Covid-19 Codified: Navigating the Sb 1159 Presumptions, and Beyond
| Publication year | 2020 |
| Author | Randy H. Pollak, Esq. Thousand Oaks, California |
Randy H. Pollak, Esq. Thousand Oaks, California
Viviana Santiago, Esq. Concord, California
COVID-19 has turned the entire world upside down and inside out. In the world of workers' compensation, the impact of the disease on our system and our practice of law has been severe. However, Governor Newsom provided some order on September 17, 2020, when he signed into law Senate Bill 1159 (SB 1159). This legislation was designed to bring some level of structure to the handling of COVID claims in California's workers' compensation system. SB 1159's central framework comprises a fairly complex system of three distinct rebuttable presumptions, as well as a robust employer reporting requirement. SB 1159 was passed as an urgency bill and became effective immediately. This article reviews SB 1159 to provide a road map of the essential elements and common issues that will inevitably arise in the handling of these claims.
We begin our discussion with a foundational review of the different types of legal presumptions available and how they are applied in workers' compensation cases.
In a workers' compensation case, the burden of proof rests with the party holding the affirmative of an issue (Lab. Code §3202.5). A presumption is an inference in favor of a particular fact that affects the burden of proof at trial.
There are both conclusive and rebuttable presumptions in workers' compensation cases. When a presumption is conclusive, it is irrefutable. Once the party bearing the burden of proof establishes the requisite elements, no evidence to the contrary can overcome it (see, e.g., Fraire v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2020 Cal.Wrk.Comp. PD LEXIS 60: "It is well established that where the law establishes a conclusive presumption evidence will not be received to contradict it," citing People v. McCall (2004) 32 Cal.4th 175, 185; Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1106: "Where the law makes a certain fact a 'conclusive presumption' evidence cannot be received to the contrary").
With a rebuttable presumption, once the party bearing the burden of proof presents a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the opposing party to present rebuttal evidence that may or may not overcome the presumption (see, e.g., Milpitas Unified School District v. WCAB (Guzman) (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 808, holding the AMA Guides Fifth Edition provided the prima facie evidence of a rating that could be rebutted).
In addition, there are two ways in which presumptions arise in the workers' compensation system. First, there are presumptions that apply when a party satisfies a checklist of requisite elements, such as when an applicant establishes membership in an employee class, suffers a particular type of injury, and/or suffers an injury on a particular date or during a particular period (see, e.g., Lab. Code §§3212, 3213,3501,4662).
Second, presumptions may apply when a party fails to act within a prescribed time frame, such as when a defendant fails to timely deny a claim (Lab. Code §5402(b)).
SB 1159 adds...
To continue reading
Request your trial