January 13, 2026 | Sacramento, CA — MedLegalNews.com — California Assemblymember Liz Ortega, a prominent labor leader and Chair of the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment, has come under sustained criticism from disability advocates and workers’ compensation attorneys who argue that she was misled — or “hoodwinked,” in their words — into advancing policy proposals that would have harmed disabled workers.
At the center of the controversy is Liz Ortega’s support for legislative efforts to reform the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF), a program specifically designed to protect workers with pre-existing disabilities who suffer additional workplace injuries. Critics argue that the proposed reforms Liz Ortega supported would have restricted access to benefits, increased procedural hurdles, and effectively punished disabled workers for having prior impairments.
Reliance on a Flawed RAND Study
Opposition to the proposed SIBTF reforms intensified after the Jacobi Journal published an investigation alleging that the RAND Corporation study used to justify the legislation was deeply flawed. According to the Journal, the RAND analysis contained methodological and actuarial errors of a magnitude comparable to historic corporate accounting scandals such as WorldCom and Enron — not in criminal form, but in terms of their potential to dramatically mislead decision-makers.
The Jacobi Journal asserted that RAND’s projections inflated SIBTF liabilities by billions of dollars through questionable assumptions and unsupported extrapolations. Disability advocates argue that Liz Ortega and other lawmakers were presented with these projections as authoritative, creating a narrative of fiscal crisis that did not accurately reflect reality.
Critics contend that by relying on this contested analysis, Liz Ortega was effectively steered into supporting reforms that targeted one of the few safety nets available to permanently disabled workers.
Why Advocates Call It an “Attack on the Disabled”
From the perspective of disability advocates, the issue was not abstract budgeting — it was existential. SIBTF benefits often determine whether a severely disabled worker can afford housing, medical care, or basic necessities. Opponents of the reforms argued that tightening eligibility or increasing proof requirements would disproportionately harm the most vulnerable claimants, many of whom already face systemic barriers in the workers’ compensation system.
As a result, advocacy groups and applicant-side attorneys publicly characterized the proposed reforms as an attack on disabled workers, regardless of the intent behind them. In their view, the harm would have been real and immediate, even if lawmakers believed they were acting on sound financial data.
Governor Newsom’s Veto Halts the Reforms
The controversy ultimately culminated in Governor Gavin Newsom vetoing the SIBTF reform legislation, preventing it from taking effect. In his veto message, the Governor emphasized the importance of preserving protections for injured and disabled workers and signaled that any future changes to SIBTF must avoid undermining the program’s core purpose.
For critics, the veto was validation of their warnings — that the Legislature had been pushed toward harmful reforms based on deeply contested and unreliable financial analyses.
A Broader Policy Failure
To Liz Ortega’s critics, the episode represents a cautionary tale: how even lawmakers with strong labor credentials can be misled by authoritative-sounding studies, resulting in policies that conflict with their stated values. Whether Liz Ortega was misinformed, overly trusting of RAND’s conclusions, or insufficiently skeptical, advocates argue that the outcome was the same — disabled Californians were placed at risk.
The debate over SIBTF continues, but the episode has left lasting questions about how disability policy is shaped, whose data is trusted, and how easily fiscal narratives — including those relied upon by Liz Ortega — can be used to justify proposals that shift burdens onto those least able to bear them.
Stay informed on California workers’ compensation policy and disability law. Subscribe to MedLegalNews.com for ongoing reporting and analysis.
🔗 Read More from MedLegalNews.com:
- Questions Raised Over 2024 RAND SIBTF Liability Study
- California’s SB 40 Caps Insulin Costs: Key Details for Insurers and Patients
- California Lawmakers Target Licensing Barriers for Alternative Birth Centers Under AB 55
- Johnson & Johnson Slapped With $1.5 Billion Talc Verdict in Baltimore Mesothelioma Case
- Punitive Damages Denied in Nursing Home Death Lawsuit After Appeals Court Review