Well, it’s Groundhog Day again… I mean Monday again, dear readers.  Here we are, watching with bated breath as we wait to see what happens to the citizens of those states opening up in the face of looming Corona virus threats.  Will it all be ok?  Will there be massive spikes in Corona virus cases and deaths?

Well, while we’re waiting to see the results of yet another great experiment in Federalism, let’s turn our attention back to California.  The first of the COVID-19 presumption bills is now before the California Legislature.  Assembly Bill 664 would amend the Labor Code to make active firefighters, peace officers, and health care employees who provide direct patient care, eligible for a presumption of compensability in certain cases.

So here’s the basic idea:

1. If you’re a firefighter, peace officer, or healthcare worker involved in direct patient care, this will apply to you!
2. The scope of “injury” now includes being sent into quarantine, even if there are no actual symptoms or health effects, so long as there is a state of emergency declared in California (before or after the order to go into quarantine);
3. In addition to the typical workers’ compensation benefits, an employee so “injured” is entitled to reimbursement for temporary housing and PPE costs, both to prevent infection/exposure to self and to others;
4. An injury of this sort shall be conclusively presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment up to 90 days after the last day worked, presumably without regard for the reason the employment ended.

So, let’s take a look at some wacky scenarios under the proposed AB664.

Nurse retires and to celebrate her career goes on a trip around the world.  Her flight leaves 30 days after her retirement party and she gets back 30 days later, showing her first symptoms as she gets back from the airport.  Industrial? Under AB 664 it would be.

Peace officer is driving home from work in his own car when he gets T-boned by a distracted driver.  He gets taken to a hospital and stays there for a spell in intensive care.  A week after being sent home from the hospital to recover he starts showing COVID19 symptoms.  Industrial?  Under AB 664 it would be. 

Firefighter’s brother falls ill with COVID19 symptoms.  After a week of toughing it out his brother asks him to take his kids so that he can try to recover without childcare burdens.  A week after the fighter’s niece and nephew move in, he develops COVID19 symptoms of his own.  Industrial? Under AB 664 it would be.

Needless to say, your humble blogger is not a fan of this and finds it a legislative overreach.  There is no basis in science or even reason to extend a presumption of industrial causation up to 90 days from the last day worked.  There is no reason to consider the need for quarantine an “injury” as contemplated by the Labor Code, especially if the “injured” worker shows no symptoms and suffers no harm other than the quarantine itself.

Buckle in dear readers, the fun is just beginning.