During the 2026 legislative session, California lawmakers considered a plethora of workers’ compensation topics besides the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) and passed bills that bar the use of AI-generated citations, ease the requirements for airport firefighters to obtain compensability presumptions, and punish fraud.
Lawmakers considered at least 20 bills that would have impacted the workers’ compensation system, but ultimately only passed about half of them as lawmakers largely focused on the SIBTF reforms. (To read about the SIBTF reform bill, please see our blog post about that.)
Perhaps the most interesting bill signed into law in 2026 addressed one of the hottest topics in the workers’ compensation system – the use of generative AI to produce court pleadings, only to realize later that they are filled with AI “hallucinations”, a.k.a. citations to cases that never existed. (We previously wrote about that topic here, here, here, and here in 2026.)
That bill, Senate Bill 574, was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 30, 2026. It states that:
- Citations in legal pleadings must be personally-verified by the attorney submitting the legal pleading.
- Arbitrators cannot delegate their decision-making process to any generative AI tools, and also may not rely on information generated by AI outside the evidentiary record.
- California’s Judicial Council must publicly revisit its standards to determine if there are any updates pertinent to generative AI, and likewise consider any changes to procedures for alternative-dispute resolution (ADR) programs.
- The State Bar must adopt procedures for the investigation and resolution of any misuse of generative AI. The bill would make the investigation itself confidential, but later would allow the State Bar to disclose records that do not reveal privileged or confidential communications.
Practitioners can avoid most problems caused by AI hallucinations by personally reviewing the actual decisions that are cited in their legal pleadings. In other words, if you’re using AI – use it as a lead, but then go personally verify the decisions and make sure that they say what you think they said.
As an editor, the undersigned can attest that summaries of panel decisions and appellate decisions can often differ from what the actual decision says. With that in mind, it’s best to read the cases you and your opponents are citing – because that can often give you additional context, and allow you to make a stronger argument. In other words, while some may use AI to point you in the right direction, if you want to win, we recommend doing the additional legwork.
Doing the additional legwork will help firms avoid stark sanctions that cost thousands of dollars, and irreparably damage reputations that took decades to create.
(To read more about sanctions, the Hon. Robert Rassp, presiding judge of the Los Angeles WCAB, summarized some more recent cases beginning on p. 16 of the attached PDF. Our very own Don Barthel also summarized a Superior Court case featuring $6,000 in monetary sanctions, along with some other extremely uncomfortable requirements.)
OTHER BILLS SIGNED INTO LAW
Lawmakers also got a number of other bills to Gov. Newsom’s desk, which he signed into law. These include:
- Assembly Bill 1683: Prior bills allowed defendants to use prepaid debit cards to pay for workers’ compensation benefits, expiring on 1/1/27. This bill eliminated that expiration date and states that defendants may use prepaid debit cards indefinitely.
- Assembly Bill 2039: This bill created a $25,000 civil penalty for each violation of capping statutes. It also requires the State Bar to enact disbarment procedures for any licensee who has a felony conviction of various capping schemes. Because capping schemes often contain multiple violations, anyone convicted of a felony capping scheme could be facing a daunting amount of civil penalties well into the six-figures, if not more.
- Senate Bill 1444: Before this bill was signed into law, commercial airport firefighters had to maintain a specific Fire Marshal certification known as Fire Control 5 in order to be entitled to rebuttable presumptions of compensability for cancer and PTSD. This bill changed the law so commercial airport firefighters no longer need that certification in order to be able to use the presumptions.
- Senate Bill 1227: Anyone who has worked with or covered the state’s Department of Industrial Relations has likely noticed that the DIR and its various departments are often understaffed. This bill creates a apprenticeship program to help the DIR address its staffing challenges.
- Assembly Bill 2227: This bill calls for increased bonds for farm labor contractors based on their payrolls. Previously, a payroll for up to $500,000 had to submit a $25,000 bond. This bill makes that bond $50,000. Bonds for higher payrolls also went up accordingly, ie doubled. This bill also reworked language to clarify that a person working for a farm labor contractor could be subject to civil penalties up to $10,000 for violation of various employment laws applicable to farm labor contractors.
- Senate Bill 1209: This bill requires audited payers to take corrective actions to remediate statutory and regulatory violations identified in state audits. Companies who fail to take steps to cure any violations could be subjected to additional civil penalties.
BILLS NOT SIGNED INTO LAW
There are always a number of bills that never make it to the governor’s desk for signature. These bills are still notable because they indicate serious potential to come up in future legislative sessions. Here is a list of bills that were not signed into law, but could come up in future sessions:
- Assembly Bill 2098: This bill stated that denying an injured worker’s request for medical treatment constitutes discrimination. It did clarify that first, the injured worker must make a “reasonable effort” to schedule treatment outside of working hours. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. A similar bill was proposed in 2024.
- Senate Bill 1032: This bill would have required staffing agencies to provide proof of insurance coverage when registering with the Labor Commissioner. It would have permitted registered staffing agencies to sue unregistered staffing agencies, and also permitted them to seek injunctive relief against unregistered staffing agencies. This bill made it through most legislative committees, but was ultimately held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- Assembly Bill 2137: This legislation would have required a mandatory certification process before a shop could begin slab product fabrication surfaces. The bill did not make it out of the Assembly, as it was held in committee. The bill appears to have been aimed at decreasing silicosis risk exposure in fabrication shops.
- Assembly Bill 1515: This bill would have allowed the DIR to craft regulations governing self-insurance obligations of professional employer organizations (PEOs). This bill made it through most committees, but was ultimately declared inactive in August. This topic could come up again in future sessions.
- Assembly Bill 1048: This bill would have required Explanations of Benefits (EOBs) to allow providers an opportunity to request a copy of an underlying contract for preferred rates and discounts. It also made it through most committees, but was ultimately held under submission at the end of the legislative session.
- Assembly Bill 536: This bill would have required an insurer to notify the Employment Development Department (EDD) about suspected premium fraud, and to provide the EDD with wage records and employee information so EDD could investigate the suspected fraud. This bill was held under submission at the end of the legislative session, but did make it through most legislative committees prior to that.
- Senate Bill 795: This bill would have placed more limitations on professional athletes ability to file cumulative trauma claims in California. After labor unions complained, the bill was fundamentally altered in committee, and all references to professional athletes and cumulative trauma claims were eliminated. Lawmakers replaced the language with an air pollution bill that was actually signed into law. Please note that while this bill number was technically signed into law, none of the professional athlete and cumulative trauma language information made it into the final version of the bill.
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.