Latest news with #SB632
Business Wire
08-07-2025
- Health
- Business Wire
CWCI Examines California's Proposed Presumption for Hospital Worker Injuries & Illnesses
BUSINESS WIRE)--A bill that would give a rebuttable presumption of compensability to a wide range of work injury and illness claims filed by workers who provide direct patient care in California's acute care hospitals would require the hospitals to accept injuries that would normally be denied after investigation and expend significant costs, increase litigation, and set an unsupported precedent by extending presumptions into the private sector according to a California Workers' Compensation Institute (CWCI) analysis. The analysis shows a lack of evidence supporting the need for hospital worker presumptions, especially given that it would open the door to private sector presumptions. Share Unlike other workers' compensation claims, in presumptive injury claims an injured worker does not need to prove that their injury or illness was caused by their job; instead, the employer must prove it was not work-related. Because this is very difficult, rebuttable presumptions have historically been reserved for public safety officers for injuries such as cancer or heart disease that may arise from the unique risks inherent in those public sector jobs, and even then, only when there is clear and compelling evidence of a lack of hazard abatement, a high incidence of injury, and a high claim denial rate. However, SB 632 (Arreguin), now pending in the California Assembly, would extend presumptions into the private sector by granting presumptions to direct care hospital workers for claims involving injuries and illnesses including musculoskeletal injuries, COVID-19 from SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, respiratory diseases (including asthma), cancer, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Using accident year (AY) 2019 – 2024 claims data from its Industry Research Information System (IRIS) database, CWCI's analysis measured the percentage of workers' compensation claims by hospital workers that involved the injuries covered by SB 632 and compared that figure to the percentage of claims from the general workforce that involved those injuries. The Institute then determined the distribution of claims by injury category and calculated the claim denial rates for the hospital worker claims and compared the results to those for the general workforce. Among the findings: 1) 55.7% of all hospital worker claims from AY 2019 - 2024 would be presumptive injuries under SB 632. 2) Of the hospital worker claims, the most common were musculoskeletal injuries (32.1% of all hospital worker claims from the 6-year study period); COVID-19 (21.7%); and respiratory diseases (1.3%). Other injury categories that would be covered by the proposed presumptions together represented less than 1% of the hospital worker claims. 3) Similarly, for the general workforce, the most common injuries covered by SB 632 were musculoskeletal injuries (30.0%), COVID-19 (9.9%), and respiratory diseases (0.8%). As with the hospital worker claims, all other injuries covered by SB 632 represented less than 1% of all general workforce claims. 4) Claim denial rates for injuries and illnesses that would be covered by SB 632 are similar for hospital workers and the general workforce: for hospital workers the claim denial rate was 15.0%; for the general workforce, it was 15.7%. Thus, hospitals accept liability for the injuries at a slightly higher rate than they are accepted in the general workforce. Workers' compensation presumptions shift the burden of proving that a claim is work-related from the employee to the employer. Because they create exceptions to the grand bargain of workers' compensation, they have been limited to public safety officers for specific injuries that may result from the hazardous conditions associated with those public service jobs, where it is often difficult to safeguard the employee from the dangerous conditions inherent in their work. Such is not the case for hospitals, which have extensive loss control programs and safety procedures. Furthermore, CWCI's analysis found hospitals and the general workforce have similar injury distributions, except for COVID-19 claims, where hospital workers were covered by a presumption during the pandemic. This, combined with nearly identical claim denial rates for hospital worker and general workforce claims involving injuries covered by SB 632, shows a lack of evidence supporting the need for a presumption, especially given that it would open the door to private sector presumptions. CWCI's Impact Analysis report on SB 632 is available for free under the Research tab at
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Oklahoma nearly finished with bill to create new courts for business lawsuits
One of Gov. Kevin Stitt's top priorities for this year's legislative session has been the creation of a special state court to handle complex business litigation. Three weeks before the end of the legislative session, it's unclear whether he'll get his wish. House lawmakers advanced Senate Bill 632 on a mostly bipartisan vote of 71-19. The Senate now has three weeks to agree with changes made by the House to the bill or stall its progress while both sides negotiate on a final version. Supporters have said business courts will be more prepared to handle the often complex and lengthy dockets that come with business litigation. While some lawmakers have expressed concern that a separate court system would provide special treatment to businesses beyond what other civil litigants face in district court, the bill has sailed through the Legislature this year without any significant public opposition. If signed into law, SB 632 would create two new specialized business courts in Tulsa and Oklahoma counties. The courts would focus on disputes around Oklahoma's most complex business laws like securities, trade secrets, professional malpractice, contracts, commercial property, intra-business disputes and e-commerce. It also requires that any non-jury trial in a business court must be wrapped up within 12 months. Judges in the two courts would be appointed directly by the governor and serve six-year terms. More: How Oklahoma leaders at Supreme Court hearing on religious charter school responded to arguments In Stitt's State of the State speech in February, he called for legislation that would "make sure business disputes and complicated contracts will be handled by judges with business expertise." Under SB 632, business court judges would need to be at least 35 years old, a U.S. citizen and be a licensed Oklahoma attorney with at least 10 years of experience in complex civil litigation, business law and/or previous experience as a civil court judge. During presentation on the House floor on May 8, lawmakers amended SB 632 to push back the effective date one year to July 1, 2027, meaning Stitt's successor would be in charge of appointing the first business court judges. House lawmakers also agreed to add a paragraph that requires all parties to agree on having their case be heard in business court. If the Senate agrees to those changes sometime in the next three weeks, it will go to the governor for his signature. The lawmaker who presented the bill in the House, state Rep. Collin Duel, R-Guthrie, said he didn't know whether the Senate would agree to the changes. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: SB 632 to create business court in Tulsa, Oklahoma counties advances
