Workers’ compensation: domestic terrorism.
The bill significantly alters the framework of how workers' compensation claims related to domestic terrorism are handled. It mandates that claims resulting from domestic terror attacks take precedence in the expedited hearing process set by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board. Additionally, it exempts claims from the year limit typically imposed on filing such claims for those injured in the San Bernardino attack. The bill reinforces immediate support mechanisms for affected employees, fundamentally impacting existing laws governing compensation related to workplace injuries under extreme conditions.
Assembly Bill 772, introduced by Assembly Member Ramos, seeks to amend the Labor Code provisions related to workers' compensation, specifically in the context of injuries resulting from domestic terrorism. The bill aims to clarify the obligations of employers regarding medical treatment for workers injured as a result of such acts. It emphasizes that employers are not limited in their ability to insure against acts of domestic terrorism and can provide benefits that exceed what is mandated by existing law. This move comes in the backdrop of the December 2, 2015, terrorist attack in San Bernardino, aiming to facilitate claims related to this specific incident until January 1, 2025.
The general sentiment surrounding AB 772 is one of support from advocates for increased protection for workers impacted by domestic terrorism. Proponents argue that the bill provides necessary clarity and urgency in addressing the needs of injured employees in extraordinary situations. However, there exists some contention regarding the adequacy of current funding and resources to support these extended provisions, raising concerns about potential financial implications for employers and the state workers' compensation system. Nonetheless, the general view encourages enhanced employer accountability and worker support.
Despite the supportive sentiment, there are points of contention primarily around the implications of extended filing periods and employer responsibilities during declared states of emergency. Some critics question whether the adjustments may burden employers with unwarranted liabilities and whether the system can efficiently manage the influx of claims that may arise. Furthermore, the distinction made for claims related to domestic terrorism might set a concerning precedent in the workers' compensation landscape, possibly leading to calls for similar considerations in other areas of injury law.