California lawmakers recently amended a bill to remove a controversial provision that would have mandated temporary disability for medical appointments.
The author of Senate Bill 1205, state Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), amended the bill to remove a controversial temporary disability provision but also added language that could be problematic for employers.
The original version of the bill would have allowed applicants to receive TD benefits, transportation, meals, and lodging for medical treatment appointments – even after the applicant has been declared to be at permanent and stationary. Laird removed that from the bill on June 27, 2024.
The newly-amended version of the bill states that “If an employer denies an employee’s request to attend scheduled treatment during regular work hours, the employer’s conduct constitutes a violation under the provisions of Section 132a.”
In other words, employers would have to let injured workers go to medical appointments whenever they want – even in the middle of their shift. Refusal to do so would mean that the employer could be sued for discrimination under Labor Code 132(a), which carries additional penalties for the employer.
While lawmakers and lobbyists have used physical therapy appointments as a classic example of treatment appointments that require many weekly visits, they conveniently ignored the plain fact that many physical therapists stay open into the evening hours to accommodate those who cannot get out of work. For instance, a quick Google search shows that four of the five closest physical therapy clinics near your humble blogger’s address are open until 6, 6:30, or 7 p.m.
The California Federation of Teachers is sponsoring the bill, which is ironic because teachers typically get done with school at 3-4 p.m. – earlier than many other industries.
The bill was most recently approved by the Assembly Insurance Committee and sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill could have ramifications for Appropriations, because if the bill causes a sharp increase in costs for the public education system – it would most likely be vetoed. The bill could increase costs to state and local governments by:
- Encouraging applicants to schedule appointments in the middle of their shifts.
- Making it easier for applicants to sue their employers for alleged LC 132a violations, aka discrimination violations
- As employers struggle to fill the void left by these applicants, they would have to find replacement employees. For example, a class of second graders can’t just sit idly by while their teacher goes to a physical therapy appointment from 10 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.
If the bill does pass through a successful vote at the Appropriations Committee, it would then go to the full Assembly for a vote. Should they approve it, the state Senate and Assembly would have to hold a conference to hash out the differences between each version of the bill their respective houses approved. (Keep in mind that the Senate approved the version of the bill that existed before the amendment.)
Even if they do hash out a compromise, the bill would then go to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk, where he could veto the bill or sign it into law.
CONCLUSION
This bill is far from being signed into law. The last day for each house to pass bills is on Aug. 31, so time is running somewhat short as well. If lawmakers fail to expedite SB 1205, it could stall and never reach the governor’s desk.
Got a question about workers’ compensation defense issues or pending legislation? Feel free to contact John P. Kamin. Mr. Kamin is a workers’ compensation defense attorney and partner at Bradford & Barthel’s Woodland Hills location, where he monitors the recent legislative affairs as the firm’s Director of the Editorial Board. Mr. Kamin previously worked as a journalist for WorkCompCentral, where he reported on work-related injuries in all 50 states. Please feel free to contact John at jkamin@bradfordbarthel.com or at (818) 654-0411.
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.