Happy Monday, dear readers! It’s been a minute, and you can rest assured that your humble blogger has missed your kind e-mails, welcoming comments, and, on occasion, vague accusations of “hostile blogging.”  So, the talk of the town, as it were, is the Legislature’s passage of SB1159, which codifies Governor Newsom’s executive order and expands upon it for the purposes of COVID19 presumptions.  Though not law at the time of this blog post, it is anticipated that Governor Newsom will soon sign SB1159 into law.

There is plenty in SB1159 to tinker with and analyze, but I thought I’d pick one issue out to touch on in today’s blog post.   SB1159 creates a “disputable” presumption that contracting COVID19 in certain circumstances is an industrial injury.  So, what’s a disputable presumption?

California Evidence Code 600 defines a presumption as “an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts…”. It further defines that “a presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable…”. (Section 601).  Well, if a presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable, then what’s a “disputable presumption?”

Various Courts of Appeal opinions have used the term “rebuttable” and “disputable” interchangeably.  For example, DOC v WCAB/Alexander wrote: “(1) any specified injury or illness which developed or manifested itself during the officer’s service was rebuttably (“disputably”) presumed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.”  Likewise, California Horse Racing Board v. WCAB/Snezek held “Because Snezek was a police officer for a political subdivision, the WCJ ruled that the heart trouble presumption set forth in section 3212 applied and was not rebutted.” 

Of course, Labor Code section 3212 et seq. uses the same term, “disputable” presumption, for compensability of certain conditions to peace officers.

Assuming SB1159 is signed into law, we can expect litigation over COVID19 causation to be fact-heavy, but there’s also likely to be some litigation about the meaning of key terms and the burden of proof.  Clearly “disputable” doesn’t mean “conclusive.”  But unless disputable and rebuttable are actually interchangeable, is the standard for disputable somewhere between conclusive and rebuttable?  Certainly, the legislature is aware of the term “rebuttable” as it is used in various Labor Code sections throughout the code.

Your humble blogger’s expectation is that defendants will be required to provide something more than a preponderance to effectively dispute or rebut these disputable presumptions.

What do you think, dear readers?