The California Legislature adjourned the 2026 session on August 31 closing the door on a few workers’ compensation proposed bills for this year.

SIBTF Eligibility (AB 1576)

This bill required there be substantial evidence of a preexisting disability before the second injury. Applicant would also have to show the injury caused a loss of earnings or interfered with activities daily life for SIBTF claims. The Division of Workers’ Compensation would also be required to create a database of QMEs specializing in SIBTF claims.

It was noted that the Governor vetoed a similar bill last year and ordered his administration to draft its own SIBTF reforms. SB 171 approved by the Govenor provided tighter provisions for SIBTF including (1) evidence that preexisting conditions be labor-disabling and documented in medical evidence at the time of the second injury, (2) Medical-legal evidence supporting an SIBTF application during the claim process for the primary injury, (3) Use of the CVC chart to combine rather than add impairments, (4) Claims to be filed within five years from the date of the second injury or six months from when permanent disability is determined for that injury, whichever is later.

Medical Provider Contractual Discounts (AB 1048)

The bill required EORs to include the MPN identification number and an email contact to permit a provider to request a copy of the underlying contract used to reduce payment. The basis for this bill came from SCIF medical networks relying on contractual rates with preferred providers rather than direct contracts resulting in an inability to show entitlement to negotiated reimbursement rates.

EDD Wage Data (SB 536) 

This bill would allow EDD and carriers to compare wage data. Carriers would submit wage information and employee counts to EDD. In response, EDD would identify discrepancies between their own information and in the carrier submitted information. EDD would also be required to provide carriers with detailed payroll information upon request.

The bill was challenged as it was expected to result in excessive implementation costs for EDD as well as ongoing annual costs to maintain.

While these bills failed for consideration this year, it is possible that provisions of these bills could still be amended into other legislation currently moving through the process