BRING
IT TO THE HOSPITAL SETTING, IT'S
A DIFFERENT SETTING. RIGHT
VERSUS BEING OUT THERE IN THE
STREETS. AND THE REASON WHY I
SAY THAT BECAUSE MANY TIMES, UH
I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY NURSES IN
THE ER S ATOMIC, FREDDIE I DON'T
KNOW HOW IN THE HELL YOU CAN DO
THIS JOB. REMEMBER WE WORK IN A
CONTROLLED SETTING IN THE
HOSPITAL. YOU BRING US THE
PATIENTS PRETTY MUCH CLEANED UP
TO A DEGREE, RIGHT? AND WE HAVE
OUR ADDITIONAL STAFF WITH US AT
BEDSIDE. OTHER NURSES,
TECHNICIANS, DOCTORS, OTHER
STUFF THAT HELP US WITH THE
PATIENTS. BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW
YOU CAN DO THIS OUTSIDE WHEN
IT'S JUST YOU AND YOUR PARTNER
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.
SOMEBODY'S HOUSE. SIDE OF THE
ROAD, WHATEVER IT IS TO DO THAT
JOB, AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT E M
. T S AND STUFF I CAN TELL MANY
TIMES HAVE I HELPED NURSES MOVE
PATIENTS NOT ONLY FROM OUR
JOURNEY TO THE BED AND EVEN TO
OTHER BEDS AND KIND OF GO BACK A
LITTLE BIT MORE. YOU TALKED
ABOUT THE NURSING NEEDING HELP
TO MOVE PATIENTS WELL. MY DOCTOR
. MY DAUGHTER IS A RESPIRATORY
THERAPIST IN THE HOSPITAL, AND
SHE WORKS IN THE ER. AND
ACTUALLY, I JUST TALKED TO TALK
TO A NURSE, A GOOD FRIEND OF
MINE WHO'S ALSO A CURRENT
NURSING A DIFFERENT HOSPITAL IN
A DIFFERENT COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, AND THEY TELL ME
FREDDIE, WE DO HAVE WHAT THEY
CALL ER TEXT TO HELP US MOVE
THOSE PATIENTS, SO THE NURSES
AREN'T STUCK AS YOU SAY, MOVING
PATIENTS AND HELPING PREVENTING
THEM FROM GETTING HURT. SO THERE
ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENCES ON
HOW HOSPITALS ARE WORKING IN THE
PERSONNEL THAT ARE THERE AND YOU
TALK ABOUT FIRST RESPONDERS AND
EVERYTHING. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS
KIND OF CATCH ME UP BY BY
SURPRISE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
MIMICKING THE SAME THING OVER
THE POLICE OFFICERS AND
FIREFIGHTERS. SHOULDN'T HAVE
NURSES BEEN INCLUDED IN THE
ATKINS BOROUGH THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT? RAW TOGETHER,
RIGHT? WE'RE FIRST RESPONDERS.
WHETHER YOU'RE THAT THE NURSE
THE POLICE OFFICER FIREFIGHTER.
THE SAME THING TO A DEGREE,
RIGHT? BUT YET WE COULDN'T PUT
EVERYBODY TOGETHER IN THE SAME
GROUP AND KIND OF REALLY CALL IT
A PUBLIC SAFETY THING, BECAUSE
AS YOU SAY, WE'RE DOING THE SAME
JOB. MAYBE A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT, RIGHT
VERSUS OUT ON THE STREET VERSUS
INSIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE UNIQUE
CHALLENGES AS WELL. AND THAT'S
FROM CONFLICTED WITH THAT. WHY
IS IT SEPARATE? IT COULD HAVE
BEEN TOGETHER AS ONE AND TALKING
ABOUT THE COST. AND MAYBE I
SHOULDN'T GO HERE, BUT, UH THE
BURDEN ON HOSPITALS COSTING SO
MUCH MONEY FOR THAT PRESUMPTION.
AND I WONDER ABOUT THAT RIGHT?
BECAUSE WHEN HOSPITALS CONTRACT
WITH NURSING CONTRACTING WHEN WE
BRING NURSES TO HELP FROM OTHER
PARTS. AND I HEAR FROM NURSES
TOO. THEY TELL ME, FREDDY, YOU
KNOW THESE NURSES THAT COME OUT
TO HELP FROM OTHER PARTS.
THEY'RE PAYING THREE OR FOUR
TIMES THAT WERE MAKE RIGHT AND
WE'RE NOT EVEN NOT EVEN DOING
THE JOB THAT THE REGULAR NURSES
DOING SOME CONFLICTED OUT WHEN
THE HOSPITAL SAID WE DON'T HAVE
MONEY, BUT YET THERE IS MONEY
WHEN WE'RE HAVING TO PAY THESE
NURSES THAT COME OUTSIDE AND
CAUSE ANOTHER ISSUE, RIGHT? SO
FOR ONE REASON THAT YOU HAVE
MONEY, BUT THEN YOU DON'T IN THE
PRESUMPTIONS HERE ARE A LITTLE
DIFFERENT BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN TO
ME, I'M CONFLICTED BECAUSE IT IS
A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT. THE
CHALLENGES ARE UNIQUE. BUT THERE
IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. UM SO THE
BIGGEST QUESTION IS, WHY CAN'T
WE GET EVERY TOGETHER AND IN THE
ATKINS BILL BECAUSE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THINGS TO
A DEGREE, RIGHT? SURE THAT YOU
MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. AT
LEAST THANK YOU. LET ME START
WITH WHAT WAS KIND OF THE LAST
QUESTION. FIRST BUSINESS GREAT
QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE
ATKINS BILL, WHICH I PRESENTED,
THE COMMITTEE JUST HEARD.
PREVIOUSLY THE ATKINS BILL. UM.
ASSUMES THAT PRESUMPTION IS
ALREADY EXIST. AND THAT'S THE
REASON IT'S A GREAT QUESTION,
BUT THE TECHNICAL REASON THAT WE
COULDN'T IMPORT NURSES INTO THAT
OR I MEAN, I SUPPOSE YOU COULD.
YOU COULD DO IT AS WE ALL KNOW
HERE. WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT
WITH WITH THE BILL MAKES IT AS
EXPANSIVE AS POSSIBLE. BUT THAT
BILL FRANKLY, DESPITE THE
INDICTMENT THAT WE HEARD OF THE
ENTIRE WORKERS COMP SYSTEM IS
REALLY VERY NARROWLY TAILORED TO
SAY WHEN DO YOU HAVE A
PRESUMPTION? WHAT SHOULD THE
PROCESS LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF
EXPEDITING IT OR NOT? 75 DAYS,
90 DAYS, WHICH THE PENALTIES BE
FOR UNREASONABLY WITHHOLDING.
ARE UNREASONABLY CONTESTING. BUT
THE REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THIS
THIS LITERALLY. 2 13 IS TRYING
TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT
NURSES DON'T HAVE ANY
PRESUMPTIONS AT ALL. WHICH LEADS
ME TO THE SECOND QUESTION, WHICH
IS REALLY YOUR FIRST QUESTION.
WHAT SHOULD THESE PRESUMPTIONS
BE? FOR NURSES? IT IS A
DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT. AND BY NO
MEANS DID I MEAN IN MY COMMENTS
TO EQUATE THE CONDITIONS THAT
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT FACE.
FRANKLY EVEN POLICE OFFICERS AND
FIREFIGHTERS IN THIS DAY AND AGE
AND THIS YEAR FACING DIFFERENT
ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO COP
CLAIMS, RIGHT FIREFIGHTERS WE
KNOW WE KNOW STUDY. JUST STUDY
JUST DONE IN SAN FRANCISCO. THE
FIREFIGHTERS UM, NUMBER ONE
CAUSE OF DEATH FOR A MAJORITY
MAJORITY OF ALL FIREFIGHTERS IS
NOW CANCER. UH TYPICALLY
LEUKEMIA BECAUSE OF BALANCE,
RIGHT? NOT SURE, POLICE OFFICERS
ARE NECESSARILY ENGAGE IN THAT
ALL THE TIME POLICE OFFICER
CARRYING A GUN. REGULATORY
HAVING TO WRESTLE PEOPLE TO THE
GROUND, DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT.
NURSES DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT,
BUT THERE'S A REPETITION AND
WHEN WE HAVE THE STUDIES, AND
WE'VE SHARED THEM WITH WITH WITH
MOST MEMBERS, OFFICES THERE'S
STUDIES THAT HAVE NOW SIMILAR
MORE SIMILAR TO THE FIREFIGHTERS
, SITUATIONS SAID. WHAT'S
HAPPENING WHEN YOU'RE EXPOSED TO
CHEMICALS OVER AND OVER AND OVER
AGAIN. IN A CLOSED SPACE. WE
KNOW SO MUCH MORE ABOUT THINGS
LIKE COVID, WHERE YOUR
RECIRCULATING AIR YOU'RE IN
THERE. 8 10 HOURS A DAY OVER AND
OVER AGAIN 300 DAYS A YEAR. ON
YOUR JOB. BUT IS THERE NEXUS
BETWEEN THAT EXPOSURE? THAT
REPETITION. AND IN CERTAIN TYPES
OF CANCER. SO THE SHORT ANSWER
TO ALL OF THAT IS WE NARROWED
THIS BILL ON THE SENATE SIDE
BECAUSE SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES
HAD CONCERNS ABOUT A COUPLE OF
THE PRESUMPTIONS IN I DIDN'T
HAVE THE STUDIES TO JUSTIFY
THOSE, THEY SAID. THEY SAID YOU
SHOW US THE STUDIES FOR THE ONES
THAT YOU WANT TO KEEP IN THERE
AND WE DON'T HAVE STUDIES FOR
YOU OUGHT TO TAKE OUT SO WE DID.
SO THE REST OF THEM THAT WE
SHOWED UP IN THIS HOUSE WITH WE
HAVE STUDIES TO SUPPORT,
HOWEVER. UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS
WE'RE PROBABLY NEW GROUND HERE.
UM REPEATEDLY, UM, YOU KNOW, I
ASKED THE COMMITTEE IN THE CHAIR
TO GIVE US BACK. ANY NARROWING
OF THOSE PRESUMPTIONS, UH, THAT
YOU KNOW THAT THE COMMITTEE
WOULD LIKE TO SEE. WE DID NOT
GET ANYTHING BACK, SO IT'S HARD
FOR US TO GO IN KNOWING THAT WE
HAVE STUDIED TO SHOW UP HERE
TODAY, KNOWING WE HAVE STUDIES
TO SUPPORT THE ONES THAT REMAIN
IN THE BILL. AND SAY, YOU KNOW,
I DON'T KNOW. WE JUST RANDOMLY
TAKE ONE OR TWO OUT. WE REALLY
WANTED THAT. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE
, WANTED THAT THAT ARGUMENT MADE
BACK TO US THAT HEY, WE'RE OKAY
WITH THESE FOR THIS OTHER ONE.
WE THINK IT'S TENUOUS. FOR SOME
REASON. WE JUST HAVEN'T HEARD
ANY ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE
PRESUMPTIONS THAT WE HAVE LEFT
NOW IS A PERFECT PARODY. WITH
EVEN WITH THE MTS NÓ AND SO. YOU
KNOW, I IF WE CAN GET THIS BILL
OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY WOULD
PLEDGE TO ALL OF YOU. UM TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THIS
COMMITTEE WITH THIS COMMITTEE
STAFF. UM WITH OPPOSITION WITH
ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN
WORKING WITH US BETWEEN NOW AND
FOUR VOTE. YOU KNOW, TO NARROW
THE PRESUMPTIONS. APPROPRIATELY
BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE BASED ON
ANY COMPELLING ARGUMENTS ANYBODY
WANTS TO MAKE. WE JUST HAVEN'T
HEARD THOSE ARGUMENTS ON WHAT
REMAINS IN THIS BILL AT THIS
POINT. BUT WE UNDERSTAND IF
WE'RE AFTER PARITY, AND THAT'S
THE ARGUMENT I'VE BEEN MAKING.
IT MAY NOT BE ON ALL FOURS, BUT
BUT IT'S WORTH HAVING A FURTHER
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY
WOULD PARODY LOOK LIKE IS IT
WHAT I SHOWED UP HERE WITH
TODAY? OR IS IT SOMETHING
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND WE
WELCOME THAT JUST HEAT. YOU KNOW
, LIKE, WITH MOST BILLS TO THE
NOTION OF PUTTING OFF EQUITY YOU
KNOW, YEAR AFTER YEAR, AND I
THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO. THANK YOU, SENATOR. AND
UM, BECAUSE THIS IS IN THE
SCRIPT, I FIGURED AND I DIDN'T
SAY THIS EARLIER. I PROBABLY
WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO
DO NOW. THIS BILL WAS SET AS A
COURTESY TO THE AUTHOR, THE
CHAIR I WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO
SAY THAT HE APPRECIATES THE
CONVERSATIONS HE'S HAD WITH WITH
THE AUTHOR AND WITH STAFF
NARROWING THE SCOPE OF THIS BILL
WOULD NOT ADDRESS FUNDAMENTAL
CONCERNS RELATED TO EXTENDING
PRESUMPTIONS TO CERTAIN HOSPITAL
EMPLOYEES, SO JUST WANTED TO
MAKE SURE TO SAY THAT ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM MEMBERS. SEEING THAT WE
STILL DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM. UM
AND SO WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE
TIME, AND WE DO ESTABLISH A
QUORUM, THEN WE'LL BE ASKING FOR
A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS.
THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR
PRESENTING. CAN I CALL YOU? OF
COURSE. PLEASE PLEASE CLOSE.
GIVE ME AMPLE OPPORTUNITY AND MY
WITNESS TO PRESENT TODAY SO I
APPRECIATE THAT. BUT JUST I
LISTENED CAREFULLY TO THE
OPPOSITION HERE TODAY, AND I
APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. UM
UNLIKE IN SOME OTHER CASE,
THEY'RE STICKING TO WHAT THIS
BILL IS ABOUT. APPRECIATE THAT
VERY MUCH. THE ONE THING I
PARTICULARLY TOOK EXCEPTION TO
THOSE JUST BECAUSE IT'S WHY
WE'RE HERE TODAY. IS THE NOTION
THAT THIS ISN'T REALLY ABOUT
GENDER AND THE DECISIONS THE
STATUTORY DECISIONS THAT WERE
MADE OVER THE LAST 50 OR 60
YEARS WEREN'T ABOUT GENDER. THE
FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE'VE
TALKED FOR OVER 50 YEARS IN THIS
COUNTRY AND IN THE STATE AND IN
THIS CAPITAL THAT THE WORK WOMEN
DO IS EQUAL TO THE WORKMEN D
AND THEY SHOULD BE COMPENSATED
THE SAME WAY PERIOD FULL STOP.
WORKERS COMPENSATION SHOULD
FOLLOW THAT. SHOULD FOLLOW THAT
DOCTRINE SHOULD FOLLOW THAT RULE
. AND WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DO
THAT TODAY. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. AND WHEN YOU HAVE A
QUORUM, THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU.
WELL, I THINK, UH, WE'LL START
WITH FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE. SB 2
16, SENATOR DODD. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR YOUR YOUR
PATIENTS. GOOD MORNING, MR YES,
AND MEMBERS. MM HMM. EVERY YEAR
, 55% OF LICENSED CONTRACTORS
CLAIM TO HAVE NO EMPLOYEES AND
FILED FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM
HAVING WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE WITH THE STATE.
CONTRACTOR STATE LICENSE BOARD.
HOWEVER THE CONTRACTOR STATE
LICENSE WORD OWN RESEARCH AND
ENFORCEMENT DATA. DEMONSTRATES
THAT MANY CONTRACTORS ARE
FALSELY MAKING THAT CLAIM. THAT
DRIVES UP COST FOR WORKERS
COMPENSATION INSURANCE FOR THE
GOOD ACTORS. IT PUTS WORKERS AT
RISK WHEN THEIR EMPLOYERS LACK
SUCH INSURANCE. SB 2 16 WILL
REQUIRE WORKERS COMPENSATION FOR
ASBESTOS ABATEMENT CONCRETE H V
, A C AND TREE SERVICE
CONTRACTORS AND BY 2025 WILL
REQUIRE ALL CONTRACTORS TO BEING
TEAM WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE. REQUIRING ALL
CONTRACTORS AND WORKERS
COMPENSATION INSURANCE WILL
PROTECT WORKERS WHO ARE INJURED
ON THE JOB WHERE THEY ARE
WORKING FOR THE CONTRACTOR FOR A
DAY A WEEK OR FULL TIME. AND
LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR LAW
ABIDING CONTRACTORS. THE
SYSTEMIC PROBLEM OF CONTRACTORS
CLAIMING AN EXEMPTION EVEN WHILE
HAVING EMPLOYEES HAS LED TO AN
UNFAIR INCREASE IN WORKERS'
COMPENSATION FOR COMPLIANT
CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES. AND
EXPLOSIVES WORKERS AND CONSUMERS
TO PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL RISK.
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT FROM
THE CONTRACTOR. STATE LICENSE
BOARD IS MICHAEL JIM. NET SKI
HERE.
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, VICE
CHAIR MEMBERS. MIKE JIM NETSCH
E. WITH THE CONTRACTORS STATE
LICENSE BOARD. THE BOARD IS
PLEASED TO SPONSOR THIS MEASURE.
UM YOU KNOW, IN LIGHT OF THE
NUMBER OF WORKERS COMPENSATION
EXEMPTIONS ON FILE FOR LICENSED
CONTRACTORS EVERY YEAR, COMBINED
WITH THE NUMBER OF LEGAL ACTIONS
TAKEN AGAINST LICENSED
CONTRACTORS EVERY YEAR FOR
HAVING AN EXEMPTION AND NO
EMPLOYEES. THE BOARD IS
DETERMINED THAT IT'S TIME TO
MAKE, UM PROOF OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION. A CONDITION OF
LICENSE, SIR. AND SO THAT'S WHAT
THIS BILL DOES VERY SELECT FEW
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE FIRST
YEAR AND THE REMAINDER OF THE
CLASSIFICATIONS BY 2026
CERTAINLY AVAILABLE FOR ANY
QUESTIONS. UM AND I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST. YOU'RE EITHER. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. AND AT THIS TIME
, WE'RE GONNA GO TO ADD ONS FOR
THOSE THAT WISH TO GIVE
TESTIMONY SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS, MITCH STEIGER
WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION
IN SPORT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS.
SING NONE OTHER IS THERE ANY, UH
, WITNESSES TO PROVIDE
OPPOSITION TESTIMONY. SEEING
NONE. ARE THERE ANY ADD ONS,
FOLKS THAT WANT TO SAY THAT THEY
OPPOSE THIS, SAYING NONE WILL
COME BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ANY
QUESTIONS. OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SINCE WE
STILL IF ANYBODY'S WATCHING.
PLEASE COME SO WE CAN ESTABLISH
A QUORUM AND GET ON WITH THE
BUSINESS OF THE DAY. UH SEEING
NONE. UM A SENATOR. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO GIVE ANY CLOSING CLOSING
REMARKS? RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR I
VOTED THE APPROPRIATE TIME.%
THANK YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT. WELL, I DON'T SEE ANY
OTHER OFF. WELL, ARE YOU HAVE
ANOTHER BILL? YOU HAVE ONE MORE
BILL BILL. SO ITEM NUMBER SIX SB
11. OH, SEVEN. SORRY, SENATOR.
YES MR CHAIR MEMBERS. SB 11. OH,
SEVEN WILL HELP PROTECT
CALIFORNIA DRIVERS. WHO WERE
INJURED IN A CAR CRASH BY
MODERNIZING CALIFORNIA'S
OUTDATED MINIMUM MINIMUM AUTO
LIABILITY COVERAGE LIMITS WHILE
EVERY STATE IN THE COUNTRY
REQUIRES DRIVERS TO PUT.
PURCHASE AUTO INSURANCE IN ORDER
TO PROVIDE PROTECTION.
CALIFORNIA'S FALLING DANGEROUSLY
BEHIND AND PROTECTING OUR
CITIZENS 55 YEARS AGO. LET ME
REPEAT 55 YEARS AGO IN 1967.
CALIFORNIA SET ARE MANDATORY
AUTO INSURANCE LIABILITY
MINIMUMS AT $15,000 FOR A SINGLE
INJURY OR DEATH. $30,000 FOR AN
INJURY TO OR DEATH OF MORE THAN
ONE PERSON. IN $5000 FOR
PROPERTY DAMAGE. THE LIABILITY
LIMITS HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUSTED
ONCE SINCE THEN, LEAVING
CALIFORNIA THE BOTTOM THREE
STATES WITH THE LOWEST LEVELS OF
PROTECTION IN THE NATION. IN
1967. THE COST FOR A NEW FORD
MUSTANG WAS $2200. A NEW MUSTANG
TODAY WOULD COST ACCESS TO
$35,000 AND IN 1967 A DAY IN THE
HOSPITAL WOULD COST $92 TODAY.
MINIMUM HOSPITAL STAYS. IS OVER
$3700 A DAY. DRIVER MUST BE
CAPABLE OF PROVIDING THE
COMPENSATION NECESSARY TO MAKE
AN INJURED PARTY WHOLE. AGAIN IT
IS CLEAR THAT THE CURRENT
MINIMUM AUTO LIMITS IN
CALIFORNIA ARE TOO LOW TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT. AND WE ARE WELL
OVERDUE FOR AN INCREASE. SB 11.
OH, SEVEN. ADJUST FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY LIMITS TO $30,000
FOR A SINGLE INJURY OR DEATH
$60,000 FOR INJURY OR DEATH TO
MORE THAN ONE PERSON AND $15,000
FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE. OPPONENTS
CONTEND THAT THE BILL WOULD
INCREASE INSURANCE COSTS BY MORE
THAN $200 ANNUALLY, BUT THEY
HAVE NOT OFFERED ANY INDEPENDENT
EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT
CLAIM. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE ARE INDEPENDENT STATE
INSURANCE REGULATOR. ESTIMATES
OF THE COST OF THIS WOULD
INCREASE THE AVERAGE INSURANCE
POLICY ABOUT $45.45. TO $50 A
YEAR, THE EQUIVALENT OF $4.50 A
MONTH OR A LATTE AT YOUR
FAVORITE STARBUCKS. NO ONE LIKES
TO INCREASE COSTS TO CONSUMERS.
BUT WE'RE CONSIDERING A BILL
LIKE SB 11. OH, SEVEN. WE MUST
WEIGH THE COSTS AGAINST
BENEFITS. AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER
THE HIGH COSTS OF VEHICLE REPAIR
MEDICAL EXPENSES, LOST WAGES AND
OTHER FOLLOW UP FROM A VEHICLE
COLLISION. THE SMALL ADDITIONAL
COSTS FROM SB 11 OH, SEVEN ARE
WORTH THE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION
. THE BILL HAS WIDE RANGING
SUPPORT, INCLUDING THE
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION. MOTHERS
AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING UNITED
POLICYHOLDERS, THE TEAMSTERS
PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL AND MANY
MORE I ASKED FOR AN EYEBALL.
THANK YOU, SENATOR. WE WILL, UM,
THAT MORE TESTIMONY SUPPORT. YES
MR CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS CASEY JOHNSON HAVE A
PARTNER AT THE LAW FIRM OF A
CONNECTION AND CONAN ORANGE
COUNTY AND I'M ALSO THE FOURTH
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA SPENT MY
ENTIRE 20 YEAR CAREER
REPRESENTING INDIVIDUALS WHO'VE
BEEN HARMED YOU NO FAULT OF
THEIR OWN. PRIMARILY IN
AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS. THE
ADJUSTMENT THAT SEEKS SOUGHT IN
SB 11 OH, SEVEN IN ORDER TO
RAISE LIMITS TO MATCH INFLATION
. THAT INCREASE WOULD BE TO OVER
$130,000. THE INCREASE IN SB 11.
OH, SEVEN IS MODEST, TAKING
EFFECT IN 2025 WITH ANOTHER
ADJUSTMENT 10 YEARS THEREAFTER,
KEEPING OUR LIMITS AT THEIR
CURRENT LEVEL DISPROPORTIONATELY
IMPACTS LOW INCOME CONSUMERS WHO
MAY EITHER PURCHASE A LOW LIMITS
POLICY OR BE HIT BY SOMEONE WITH
A MINIMUM LIMITS POLICY. MANY OF
THESE INDIVIDUALS CANNOT AFFORD
TO BE WITHOUT THEIR VEHICLE OR
MISS WORK IN ORDER TO CONTINUE
TO PAY BILLS AND MERELY PUT FOOD
ON THE TABLE FURTHER WHEN THE
PERSON INJURED IS LOW INCOME,
THE INNOCENT PARTY OFTEN FOCUS
FACES GOING INTO DEBT JUST TO
PAY FOR MY MEDICAL BILLS. CAR
REPAIRS OR REPLACEMENT COSTS OR
HAVING TO MISS WORK ALTOGETHER
DUE TO THEIR INJURIES. THE
CHANGES CONTAINED SB 11. OH,
SEVEN WILL ALLOW MORE.
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS INJURED IN
ACCIDENTS TO BE FULLY
COMPENSATED WITH AN INJURED AND
MORE DRIVERS WILL HAVE THE PEACE
OF MIND THAT THEIR INSURANCE
WILL FULLY PROTECT THEM FROM A
LAWSUIT IN THE EVENT THEY CAUSE
AN ACCIDENT ALL IN A MINIMAL
COST. THAT'S WHY SB 11 OH,
SEVEN. SUPPORTED BY SUCH A BROAD
COALITION, I WOULD ADD BRIEFLY
THAT, UM, BASED ON AGREEMENT
REACHED EARLIER THIS WEEK, GEICO
IS ACTUALLY REMOVED OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL. I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE IN
OUR DRIVE OUT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. UH GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS AARON TAYLOR HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE PERSONAL INSURANCE
FEDERATION. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. UH THE
CHANGES SB 11. OH, SEVEN
PROPOSES TO CALIFORNIA'S MINIMUM
LIMITS INVOLVED IMPORTANT POLICY
TRADE OFFS BETWEEN THE INCREASED
LEVEL OF PROTECTION FOR ACCIDENT
VICTIMS AND THE COST OF AUTO
INSURANCE, AND WE THINK IT
STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE. AS
NOTED IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
. THIS IS PART OF A TWO BILL
PACKAGE WITH CONTINGENT
ENACTMENT THAT INCLUDES SB 11 55
, WHICH WILL REDUCE LITIGATION
COSTS AND OTHER EXPENSES FOR
INSURERS AND POLICYHOLDERS. WE
BELIEVE THAT SB 11 OH SEVEN AND
SB 11 55 AS A TO BILL PACKAGE
MERITS SUPPORT. TAKEN TOGETHER.
THESE BILLS BENEFIT CALIFORNIANS
BY BETTER PROTECTING
POLICYHOLDERS, REDUCING THE RISK
OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION
ALLEGATIONS THAT INCREASE THE
COST OF INSURANCE FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS. AND CLOSING. WE
WOULD NOTE THAT SB 11 55 PASSED
OUT OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
YESTERDAY ON A UNANIMOUS AND
BIPARTISAN VOTE, AND WE HOPE 11
07 WILL RECEIVE THE SAME LEVEL
OF SUPPORT HERE TODAY. THANK YOU
AND WE ARE NOW GOING TO THE
GIVEN TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT.
WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE ADD ONS.
UM JUST YOUR NAME, UH,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. ALL
RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. MICHAEL
MARTINEZ, SENIOR DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER. HERE ON BEHALF OF
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER RICARDO
LARA AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THE ANNUAL GUTIERREZ ON BEHALF
OF THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT AND ALSO
IN SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE
FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS. THE
BEEN ESTHER HUMAN SERVICES
INCORPORATED CALIFORNIA BICYCLE
COALITION CONSUMERS FOR AUTO
RELIABILITY AND SAFETY. EAST
SIDE RIDERS CLUB INTERCITY
STRUGGLE TO TRUST SOUTH L, A
LATINO EQUITY ALLIANCE LATINO
HERITAGE FOUNDATION MOTHERS
AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING A
FOUNDATION NATIONAL ACTION
NETWORK. PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL
SISTERS, AGING WITH GRACE AND
ELEGANCE, UNITED POLICYHOLDERS
WE SAVE LIVES. WOMEN ARE
NONTRADITIONAL EMPLOYMENT ROLLS
FEDERATION, CHIHUAHUA BUSINESS
AND HOME OWNERS CLUB BASKETBALL.
RUSSELL ANITA. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING NO OTHER
ADD ONS IN SUPPORT. WE WILL MOVE
TO ANY OPPOSITION. COME ON, COME
ON DOWN.
GO AHEAD. YES GO AHEAD. THANK
YOU. CHAIRMAN MAY'S AND MEMBERS.
UH GOOD MORNING, DENNY RITTER
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE A P. C, A
. THE AMERICAN PROPERTY CASUALTY
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION OF SB 11.
OH, SEVEN. SB 11. OH, SEVEN, IS
PREMISED ON HELPING LOWER INCOME
DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA OBTAINED
MORE INSURANCE COVERAGE. HOWEVER
THIS COVERAGE IS ALREADY
AVAILABLE TO ANY DRIVER THAT
WISHES TO PURCHASE IT. RATHER
WHAT THIS BILL WILL DO IS FORCE
CALIFORNIA DRIVERS. WHETHER THEY
WANT TO OR NOT, BY DOUBLING THE
MINIMUM FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
LIMITS. THIS IS COVERAGE. THE
DRIVERS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO
CARRY IN ORDER TO DRIVE A CAR IN
CALIFORNIA. AND THIS BILL IS
FOCUSED ONLY ON THOSE DRIVERS
WHO CARRY THESE MINIMUM LIMITS,
AND I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT MEMBERS
UNDERSTAND. WHO IS IN THAT
POPULATION. DRIVERS WHO CARRY
MINIMUM LIMITS ARE LIKELY DOING
SO BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
ABLE TO AFFORD. IT IS THE MOST
AFFORDABLE COVERAGE OPTIONS
AVAILABLE TO THEM. MINIMUM
DRIVERS ARE NOT MILLIONAIRES.
LIVING DRIVING FANCY VEHICLES,
SO THE EFFECTS OF THIS BILL WILL
BE BORN SOLELY BY THOSE
CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE LEAST ABLE
TO AFFORD AN INCREASE IN THEIR
PREMIUMS. A LOT HAS BEEN MADE
ABOUT WHAT THE PROPONENTS OF
THIS BILL ESTIMATE. THE PREMIUM
IMPACT TO BE VERSUS WHAT WE
ESTIMATE THE PREMIUM THAT IMPACT
TO BE. I CANNOT SPEAK TO THEIR
METHODOLOGY OR WHAT IT'S ROOTED
IN. I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE
FIGURES I RECEIVED FROM MY
MEMBERS. I STAND BY OUR
ESTIMATES, WHICH ARE BASED ON MY
MEMBERS CURRENT ACTUAL
CUSTOMERS. THAT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF MINIMUM LIMIT
POLICYHOLDERS WILL SEE THEIR
INSURANCE INCREASED BY HUNDREDS
OF DOLLARS. I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST
, AS MY PEER DID IN AN EARLIER
HEARING THAT IF THIS THAT THESE
ESTIMATES CAN BE CONFIRMED BY
SIMPLY GOING ONLINE AND RUNNING
, QUOTES ON GEICO .COM OR
PROGRESSIVE .COM, OR I COULD
THERE ARE A MILLION OF THEM THAT
HAVE ONLINE QUOTE TOOLS SO YOU
CAN COMPARE FOR YOURSELF. OUR
MEMBERS ARE CONCERNED. THAT THIS
BILL WILL DRIVE A BOTTLE
INSURANCE RATES FOR THOSE
DRIVERS WHO CAN LEAST AFFORD A
PRICE INCREASE AT A TIME WHEN
INFLATION AND GAS PRICES ALREADY
PLACING IMMENSE FINANCIAL STRAIN
ON THESE CALIFORNIANS FOR THESE
CONSUMERS, PAYING SEVERAL $100
MORE FOR CAR INSURANCE MAY FORCE
THEM OUT OF THE MARKET ENTIRELY.
WHICH WILL RESULT IN MORE
UNINSURED MOTORISTS ON THE ROAD
. WE ALSO REMAIN VERY CONCERNED
, UM, CANDIDLY THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE IS
ABILITY AND POSSIBLE WILLINGNESS
TO PROCESS THE LARGE NUMBER OF
RATE FILINGS THAT THIS BILL WILL
REQUIRE AHEAD OF ITS
IMPLEMENTATION. BECAUSE NEW
INSURANCE POLICIES AND RATES
MUST BE APPROVED BY THE
DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEING OFFERED
TO THE PUBLIC. IF CD I DOESN'T
PROCESS, THESE FILINGS, AN
AFFAIR OR EFFICIENT MANNER. THE
AUTO INSURANCE MARKET COULD FACE
A MASSIVE DISRUPTION WHEN THIS
BILL TAKES EFFECT, AS THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS NOTES. THIS
CONCERN IS NOT ROOTED IN OUR
PARANOIA. CURRENTLY THE
DEPARTMENT HAS NOT APPROVED OF
PERSONAL PASSENGER AUTO RATE
FILING IN ALMOST 2.5 YEARS.
FINALLY WE UNDERSTAND THAT
AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED
BETWEEN THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL
AND SOME OF THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY. IT IS CERTAINLY NOT
ENJOYABLE, FRANKLY, TO BE PART
OF A DIVISION AMONGST OUR PEERS.
WHICH IS WHY, IN RECOGNITION OF
THE POLITICAL WRITING ON THE
WALL WE'VE OFFERED THE AUTHOR
AND THIS COMMITTEE WHAT WE
BELIEVE TO BE VERY MODEST.
REASONABLE AMENDMENTS TO THE
EXTENT OF THIS COMMITTEE IS
CONCERNED ABOUT VOTING FOR A
BILL THAT WILL DRIVE UP IN CAR
INSURANCE COSTS FOR YOUR
CONSTITUENTS THAT CAN LEAST
AFFORD IT. OUR AMENDMENT
PROPOSAL OFFERS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO LESSEN THAT STING. ABSENT
THOSE AMENDMENTS, AND FOR THE
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED REASONS, I
MUST RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED NO
VOTE ON SB 11. OH, SEVEN. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU,
AND WE HAVE ONE MORE BUT YES.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE ARMAND
FELICIANO ON THE HALF OF GEICO,
GEICO. WE SEVE AGREEMENT WITH
CEO TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT
WE HAVE ON THE BILL. IN
PARTICULAR THE COMPANION BILL SB
11, 55, AND I BELIEVE COC IS
WORKING WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
, INCLUDING THE CBI TO FINALIZE
THAT AGREEMENT, BUT WITH THAT
GEICO IS PREPARED TO MOVE THEIR
OPPOSITION TODAY. THANK YOU.
GREAT THANK YOU. SO WE'LL GO TO,
UH, THE ADD ONS AND OPPOSITION
WHERE THERE ANY FURTHER ADD ONS
AND OPPOSITION. JUST YOUR NAME
YOUR ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
SEEING NONE. WE ARE GOING TO
COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE, THEN
FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
WE STILL BY THE WAY. STILL, IT'S
NOW AN HOUR AND A HALF IN WE
STILL HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED A
QUORUM TODAY. AND SO IF THERE
ARE ANY STAFF WATCHING THIS AND
YOUR BOSSES CAN AND YOU CAN, UM
HAVE YOUR BOSSES COME SO WE CAN
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. THAT WOULD
BE WONDERFUL. UM ANY QUESTIONS,
MR VOEPEL AND THEN MR CHIN THE
COMMENT, UM AND SOME ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION I HOPE WILL BE
USEFUL TO THE COMMITTEE. I AM A
CO AUTHOR ON THIS BILL. AND THE
REASON IS. WITHIN THE INSURANCE
WORLD, WHICH I'VE BEEN A MEMBER
FOR 39 YEARS. LIABILITY
INSURANCE IS THE LEAST AMOUNT.
BUT IT ALSO HAS SOME OF THE MOST
IMPACT. ON SOMEONE THAT GETS
INTO AN ACCIDENT AND NEEDS
PROTECTION. AND AT THE END OF
THE DAY INSURANCE IS ABOUT
PROTECTION. IT PROTECTS YOUR
POCKETBOOK. THAT'S WHAT IT'S
FOR. AND IN ORDER TO PURCHASE
THAT. PROTECTION YOU GOTTA PAY
OUT OF YOUR POCKET BOOK. ONCE
AGAIN AS THE GOOD SENATOR HAS
SAID THIS HASN'T BEEN ADJUSTED
IN 55 YEARS. UM AND I ALSO POINT
OUT. THAT DOESN'T. MAJOR COST OF
AUTO INSURANCE IS COLLISION. IN
OTHER WORDS, REPAIRING YOUR CAR.
AND UNDER CURRENT INFLATION
RATES. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE
OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT RATE BASED
UPON THE CURRENT FORMULA OF 8.6.
IF I GO BACK TO THE 19 NINETIES
FORMULA, INFLATION IS 11. IF I
GO BACK TO 1981 THE ORIGINAL
FORMULA, I CALCULATE JUST ME.
MAKING STUFF UP. AT 17. OKAY AND
THAT CAN BE DEBATABLE. TWO OR 3.
SO POINT I'M MAKING HERE. IS THE
LIABILITY SIDE OF IT IS VERY
SMALL. I DON'T SEE TWO OR $300 A
YEAR PREMIUM INCREASE. I SEE
MAYBE 55 $60. UM AND IF I'M OFF,
IT WOULD BE 10% EITHER WAY. SO
WITH THE INFLATION RATES THE WAY
THEY ARE. AND ANTICIPATING THE
COLLISION RATES TO GO UP. THIS
IS A MOOT POINT AND A GOOD BILL
AND ONE THAT WILL PROVIDE
PROTECTION FOR THE BEST AMOUNT
OF MONEY, NOT THE LEAST. BUT THE
BEST AMOUNT OF MONEY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR BELL. PELL MELL,
MR CHEN AND THEN MR WOOD. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR, SENATOR.
APPRECIATE BRINGING THIS BILL
THAT'S VERY COMPLICATED AT THE
SAME TIME NECESSARY. I SAW A
LETTER OF CONCERN FOR THE CAR
SHARING COMPANIES. IN REGARDS TO
THIS BILL AND UNDERSTAND THAT
THEY'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
RAISE SOME OF THEIR RATES.
EARLIER THAN 55 YEARS AGO IN
2010, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
FOR THE NEXT EDIFICATION THERE'S
AN ONGOING DISCUSSION WITH THEM,
UM FOR SOME OF THE POSSIBLE
CHANGES NEXT COMING YEAR. UH
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S YES
. I TALKED TO HIM BRIEFED BY MY
STAFF ON THAT MORE VERY WILLING
TO COME BACK AND EXPLORE THAT
AND GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING
AND A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM.
THANK YOU. DR CHEN DOCTOR WOULD
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, AND I'M
GLAD TO SEE YOU SUFFERING THE
PAIN THAT WE OFTEN SUFFER ON OUR
END WAITING FOR QUORUM. I THINK
WHAT HEALTH COMMITTEE IT WAS
ALMOST THREE HOURS ONE WEEK. SO
SO YOU'RE ONLY HALFWAY THERE, MY
FRIEND. AH SO I JUST JUST A
COMMENT EARLIER THIS YEAR, WE
SAW A HISTORIC SETTLEMENT TO A
DISPUTE HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR
YEARS RELATED TO MICRO AND FOR
YEARS AND YEARS, IT WAS RAISING
THESE LIMITS WAS GOING TO
BANKRUPT EVERYTHING AND CREATE
HUGE, HUGE UPHEAVAL IN THE
MARKET. AND REMEMBER IN
CALIFORNIA. WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT
100,120. PHYSICIANS AND 20 ABOUT
35,000 DENTISTS. WHO ARE PAYING
PAYING INSURANCE NOW WE IT WOULD
DRIVERS. WE HAVE MILLIONS OF
DRIVERS PAIN INSURANCE HERE, AND
THESE LIMITS ARE REALLY LOW, AND
I JUST THINK BACK TO A PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE. I DON'T LIKE TALKING
ABOUT MY MEDICAL HISTORY, BUT
I'LL JUST THROW SOMETHING OUT.
UM ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO, I WAS
IN EMERGENCY ROOM. I SPENT A
NIGHT AT THE HOSPITAL. IT WAS
$15,000. UM, NOW IF THEY HAD
BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN $15,000 WHATEVER. BUT
THE POINT IS, THE COSTS ARE HAVE
GONE UP SO FAST INSURANCE RATES
OR INSURANCE COVERAGE HAS NOT,
AND THERE WAS A HUGE BURDEN. I
DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S GOING TO
BE A HUGE IMPACT TO RATEPAYERS.
I REALLY DON'T I FEEL I FEEL
LIKE IF WE CAN ABSORB THAT IN
THE MEDICAL FIELD, MASSIVE
CHANGE IN IN LIABILITY
STANDARDS. UM, A MODEST SMALL.
IN MY OPINION, CHANGED TO THESE
STANDARDS SHOULD BE ABSORBABLE,
AND IT SHOULDN'T BE A HUGE COST.
SO I'M REALLY HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL TODAY. THANK YOU,
DOCTOR WOULD ANY OTHER MEMBERS
WHICH TO QUESTION OR COMMENTS?
UH, MR BIGELOW? ECHO SOME OF THE
PREVIOUS SPEAKERS. COMMENTS BOTH
OF US HAVE RECENTLY HAD MOMENTS
IN THE HOSPITAL WERE VERY
STICKER SHOCK TO SEE SOME OF THE
COSTS TO GO FOR A 30 MINUTE RIDE
IN THE AMBULANCE TO HAVE AN X
RAY. UH WAS NEARLY $5000 AND I
MEAN YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS
STUFF UP. IT'S THAT'S THE FACT
IN OUR WORLD AND THE ESCALATING
COSTS, BUT THE REALITIES ARE
THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE BY ONE
OF THOSE THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION
, WHICH TODAY I WILL NOT BE IN
OPPOSITION. UM BE HAPPY TO MAKE
THE MOTION WHEN IT'S A EVEN AN
APPROPRIATE TIME. BUT MAYBE YOU
COULD GIVE US AN IDEA. EITHER
YOU OR MAYBE SOME OF THIS
SUPPORT STAFF COULD GIVE US WHAT
DO YOU THINK OF A COST ON? THIS
MIGHT BE A DOLLAR $5 100 DOLLARS
$1000. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SEE
ASKED WHAT THAT COULD BE. UH, IT
WAS LIKE, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S
ABOUT $4.50 IS WHAT THE
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER. BROUGHT
TO OUR ATTENTION. I DON'T KNOW
IF SARIN HAS ANY OTHER THOUGHTS
ON THAT. BUT I ENJOYED MR
GRAPPLES. COMMENT UM, YOU KNOW,
I THINK IT'S 86.2% OF US.
STATISTICS ARE MADE UP ON THE
SPOT. YEAH AH, DID YOU HAVE SOME
CALCULATION THAT WHITE PAPER
YAHOO, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'VE
CERTAINLY FOUND A WIDE RANGE
RIGHT AND DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF
CARRIER THAT YOU ARE. DO YOU
HAVE A LOT OF NON STANDARD
BUSINESS? DO YOU? NOT? SO IT
VARIES GREATLY, YOU KNOW,
CERTAINLY YOU KNOW, IN FROM OUR
ASSOCIATION, WE SAW RANGES FROM
YOU KNOW, ON THE LOW END OF $80
TO ON THE HIGH END, YOU KNOW,
200. UM BUT THAT'S WHY IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS
IS PART OF A TWO BILL PACKAGE.
RIGHT? THAT'S WHY SB 11 55 IS
THE OTHER END OF THIS THAT HELPS
BRING DOWN DIMINISHES THAT
IMPACT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO
SEE LESS LITIGATION COSTS, LESS
EXPENSES, LESS BAD FAITH CLAIMS
, AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS REALLY
I THINK, IN OUR VIEW, AND I
THINK TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WOODS
POINT ANOTHER YET ANOTHER
HISTORIC COMPROMISE BECAUSE THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK TRIAL
LAWYERS AND INSURERS ON BOTH
ENDS OF THOSE BILLS HAVE BEEN
FIGHTING OVER FOR NEARLY TWO
DECADES. AND SO THE FACT THAT
WE'RE ABOUT TO COME TOGETHER
OVER SIX MONTHS. AND FIGURE OUT
HERE IS SOMETHING THAT MAKES
SENSE. BUT HOW DO WE AMELIORATE
SOME OF THOSE COSTS ON THE OTHER
END THROUGH THE LITIGATION SIDE
, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THEY
WORK SO WELL TOGETHER AND STRIKE
THE RIGHT BALANCE. AND IN A WAY,
I WISH I'D HAD CUBIST WITH YOU
AHEAD OF TIME, BECAUSE THAT'S
EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS WANTING
TO MAKE. THAT'S WHERE THIS LINE
OF CONVERSATION WAS. MEANT TO
GO. IT WASN'T ABOUT A CUP OF
COFFEE, BUT A CUP OF COFFEE IS
REALLY WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING
AT, BUT IN THE BIGGER PICTURE,
IT'S JUST YOUR WORDS. AND I
APPRECIATE THAT, AND I HOPE THAT
THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT. UH AND
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT ARE
IN OPPOSITION BECAUSE WE'RE
REALLY TODAY, TRYING TO DO
SOMETHING THAT IS VERY GOOD FOR
THE PEOPLE. WELL, THANK YOU. I
JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE
STATEMENT THAT CHAIR DOES
SUPPORT THIS MESSED THIS MEASURE
. UM AS A POINT OF PRIVILEGE. I
ALSO SUPPORT THIS MEASURE IS A
FEW YEARS AGO. UM A GENTLEMAN
WHO HAS BEEN IN INSURANCE
BUSINESS FOR OVER 30 YEARS OF
PERSONAL FRIEND OF MINE FOR OVER
20 HAD COME TO ME SITTING DOWN
WITH A COUPLE OF LOCAL ATTORNEYS
AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, CHATTING
NORMALLY ARE NOT ON THE SIDE OF
THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, BUT WHAT
I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT THIS
NEEDS TO BE THIS NEEDS TO BE
FIXED AND WHERE I COME DOWN ON
THIS IS AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC. A
POLICY IF CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO
SET MINIMUMS, THEN 55 YEARS IS A
VERY LONG TIME TO NOT ADJUST THE
THOSE MINIMUM. SO I WANT TO ECHO
THE COMMENTS OF OUR COLLEAGUE,
MR VOEPEL WITH THAT, SENATOR,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I JUST
WOULD LIKE TO THANK PIFF AND THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS FOR WORKING
SO HARD. TO GET THIS AGREEMENT
AS WE ALL KNOW THOSE AGREEMENTS
AREN'T EASILY REACHED AND I
THINK THAT ON BEHALF OF THE
LEGISLATURE AND CONSUMERS
EVERYWHERE THEY'VE DONE A GREAT
JOB. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. SB 9 51 BY
SENATOR DURAZO JUST WANT TO MAKE
THE POINT THAT WE ARE. STILL
OPERATING AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, WE
WOULD HAVE GOTTEN TO OUR QUORUM
AT THE FOLKS THAT SHOWN UP STATE
, BUT I KNOW THAT IT'S A BUSY
TIME BUSY TIME OF YEAR AND AGAIN
. IF IT IS ANY OF THE STAFF IS
WATCHING AND YOU CAN GET SOME OF
YOUR MEMBERS TO COME SO THAT WE
CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM. THAT
WOULD BE WONDERFUL. SO ON TO
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB 9 51. AH,
SENATOR FOR PRESENTATION. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. WITH
THIS IS ABOUT IS THIS BILL IS
ABOUT NO ONE HAVING TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN PUTTING FOOD ON THE
TABLE AND TAKING TIME THAT THEY
NEED FOR A SERIOUSLY ILL FAMILY
MEMBER BONDING WITH A NEW CHILD
OR RECOVERING FROM THEIR OWN
SERIOUS ILLNESS. 951 WILL HELP
ENSURE THAT WORKERS CAN AFFORD
TO TAKE THE TIME OFF BY THE WAY
THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTING
TOWARDS TO TAKE THE TIME OFF FOR
THOSE PURPOSES BY INCREASING THE
WAGE REPLACEMENT RATES. THE
LOWEST WAGE WORKERS, AND THAT'S
WHEN THEY USE THE STATE
DISABILITY OR PAID FAMILY LEAVE.
ALMOST ALL PRIVATE SECTOR
EMPLOYEES IN CALIFORNIA
CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISABILITY
INSURANCE FUND, WHICH PROVIDES
WAGE REPLACEMENT FOR MEN AND
WOMEN THROUGH THE DISABILITY AND
PAID FAMILY LEAVE PROGRAMS.
HOWEVER. MIDDLE AND HIGH WAGE
WORKERS ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO
USE THESE BENEFITS THAN LOWER
WAGE WORKERS. I DON'T THINK
THAT'S TOO HARD TO UNDERSTAND.
THIS MEANS THAT ESSENTIALLY LOW
WAGE WORKERS ARE SUBSIDIZING THE
LEAVE OF HIGHER WAGE WORKERS, SO
TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN AS
BENIGN 51 INCREASES WAGE
REPLACEMENT TO 90. FOR WORKERS
EARNING 70% OF THE STATEWIDE
AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE. UM ALL
OTHER WORKERS WOULD RECEIVE 70%
WAGE REPLACEMENT. TO FUND THIS
WE SIMPLY REMOVE THE TAXABLE
WAGE CEILING ON CONTRIBUTIONS
INTO THE SD I FUND SO THAT ALL
WORKERS WILL CONTRIBUTE. AN
EQUAL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR WAGES
INTO THE FUND. WORKERS CURRENTLY
EARNING LESS THAN $145,600. PER
YEAR WOULD PAY NO MORE THAN THEY
DO CURRENTLY. MY WITNESS HERE
TODAY WITNESSES HERE TODAY ARE
CATHERINE, WHICH HAD FROM LEGAL
AT WORK. ONE OF THE SPONSORS.
AND ALEXANDER ALEXANDRIA
DICAPRIO, FIRST FIVE CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
EVERYONE. MY NAME IS KATHERINE.
WHICH IT AND I'M A STAFF
ATTORNEY AT LEGAL AID AT WORK
AND NONPROFIT THAT'S DEDICATED
TO ADVANCING THE RIGHTS OF LOW
WAGE WORKERS. I'M SPEAKING TO
YOU TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
SB 951 BECAUSE PAID FAMILY LEAVE
AND STATE DISABILITY INSURANCE
ARE CRITICAL TO THE HEALTH OF
CALIFORNIA'S FAMILIES. THESE
PROGRAMS PROVIDE INCOME WHEN
WORKERS ARE UNABLE TO WORK
BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN HEALTH,
BECAUSE THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF
SERIOUSLY ILL FAMILY MEMBERS OR
BECAUSE THEY ARE BONDING WITH A
NEW CHILD. AND RESEARCH SHOWS
THAT ACCESS TO THESE PROGRAMS DO
HAVE IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES
FOR WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES,
AND THEY EVEN HAVE LONG TERM
IMPACT ON CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT.
IMPORTANTLY THESE PROGRAMS ARE
PAID FOR 100% BY WORKERS, BUT
RIGHT NOW BECAUSE PFL AND STATE
DISABILITY INSURANCE ONLY
PROVIDE WORKERS WITH 60% OF
THEIR REGULAR INCOME. THAT MEANS
THAT A MINIMUM WAGE WORKER WHO
MAY ALREADY BE STRUGGLING TO GET
BY WILL ONLY RECEIVE ABOUT $365
PER WEEK. IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD
TO LIVE ON THAT THEY MUST EVOLVE
FURTHER INTO DEBT. OR THEY MUST
CONTINUE WORKING DESPITE THEIR
HEALTH NEEDS. AND WE KNOW FROM
OUR WORK IN THE COMMUNITY THAT
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH
INADEQUATE RATES. WE SEE PARENTS
GOING BACK TO WORK RIGHT AFTER
THEY HAVE THEIR CHILDREN, PEOPLE
WHO HAVE SERIOUS HEALTH
CONDITIONS WHO AVOID CARE AND
KEEP WORKING TO THE DETRIMENT OF
THEIR HEALTH. AN ADULT CHILDREN
WHO ARE FORCED TO LEAVE THEIR
SICK AND ELDERLY FAMILY MEMBERS
ALONE AT HOME BECAUSE THEY CAN'T
AFFORD TO TAKE TIME OFF. AND
THIS IS BORN OUT IN THE DATA AS
WELL. THOSE WHO MAKE UNDER
20,000 PER YEAR MAKE UP 37% OF
PEOPLE PAYING INTO THE FUND, BUT
ONLY 14% OF PAID FAMILY LEAVE
CLAIMS AND ONLY 18% HAVE STATE
DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS.
PEOPLE WHO MAKE BETWEEN 80,000
AND 100,000 PER YEAR. UH, TAKE
THIS LEAVE AT FOUR TIMES THAT
SAME RATE. SP 951 WOULD FIX THIS
BY PROVIDING 90% OF REGULAR
INCOME TO LOW WAGE WORKERS WHEN
THEY APPLY TO THE PROGRAM AND TO
PAY FOR IT. THE BILL SIMPLY, UM
, DELETES AN EXEMPTION THAT
CURRENTLY SHELTERS INCOME OVER
$146,000 PER YEAR. FROM BEING
SUBJECT TO CONTRIBUTIONS.
WITHOUT THESE CHANGES, BOTH SD
NPFL WILL REMAIN OUT OF REACH
FOR TOO MANY FAMILIES, SO WE
URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR SB 951.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ALEX DICAPRIO ON BEHALF OF FIRST
FIVE CALIFORNIA A PROUD CO
SPONSOR OF SB 951. TODAY I HAVE
THE PLEASURE OF READING
TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY JERI
SANDOVAL, WHO WAS NOT ABLE TO BE
HERE IN PERSON TODAY. GOOD
MORNING AND THANK YOU FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME IS JERRY
SANDOVAL. I LIVE IN SAN DIEGO.
AND I'M A PROUD MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA WORKING FAMILY,
COALITION AND PARENT VOICES. I
AM TESTIFYING TODAY IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF SB 951. WHEN MY
DAUGHTER WAS BORN. I DIDN'T KNOW
I HAD THE RIGHT TO TAKE PAID
FAMILY LEAVE AS A MALE PARENT
UNTIL SOMEONE TOLD ME THAT I
COULD. IT MEANT THE WORLD TO ME
SPENDING TIME WITH MY NEWBORN
HAVING THOSE FIRST ENCOUNTERS
WITH HER AND HELPING AROUND THE
HOUSE. REALLY HAVING MY DAUGHTER
CHANGED MY LIFE. I HAD TWO
AWESOME WEEKS WITH HER. BUT WHEN
I GOT MY FIRST CHECK FROM THE D
, I REALIZED I COULDN'T AFFORD
TO STAY ON PAID FAMILY LEAVE AND
PAY MY BILLS. IT WAS
HEARTBREAKING, BUT I REALIZED
THAT I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GO
BACK TO WORK. I WORKED TWO JOBS
, A GRAVEYARD SHIFT AND ANOTHER
JOB AGAIN IN THE MORNING. I WAS
ONLY SLEEPING FOUR HOURS A
NIGHT. I WAS EXCITED TO GET HOME
AFTER WORK AND TELL MY KID I
LOVE HER, AND I STILL TRIED TO
HELP AROUND THE HOUSE. I THINK
THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN
AFFORD TO TAKE PAID FAMILY LEAVE
ARE THE ONES WHO MAKE ENOUGH
MONEY TO SAVE MONEY. WHEN YOU
LIVE PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK LIKE I
DID. THERE'S NO SAVINGS IN YOUR
BANK ACCOUNT. YOU CAN'T ACCEPT A
60% WAGE REPLACEMENT. IT PUTS
PEOPLE IN A SITUATION LIKE I WAS
IN WHERE THEY HAVE TO MAKE TOUGH
DECISIONS LIKE WHETHER TO GO TO
WORK WHEN THEY'RE SICK OR STAY
HOME WITH THEIR BABY OR TAKE
CARE OF A FAMILY MEMBER WHO
STICK FAMILY IS VERY IMPORTANT.
AND AS A MALE PERSON, I WANT TO
BE ABLE TO SUPPORT MY FAMILY AND
I WANT THE BEST FOR MY CHILD. I
MAKE A LOT OF SACRIFICES FOR MY
FAMILY, BECAUSE AT THE END OF
THE DAY FAMILY IS WHO IS GOING
TO BE THERE FOR YOU? I FEEL LIKE
I DESERVE TO TAKE THIS LEAVE
WHEN I NEED TO. ESPECIALLY SINCE
THIS IS A PROGRAM I'M PAYING
INTO. THE ONLY WAY I WOULD BE
ABLE TO TAKE PAID FAMILY LEAVE
AS IF THE WAGE REPLACEMENT RATE
IS INCREASED IN 90% I KNOW I
SPEAK FOR A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE
IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE LIKE
ME, PLEASE VOTE YES, ON SP 951
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND
THIS TIME IS, ARE THERE ANY
FURTHER? PUBLIC COMMENTS IN
SUPPORT, JUST THE ADD ONS. JUST
YOUR NAME. YOUR ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION. GOOD MORNING, ISABELLA
. OUR QUOTA ON BEHALF OF NEAR A
PRO CHOICE. CALIFORNIA AND
STRONG SUPPORT.THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, SIYABONGA
DAMOCLES WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
, MALCOLM HARRIS WITH CARRYING
ACROSS GENERATIONS AND STRONG
SUPPORT, AND I ALSO HAVE A LIST
OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND
SUPPORT. THE CALIFORNIA WORK AND
FAMILY COALITION PUBLIC COUNCIL
BREASTFEED LOS ANGELES, THE
CALIFORNIA BREASTFEEDING
COALITION WORKING PARTNERSHIPS
USA, CALIFORNIA WICK
ASSOCIATION. THE LOS ANGELES
ALLIANCE FOR A NEW ECONOMY.
CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO END
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. THE SMALL
BUSINESS MAJORITY THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN,
CALIFORNIA, THE CALIFORNIA PAN
ETHNIC HEALTH NETWORK. CHILDREN
NOW THE CALIFORNIA CATHOLIC
CONFERENCE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.
THE A C L U CALIFORNIA ACTION,
THE EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES. THE
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN
AND FAMILIES AND THE CITIZENS
FOR CHOICE ALL AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, DWAYNE CAMP OF THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED
AMERICANS IN STRONG SUPPORT AND
OUR GRATITUDE TO THE AUTHOR FOR
WORKING WITH US ON THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. WHERE ALMOST THERE WE'RE
ALMOST THERE. AH! ALL RIGHT. WE
JUST NEED ONE MORE ALRIGHT GOING
ON TO WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
DO WE HAVE WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? WE ARE ON SB 9 51.
AH! SEEING NO WITNESSES WANT TO
MAKE SURE THERE. IS THERE ANY
JUST ADD ONS OF OPPOSITION.
SAYING NO ONE WILL COME BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS. WE ARE STILL
OPERATING AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
WE'RE GETTING VERY CLOSE TO A
QUORUM VERY CLOSE TO A QUORUM.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. CHANGE.
OKAY? SENATOR WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. I
JUST WANT TO ADD ON IN ADDITION
TO ALL OF THE SUPPORT. THIS IS A
PRIORITY OF THE WOMEN'S CAUCUS
AND THE LATINO CAUCUS. THERE'S
NO OPPOSITION. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE ON TO A
SENATOR WILL MOVE ON TO YOUR
YOUR NEXT BILL. IF THAT'S OKAY.
NUMBER EIGHT SP 10 58. YES, YES.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM SB 10 58
REQUIRES THE D, UH COLLECT DATA
REGARDING THE RACE AND ETHNICITY
OF INDIVIDUALS WHO APPLY FOR
STATE DISABILITY AND PAID FAMILY
LEAVE PROGRAMS. THIS BILL ALSO
REQUIRES THAT THIS DATA IS
TRACKED AND REPORTED ON IN ORDER
TO INFORM ONGOING OUTREACH
EFFORTS. THE ALREADY COLLECTS
DATA ON THE RACE AND ETHNICITY
OF APPLICANTS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT.
INSURANCE BENEFITS. GIVEN WHAT
WE HAVE LEARNED FROM PRIOR
OUTSIDE RESEARCH, RACIAL
DISPARITIES EXIST WITH RESPECT
TO THE AWARENESS AND THE UPTAKE
OF STATE DISABILITY INSURANCE
AND PAID FAMILY LEAVE. ET DE.
SHOULD BEGIN TO COLLECT THIS
DATA IN ORDER TO ASSESS AND
ADDRESS THE DISPARITIES IN ALL
OF THESE PROGRAMS WITH ME HERE
TODAY TO TESTIFY AND SUPPORTED
THE MEASURE IS SELLER STEIGER
FROM LEGAL AID AT WORK, WHICH IS
SPONSOR OF THE MEASURE. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS TAYLOR STEIGER, STAFF
ATTORNEY AT LEGAL AID AT WORK. A
PROUD SPONSOR OF SB 10 58. LEGAL
AID AT WORK IS A NONPROFIT LEGAL
SERVICES ORGANIZATION THAT
ADVOCATES THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
OF LOW INCOME WORKERS AND
WORKING FAMILIES. I'M HONORED TO
BE HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT SB 10
58, AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO THANK SENATOR
DURAZO FOR LEADERSHIP ON THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE. SB 10 58 WILL
REQUIRE THE EMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO
COLLECT OFFICIAL RACE AND
ETHNICITY, DATA FROM STATE
DISABILITY INSURANCE AND PAID
FAMILY LEAVE CLAIMANTS. AS
AMENDED. THE BILL WILL COLLECT
THIS DATA ALIGNED WITH STATE AND
FEDERAL STANDARDS AND INCLUDE A
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO ENSURE
BEST PRACTICES AND MEANINGFUL
INPUT FROM SUBJECT MATTER.
EXPERTS AND RESEARCHERS AS WELL
AS ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE
DEDICATED TO IMPROVING ACCESS TO
STATE DISABILITY INSURANCE AND
PAID FAMILY LEAVE. ACCESS TO
PAID FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE IS
ESSENTIAL FOR WORKERS AND
FAMILIES, AS NUMEROUS STUDIES
SHOW GOING TO STOP YOU RIGHT
THERE. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I
THINK WE ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO GET A QUORUM. SO IF
YOU COULD JUST PUT YOUR FINGER
WHERE YOU WHERE YOU WRITE, UH,
WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
MAY'S HERE HERE. CHOLERA BERMAN
BIGELOW BIGELOW HERE, CALDERON
CALDERON HERE. CERVANTES CHEN
CHEN HERE, COOLEY COOPER. GIBSON
GRAYSON GRAYSON HERE, RODRIGUEZ
RODRIGUEZ HERE. VOEPEL VOEPEL
HERE WOULD WOULD. HERE WE HAVE
WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A QUORUM.
THAT IS GREAT NEWS AND YEAH, NOW
IT'S FLOODING IN. AH! SO WE DO
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON
THIS BILL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
FINISH YES. ACCESS TO PAID
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE IS
ESSENTIAL FOR WORKERS AND
FAMILIES, AS NUMEROUS STUDIES
SHOW PAID LEAVE, IMPROVES
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
OUTCOMES FOR ADULTS AND
CAREGIVERS. BOLSTERS INFANT
HEALTH AND NEW PARENT BONDING
AND KEEPS WORKERS MORE SECURELY
ATTACHED TO THE WORKFORCE AND
LESS LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE
ECONOMIC INSECURITY. CALIFORNIA
HAS BEEN A PIONEER IN THIS AREA
AND BOTH STATE DISABILITY
INSURANCE PROGRAM AND THE PAID
FAMILY LEAVE PROGRAM HAVE
ASSISTED COUNTLESS CALIFORNIANS
DURING PERIODS OF LEAVE TO CARE
FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILY
MEMBERS. OR TO BOND WITH ME
BABIES? YES WE ARE AWARE FROM
PRIVATE REPORTS THAT NOT ALL
CALIFORNIANS ARE ABLE TO ACCESS
THESE VITAL PROGRAMS. CERTAIN
RACIAL DISPARITIES EXIST WITH
RESPECT TO WHO HAS AWARENESS OF
SD NPFL AND WHO IS ABLE TO
ACCESS WAGE REPLACEMENT
BENEFITS. IN A RECENT STUDY OF
NEW MOTHERS. IN CALIFORNIA, FOR
EXAMPLE, RESEARCHERS FOUND THAT
47% OF BLACK WOMEN AND 36% OF
HISPANIC WOMEN RECEIVE NO PAY AT
ALL FROM THE GOVERNMENT WHILE
TAKING LEAVE. COMPARED TO JUST
19% OF WHITE WOMEN. WE NEED THE
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT AND
PUBLISH OFFICIAL RACE AND
ETHNICITY, DATA FROM STATE
DISABILITY INSURANCE AND PAID
FAMILY LEAVE CLAIMANTS. THIS
DATA WILL PROVIDE STAKEHOLDERS
WITH CLEAR AND MEASURABLE
INFORMATION ABOUT KNOWN RACIAL
DISPARITIES. AND HELP INFORM
TARGETED OUTREACH AND UPTAKE
EFFORTS AMONG COMMUNITIES THAT
ARE CURRENTLY BEING LEFT BEHIND.
CONSIDERING WORKERS OF ALL
RACIAL BACKGROUNDS PAY INTO THE
FUND. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE
COLLECT RACE AND ETHNICITY DATA
TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL
CALIFORNIANS ARE ABLE TO BENEFIT
FROM THESE PROGRAMS.
ADDITIONALLY DUE TO EXISTING LAW
COLLECTION OF RACE AND ETHNICITY
DATA WILL REQUIRE THE DEED TO
COLLECT VOLUNTARY SEXUAL
ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY
INFORMATION AS WELL, PROVIDING
IMPORTANT DATA ABOUT ACCESS AND
UPTAKE AMONG LGBT Q. PLUS
CLAIMANTS. AND PRESENTING
SIMILAR OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS
DISPARITIES THROUGH TARGETED
OUTREACH. TODAY WE ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT OF THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION TO ENSURE EQUITABLE
ACCESS TO STATE DISABILITY
INSURANCE AND PAID FAMILY LEAVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
AND WE'LL GO IF THERE'S ANYBODY
ELSE THAT WISHES TO ADD ON IN
SUPPORT. JUST YOUR NAME
ORGANIZATION AND YOUR POSITION.
MALCOLM HARRIS AGAIN WITH
CARRYING ACROSS GENERATIONS AND
STRONG SUPPORT, AND THAT I WILL
ALSO READ A NOTE A LIST OF
GROUPS ORGANIZATIONS ALSO IN
SUPPORT, THE CALIFORNIA WORK AND
FAMILY COALITION PUBLIC COUNCIL.
BREASTFEED LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA BREASTFEEDING
COALITION, THE WORKING
PARTNERSHIPS USA, THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN,
CALIFORNIA, THE CALIFORNIA PAN
ETHNIC HEALTH NETWORK. CHILDREN
NOW THE CEO YOU CALIFORNIA
ACTION, EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES.
THE ORANGE COUNTY EQUALITY
COALITION, CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT, THE NATIONAL
PARTNERSHIP FOR WOMEN AND
FAMILIES, CITIZENS FOR CHOICE
AND THE BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL WOMEN OF NEVADA
COUNTY AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ISABELLA AGUADA
ON BEHALF OF NERO. PRO CHOICE
CALIFORNIANS AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ALEX DICAPRIO ON
BEHALF OF FIRST FIVE CALIFORNIA
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THEN WE'LL
GO TO ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION SEEING NONE. ARE
THERE ANY ADD ONS, UH, THAT
WOULD JUST LIKE TO REGISTER.
THEIR OPPOSITION. SEEING THEM
WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SENATOR WE DO HAVE EMOTION A
SECOND. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THIS MEASURE IS UNOPPOSED, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE CHAIR
DOES SUPPORT THIS MEASURE. THE
MOTION IS DO PASS AND RE REFER
TO THE ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE CLERK. WOULD YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MAYS I
CHOLERA. BERMAN BIGELOW. BIGELOW
NOW CALLED AROUND CALDERON. AYE,
CERVANTES CHEN. CAN NOT VOTING
COOLEY COOPER. COOPER I GIBSON
GRAYSON. I RODRIGUEZ. RODRIGUEZ
I'VE OPAL OPAL NO WOOD. WOULD I?
WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THAT ON
CALL FOR ANY ABSENT MEMBERS.
THANK YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT
. WE DO HAVE ONE MORE ITEM TO BE
PRESENTED TODAY. UM SB 11 38 BY
ALAN HE IS NOT HERE YET. SO
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH WHILE
WE STILL HAVE FOLKS. YES THAT
WOULD BE GREAT THE ITEMS THAT
ARE ON THE CONSENT TODAY OR ITEM
NUMBER THREE SB 12 42 BY THE
COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE ITEM
NUMBER NINE SB 10 64. SENATOR
NEWMAN. ITEM NUMBER 10. SB 1002
BY SENATOR PORTANTINO ITEM
NUMBER 11. SB 10 40 BY RUBIO.
I'VE GOT EMOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GRAYSON. SECOND
BY DOCTOR WOULD WOULD YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL? MAYS I CHOLERA
VERMIN, BIGELOW. BIGELOW. I
CALDERON. CALDERON AYE,
CERVANTES CHEN. CHENNAI COOLEY
COOPER COOPER, I GIBSON, GRAYSON
GRAYSON. I, RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ.
I'VE OPAL VOEPEL NOW. YEAH.
WOULD WOULD I? A WEEK. WE HAVE
EIGHT ON THAT. BUT WHILE WE ARE
GOING TO LEAVE THAT ON CALL FOR
ANY ABSENT ABSENT MEMBERS STILL
NOT SEEING A SENATOR ALLEN LET'S
START WITH ITEM. YEAH FILE ITEM
NUMBER NUMBER TWO. WHICH IS SB
11. 27 TKINS, THE CHAIR
SUPPORTS SUPPORTS THIS MEASURE.
WE HAVE EMOTION ABOUT DOCTOR
WOULD SECOND BY SOME OF THEM ARE
CALDERON. LEASE CALL THE OR.
MOTION IS DUE PASTOR
APPROPRIATIONS MAZE CHOLERA,
BERMAN. BIGELOW. THE GLOW. NO
CALLED AROUND CALDERON. AYE,
CERVANTES CHEN. CHEN. I COOLLY
COOPER. COOPER I GIBSON, GRAYSON
GRAYSON. I RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ.
I VOEPEL OPEL NOW, WOULD WOULD I. WE'VE GOT SEVEN WE'RE GONNA
LEAVE THAT OPEN. LEAVE THAT ON
CALL, SO THAT'S MOVED TO ITEM
NUMBER FOUR. I REMEMBER THREE
WAS ON THE CONSENT COUNTER. THIS
IS SB 2 13. THIS ITEM. THE CHAIR
DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS MEASURE
AND RECOMMENDS NO VOTE. IS THERE
A MOTION? SEEING NO MOTION. THIS
MEASURE FAILS FOR LACK OF
MOTION. THAT'S MOVED ON TO. FILE
ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB 2 16, THE
CHAIR DOES SUPPORT THIS MEASURE.
GOT A MOTION BY DOCTOR WOULD
SECOND BY SOME GRAYSON. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL WHILE ITEM NUMBER
FIVE SP 2 16 MOTION IS DUE PAST
APPROPRIATIONS MAZE CHOLERA,
BERMAN BIGELOW. MAKE IT BIG
BLOWN UP VOTING CALLED AROUND
CALDERON AYE, CERVANTES CHEN.
CHENNAI COOLEY COOPER COOPER, I,
GIBSON, GRAYSON. GRACE AND I
RODRIGUEZ. RODRIGUEZ I VOEPEL
VOEPEL. I WOULD WOULD I. AND HAS
EIGHT VOTES, BUT WE'RE GOING TO
LEAVE THAT ON CALL. AND LEAVE IT
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. SO
LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX
SB 11. OH, SEVEN. DODD. GOT A
MOTION BY DOCTOR WOULD I'M
SORRY. THAT'S UH BUT. THAT IF
YOU ARE BOTH IN AGREEMENT WITH
THAT THAN THE MOTION IS BY SOME
OF THEM WERE BIGELOW NOT WITH
THE SECOND BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WOULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
FINAL ITEM FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX
SB 11 OH, SEVEN MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. MAIZE
MAIZE I CHOLERA. BERMAN BIGELOW.
THE GLOW I CALLED AROUND.
CALDERON NOT VOTING. CERVANTES
CHAN. KITCHEN THAT VOTING COOLEY
COOPER. COOPER I GIBSON, GRAYSON
GRAYSON. I RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ.
I HOPE L OPEL. I WOULD WOULD I.
THAT'S GOT SEVEN VOTES, BUT
WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS MOVING ON. TO FILE ITEM
. SEVEN SB 9 51 BY DURAZO. THE
CHAIR SUPPORTS THIS MEASURE, BUT
JUST AS A POINT OF PRIVILEGE, I
WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS
MEASURE. TODAY I'VE GOT A MOTION
BY DOCTOR WOULD SECOND BY SOME
OF THEM ARE CALDERON. THIS IS
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SP 9 51 BY
DURAZO. MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS MAZE IS NOT
VOTING CHOLERA. BERMAN BIGELOW.
BIGELOW NÓ CALDERON. CALDERON
AYE, CERVANTES CHEN. CHEN KNOW
COOLEY COOPER COOPER. I GIBSON
GRAYSON GRACE AND I GET
RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ. I VOEPEL
VOEPEL NO WOOD. WOULD I? LET'S
GET VIBRANT. GOING TO LEAVE THAT
OPEN FOR, UH, ON CALL FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THEN WE ARE ON TO A
FILE NUMBER EIGHT. SB 10 58 BY
DURAZO. THE CHAIR DOES SUPPORT
THIS.SO WE DID. I'M SORRY. WHAT
ARE WE THINKING? ALREADY DID
THIS ONE I THINK WE'RE WAITING.
ALRIGHT SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD
UNTIL SENATOR MR ALLEN. ARRIVES.
ALRIGHT, WE ARE, UM. WE HAVE A
SPECIAL GUEST WITH US TODAY,
PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER ONE SB 11
38 BY SENATOR BEN ALLEN. UM SOME
OF THEM WERE GRAYSON. PLEASE
PRESENT THAT BILL. CHAIR. CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. GLOBAL
RECESSION SINCE THE DEPRESSION
OF THE 19 THIRTIES. AND WHILE
UNEMPLOYMENT TYPICALLY RISES
RECESSION, THE PANDEMIC
IMMEDIATELY SHOCKED THE ECONOMY
, RESULTING IN AN UNEMPLOYMENT
RATE IN CALIFORNIA THAT
SKYROCKETED TO A RECORD BREAKING
16% OVER THE COURSE OF ONE MONTH
, MANY WHOSE MANY WHO DID
STRUGGLE TO AFFORD NECESSITIES
TURNED TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT AND
DISABILITY INSURANCE SYSTEMS FOR
CRITICAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT.
HOWEVER THIS HIGHLIGHTED
INEQUITIES IN THE SOCIAL SAFETY
NET FOR SELF EMPLOYED WORKERS
WHO ORDINARILY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE
TO COLLECT UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE BENEFITS. THE FEDERAL
CARES ACT CREATED THE PANDEMIC
UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
THAT PROVIDED SELF EMPLOYED
WORKERS ACCESS TO UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME
IN THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS OF THE
PANDEMIC FROM MARCH TO JUNE,
2020 APPROXIMATELY FOUR MILLION
CALIFORNIANS FILED CLAIMS WITH
THE STATE'S UNEMPLOYMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND
ANOTHER ONE MILLION SELF
EMPLOYED CALIFORNIANS FILED
CLAIMS. AND THE E. D D HAS
ISSUED OVER $180 BILLION IN
BENEFITS SINCE THE PANDEMIC
BEGAN NOW THAT THE HISTORIC
GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS IN THE
PANDEMIC AIR PROGRAMS HAS ENDED
, SELF EMPLOYMENT, INDIVIDUALS
WILL NO LONGER HAVE ACCESS TO
BENEFITS WHEN THEY CANNOT FIND
WORK. SO SB 11 38 SEEKS A
PERMANENT SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. THE
ABILITY TO COLLECT BENEFITS WHEN
FACING WORK SCARCITY. THIS BILL
WILL REQUIRE THE DEED TO EXAMINE
THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS
EXPANSION AND REPORT TO THE
LEGISLATURE ON A POTENTIAL
STRUCTURE AND OPTIONS FOR THE
PROGRAM. ULTIMATELY WE WANT TO
FIND OUT HOW BEST TO EXTEND
PROTECTIONS TO THE SELF
EMPLOYED. THAT ARE ALREADY BEING
PROVIDED TO TRADITIONAL
EMPLOYEES IN THE WORKFORCE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, AND WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
THANK YOU, MR GRAYSON FOR
PRESENTING FOR SENATOR ALLEN. UM
I DON'T SEE ANY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. ANY ADD ONS. MOVED TO
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. ANY
ADD ONS WILL COME BACK TO
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS THAN I. WE'VE ALREADY
HAD EMOTION. I BELIEVE BY SOME
REMEMBER BERMAN. I DON'T
REMEMBER WHO IS SECONDED. UH
RODRIGUEZ SHOULD ASK YOU. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? SIMPLY ASKED
FOR ANY VOTE. GREAT WE DO AVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND BY THE
SECOND IS BY MR RODRIGUEZ.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. MOTION IS
DUE PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS MAZE,
CHOLERA. BERMAN BERMAN, I,
BIGELOW. BIGELOW NÓ CALDERON
CALDERON AYE CERVANTES CHEN
CHEN. I COOLLY COOPER. COOPER I
GIBSON, GRAYSON GRAYSON. I
RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ. I VOEPEL
NÓ. WOULD WOULD I. ALRIGHT. IT'S. BILL HAS EIGHT VOTES, BUT WE
ARE GOING TO LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR
JUST A LITTLE BIT. UM AS WE WAIT
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS FOR THOSE WHO
NEED TO ADD ON LETS GO THROUGH,
I THINK, IS IT JUST MR BERMAN?
OKAY, OKAY. YOU THINK YOU ARE,
TOO, OKAY? CONSENT CALENDAR.
BERMAN BERMAN. AYE. FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO SB 11 27 ADKINS.
BERMAN BERMAN. AYE. FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE SP 2 16 DODD. BERMAN
BERMAN. AYE. FILE ITEM NUMBER
SIX SP 11 07 DOT BERMAN BERMAN.
AYE. CERVANTES. YES. CERVANTES?
AYE. FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB
9512 RAZO. BERMAN BERMAN, I,
CERVANTES CERVANTES. AYE. FILE
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SB 10 58
DIRAZ. OH, BERMAN. BERMAN I
CERVANTES CERVANTES. AYE.
CONSENT CALENDAR. CERVANTES
CERVANTES? AYE. FILE ITEM
NUMBER.
FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 11 27
ADKINS CERVANTES. CERVANTES?
AYE. FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB 2
16 DODD. CERVANTES CERVANTES.
AYE.
FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE SB 11 38
ALLEN CERVANTES CERVANTES. AYE.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE ROLE
OPEN TILL ABOUT 11. ACTUALLY NOT
TOO ABOUT TILL 11 15 AND AT 11
15 WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING.
YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY? I
THINK THAT YOUR BREATH. YEAH.
AH! CONSENT CALENDAR. GIBSON.
GIBSON. AYE. WHILE ITEM NUMBER
ONE SB 11 38 ALAN GIBSON GIBSON.
AYE. FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 11
27 ADKINS. GIBSON. AYE. FILE
ITEM NUMBER FIVE SP 2 16 DODD.
GIBSON GIBSON. AYE. FILE ITEM
NUMBER SIX SB 11 OH, SEVEN.
DODD. GIBSON GIBSON. AYE. FILE
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. SB 951 DURAZO
. GIBSON GIBSON. AYE. FILE ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT SB 10 58 DURAZO.
GIBSON GIBSON. AYE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR GIBSON.
LUCK.
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR TO 11 TO
11 TO ONE. BILL IS OUT. THOSE
FOUR BILLS ARE OUT THAT CONSENT
CALENDARS OUT. SO, UM. IS
ATTEMPT TO FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE
SB 11 38 IS 10 TO 2. THAT BILL
IS OUT. SHE WAS 10 EYES. FILE
ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 11 27. BUT
ATKINS IS 10 TO 2 SO THAT BILL
IS OUT. HIGHLIGHTED NUMBER FIVE
IS 11 0 FILE OUT OF NUMBER FIVE
SB 2 16 IS 11 TO 0. THAT BILL IS
OUT. SIX. FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX
SB 11 OH, SEVEN IS 10 TO 0? THAT
BILL IS OUT. I REMEMBER SEVEN IS
8 TO 3 NUMBER SEVEN. SB 9 51 IS
8 TO 3 THAT BILL IS OUT. TO EAT
AS MUCH. FILE NUMBER EIGHT SP 10
58 IS 9 TO 2 THAT BILL IS OUT.
IT BEING 11 15, THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE THIS
HEARING IS ADJOURNED.