Workers’ compensation: COVID-19: essential occupations and industries.
The bill alters existing statutes by reducing the investigatory timeframe for claims related to COVID-19 from 90 days to 30 days, thereby speeding up the process of determining compensability. Moreover, the presumption of injury extends for 90 days following an employee's termination, ensuring that those who contract COVID-19 after their employment still have access to compensation. This adjustment directly impacts the public health landscape by encouraging essential workers to report COVID-19 cases without the fear of lengthy claim processing delays.
Assembly Bill 196, introduced by Assembly Member Gonzalez, proposes significant modifications to California's workers' compensation system in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly focusing on employees deemed essential under the Governor's Executive Order. By newly defining 'injury' to include COVID-19 infections that manifest during employment in essential jobs, the bill aims to facilitate the claims process for affected workers. It establishes a rebuttable presumption that COVID-19 cases arise out of employment, applicable to those working in industries identified as essential as defined in the March 19, 2020 Executive Order N-33-20.
The sentiment surrounding AB 196 appears largely supportive among advocates for workers' rights. Proponents argue that this legislation is critically needed to protect essential workers who face disproportionate risks of exposure to COVID-19. However, there are concerns about the implications for employers and the potential for increased claim submissions, which could strain the workers' compensation system. Critics, particularly from the employer community, may argue that this bill could lead to abuse of the presumption, although the bill's rebuttable nature addresses such concerns.
Notable points of contention include the exclusion of certain frontline workers such as firefighters, peace officers, and direct patient care healthcare employees from the bill's provisions. This exclusion raises questions about the fairness of the legislation and whether it adequately covers all essential workers at risk. Critics may argue that these exclusions limit the bill’s effectiveness in offering comprehensive protection for all essential workers adversely affected by the pandemic.