Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workplace Heat Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances Farmworker Heat Illness Prevention Act, creating rebuttable presumption when employers fail to comply with heat rules
Summary
AB 13 36 would create a rebuttable presumption that a heat‑related illness or death is work‑related if an agricultural employer fails to comply with Cal/OSHA outdoor heat regulations. The committee recorded the bill as passed to Appropriations; the committee roll later showed a 12–2 with 4 not voting tally.
Assemblymember Addis’s AB 13 36 would add a rebuttable presumption to workers' compensation law: if an agricultural worker suffers a heat‑related injury and the employer is found not in compliance with the state's outdoor heat‑illness prevention standards, the injury would be presumed work‑related unless the employer rebuts that presumption.
Sponsor testimony emphasized rising heat risks and enforcement limits. Assemblymember Addis and Teresa Romero, president of the United Farm Workers, described extreme temperatures, the disproportionate risk borne by farm workers and enforcement gaps at Cal/OSHA. Romero said the bill would not change the heat regulation itself or add new workers' compensation benefits; rather, it would make it easier to secure workers' compensation benefits where employers fail to meet existing heat‑safety rules.
Supporters cited statistics: mortality from heat‑related illness is, they said, about 20 times higher for farm workers than for private‑industry nonfarm workers, and occupational heat‑related illness rates more than doubled since early 2022 according to the California Department of Public Health. Sponsors also noted that Cal/OSHA inspects a fraction of California’s roughly 60,000 farms and cited a 47% issue rate in the agency’s inspections of heat‑relevant workplaces.
Opposition came from workers' compensation coalition representatives, insurer groups, and grower associations. Jason Schmelzer of the California Coalition on Workers' Compensation said he agreed employers should comply with heat standards but argued the measure inappropriately uses workers' compensation presumptions as an enforcement tool, leaving open procedural questions about which agency adjudicates compliance and how timelines and penalties in workers' compensation would interact with the presumption.
Committee members discussed enforcement limits at Cal/OSHA, the bill’s intended operation, and how it is designed to apply only where employers are not in compliance. The committee voted to pass the measure to Appropriations; the committee roll recorded the bill outcome as 12 yes, 2 no, 4 not voting.
If enacted, the bill would shift the evidentiary burden in certain agricultural heat‑injury claims: workers who show the employer failed to comply with the applicable outdoor heat standards would be presumed to have suffered a work‑related injury, subject to employer rebuttal. Sponsors said the change is intended to incentivize compliance and prevent heat‑related deaths.
The bill now proceeds to the Appropriations Committee.
