Source: https://vdocuments.us/state-of-california-arnold-schwarzenegger-state-of-california-arnold-schwarzenegger.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:02:43+00:00

Document:
The final staff analysis and Proposed Statement of Decisioil for this test claim are complete and are enclosed for your review.
This test claiin is set for hearing on Thursday, December 9, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. in Rooin 126 of the State Capitol, Sacramento, California. Please let us know in advance if you or a representative of your agency will testify at the hearing, and if other witnesses will appear.
For any special accoimnodations such as a sign language interpreter, an assistive listening device, materials in an alternative format, or any other accoimodations, please contact the Coinmission Office at least five to seven working days prior to the meeting.
In 2001, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 663, adding sectioil3212.11 to the Labor Code. For the first time, publicly-employed lifeguards were granted a rebuttable presumption that sltin cancer developiilg or manifesting during or for a defined period iininediately following enlploynlent "shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment." Under the statute, the einployer inay offer evidence disputi~lg the presumption. Nonnally, before an em~loyer is liable for payment of worlters' coinpensation benefits, the employee must show that the in ju~y arose out of and in the course of employnent, and that the injuiy was proximately caused by the employment.
The clainlant alleges that the "net effect of this legislation is to cause an increase in workers' coinpensation claiills for sltiil cancer and decrease the possibility that ally defenses can be raised by the einployer to defeat the claims. Thus, the total costs of these claims, froin initial presentation to ultiinate resolution are reimbursable."
Departineilt of Finance disagrees and supports the staff analysis.
Staff asserts that although the legal presumption in favor of the lifeguard employee is new law, the claimant reads requireillents illto Labor Code sectioil 3212.11, which, by the plain meaning of the statute, are not there. IVothing in the statute inalldates public en~ployers of lifeguards to develop policies and procedures to handle lifeguard worlters' coinpensatioil claims. Nothing in the lailguage of Labor Code section 3212.1 1 requires a pre-employment physical exam for lifeguards, nor requires the enlployer to offer training on skin cancer prevention. While all of these "new activities" inay be prudent, they are solely undertalcell at the discretion of the einploying agency, and are not mandated by the state.
The express language of Labor Code sectioil 3212.11 does not iinpose ally state-mandated requirenleilts on local agencies. Rather, the decision to dispute this type of workers' co~llpensatioil clai~ll and prove that the injury is 11011-industrial remains elltirely with the local agency.
Fui-ther, tl~ere is no evidence in the law or in the record that local agencies are practically con~pelled by the state through the imposition of a substantial penalty to dispute such cases. While it may be tnle that districts will incur increased costs from worlters' compeilsation claims as a result of the test claiin legislation, as alleged by the claimant here, increased costs alone are not deteilniilative of the issue whether the legislation imposes a reimbursable state-mandated program.
Accordingly, staff finds that the test claiin legislation is not subject to article XIII B, section 6 of the California Coilstitution because the legislation does not mandate a new program or higher level of sei-vice on local agencies.
Staff concludes that Labor Code section 3212.1 1, as added by Statutes 2001, chapter 846, is not subject to article XI11 B, section 6 of the Califon~ia Constitution beca~lse it does not mandate a new program or higher level of service on local agencies.
Staff recoinillellds that the Coinmission adopt the final staff analysis, which denies this test claim for local agencies.
I11 2001, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 663, adding section 3212.1 1 to the Labor Code. For the first time, publicly-employed lifeguards were granted a rebuttable presuinption that sltiil cancer developing or n~al~ifesting during or for a defined period iilunediately following employment "shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of employllent." Under the statute, the einployer may offer evidence disputing the presumption.
' Labor Code sections 3202.5 and 3600. Labor Code section 3202.5 defines preponderance of the evidence as such evidence, "when weighed wit11 that opposed to it, has inore convincing force and the greater probability of truth. When weighing the evidence, the test is not the relative i~umber of witnesses, but the relative convinciilg force of the evidence."
See, Labor Code sectioils 3212, 3212.1 - 3212.7, and 3213.
[The test clailn legislation] creates a new injury heretofore not colnpensable and provides a presulnption that shifts the burden of proof to the employer.
Claimant's conlineilts on t l ~ e draft staff analysis argue: 1) Labor Code section 3212.1 1 "sets forth a clear mandate;" 2) staff fails to apply statutory constiuction iules "to the plain language of the statute;" and 3) staff fails to properly apply the recent Califoinia Suprenle Coui-t decision, Sun Diego Unzfied Sclzool District v. Conz11~ission on State Mu~clntes.
The Department of Finance filed coininents on August 8, 2002, concluding that the test claim legislatioil nlay create a reimbursable state-mandated program.
On October 18, 2004, the Depai-tinent of Finance filed coin~nents withdrawing any previous concl~~sions supportiilg the test claiin allegations, and asserting that the test claiin "legislation does not illandate a new prograin or higher level of service on local agencies." They also state: "A complete estinlate of inaildated costs was not identified during the deliberation of the test claiin legislation."
level of sei-vice on any local govenmlent, the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reiinburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service, except that the Legislature may, but need not, provide a subveiltion of funds for the following mandates: (1) Legislative mandates requested by the local agency affected. (2) Legislation defining a new criine or changing an existing definition of a crime. (3) Legislative inaildates enacted prior to Jailualy 1, 1975, or executive orders or regulatioils initially iinpleineiltiilg legislation enacted prior to Januaiy 1, 1975 ."
Departl~lel~t of Finance v. Conzl~~issiol~ on State Mc~ndates (Kern High Sc1~001 Dist.) (2003) 30 Cal.4tl1 727, 735. 7 County of Sail Diego v. State of Calfornia (1 997) 15 Cal.4tll 68, 8 1.
Long Beach Unified Sc1700l Dist. v. State of Calfol-nia (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 155, 174.
' I San Diego Unlfiecl School Dist., szlprcr, 33 Cal.4th 859, 878; Lzlcia Mar, stlyra, 44 Cal.3d 830, 835.
l 2 Snn Diego UlzlJied School Dist., szq~rn, 33 Cal.4tll 859, 878.
Issue 1: Is the test claim legislation subject to article XI11 B, section 6 of the California Constitution?
Staff finds that the test claiin legislation is not subject to ai-ticle XDI By section 6 of the Califoillia Constitution because it does not mandate a new prograin or higher level of service on local agencies within the ineaning of ai-ticle X m By section 6.
This sectioil applies to both of the following: (a) active lifeguards employed by a city, couilty, city and county, district, or other public or municipal corporation or political subdivision, and (b) active state lifeguards employed by the Department of Parlts and Recreation. The tern1 "injury," as used in this division, includes skin cancer that develops or lllailifests itself during the period of the lifeguard's employment. The coinpeilsatioll awarded for that injuiy shall include full hospital, surgical, and inedical treatment, disability indemnity, and death benefits, as provided by the provisions of this division.
Sltin cancer so developing or inanifesting itself shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of the employment. This presuinption is disputable and may be controverted by other evidence, but unless so controverted, the appeals board shall find in accordailce with it. This presumption shall be extended to a lifeguard following tei~nination of sei-vice for a period of tluee calendar inonths for each full year of the requisite service, but not to exceed 60 months in any circumstance, conllnencing with the last date actually worked in the specified capacity.
Sltiil cancer so developing or mallifesting itself in these cases shall not be attributed to any disease existing prior to that developmeilt or manifestation.
This section shall only apply to lifeguards en~ployed for more than tluee consecutive months in a calendar year.
l 3 County of F~eesno v. State of Califonzia (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482,487; County of Sonolna 1). Cornnzission 072 State Mandates (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1284 (County of Sonoma); Govelmnent Code sections 175 14 and 175 56.
l 4 Kinlaw v. State of Califo1.12ia (1 99 1) 54 Cal.3d 326, 33 1-334; Governiuent Code sections 17551, 17552.
" County of Sononza, suplea, 84 Cal.App.4tl1 1265, 1280, citing City of Snr~ Jose v. State of California (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1802, 18 17.
There was no requireineilt prior to 1975, nor in any of the interveiliilg years, until the passage of [the test claiin legislation in 20011 which inandated the inclusion of skin cancer as a coinpensable injury for lifeguards, the creation of a presumption in favor of sltiil cancer on the job, and the eliminatioil of the pre- existing coilditioil defense for einployers.'"
The clailnant reads requireinents into Labor Code section 321 2.1 1, which, by the plain meaning of the statute, are not there. First, the claiinant asserts in the test claiin filing that the legislation created a new compensable ii~jury for lifeguards. However, Labor Code sectioil3208, as last ainended in 197 1, specifies that 101- the purposes of workers' compensation, "'hljury' includes cuzji injury or disease arising out of the employ~~ent ." [Emphasis added.] Assembly Bill 663's sponsor, the California Independent Public Employees Legislative Counsel, stated that since 1985, one-third of the 30 City of Sail Diego lifeguards who received industiial disability did so due to sltin cancer.'"l~us, public lifeguards' ability to inalte a successful worlters' conlpensation claiin for an on-the-job injuiy fi-on1 skin cancer predates the 2001 enactlnent of Labor Code section 321 2.1 1.
" Test Claim, page 2.
l 7 Claiinailts' response to dran slarf aanalysis, page 2.
'' Senate Rules Committee, Office of Senate Floor Analyses, third reading analysis of Assembly Bill No. 663 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.), page 4, Septeinber 7, 2001.
20 Wlzitcolnb v. California Enzploynzent Conznzission (1944) 24 Cal.2d 753, 757.
2 ' City of Salz Jose v. State of C~l@r~z ia (1 996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1802, 18 16-1 8 17.
23 Id. at page 737.
25 Id. at page 743.
The Supreme Court left undeciclcd whether a reilnbursable state nlandate "might be found in circumstances sllort of legal comp~ilsion-for example, if the state were to impose a substailtial penalty (independent of the pray-am funds at issue) upon any local entity that declined to participate in a given program."'"
l7 Id. at page 73 1.. 28 Il7id.
The Court did not rely on this analysis to reach its conclusions, thus the statenleilts are considered dicta; however, staff ~.ecognizes that the Court was giving clear notice that the City of Merced "discretionary" rationale is not without limitation. What the Coui-t did not do was disapprove either the City of Mercecl, or its own rationale and holding in Kern High Sclzool Dist.
Rather, the 2003 decision of the Califoillia Supreille Court in Kerri High School Dist, remains good law, relevant, and its reaso~lillg continues to apply in this case. The Supreme Court explained, "the proper focus under a legal coillpulsion inquiry is upon the nature of the claimants' participation in the underlying programs them~elves ."~~ As indicated above, local agencies are not legally compellccl by state law to dispute a presumptioil in a worlters' con~pensation case. The decision and the maimer in which to litigate such cases is made at the local level and is within the discretion of the local agency. Thus, the employer's burden to prove that the sltin cancer is not arising out of and in the course of eillployllent is also not state- mandated. The evidentiary burden is sinlply an aspect of having to defend against a worlters' coillpensation lawsuit, if the enll3loyer chooses to do so.
30 Kern High School Dist., S I .~I I IW, 30 Cal.4th at page 743.
3 1 Co~lr7ty of LOS Angeles, suIx-n, 4 3 Cal.3d at page 54; see also, Ke1.11 High School Dist., suprx~, 30 Cal.4tll at page 735.
Therefore, the potential for increased costs resulting froin the statute, without more, does not iinpose a reimbursable state-manclated program.
Finally, the claiinailt points to two prior test claiin decisions approving reimburseineilt in cancer presumption worlters' coi~~pensalioi~ cases. In 1982, the Board of Control approved a test clainl on Labor Code sectioil3212.1, as originally added by Statutes 1982, chapter 1568 (Firefiglzter 's Cancer Presun~ption). The paramcters and guidelines authorize insured local agencies and fire districts to receive reimbursement for increases in worlters' conlpensatioil premium costs attiibutable to Labor Code section 3212.1. The parameters and guidelines also a~lthorize self- insured local agencies to receive reimbursement for staff costs, iilcludiilg legal counsel costs, in defeilding the section 3212.1 claims, and benefit costs including medical costs, travel expenses, peilnanent disability benefits, lire i,~ension benefits, death benefits, and tenlporary disability benefits paid to the eillployee or the employee's survivors.
In 1992, the Coininission adopted a statement ofdecisioil approviilg a test claim on Labor Code section 32 12.1, as aillended by S [atutes 1989, chapter 1 17 1 (Cancer P~aesunz~~tiolz - Peace Officel-s, CSM 441G.) The parameters and guidelines authorize reimbursement to local law e~lforceilleilt agencies ha t e~nploy peace officers defined in Penal Code sectioils 830.1 and 830.2 for the same costs approved in the Board of Control decisioil in the Firefiglzter's Ccuzcer P~~esz~~zptiol i test claim.
However, prior Board of CoiltroI and Conlillission decisioils are not coiltrolling in this case.
Since 1953, the Califoi'omia the Cal i ibl~~ia Supreine Coui-t has held that the failure of a quasi- judicial agency to coilsider prioi- decisions on the same subject is not a violatioil of due process and does not coilstitute an arbitrarlr action by the agency.32 III Weiss v. State Board of Eqt~a l~zc~t~on, the plaintiffs brought inandanlus proceedings to review the ref~isal of the State Board of Equalizatioil to issue an off-sale beer and wine license at their premises. Plaintiffs contended that the action of the board was arbitraiy and umeasonable because the board gsanted similar licei~ses to other businesses in the past. The Califonlia Supreme Court disagseed with the plaintiffs' contention and found [hat the board did not act arbitrarily. The Coui-t stated, in pertineilt part, the following.
33 Id, at page 776.
Accordingly, staff finds that the test claiin legislation is not subject to article XIII By section 6 of the California Constitutioil because the legislation does not inandate a new program or higher level of service on local agencjes.
CONCLUSION Staff concludes that Labor Cocle sectioll 3212.1 1, as added by Statutes 2001, chapter 846, is not subject to article XI11 By section G of the California Constitutioil because it does not mandate a new program or l~ ig l~er level of service on local agencies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff reconlille~~ds that the Commission adopt the final staff ailalysis, w l ~ i c l ~ denies this test claiin for local agencies.
34 72 Opinions of the Califonlia Attortley General 173, 178, fn.2 (1989).
35 Rideout Hospital Foundation, 117~. 17. Cozi~~ty of Yuba (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 214, 227.
36 City of Scln Jose, supra, 45 Cal.App.4tl1 at 18 16-1 81 7; Cou~qty of Sononla, supra, 84 Cal.App.4tl1 1264, 1280-128 1.
37 Test claim Cancer P r e s u ~ ~ ~ p t i o ~ ~ for Law E~forceinent and Firefighters (01-TC-19) was denied at the May 27, 2004 Commission hearing, and Cancer Preszin~ption (K-14) (02-TC-15) was denied at the July 29, 2004 Commission hearing.
Staffrecomlnends that the Coinmissioil adopt the Proposed Statelllent of Decision, beginning 011 page two, which accurately reflects the staff reconlineildation on the test claim. Minor changes to reflect the heari~ig testimony and the vote couilt will be included wlien issuing the final Statement of Decision.
I-Iowever, if tlie Commissioi~ '~ vote on Itein 5 inodifies the staff analysis, staff recollunends that the inotioil on adopting the Proposed Statement of Decision reflect those changes, which will be made before issuing the final Statelneilt of Decision. In the alteimative, if the changes are significant, it is reco~ninended that adoption of a Proposed Statement of Decision be contiilued to the Januaiy 2005 Coinillissioil hearing.
1 Califoillia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 1 188.1, subdivision (g).
The law applicable to the Commission's determination of a reimbursable state-mandated progranl is article XI11 By section 6 of the California Constitution, Goveillment Code section 17500 et seq., and related case law.
The Coillinission [adoptedlmodified] the staff analysis at the hearing by a vote of [vote count will be included in the final Statement of Decision].
2 Labor Code sectioils 3202.5 and 3600. Labor Code section 3202.5 defines preponderance of the evidence as such evidence, "when weighed with that opposed to it, has more conviilciilg force and the greater probability of ti-uth. When weigbing the evidence, the test is not the relative ilunlber of witnesses, but the relative convincing force of the evidence."
See, Labor Code sections 3212, 3212.1 - 3212.7, and 3213.
h12001, the Legislature passed Asseinbly Bill 663, adding section 3212.11 to the Labor Code. For the first time, publicly-employed lifeguards were granted a rebuttable presuinption that sltin cancer developing or manifesting during or for a defined period iillnlediately following elnploynent "shall be presunled to arise out of and in the course of employnent." Under the statute, the einployer ]nay offer evidence disputing the presumption.
[The test claiin legislation] creates a new injury heretofore not compensable and provides a presuinption that shifts the burden of proof to the employer.
Claimant's coinments on the draft staff ailalysis argue: 1) Labor Code sectioil 3212.11 "sets forth a clear mandate;" 2) staff fails to apply statutory coilstruction rules "to the plain language of the statute;" and 3) staff fails to properly apply the recent California Supreme Court decision, Salz Diego UlzzJied School District v. Conzrnissio~z olz State MaizcEntes.
The Departineilt of Finailce filed coinineilts on August 8, 2002, concluding that the test claim legislatioil inay create a reiinbursable state-mandated proga'in.
4 Test Claim, page 2.
"A complete estiinate of inandated costs was not identified during the deliberation of the test claiill legislation."
"rticle XI11 B, sectioil 6, subdivision (a), (as amended by Propositioil 1A in IVovember 2004) provides: "(a) Whenever the Legislature or ally state agency inandates a new prograill or higher level of service on any local govenment, the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reiinburse that local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service, except that the Legislature inay, but need not, provide a subvention of funds for the followiilg mandates: (1) Legislative inandates requested by the local agency affected. (2) Legislation defining a new criine or chailgiilg an existing definition of a crime. (3) Legislative inaildates enacted prior to Jailuaiy 1, 1975, or executive orders or regulations initially impleinei~ting legislation enacted prior to January 1, 1975."
Departnzent of Finance v. C07n1nission 012 State Ma~zcEntes (Kern Higlz School Dist.) (2003) 30 Cal.4th 727, 735.
Issue 1: Is the test claim legislation subject to article XI11 B, section 6 of the Califol.nia Constitution?
The Coinmissioil finds that the test claiin legislation is not subject to article XU1 B, sectioil 6 of the Califoimia Coilstitutioll because it does not inandate a new program or higher level of seivice on local agencies withill the wi leaning of article XIII B, sectioil 6.
This sectioil applies to both of the following: (a) active lifeguards einployed by a city, co~mty, city and county, district, or other public or inunicipal corporatioil or political subdivision, and (b) active state lifeguards einployed by the Department of Parlts and Recreation. The tenn "i~?july," as used in this division, includes sltiil cancer that develops or inanifests itself during the period of the lifeguard's employnent. The compensatioil awarded for that iiljuiy shall include full hospital, surgical, and inedical treatment, disability indemnity, and death benefits, as provided by the provisioils of this division.
l 2 Sol, Diego U111Jied Scl~ool Dist., supra, 33 Cal.4th 859, 878; Lzncia Mar, supm, 44 Cal.3d 830, 835.
l 3 Scm Dipgo Unfiecl Sch001 Dist., sznpra, 33 Cal.4th 859, 878.
l 4 Co~ln t~) of Fres170 v. State of Califor~iia (1991) 53 Cal.3d 482, 487; County of Sor7onla v. C0111171issio11 011 Stclte Mal7dates (2000) 84 Cal.App.4411 1265, 1284 (Cozirzt~l of Solzonza); Govelnment Code sectioils 175 14 and 17556.
full year of the requisite service, but not to exceed 60 months in any circumstance, coininencing wit11 the last date actually worlted in the specified capacity.
Skin cancer so developiilg or manifesting itself in these cases sl~all not be attributed to any disease existing prior to that development or manifestation.
This section shall only apply to lifeguards employed for inore than tlree consecutive montlls in a calendar year.
Tlze claimant reads requireilleilts into Labor Code section 3212.11, which, by the plain meaning of the statute, are not there. First, the claimant asserts in the test claim filing that the legislation created a new compeilsable injury for lifeguards. However, Labor Code section 3208, as last amended in 197 1, specifies that for the purposes of workers' compensation, "'Injury' includes a11y injuiy or disease arising out of the employnent." [Emphasis added.] Asseinbly Bill 663's sponsor, the Califoinia Independent Public Employees Legislative Counsel, stated that since 1985, one-third of the 30 City of Sail Diego lifeguards who received industrial disability did so due to sltin cancer.l9 ~ l l u s , public lifeguards' ability to malte a successfi~l workers' compeilsation claim for ail on-the-job injuiy from sltin cancer predates the 2001 eiiactment of Labor Code section 32 12.1 1.
l 7 Test Claim, page 2.
Claiinants' response to draft staff analysis, page 2. 19 Senate Rules Committee, Office of Senate Floor Analyses, third reading analysis of Asse~nbly Bill No. 663 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.), page 4, Septeinber 7, 2001.
Estate ofG~pis\vald (2001) 25 Cal.4th 904, 910-91 1.
2' City of S ~ I I Jose v. State of Cczl~o~~nia (1 996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1802, 18 16-1 81 7.
'' Ke1.11 Iiigh Scl~ool Dist., stcpm, 30 Cal.4th 727. '"(1, at page 737.
26 Id, at page 743.
30 San Diego Uu.(fied Sclzool Dist., supm, 33 Cal.4tl.1 at page 887.
The Court did 1101 rely on this analysis to reach its conclusions, thus the stateinents are considered dicta; however, the Con~missioi~ recog~izes that the Coui-t was giving clear notice that the Citj) of Mercecl "discretionaiy" rationale is not without limitation. What the Coui-t did Trot do was disapprove either the City of Mercecl, or its ow11 rationale and holding in Kern High School Disf.
Rather, the 2003 decision of the California Supreme Coui-t in Kern High Sclzool Dist. remaills good law, relevant, and its reasoning continues to apply ill this case. The Supreme Coui-t explained, "the proper focus under a legal con~pulsioil inquiry is upoil the nature of the claimants' participation in the uilderlyiilg programs tl~einselves."~' As indicated above, local agencies are not legally conlpelled by state law to dispute a presumptioi~ in a worlters' compensation case. The decision aild the manner in which to litigate such cases is ixade at the local level and is within the discretioil of the local agency. Thus, the employer's burden to prove that the sltiil cancer is not arising out of and in the course of einployn~ent is also not state- mandated. The evidentiary burden is siinply an aspect of having to defend against a workers' compensation lawsuit, if the ei~lployer chooses to do so.
" K e 7 ~ I5gh Scllool Disf., sz,pra, 30 Cal.4th at page 743.
Collrlfy ofLos Angeles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at page 54; see also, Kern High School Dist., supra, 30 Cal.4th at page 735.
Therefore, the potential for increased costs resulting fro111 the statute, without more, does not impose a reiillbursable state-mandated program.
Finally, the claimant points to two prior test claiin decisioils approving rein~burselnent in cancer presumption worlters' coillpeilsatioil cases. In 1982, the Board of Control approved a test claim on Labor Code sectioil3212.1, as originally added by Statutes 1982, chapter 1568 (Firefighter's Culicer Prestrlnptron). The parameters and guideliiles authorize insured local agencies and fire districts to receive I-eimbursement for illcreases in worlters' compensation premium costs attributable to Labor Code sectioil 3212.1. The paraineters and guidelines also authorize self- insured local agencies to receive reiinburseinent for staff costs, includiilg legal counsel costs, in defeilding the section 3212.1 claims, and benefit costs including inedical costs, travel expenses, l~eilnanent disability benefits, life peilsion beneiits, death beneiits, and teinporary disability benefits paid to the elnployee or the employee's survivors.
In 1992, t l ~ e Commission adopted a statenleilt of decision approving a test claim on Labor Code sectioil32 12.1, as amended by Statutes 1989, chapter 1 171 (Cc~lzcer Preszlnzptiolz - Pence Officel~s, CSM 441 6.) The paranleters and guidelines autl~orize reimbursement to local law enJorcement agencies that employ peace officers defined in Penal Code sections 830.1 and 830.2 for the same costs approved in the Board of Coiltrol decision in the Firefighter's Callcer Presul7zptiolz test claim.
However, prior Board of Coiltrol and Coillmission decisions are not coiltrolling in this case.
33 PPeiss I). Stclte Bool*d of Equalizatioli (1953) 40 Cal.2d 772, 776-777.
Accordingly, the Co~ninissioil finds that the test clailn legislation is not subject to article XIII B, section 6 of the Califoillia Constitutioil because the legislation does not inandate a new prograin or higher level of service on local agencies.
CONCLUSION The Con~n~ission concludes that Labor Code section 3212.11, as added by Statutes 2001, chapter 846, is not subject to article XI11 B, sectio~i 6 of the California Constitution because it does not mandate a new prograln or higher level of service on local agencies.
' 5 72 Opinions of the Califoimia Attoilley General 173, 178, f11.2 (1989).
" Ricleozrt Hospitnl Fozindntion, I ~ c . V . County of Yzrbn (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 214, 227. 37 City of Sail Jose, supra, 45 Cal.App.4.th at 18 16-1 8 17; County of Sol~onzn, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1280-1281. 36 Test claim Ccii~cel* Presm~~zptiolz for Lnw E~~forcenzelzt and Fil~eflghters (0 1 -TC-19) was denied at the May 27, 2004 Co~n~~l i s s ion hearing, and Cancer Preszinzptio~~ (K-14) (02-TC-15) was denied at the July 29, 2004 Coniinission hearing.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.