A bill allowing parties to use electronic signatures on settlement documents is the most prominent bill signed into law during the 2024 legislative session by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Newsom capped the 2024 legislative session by signing four notable workers’ compensation bills into law, and vetoing four more. The deadline for the governor to sign or veto bills was Monday, Sept. 30.
Perhaps the most popular bill that generated buzz among attorneys was Assembly Bill 2337, which clarified the definition of “signature” to clearly allow the use of electronic signatures on workers’ compensation settlement documents. As we noted in a prior blog post, this became an issue in March 2023 after an en banc decision rescinded the suspension of temporary pandemic rules that had allowed the use of electronic signatures. Following the en banc decision, many (but not all) judges began requiring parties to use wet signatures after an en banc decision.
The bill takes effect on Jan. 1, 2025.
The bill brings the WCAB into the modern era, as countless attorneys have noted that one can sign a seven-figure mortgage or buy a car with an electronic signature, but could not sign a workers’ compensation settlement document with one. Attorneys have also noted that a number of other statutes and regulations allow for e-signatures, including Gov. Code section 16.5, California Rules of Court Rule 2.257, and Civil Code section 1633.7(d). The WCAB is not bound by those statutes and rules, so it’s worth noting that AB 2337 creates two new Labor Code sections (LC 110.5 and LC 3206.5) that permit the use of electronic signatures.
OTHER APPROVED BILLS
Newsom also signed three other bills into law, including Assembly Bill 1870, Senate Bill 1455, and Assembly Bill 1239. Of these, AB 1870 will have the most impact, as it requires employers to post notices in breakrooms or common areas to inform employees that they have the right to hire a licensed workers’ compensation attorney.
The bill will basically add two sentences about the right to an attorney to existing notices posted in breakrooms or common areas. That being said, one has to wonder how many people will actually read these notices.
In your humble blogger’s early days at WorkCompCentral in 2008, this then-journalist admittedly used to read all of the state notices and the late David DePaolo’s workers’ compensation flowchart during lunch breaks. (Dave was always good about having all the state notices posted in the breakroom, along with the flowchart, which was his masterpiece.)
Frankly, the workers’ compensation flowchart was much more interesting than the state-required notices.
Of the other approved bills, AB 1239 extended a pilot program allowing administrators to use debit cards to pay for disability benefits, such as temporary disability or permanent disability. The program was set to expire on Jan. 1, 2025, but this bill now extends it until Jan. 1, 2027. As our friends at WorkCompCentral noted, the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation (CHSWC) is studying the program to determine how useful it is.
That being said, we would be remiss to forget SB 1455, which postponed the implementation of a law requiring licensed contractors to obtain workers’ compensation coverage. The original deadline to obtain coverage was Jan. 1, 2026, but SB 1455 postponed that deadline until Jan. 1, 2028. The bill also requires the Contractors State License Board to create a “process and procedure” by Jan. 1, 2027 that permits an exception to the coverage requirement.
The bill amends Business and Professions Code section 7125.7 to read, “By no later than January 1, 2027, the board shall establish a process and procedure, which may include an audit, proof, or other means, to verify that an applicant or licensee without an employee or employees is eligible for exemption from the workers’ compensation insurance requirement pursuant to Section 7125.”
So if a licensed contractor intends to be uninsured, they would be well-advised to pay attention to whatever process the State License Board creates so they can jump through those regulatory hoops in a timely manner.
VETOED BILLS
The governor also vetoed four notable bills which received some press, including:
- SB 1299 – This bill would have presumed that heat injuries are compensable if an employer violated Cal-OSHA’s heat injury prevention standards.
- SB 636 – This bill would have required utilization review doctors to be licensed by the California State Medical Board.
- SB 1058 – This bill would have allowed county and special district park rangers to collect LC 4850 benefits instead of temporary disability benefits.
- AB 2872 – This bill would have given a salary raise to Department of Insurance fraud investigators, by clarifying that their salaries be equal to the salaries of investigators for the state Justice Department.
Of these four vetoes, AB 2872 is perhaps the most disappointing, as the Department of Insurance’s fraud investigators are overworked and understaffed. The department needs more fraud investigators on the whole, as fraud is often not easy to prosecute and can require a significant amount of legwork. A salary hike would arguably encourage more talented investigators to apply to work for the state.
OTHER BILLS THAT DIDN’T MAKE IT
A few other bills that we wrote about earlier this year stalled in the Legislature. These include:
- Senate Bill 1205, which we wrote about in July, was requested to be deemed inactive after being amended. The first 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. Then on June 27, lawmakers removed that language and replaced it with a provision essentially requiring employers 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. This bill could be revived during the 2025 legislative session.
- Assembly Bill 3106 would have created greater protections for school employees who have Covid-19. For instance, it would have required school districts to continue to pay school employees while they are out on sick leave, and set forth specific requirements before a Covid-positive employee could return to work. It would not have applied to teachers who are receiving TD benefits via the workers’ compensation claim process. This bill was held in committee, it could be revisited during the 2025 legislative session.
CONCLUSION
The 2024 legislative session was a quieter year for workers’ compensation legislation. This could be attributed to the fact that it is a presidential election year, with most constituents’ eyes focused on the presidential candidate of their choice.
But lawmakers were also focused on other topics, such as the special session called for by Gov. Newsom aimed at curbing gasoline price spikes. The Assembly just approved a bill on that topic on Oct. 1, and it is headed to the state Senate at this time.
With all that in mind, perhaps 2025 will be the year that we see a new omnibus workers’ compensation reform bill. One can hope!
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.