- Home
- Contact
- About Us
- Forgot Password
- Memberships
- Register
- Submit Press
- Privacy Policy
- TOS
- Disclaimers
- Marketing & Branding
- Corporate Sales
- Education
- RSS
© 2026 WorkCompCentral Workers Compensation Information
Purchase this story for only $7.99!
Add to CartFor access to all our articles, check out our subscription options.
Apr 28-30, 2026
Join us at the 2026 AMCOMP Annual Meeting, April 28-30, 2026 at The Vinoy in St. Petersburg, Flori …
Apr 30, 2026
AWCP’s Spring Jam Event! Join colleagues, friends, and supporters for a lively outdoor gathering f …
May 11-13, 2026
NCCI's Annual Insights Symposium (AIS) 2026 will deliver data-driven insights, providing industry …
2 Comments
Log in to post a comment
Tom Johnson Apr 24, 2026 a 4:05 pm PDT
Don't mislead the legislature! It is practically impossible to be found 100% disabled combining under the scheduled ratings combination chart, especially without the future earnings modifier or vocational evidence available. I would be very shocked if anyone in the legislature understood how the combinations chart eviscerates ratings for the most deserving and disabled people. A 99% combined with a 49% rating is still 99%. The same result if you add 1000 more 49% ratings. You have to leave the right to rebut the chart otherwise you are abrogating the Fund completely for those that need it the most. They are throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater. The cost problem could easily be contained with a few tweaks without not destroying the fund. I hope CAAA representatives are consulted to get the complete picture.
Scott Silberman Apr 24, 2026 a 11:38 pm PDT
I am surprised that there was no mention of the cost of these proposals, which have not been vetted. They state there are 30,000 outstanding claims. Twenty-five percent of current SIBTF expenses are med-legal. This legislation will apparently require the med-legal process to restart on these claims and discard the benefit of reports that have already been paid for. What will that cost? $500 million? $1 billion?
They claim there are 30,000 outstanding cases. Of those, how many are active? How many claims have been abandoned because the claimants would not qualify or because the claimants are deceased? I think all of these issues need to be evaluated to determine the impact of any changes.
Of course, SIBTF was the reason that Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664 apportionment could be justified. The reforms of 2004 and 2014 save employers over $60 billion a year if you compare the 2004 pure premium rate to the rate today. As the article states, to date, only 4,000 of California’s most seriously injured workers have qualified for this benefit. These are the people the reforms of 2004 and 2014 hurt the most.
It is costing less than $1 billion for $60 billion a year in savings, but maybe it makes sense to roll back some of the reforms for everyone? This legislation is more of a cost-shifting measure than a cost-saving measure. In the end, employers will not be saving money, and the most seriously injured workers in California will be the ones who suffer.