Heart Presumption Application Strictly Interpreted

Saturday, August 11, 2007 | 0

By Jake Jacobsmeyer

The 3rd District Court of Appeal ordered publication of a previously issued decision on interpreting the statutory application of presumptions in favor of public safety officers.

In California Horse Racing Board v. WCAB (Snezek) the court had overturned an award of benefits based on a presumption of heart disease made by the Workers' Compensation Board of Appeals for an investigator of the California Racing Board.

The applicant had sustained a heart attack while at home and filed a claim for work-related benefits.

Conflicting medical reports were introduced but an award of benefits issued at the trial level that was sustained on reconsideration. The workers' compensation judge reported that he relied in part on the presumption of heart disease in Labor Code Section 3212.

The WCJ acknowledged that Snezek was not one of the enumerated classes of employees covered by the heart presumption in 3212 but analogized that since his work was similar to a public safety officer and he was a public safety officer for a political subdivision, he should be entitled to the same benefits granted by statute to the enumerated officers.

On appeal, State Compensation Insurance Fund argued that the presumption for public safety officers of a political subdivision only covered hernias, not heart disease.

SCIF also argued that case law did not support the extension of the hernia presumption as the employee worked for the state of California, not a political subdivision and such distinctions were to be strictly interpreted.

The court agreed with SCIF's first argument and did not address the second.

The court noted that even the WCJ was aware that the applicant did not fit into the specifically listed group of employees that were entitled to a presumption for heart trouble.

The court rejected that analysis that the employee's job duties should be analogized to similar kinds of employees who are entitled to the heart presumption.

The appellate court, however, rejected the analogy argument.

The court also made it clear that even if the second argument of SCIF was incorrect, the analogizing the employee to a police officer of a political subdivision, that those employees did not get the heart presumption and therefore there was no benefit to applying that analogy to the applicant.

Attorney Richard "Jake" Jacobsmeyer is a partner in the firm Shaw, Jacobsmeyer, Crain, Claffey & Nix and can be reached at jakejacobsmeyer@shawlaw.org.

----------------------------------------

The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of workcompcentral.com, its editors or management.