- New CMS TEAM Model May Enhance Workers' Comp Treatmenton March 5, 2026 at 8:03 AM
On January 1, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) - a mandatory, five-year program that requires approximately 740 acute care hospitals to take financial responsibility for the entire episode of a patient's surgical care, from the operating room through 30 days post-discharge. While this is a Medicare regulation, its effects are already influencing how orthopedic injuries are treated across all payer types, including workers' compensation.
Three of the five surgical categories covered by TEAM are directly relevant to workplace injuries: lower extremity joint replacement (hip, knee, and ankle), surgical hip and femur fracture treatment, and spinal fusion. For each episode, CMS sets a risk-adjusted target price. Hospitals that come in under budget while meeting quality benchmarks earn bonuses; those that exceed the target owe money back. Unlike earlier voluntary bundled-payment experiments, there is no opt-out.
Outpatient joint replacement is becoming the norm. Same-day discharge for total hip and knee replacement is now routine for appropriately selected patients. Outpatient orthopedic volume was already 33 times higher than inpatient volume by late 2023, and TEAM's episode-based pricing further incentivizes hospitals to move procedures to ambulatory surgery centers and send patients home the same day. Advances in regional anesthesia, minimally invasive techniques, and "prehabilitation" protocols have made this clinically safe for many patients.
Post-surgical rehabilitation is being compressed. Hospitals are now accountable for all costs in the 30-day post-discharge window - physical therapy, home health, imaging, and ER visits. Physical therapy often begins within hours of surgery, and remote monitoring and telehealth follow-ups are replacing some in-person visits.
Patient-reported outcomes now affect reimbursement. TEAM ties hospital payment to a Composite Quality Score that includes readmission rates, complications, and - notably - patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The patient's own assessment of pain, function, and satisfaction directly affects the hospital's bottom line.
Faster timelines will become the expectation. As same-day joint replacement becomes standard of care, carriers and utilization reviewers will increasingly expect injured workers to follow accelerated protocols. Defense counsel should recognize that same-day discharge now reflects mainstream practice - not corner-cutting. Claimant's counsel should watch for cases where comorbidities or job demands make an accelerated timeline inappropriate.
Financial incentives may influence treatment decisions. TEAM creates pressure to reduce episode costs. While this often aligns with good care, attorneys should be alert to situations where cost-reduction incentives conflict with a worker's needs - premature discharge, inadequate post-op rehab, or limited follow-up visits within the 30-day window.
Patient-reported outcome data may become discoverable. Hospitals are now collecting standardized, quantitative data on how patients perceive their own recovery before and after surgery. This data could become relevant in disputes over disability extent, surgical success, or maximum medical improvement.
Reimbursement pressures may affect provider availability. CMS simultaneously applied a −2.5% efficiency adjustment to orthopedic surgical work RVUs in 2026, on top of roughly 20% cumulative RVU reductions for hip and knee arthroplasty over the past decade. As Medicare margins tighten, some surgeons may become more selective about which payers they accept — potentially affecting the availability of specialists willing to treat comp patients.
CMS has stated its goal of placing 100% of Medicare recipients under alternative payment models by 2030. The trends TEAM is accelerating - outpatient surgery, compressed rehabilitation, data-driven outcome tracking, and cost-conscious episode management - will increasingly define how workplace musculoskeletal injuries are treated regardless of the payer. Practitioners should understand these dynamics now, because they will soon shape the medical evidence, treatment timelines, and expert opinions in your cases.
Keep in mind that the TEAM model applies to Medicare; workers' compensation systems are governed by state law and may differ in their treatment and reimbursement frameworks.
- Good Forensic Mesothelioma Evidence Leads to $50 M Verdicton March 5, 2026 at 8:03 AM
Rita-Ann Chapman began using Avon talcum powder products in 1954 at the age of eight, continuing multiple times per week until 1978, and then again from 1995 to 2010. She was eventually diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease caused by asbestos exposure. The Chapmans sued dozens of defendants; by the time of trial, only Avon and Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. remained in the case. Mrs. Chapman died on March 16, 2025, and Gary Chapman continued the case as her successor-in-interest.
At trial, the Chapmans presented extensive evidence that Avon's talc products contained asbestos. Internal Avon memos from the early 1970s acknowledged asbestos contamination - some showing tremolite asbestos levels as high as 20–25 percent in certain talc sources. The Chapmans' expert, Dr. William Longo, tested vintage Avon products and found chrysotile asbestos using a refined sample preparation method originally developed at the Colorado School of Mines in 1973. Their medical expert, Dr. Steven Haber, opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Mrs. Chapman's decades of Avon talc use was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma. A biostatistics expert, Dr. David Madigan, testified that Mrs. Chapman's odds of avoiding asbestos exposure across all the Italian-sourced talc products she used were astronomically low.
Avon countered with its own testing showing no asbestos and with expert testimony suggesting that many mesotheliomas are spontaneous or genetic, and that women's mesothelioma rates had remained relatively flat regardless of asbestos usage trends.
The jury found Avon strictly liable for selling products with inadequate warnings and with manufacturing and design defects. It also found Avon liable for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment, and determined that Avon acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. The jury awarded $40,831,453 in compensatory damages and $10.3 million in punitive damages, apportioning 90 percent fault to Avon.
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, affirmed the judgment in full in the published case of Chapman v. Avon Products, Inc.- Case Nos. B327749 & B330345 (March 2026)
Avon raised four claims of error on appeal: that the trial court improperly admitted Dr. Longo's chrysotile testing testimony, improperly excluded corporate witness Lisa Gallo, improperly allowed Dr. Haber to testify on asbestos testing methods and Avon's internal documents, and that insufficient evidence supported the verdict.
On Dr. Longo's testimony, the court found that Avon had expressly conceded at trial that its challenge was based on reliability under the Sargon standard rather than novelty under Kelly, thereby waiving any Kelly challenge. See Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747 and People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24. The trial court properly exercised its gatekeeping role and reasonably concluded that Dr. Longo's methods - which combined an established 1973 sample preparation technique with longstanding PLM analysis - were not clearly invalid or unreliable.
On Lisa Gallo's exclusion, the court found no abuse of discretion. Avon listed Gallo only as a corporate representative and never disclosed her as a witness with personal knowledge of relevant facts, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.090, subdivision (a)(1)(A). Gallo herself had denied in deposition testimony that she worked with Avon's talc products, and most of the testimony Avon proposed she give concerned events predating her 1994 employment. The court also rejected Avon's misconduct argument regarding plaintiffs' "corporate silence" closing argument, finding it was fair comment on the evidence. See LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 939.
On Dr. Haber's testimony, the court held that his extensive qualifications in occupational and environmental medicine - including decades of assessing environmental causes of pulmonary disease - provided a sufficient foundation for interpreting asbestos testing methods and Avon's internal documents. Avon had failed to object to his qualification as an expert and forfeited several specific challenges by not raising them under proper headings or with timely objections. See United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142.
On sufficiency of the evidence, the court found Avon waived this claim entirely by failing to set forth all material evidence - both favorable and unfavorable - as required under established appellate standards. Avon's brief cherry-picked testimony favorable to its position while largely ignoring its own damaging 1970s memos and the Chapmans' extensive expert testimony. See Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875; Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400.
- Court Declines to Overturn Arbitration Award in Favor of Employeron March 4, 2026 at 12:44 PM
Alexander Sorokunov worked for NetApp from 2016 through June 2019, earning an annual salary plus commissions governed by an individual Goal Sheet and the company's Compensation Plan for fiscal year 2019. The Plan calculated commissions as a percentage of sales revenue achieved in the employee's territory, but also contained a windfall provision that reserved NetApp's right to limit commission payments when an employee's goal attainment exceeded 200 percent.
In fiscal year 2019, Sorokunov and roughly 300 other employees exceeded the 200 percent threshold. In May 2019, NetApp invoked the windfall provision, informing employees that further commissions above that level would not be paid. NetApp attributed the widespread over-attainment to forecasting errors. Sorokunov's final paycheck for the fiscal year was reduced by $31,402.42 as a result. He resigned the following month.
Sorokunov then filed a PAGA notice with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and NetApp, and in January 2020 filed a First Amended Complaint. He alleged that the Plan violated Labor Code section 2751(a) by failing to set forth the method by which commissions would be computed and paid; that NetApp violated section 221 by collecting wages already paid; and that NetApp violated section 223 by secretly paying less than the contractual wage scale. He also asserted claims for unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., breach of contract, and PAGA penalties, along with an individual claim under Labor Code section 202(a) for failure to pay earned commissions upon resignation.
In December 2020, the trial court granted NetApp's petition to compel arbitration of Sorokunov's individual non-PAGA claims. In May 2024, the court denied Sorokunov's motion for summary adjudication of his PAGA claim regarding section 2751(a), finding he had not shown the Plan was subject to the statute and that triable issues of fact remained.
In July 2024, the arbitrator ruled in NetApp's favor on every individual claim, finding no breach of contract, no violation of sections 221, 223, or 2751, and no merit to the wage fraud claims. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award in September 2024 and then granted NetApp's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the PAGA cause of action, concluding that Sorokunov lacked standing as an aggrieved employee based on the arbitrator's findings.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety in the published case of Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc., Case No. A171964 (March 2026)..
Sorokunov argued that NetApp's power to unilaterally amend, suspend, or terminate the Plan rendered its promise to arbitrate illusory, relying on Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1425. The court distinguished Peleg because NetApp's modification clause required that any changes be "consistent with and to the extent permitted by applicable law." Under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as recognized in 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1214, and Casas v. Carmax Auto Superstores California LLC (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1233, this language prevented NetApp from applying modifications to claims that were known but not yet filed, rendering the arbitration agreement enforceable.
Sorokunov also framed his appeal as a pure question of statutory interpretation, but failed to challenge in his opening brief the trial court's alternative finding that triable issues existed as to whether his compensation qualified as "commissions" under section 2751. Citing People v. JTH Tax, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1232, the court held this forfeiture alone supported affirmance. On the merits, the court agreed that section 2751(a) requires only that the method of computing commissions be set forth in writing, not that the method be purely mechanical, and that NetApp's Plan met that standard.
Applying the standard from Richey v. AutoNation, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 909, 916–918, the court reviewed the award for clear legal error affecting unwaivable statutory rights and found none. On section 221, the court cited Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 217, 239, for the principle that wage-protection statutes do not prohibit systems where final compensation remains contingent on post-performance events. On section 223, the court agreed the windfall provision was not secret, as it was plainly disclosed in the Plan.
The court followed Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 65 and Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 645, holding that the arbitrator's determination that no Labor Code violations occurred against Sorokunov precluded him from claiming aggrieved-employee status under PAGA. The court noted that the California Supreme Court endorsed this approach in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1124, and Stone v. Alameda Health System (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040, 1076–1077. The court declined to follow Gavriiloglou v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 595, which had reached the opposite conclusion, and distinguished Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 127 on its facts. The court rejected Sorokunov's policy objection by noting that the judgment had no preclusive effect on the LWDA, which remained free to bring its own enforcement action.
- Tragic Death Uncovers Alleged Insurance Fraudon March 4, 2026 at 12:44 PM
Licensed insurance agent Gonzalo Lorona, 58, of Oxnard, has been charged with 37 felony counts, including insurance fraud and grand theft, after a California Department of Insurance investigation found he allegedly stole client premium payments and issued fraudulent insurance certificates leaving organizations uninsured and at financial risk.
Gonzalo Lorona is the CEO of Oxnard Insurance Agency, based in Oxnard, California. Before running Oxnard Insurance Agency, Lorona worked at Procter & Gamble from approximately 1985 to 2012 as a tech. He became owner of Oxnard Insurance Agency in August 2005 and took on the CEO title around January 2012.Oxnard Insurance Agency LLC was incorporated in October 2019, registered at 200 North Hayes Ave, Oxnard, CA 93030. As of mid-2025, the LLC's status was listed as "suspended" by the Franchise Tax Board.
The investigation began after a soccer player tragically lost their life following a fight during a game. The Ventura County School District discovered the certificate provided by the local soccer league was fake and the policy listed on the certificate, which was issued by Lorona’s agency, did not exist. The district requires leagues to carry insurance before using school fields.
Investigators identified 13 fraudulent insurance certificates and found that from 2018 to 2024, Lorona allegedly stole more than $10,000 from five soccer league owners who believed they had valid coverage. Instead of purchasing policies, Lorona allegedly kept the cash and issued fake certificates, leaving leagues uninsured and exposing the school district to financial risk.
The Department of Insurance has initiated action against Lorona’s insurance license. This case is being prosecuted by the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office.
- WCAB Affirms Take Nothing Based on Worker Credibility Issueson March 3, 2026 at 11:33 AM
John Sarviss worked as a helicopter pilot for the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. He filed a workers' compensation claim alleging cumulative trauma injuries to his back and bilateral lower extremities during the period from July 21, 2008 to July 9, 2012. In May 2013, the parties entered a stipulation in which the employer accepted the claim as an industrial injury, with all further issues - including the nature and extent of disability - to be determined by medical evaluators.
The case was complicated by serious credibility problems that emerged over the course of multiple medical evaluations. Dr. Steven Silbart, an Agreed Medical Evaluator, issued a supplemental report in March 2022 after reviewing Sarviss's deposition transcript and full medical file. Dr. Silbart identified significant credibility concerns. Sarviss had completely failed to disclose to a prior medical examiner a nonindustrial incident in 2011 involving a herniated disc that required surgery. Additionally, Sarviss had testified that his treating physician linked his herniated disc to something other than lifting a heavy object, when in fact the physician's own reports attributed the injury specifically to lifting a heavy cabinet. Sarviss also recanted a prior history he had given of injuring his low back in a service-connected helicopter crash in the Army in 1971.
A second evaluator, Dr. Kenneth Sabbag, was appointed under Labor Code section 5701 after the parties lost confidence in Dr. Silbart and other prior evaluators. Dr. Sabbag examined Sarviss in August 2023 and encountered similar problems. He could not reconcile multiple discrepancies in the applicant's account - including conflicting stories about the 2011 injury, the absence of any documented work-related injury before July 2012, and the fact that Sarviss claimed he needed a cane but did not bring one to the exam, offering the false explanation that TSA prohibits canes on airplanes. Dr. Sabbag also noted that Sarviss had an extensive prior career as a freelance helicopter pilot for the film industry involving physically arduous work, yet denied any prior injuries. Dr. Sabbag deferred the credibility question to the trier of fact but acknowledged in his March 2024 deposition that conflicting data existed and he had been unable to resolve it.
At trial on September 15, 2025, Sarviss testified under oath - three separate times - that he was never injured before working for the Department of Water and Power, despite extensive medical records documenting a 1993 helicopter crash causing a severe thoracic compression fracture and lower extremity injuries requiring approximately 20 reconstructive surgeries.
The workers' compensation administrative law judge issued Findings of Fact and an Order on November 24, 2025. While the WCJ found, based on the parties' stipulations, that Sarviss did sustain industrial injury to his lumbar spine, cervical spine, and lower extremities, the WCJ concluded there was no substantial evidence to establish periods of temporary disability, permanent disability, the nature and extent of the injuries, or any need for further medical treatment. The WCJ reasoned that because Sarviss had never provided a complete and honest medical history to any of the evaluating physicians, none of their medical reports constituted substantial medical evidence. As a result, the WCJ found Sarviss failed to meet his burden of proof and ordered the matter off calendar with no award of benefits or attorney fees.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sarviss's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision in full in the panel decision of Sarviss v City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. -ADJ8666280 (February 2026)
The WCAB grounded its analysis in the well-established principle that all decisions must be supported by substantial evidence. Citing Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310], Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500], and LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16], the Board reaffirmed that substantial evidence requires more than speculation or conjecture. Relying on Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc), the Board noted that a medical opinion must be based on pertinent facts, an adequate examination and history, and must set forth its reasoning. The Board further cited Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93] for the proposition that medical opinions based on inadequate histories fail to constitute substantial evidence.
Applying these standards, the Board agreed with the WCJ that every medical report in the record was undermined by Sarviss's failure to provide a complete and truthful history. Because none of the medical evaluations rested on an accurate factual foundation, none could serve as substantial evidence to support an award of benefits.
The Board also rejected Sarviss's argument that the 2013 stipulation accepting his injury as industrial entitled him to ongoing benefits. Citing Labor Code section 4909, the Board noted that payments made during a disputed period do not constitute an admission of liability, and the stipulation itself reserved all further issues for medical determination - the very determination that could not be made due to the incomplete histories.
Finally, the Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings, citing Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318–319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500], which holds that a trial judge who observes a witness's demeanor is entitled to deference on credibility unless there is evidence of considerable substantiality to the contrary. The Board found no such contrary evidence and concluded that Sarviss had failed to meet his burden of proof on all issues.
- FSML Annual Employment Law Conference Set for June 5, 2026on March 3, 2026 at 11:33 AM
Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin is pleased to announce that in partnership with Fisher Phillips, the firm’s annual Employment Law Conference will return on June 5, 2026, at the Disneyland Hotel. The conference will feature keynote speakers, and the latest hot topics in employment law, workers’ compensation, and HR.
Conference sessions include:
- - Employment Law: Case and Legislative Update
- - What’s New from the California Civil Rights Department and EEOC
- - Wage and Hour Update (Including the PAGA Reform and Latest on Meal and Rest Break Requirements)
- - Key Compliance Considerations and Risks Associated with AI
- - Spotting and Preventing Employment Law Exposure in WC Claims
- - The Challenges of Accommodating Work Restrictions, Medical Conditions, and Disabilities
- - Substance Abuse in the Workplace: The Challenges of Managing Risk, Compliance, and Employee Support
- - California Leave Law Update: Best Practices for HR Professionals, with a Focus on the Overlap Between FMLA, CFRA, and PDL
- - Ethical Dilemmas in Employment Law, Work Comp and General Liability Cases
- - Effective Workplace Investigations: Best Practices for HR
- - Key Strategies for Defending Complex Stress Claims
- - Work Comp Caselaw Update/Key Defense Strategies in 2026 for Complex Litigation
More details about these topics, and more, can be found by viewing the Agenda. The day will end with a cocktail reception where attendees can connect with conference presenters.
Rene Thomas Folse, JD, PhD., is the MCLE sponsor for this event and has sole responsibility for the MCLE content – California State Bar Sponsor #11240. Attorneys can earn up to 6.5 hours for courses that meet the California State Bar criteria.
Fisher Phillips will be providing 6.0 hours of SHRM/HRCI credit.
WorkCompAcademy will issue Continuing Education Certificates of Completion for courses meeting the California Department of Insurance criteria. Adjusters can earn up to 6.5 hours of Continuing Education credits.
Discount Hotel Room Reservations are available upon registration.
DATE AND TIME: June 5, 2026 from 7:45 am PDT until 6:00 pm PDT
LOCATION: Disneyland Hotel, 1150 West Magic Way, Anaheim, CA 90802
Price:Early Bird (until 3/31/2026): $395 - General Entry Fee (after 3/31/2026): $450
To register for this event, please visit the registration page where you may register online. Exhibitors may also register to reserve space in the event Exhibitor Area.
- LAPD Officer Seen Skydiving Charged with Exaggerating Comp Injuryon March 2, 2026 at 11:32 AM
A Los Angeles police officer was charged with two counts of felony insurance fraud for allegedly exaggerating an on-duty injury to collect disability benefits while participating in recreational skydiving and other physical activity.
Christopher Brandon Carnahan (dob 6/30/82) of Norwalk is charged in case 26CJCF01236 with two counts of felony insurance fraud. His arraignment will be scheduled for a later date. He is being held on $100,000 bail. If convicted as charged, Carnahan faces up to six years state prison to be served in county jail.
He's a 43-year-old LAPD veteran with 18 years of service, residing in Norwalk, California. He holds the rank of Police Officer II and is assigned to the 77th Division, with serial number 39135 and badge number 20710.
On May 22, 2023, Officer Carnahan purportedly injured his left elbow while on duty and was subsequently placed on Temporary Totally Disabled (TTD) status. Officers with this status are entitled to receive 100% of their base salary tax-free for up to one year, and then two-thirds thereafter if the injury persists.
Prosecutors allege that while on TTD status, Carnahan completed many skydives at Skydive Elsinore in Lake Elsinore, California and worked out at a fitness center, contrary to his claims of being temporarily totally disabled. The DA's office released photos showing what appears to be Carnahan skydiving and exercising, including one image dated May 23, 2024, showing him holding dumbbells
The case is being prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Arunas Sodonis of the Healthcare Fraud Division and investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department.
“This case is about honesty and accountability,” Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said. “Claiming to be temporarily totally disabled and collecting disability benefits intended for injured workers while engaging in physically demanding activities like skydiving is a crime. This is an officer who knows the law and understands the standards he is sworn to uphold.”
- Multiple Family Members Arraigned for Auto Insurance Fraudon March 2, 2026 at 11:31 AM
Sarkis Dishchyan, 47, of Pasadena, Ani Suzie Labbad, 47, of Pasadena, and Violett Lara Labbad, 44, of Pasadena, were arraigned last week, on multiple counts of felony insurance fraud, for allegedly staging a vehicle accident involving their Porsche Cayenne, in order to collect nearly $39,000 in undeserved insurance payouts.
An investigation was launched after a suspected fraudulent claim referral was received by investigators at the California Department of Insurance. According to the referral, an individual allegedly admitted to unwittingly being involved in a staged collision involving the claimant, Ani Labbad and her husband Dishchyan.
This individual claimed that Dishchyan, whom they know through their sibling who was formerly incarcerated with Dishchyan, reached out with an opportunity to make $5,000. Dishchyan covered the cost of airfare and hotel from Illinois to California and asked the individual to rent a vehicle from a rental car company.
An investigation revealed that once this individual arrived in California, they were riding in the rental car as a passenger while Dishchya drove and intentionally rear-ended a Porsche, causing the rental car to flip and land on its roof.
The Porsche was being driven by a person who claimed to be Ani Labbad, Dishchyan’s wife. A witness at the scene claimed they saw a man crawl out of the overturned rental car and flee on foot before Pasadena Police Department arrived on scene.
Further investigation and body camera footage found that the driver of the Porsche was actually Violett Labbad, Ani Labbad’s sister, who gave Pasadena police Ani’s driver’s license and identified herself as Ani at the scene of the collision.
According to the passenger in the rental car, they were not aware that Dishchyan was planning to rear-end the Porsche until just prior to the collision.
Cell phone data was used to confirm both Dishchyan and Violett Labbad’s cell phones were in the vicinity at the time of the collision, while Ani Labbad’s location was at her home address. Cell phone data also confirmed on the day of the collision, Dishchyan sent a text to Violett Labbad requesting her help that night, and additional text messages from Ani Labbad to Dishchyan stating Violett was “on her way”. These texts were time-stamped minutes before the collision.
After the staged collision, Ani Labbad filed a claim with her insurance company, and with the insurance carrier for the car rental company and received $38,932.21. The third-party-administer for the car rental company then filed a claim with the individual’s insurance policy due to lack of liability coverage and non-cooperation from the individual.
Dishchyan, Ani Labbad, and Violett Labbad were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. This case is being prosecuted by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office.
- New "Smart Knee" Implant Helps Post-Operative Recoveryon February 26, 2026 at 8:34 AM
For those of us who handle workers' compensation claims involving knee injuries, there's a new medical technology we need to know about - because it's going to start showing up in our cases if it hasn't already.
It's called the "smart knee" implant, and the leading device right now is the Zimmer Biomet Persona IQ - the first and currently only FDA-approved knee replacement with built-in sensor technology. From the outside, it looks and functions like any standard total knee replacement. But embedded inside the tibial stem is a tiny wireless sensor that continuously tracks the patient's recovery in real time.
The implant measures range of motion, step count, walking speed, stride length, and pressure distribution across the joint. That data is wirelessly transmitted to a small base station plugged into the patient's home Wi-Fi, and from there it uploads to a secure, HIPAA-compliant cloud platform. The treating surgeon can log in and review the data remotely. The patient can see their own progress through a smartphone app, and even compare their recovery metrics against national benchmarks for patients of the same age and stage of recovery.
This isn't experimental. It's being used right now at major orthopedic centers across the country, including Mayo Clinic, the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, UChicago Medicine, and Lee Health in Florida. And adoption is expanding rapidly into smaller community hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers. As recently as June 2025, UP Health System in Michigan's Upper Peninsula began offering the device for the first time.
So why should workers' comp practitioners care? Several reasons.
First, this technology replaces subjective recovery assessments with objective data. Historically, post-operative knee recovery has been tracked through periodic office visits and patient self-reports - the surgeon asks patients how they feel, watches them walk across the room, and measures their range of motion with a goniometer. One Mayo Clinic surgeon described the traditional approach as "very, very subjective."
The smart knee changes that equation entirely. Now the surgeon has daily biomechanical data showing exactly how the knee is performing between visits. For attorneys and adjusters, this means disputes about whether a claimant has reached maximum medical improvement, whether recovery is progressing on schedule, or whether functional limitations are consistent with the objective findings could increasingly be resolved by implant data rather than dueling medical opinions.
Second, the technology enables earlier intervention when recovery stalls. Orthopedic surgeons at UChicago Medicine have emphasized that the first three months after knee replacement are critical - if patients don't regain adequate strength and range of motion during that window, those losses can be very difficult to make up later. With the smart implant, a surgeon who sees a sudden drop in step count or a plateau in range of motion can reach out to the patient immediately and adjust the rehabilitation plan. That kind of early intervention could shorten disability durations and reduce overall claim costs.
Third, smart implants reduce the need for frequent in-person follow-up visits. The remote monitoring capability means patients who live far from their treating surgeon may not need to travel as often for routine post-operative checks - a meaningful consideration in workers' comp, where mileage reimbursement, time off work for medical appointments, and delays in scheduling all add friction and cost to the system.
Fourth, consider the long-term implications. The sensor battery is designed to last at least 10 years, and the device can help detect early signs of implant loosening, abnormal wear patterns, or biomechanical changes that might signal a problem before the patient even notices symptoms. Since workers' comp carriers often remain responsible for future medical treatment related to the original injury - including revision surgery - early detection of developing problems could mean smaller, less invasive, and less expensive interventions down the road.
Finally - and perhaps most significantly for litigators - think about the evidentiary implications. These implants generate a continuous, objective record of the patient's functional capacity. Daily step counts. Walking speed. Stride length. Range of motion trends over weeks and months. That data could become powerful evidence in disputes over functional limitations, compliance with prescribed physical therapy, and readiness to return to work. It cuts both ways: it could support a claimant who is doing everything right but still struggling, or it could undermine a claim where the reported limitations don't match the biomechanical data.
The smart knee is not yet the standard of care for every total knee replacement — cost, patient comfort with the technology, and the need for home Wi-Fi are still limiting factors. But adoption is growing quickly, and as it does, workers' comp professionals on both sides of the aisle will need to understand what this data means, how to obtain it, and how to use it.
This is one worth watching.
- DOJ Sues UCLA for Hostile Work Environmenton February 26, 2026 at 8:34 AM
The United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division filed an 81 page lawsuit against the University of California alleging it engaged in a hostile work environment against Jewish and Israeli faculty and staff at its University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) campus, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
According to the complaint, after the Hamas-led massacre in Israel on October 7, 2023, antisemitic acts pervaded UCLA. The suit alleges the university engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title VII against Jewish and Israeli employees at UCLA by failing to prevent and correct discriminatory and harassing conduct. The lawsuit further alleges the university negligently permitted a hostile work environment against two charging parties and other aggrieved Jewish and Israeli employees.
In 2024, the university allowed antisemitic harassment to continue unabated for days in front of its iconic Royce Hall: among other acts, Jews were not permitted on portions of the main quad, Jewish professors were assaulted, and swastikas were graffitied on university buildings.
The university has ignored, and continues to ignore, gross and repeated violations of viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions involving these and other actions directed against Jewish and Israeli employees. Jewish and Israeli faculty have been physically threatened, had their classrooms disrupted, and had their workplaces papered with disturbing images.
Jewish professors have been, and continue to be, subjected to ostracism and harassment by their colleagues and students, while their colleagues and supervisors not only have failed to report those acts as required but have even participated in them. Numerous Jewish and Israeli employees have been forced to take leave, work from home, and even leave their jobs to avoid the hostile work environment.
“UCLA failed to live up to its systemwide commitment to diversity and equal opportunity when it stood by as Jewish employees were subjected to harassment,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli. “The federal government has an obligation to step in and ensure a discrimination-free environment at our universities.”
“Based on our investigation, UCLA administrators allegedly allowed virulent anti-Semitism to flourish on campus, harming students and staff alike,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Today’s lawsuit underscores that this Department of Justice stands strong against hate and anti-Semitism in all its vile forms.”
“The litany of vile acts of antisemitism that allegedly took place, and continue to take place, at UCLA are, if found to be true, a mark of shame against the University of California,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department will ensure that UCLA maintains an environment for its employees free from antisemitic harassment.”
The lawsuit stems from a Commissioner’s Charge filed by then-Commissioner Andrea Lucas of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in June 2024. The EEOC was instrumental in investigating the allegations of harassment at UCLA and in identifying the university’s poor complaint system. “The EEOC is committed to eradicating antisemitism at work,” said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. “If a university will not investigate and remedy repeated allegations of antisemitism against its employees, then EEOC will.”
DOJ attorneys allege "Until the United States Department of Justice issued its notice of investigation letter to UCLA in March 2025, not a single one of the dozens of civil rights complaints filed by Jewish and Israeli employees since October 7 was properly investigated. UCLA’s Office of Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion (EDI Office), tasked with oversight of all discrimination complaints, routinely ignored complaints of antisemitism. And UCLA continues to mishandle them. Then-interim Chancellor Darnell Hunt testified to the Regents of the University of California (Regents or UC) that UCLA received “hundreds” of antisemitism complaints after October 7 and that “all those cases were taken up” for investigation. Yet not a single student, staff member, or faculty member was ultimately formally disciplined for antisemitic behavior - including those who were arrested for illegal conduct."
- New CMS TEAM Model May Enhance Workers' Comp Treatmenton March 5, 2026 at 8:03 AM
On January 1, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) - a mandatory, five-year program that requires approximately 740 acute care hospitals to take financial responsibility for the entire episode of a patient's surgical care, from the operating room through 30 days post-discharge. While this is a Medicare regulation, its effects are already influencing how orthopedic injuries are treated across all payer types, including workers' compensation.
Three of the five surgical categories covered by TEAM are directly relevant to workplace injuries: lower extremity joint replacement (hip, knee, and ankle), surgical hip and femur fracture treatment, and spinal fusion. For each episode, CMS sets a risk-adjusted target price. Hospitals that come in under budget while meeting quality benchmarks earn bonuses; those that exceed the target owe money back. Unlike earlier voluntary bundled-payment experiments, there is no opt-out.
Outpatient joint replacement is becoming the norm. Same-day discharge for total hip and knee replacement is now routine for appropriately selected patients. Outpatient orthopedic volume was already 33 times higher than inpatient volume by late 2023, and TEAM's episode-based pricing further incentivizes hospitals to move procedures to ambulatory surgery centers and send patients home the same day. Advances in regional anesthesia, minimally invasive techniques, and "prehabilitation" protocols have made this clinically safe for many patients.
Post-surgical rehabilitation is being compressed. Hospitals are now accountable for all costs in the 30-day post-discharge window - physical therapy, home health, imaging, and ER visits. Physical therapy often begins within hours of surgery, and remote monitoring and telehealth follow-ups are replacing some in-person visits.
Patient-reported outcomes now affect reimbursement. TEAM ties hospital payment to a Composite Quality Score that includes readmission rates, complications, and - notably - patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The patient's own assessment of pain, function, and satisfaction directly affects the hospital's bottom line.
Faster timelines will become the expectation. As same-day joint replacement becomes standard of care, carriers and utilization reviewers will increasingly expect injured workers to follow accelerated protocols. Defense counsel should recognize that same-day discharge now reflects mainstream practice - not corner-cutting. Claimant's counsel should watch for cases where comorbidities or job demands make an accelerated timeline inappropriate.
Financial incentives may influence treatment decisions. TEAM creates pressure to reduce episode costs. While this often aligns with good care, attorneys should be alert to situations where cost-reduction incentives conflict with a worker's needs - premature discharge, inadequate post-op rehab, or limited follow-up visits within the 30-day window.
Patient-reported outcome data may become discoverable. Hospitals are now collecting standardized, quantitative data on how patients perceive their own recovery before and after surgery. This data could become relevant in disputes over disability extent, surgical success, or maximum medical improvement.
Reimbursement pressures may affect provider availability. CMS simultaneously applied a −2.5% efficiency adjustment to orthopedic surgical work RVUs in 2026, on top of roughly 20% cumulative RVU reductions for hip and knee arthroplasty over the past decade. As Medicare margins tighten, some surgeons may become more selective about which payers they accept — potentially affecting the availability of specialists willing to treat comp patients.
CMS has stated its goal of placing 100% of Medicare recipients under alternative payment models by 2030. The trends TEAM is accelerating - outpatient surgery, compressed rehabilitation, data-driven outcome tracking, and cost-conscious episode management - will increasingly define how workplace musculoskeletal injuries are treated regardless of the payer. Practitioners should understand these dynamics now, because they will soon shape the medical evidence, treatment timelines, and expert opinions in your cases.
Keep in mind that the TEAM model applies to Medicare; workers' compensation systems are governed by state law and may differ in their treatment and reimbursement frameworks. - Good Forensic Mesothelioma Evidence Leads to $50 M Verdicton March 5, 2026 at 8:03 AM
Rita-Ann Chapman began using Avon talcum powder products in 1954 at the age of eight, continuing multiple times per week until 1978, and then again from 1995 to 2010. She was eventually diagnosed with mesothelioma, a disease caused by asbestos exposure. The Chapmans sued dozens of defendants; by the time of trial, only Avon and Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. remained in the case. Mrs. Chapman died on March 16, 2025, and Gary Chapman continued the case as her successor-in-interest.
At trial, the Chapmans presented extensive evidence that Avon's talc products contained asbestos. Internal Avon memos from the early 1970s acknowledged asbestos contamination - some showing tremolite asbestos levels as high as 20–25 percent in certain talc sources. The Chapmans' expert, Dr. William Longo, tested vintage Avon products and found chrysotile asbestos using a refined sample preparation method originally developed at the Colorado School of Mines in 1973. Their medical expert, Dr. Steven Haber, opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Mrs. Chapman's decades of Avon talc use was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma. A biostatistics expert, Dr. David Madigan, testified that Mrs. Chapman's odds of avoiding asbestos exposure across all the Italian-sourced talc products she used were astronomically low.
Avon countered with its own testing showing no asbestos and with expert testimony suggesting that many mesotheliomas are spontaneous or genetic, and that women's mesothelioma rates had remained relatively flat regardless of asbestos usage trends.
The jury found Avon strictly liable for selling products with inadequate warnings and with manufacturing and design defects. It also found Avon liable for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment, and determined that Avon acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. The jury awarded $40,831,453 in compensatory damages and $10.3 million in punitive damages, apportioning 90 percent fault to Avon.
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, affirmed the judgment in full in the published case of Chapman v. Avon Products, Inc.- Case Nos. B327749 & B330345 (March 2026)
Avon raised four claims of error on appeal: that the trial court improperly admitted Dr. Longo's chrysotile testing testimony, improperly excluded corporate witness Lisa Gallo, improperly allowed Dr. Haber to testify on asbestos testing methods and Avon's internal documents, and that insufficient evidence supported the verdict.
On Dr. Longo's testimony, the court found that Avon had expressly conceded at trial that its challenge was based on reliability under the Sargon standard rather than novelty under Kelly, thereby waiving any Kelly challenge. See Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747 and People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24. The trial court properly exercised its gatekeeping role and reasonably concluded that Dr. Longo's methods - which combined an established 1973 sample preparation technique with longstanding PLM analysis - were not clearly invalid or unreliable.
On Lisa Gallo's exclusion, the court found no abuse of discretion. Avon listed Gallo only as a corporate representative and never disclosed her as a witness with personal knowledge of relevant facts, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.090, subdivision (a)(1)(A). Gallo herself had denied in deposition testimony that she worked with Avon's talc products, and most of the testimony Avon proposed she give concerned events predating her 1994 employment. The court also rejected Avon's misconduct argument regarding plaintiffs' "corporate silence" closing argument, finding it was fair comment on the evidence. See LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 939.
On Dr. Haber's testimony, the court held that his extensive qualifications in occupational and environmental medicine - including decades of assessing environmental causes of pulmonary disease - provided a sufficient foundation for interpreting asbestos testing methods and Avon's internal documents. Avon had failed to object to his qualification as an expert and forfeited several specific challenges by not raising them under proper headings or with timely objections. See United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142.
On sufficiency of the evidence, the court found Avon waived this claim entirely by failing to set forth all material evidence - both favorable and unfavorable - as required under established appellate standards. Avon's brief cherry-picked testimony favorable to its position while largely ignoring its own damaging 1970s memos and the Chapmans' extensive expert testimony. See Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875; Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400. - Court Declines to Overturn Arbitration Award in Favor of Employeron March 4, 2026 at 12:44 PM
Alexander Sorokunov worked for NetApp from 2016 through June 2019, earning an annual salary plus commissions governed by an individual Goal Sheet and the company's Compensation Plan for fiscal year 2019. The Plan calculated commissions as a percentage of sales revenue achieved in the employee's territory, but also contained a windfall provision that reserved NetApp's right to limit commission payments when an employee's goal attainment exceeded 200 percent.
In fiscal year 2019, Sorokunov and roughly 300 other employees exceeded the 200 percent threshold. In May 2019, NetApp invoked the windfall provision, informing employees that further commissions above that level would not be paid. NetApp attributed the widespread over-attainment to forecasting errors. Sorokunov's final paycheck for the fiscal year was reduced by $31,402.42 as a result. He resigned the following month.
Sorokunov then filed a PAGA notice with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and NetApp, and in January 2020 filed a First Amended Complaint. He alleged that the Plan violated Labor Code section 2751(a) by failing to set forth the method by which commissions would be computed and paid; that NetApp violated section 221 by collecting wages already paid; and that NetApp violated section 223 by secretly paying less than the contractual wage scale. He also asserted claims for unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., breach of contract, and PAGA penalties, along with an individual claim under Labor Code section 202(a) for failure to pay earned commissions upon resignation.
In December 2020, the trial court granted NetApp's petition to compel arbitration of Sorokunov's individual non-PAGA claims. In May 2024, the court denied Sorokunov's motion for summary adjudication of his PAGA claim regarding section 2751(a), finding he had not shown the Plan was subject to the statute and that triable issues of fact remained.
In July 2024, the arbitrator ruled in NetApp's favor on every individual claim, finding no breach of contract, no violation of sections 221, 223, or 2751, and no merit to the wage fraud claims. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award in September 2024 and then granted NetApp's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the PAGA cause of action, concluding that Sorokunov lacked standing as an aggrieved employee based on the arbitrator's findings.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety in the published case of Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc., Case No. A171964 (March 2026)..
Sorokunov argued that NetApp's power to unilaterally amend, suspend, or terminate the Plan rendered its promise to arbitrate illusory, relying on Peleg v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1425. The court distinguished Peleg because NetApp's modification clause required that any changes be "consistent with and to the extent permitted by applicable law." Under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as recognized in 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1214, and Casas v. Carmax Auto Superstores California LLC (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1233, this language prevented NetApp from applying modifications to claims that were known but not yet filed, rendering the arbitration agreement enforceable.
Sorokunov also framed his appeal as a pure question of statutory interpretation, but failed to challenge in his opening brief the trial court's alternative finding that triable issues existed as to whether his compensation qualified as "commissions" under section 2751. Citing People v. JTH Tax, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1232, the court held this forfeiture alone supported affirmance. On the merits, the court agreed that section 2751(a) requires only that the method of computing commissions be set forth in writing, not that the method be purely mechanical, and that NetApp's Plan met that standard.
Applying the standard from Richey v. AutoNation, Inc. (2015) 60 Cal.4th 909, 916–918, the court reviewed the award for clear legal error affecting unwaivable statutory rights and found none. On section 221, the court cited Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co., Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 217, 239, for the principle that wage-protection statutes do not prohibit systems where final compensation remains contingent on post-performance events. On section 223, the court agreed the windfall provision was not secret, as it was plainly disclosed in the Plan.
The court followed Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 65 and Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 645, holding that the arbitrator's determination that no Labor Code violations occurred against Sorokunov precluded him from claiming aggrieved-employee status under PAGA. The court noted that the California Supreme Court endorsed this approach in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1124, and Stone v. Alameda Health System (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040, 1076–1077. The court declined to follow Gavriiloglou v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 595, which had reached the opposite conclusion, and distinguished Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 127 on its facts. The court rejected Sorokunov's policy objection by noting that the judgment had no preclusive effect on the LWDA, which remained free to bring its own enforcement action. - Tragic Death Uncovers Alleged Insurance Fraudon March 4, 2026 at 12:44 PM
Licensed insurance agent Gonzalo Lorona, 58, of Oxnard, has been charged with 37 felony counts, including insurance fraud and grand theft, after a California Department of Insurance investigation found he allegedly stole client premium payments and issued fraudulent insurance certificates leaving organizations uninsured and at financial risk.
Gonzalo Lorona is the CEO of Oxnard Insurance Agency, based in Oxnard, California. Before running Oxnard Insurance Agency, Lorona worked at Procter & Gamble from approximately 1985 to 2012 as a tech. He became owner of Oxnard Insurance Agency in August 2005 and took on the CEO title around January 2012.Oxnard Insurance Agency LLC was incorporated in October 2019, registered at 200 North Hayes Ave, Oxnard, CA 93030. As of mid-2025, the LLC's status was listed as "suspended" by the Franchise Tax Board.
The investigation began after a soccer player tragically lost their life following a fight during a game. The Ventura County School District discovered the certificate provided by the local soccer league was fake and the policy listed on the certificate, which was issued by Lorona’s agency, did not exist. The district requires leagues to carry insurance before using school fields.
Investigators identified 13 fraudulent insurance certificates and found that from 2018 to 2024, Lorona allegedly stole more than $10,000 from five soccer league owners who believed they had valid coverage. Instead of purchasing policies, Lorona allegedly kept the cash and issued fake certificates, leaving leagues uninsured and exposing the school district to financial risk.
The Department of Insurance has initiated action against Lorona’s insurance license. This case is being prosecuted by the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office. - WCAB Affirms Take Nothing Based on Worker Credibility Issueson March 3, 2026 at 11:33 AM
John Sarviss worked as a helicopter pilot for the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. He filed a workers' compensation claim alleging cumulative trauma injuries to his back and bilateral lower extremities during the period from July 21, 2008 to July 9, 2012. In May 2013, the parties entered a stipulation in which the employer accepted the claim as an industrial injury, with all further issues - including the nature and extent of disability - to be determined by medical evaluators.
The case was complicated by serious credibility problems that emerged over the course of multiple medical evaluations. Dr. Steven Silbart, an Agreed Medical Evaluator, issued a supplemental report in March 2022 after reviewing Sarviss's deposition transcript and full medical file. Dr. Silbart identified significant credibility concerns. Sarviss had completely failed to disclose to a prior medical examiner a nonindustrial incident in 2011 involving a herniated disc that required surgery. Additionally, Sarviss had testified that his treating physician linked his herniated disc to something other than lifting a heavy object, when in fact the physician's own reports attributed the injury specifically to lifting a heavy cabinet. Sarviss also recanted a prior history he had given of injuring his low back in a service-connected helicopter crash in the Army in 1971.
A second evaluator, Dr. Kenneth Sabbag, was appointed under Labor Code section 5701 after the parties lost confidence in Dr. Silbart and other prior evaluators. Dr. Sabbag examined Sarviss in August 2023 and encountered similar problems. He could not reconcile multiple discrepancies in the applicant's account - including conflicting stories about the 2011 injury, the absence of any documented work-related injury before July 2012, and the fact that Sarviss claimed he needed a cane but did not bring one to the exam, offering the false explanation that TSA prohibits canes on airplanes. Dr. Sabbag also noted that Sarviss had an extensive prior career as a freelance helicopter pilot for the film industry involving physically arduous work, yet denied any prior injuries. Dr. Sabbag deferred the credibility question to the trier of fact but acknowledged in his March 2024 deposition that conflicting data existed and he had been unable to resolve it.
At trial on September 15, 2025, Sarviss testified under oath - three separate times - that he was never injured before working for the Department of Water and Power, despite extensive medical records documenting a 1993 helicopter crash causing a severe thoracic compression fracture and lower extremity injuries requiring approximately 20 reconstructive surgeries.
The workers' compensation administrative law judge issued Findings of Fact and an Order on November 24, 2025. While the WCJ found, based on the parties' stipulations, that Sarviss did sustain industrial injury to his lumbar spine, cervical spine, and lower extremities, the WCJ concluded there was no substantial evidence to establish periods of temporary disability, permanent disability, the nature and extent of the injuries, or any need for further medical treatment. The WCJ reasoned that because Sarviss had never provided a complete and honest medical history to any of the evaluating physicians, none of their medical reports constituted substantial medical evidence. As a result, the WCJ found Sarviss failed to meet his burden of proof and ordered the matter off calendar with no award of benefits or attorney fees.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sarviss's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision in full in the panel decision of Sarviss v City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. -ADJ8666280 (February 2026)
The WCAB grounded its analysis in the well-established principle that all decisions must be supported by substantial evidence. Citing Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310], Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500], and LeVesque v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16], the Board reaffirmed that substantial evidence requires more than speculation or conjecture. Relying on Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc), the Board noted that a medical opinion must be based on pertinent facts, an adequate examination and history, and must set forth its reasoning. The Board further cited Hegglin v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 162 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 93] for the proposition that medical opinions based on inadequate histories fail to constitute substantial evidence.
Applying these standards, the Board agreed with the WCJ that every medical report in the record was undermined by Sarviss's failure to provide a complete and truthful history. Because none of the medical evaluations rested on an accurate factual foundation, none could serve as substantial evidence to support an award of benefits.
The Board also rejected Sarviss's argument that the 2013 stipulation accepting his injury as industrial entitled him to ongoing benefits. Citing Labor Code section 4909, the Board noted that payments made during a disputed period do not constitute an admission of liability, and the stipulation itself reserved all further issues for medical determination - the very determination that could not be made due to the incomplete histories.
Finally, the Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings, citing Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318–319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500], which holds that a trial judge who observes a witness's demeanor is entitled to deference on credibility unless there is evidence of considerable substantiality to the contrary. The Board found no such contrary evidence and concluded that Sarviss had failed to meet his burden of proof on all issues. - FSML Annual Employment Law Conference Set for June 5, 2026on March 3, 2026 at 11:33 AM
Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin is pleased to announce that in partnership with Fisher Phillips, the firm’s annual Employment Law Conference will return on June 5, 2026, at the Disneyland Hotel. The conference will feature keynote speakers, and the latest hot topics in employment law, workers’ compensation, and HR.
Conference sessions include:
- - Employment Law: Case and Legislative Update
- - What’s New from the California Civil Rights Department and EEOC
- - Wage and Hour Update (Including the PAGA Reform and Latest on Meal and Rest Break Requirements)
- - Key Compliance Considerations and Risks Associated with AI
- - Spotting and Preventing Employment Law Exposure in WC Claims
- - The Challenges of Accommodating Work Restrictions, Medical Conditions, and Disabilities
- - Substance Abuse in the Workplace: The Challenges of Managing Risk, Compliance, and Employee Support
- - California Leave Law Update: Best Practices for HR Professionals, with a Focus on the Overlap Between FMLA, CFRA, and PDL
- - Ethical Dilemmas in Employment Law, Work Comp and General Liability Cases
- - Effective Workplace Investigations: Best Practices for HR
- - Key Strategies for Defending Complex Stress Claims
- - Work Comp Caselaw Update/Key Defense Strategies in 2026 for Complex Litigation
More details about these topics, and more, can be found by viewing the Agenda. The day will end with a cocktail reception where attendees can connect with conference presenters.
Rene Thomas Folse, JD, PhD., is the MCLE sponsor for this event and has sole responsibility for the MCLE content – California State Bar Sponsor #11240. Attorneys can earn up to 6.5 hours for courses that meet the California State Bar criteria.
Fisher Phillips will be providing 6.0 hours of SHRM/HRCI credit.
WorkCompAcademy will issue Continuing Education Certificates of Completion for courses meeting the California Department of Insurance criteria. Adjusters can earn up to 6.5 hours of Continuing Education credits.
Discount Hotel Room Reservations are available upon registration.
DATE AND TIME: June 5, 2026 from 7:45 am PDT until 6:00 pm PDT
LOCATION: Disneyland Hotel, 1150 West Magic Way, Anaheim, CA 90802
Price:Early Bird (until 3/31/2026): $395 - General Entry Fee (after 3/31/2026): $450
To register for this event, please visit the registration page where you may register online. Exhibitors may also register to reserve space in the event Exhibitor Area. - LAPD Officer Seen Skydiving Charged with Exaggerating Comp Injuryon March 2, 2026 at 11:32 AM
A Los Angeles police officer was charged with two counts of felony insurance fraud for allegedly exaggerating an on-duty injury to collect disability benefits while participating in recreational skydiving and other physical activity.
Christopher Brandon Carnahan (dob 6/30/82) of Norwalk is charged in case 26CJCF01236 with two counts of felony insurance fraud. His arraignment will be scheduled for a later date. He is being held on $100,000 bail. If convicted as charged, Carnahan faces up to six years state prison to be served in county jail.
He's a 43-year-old LAPD veteran with 18 years of service, residing in Norwalk, California. He holds the rank of Police Officer II and is assigned to the 77th Division, with serial number 39135 and badge number 20710.
On May 22, 2023, Officer Carnahan purportedly injured his left elbow while on duty and was subsequently placed on Temporary Totally Disabled (TTD) status. Officers with this status are entitled to receive 100% of their base salary tax-free for up to one year, and then two-thirds thereafter if the injury persists.
Prosecutors allege that while on TTD status, Carnahan completed many skydives at Skydive Elsinore in Lake Elsinore, California and worked out at a fitness center, contrary to his claims of being temporarily totally disabled. The DA's office released photos showing what appears to be Carnahan skydiving and exercising, including one image dated May 23, 2024, showing him holding dumbbells
The case is being prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Arunas Sodonis of the Healthcare Fraud Division and investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department.
“This case is about honesty and accountability,” Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said. “Claiming to be temporarily totally disabled and collecting disability benefits intended for injured workers while engaging in physically demanding activities like skydiving is a crime. This is an officer who knows the law and understands the standards he is sworn to uphold.” - Multiple Family Members Arraigned for Auto Insurance Fraudon March 2, 2026 at 11:31 AM
Sarkis Dishchyan, 47, of Pasadena, Ani Suzie Labbad, 47, of Pasadena, and Violett Lara Labbad, 44, of Pasadena, were arraigned last week, on multiple counts of felony insurance fraud, for allegedly staging a vehicle accident involving their Porsche Cayenne, in order to collect nearly $39,000 in undeserved insurance payouts.
An investigation was launched after a suspected fraudulent claim referral was received by investigators at the California Department of Insurance. According to the referral, an individual allegedly admitted to unwittingly being involved in a staged collision involving the claimant, Ani Labbad and her husband Dishchyan.
This individual claimed that Dishchyan, whom they know through their sibling who was formerly incarcerated with Dishchyan, reached out with an opportunity to make $5,000. Dishchyan covered the cost of airfare and hotel from Illinois to California and asked the individual to rent a vehicle from a rental car company.
An investigation revealed that once this individual arrived in California, they were riding in the rental car as a passenger while Dishchya drove and intentionally rear-ended a Porsche, causing the rental car to flip and land on its roof.
The Porsche was being driven by a person who claimed to be Ani Labbad, Dishchyan’s wife. A witness at the scene claimed they saw a man crawl out of the overturned rental car and flee on foot before Pasadena Police Department arrived on scene.
Further investigation and body camera footage found that the driver of the Porsche was actually Violett Labbad, Ani Labbad’s sister, who gave Pasadena police Ani’s driver’s license and identified herself as Ani at the scene of the collision.
According to the passenger in the rental car, they were not aware that Dishchyan was planning to rear-end the Porsche until just prior to the collision.
Cell phone data was used to confirm both Dishchyan and Violett Labbad’s cell phones were in the vicinity at the time of the collision, while Ani Labbad’s location was at her home address. Cell phone data also confirmed on the day of the collision, Dishchyan sent a text to Violett Labbad requesting her help that night, and additional text messages from Ani Labbad to Dishchyan stating Violett was “on her way”. These texts were time-stamped minutes before the collision.
After the staged collision, Ani Labbad filed a claim with her insurance company, and with the insurance carrier for the car rental company and received $38,932.21. The third-party-administer for the car rental company then filed a claim with the individual’s insurance policy due to lack of liability coverage and non-cooperation from the individual.
Dishchyan, Ani Labbad, and Violett Labbad were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. This case is being prosecuted by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. - New "Smart Knee" Implant Helps Post-Operative Recoveryon February 26, 2026 at 8:34 AM
For those of us who handle workers' compensation claims involving knee injuries, there's a new medical technology we need to know about - because it's going to start showing up in our cases if it hasn't already.
It's called the "smart knee" implant, and the leading device right now is the Zimmer Biomet Persona IQ - the first and currently only FDA-approved knee replacement with built-in sensor technology. From the outside, it looks and functions like any standard total knee replacement. But embedded inside the tibial stem is a tiny wireless sensor that continuously tracks the patient's recovery in real time.
The implant measures range of motion, step count, walking speed, stride length, and pressure distribution across the joint. That data is wirelessly transmitted to a small base station plugged into the patient's home Wi-Fi, and from there it uploads to a secure, HIPAA-compliant cloud platform. The treating surgeon can log in and review the data remotely. The patient can see their own progress through a smartphone app, and even compare their recovery metrics against national benchmarks for patients of the same age and stage of recovery.
This isn't experimental. It's being used right now at major orthopedic centers across the country, including Mayo Clinic, the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, UChicago Medicine, and Lee Health in Florida. And adoption is expanding rapidly into smaller community hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers. As recently as June 2025, UP Health System in Michigan's Upper Peninsula began offering the device for the first time.
So why should workers' comp practitioners care? Several reasons.
First, this technology replaces subjective recovery assessments with objective data. Historically, post-operative knee recovery has been tracked through periodic office visits and patient self-reports - the surgeon asks patients how they feel, watches them walk across the room, and measures their range of motion with a goniometer. One Mayo Clinic surgeon described the traditional approach as "very, very subjective."
The smart knee changes that equation entirely. Now the surgeon has daily biomechanical data showing exactly how the knee is performing between visits. For attorneys and adjusters, this means disputes about whether a claimant has reached maximum medical improvement, whether recovery is progressing on schedule, or whether functional limitations are consistent with the objective findings could increasingly be resolved by implant data rather than dueling medical opinions.
Second, the technology enables earlier intervention when recovery stalls. Orthopedic surgeons at UChicago Medicine have emphasized that the first three months after knee replacement are critical - if patients don't regain adequate strength and range of motion during that window, those losses can be very difficult to make up later. With the smart implant, a surgeon who sees a sudden drop in step count or a plateau in range of motion can reach out to the patient immediately and adjust the rehabilitation plan. That kind of early intervention could shorten disability durations and reduce overall claim costs.
Third, smart implants reduce the need for frequent in-person follow-up visits. The remote monitoring capability means patients who live far from their treating surgeon may not need to travel as often for routine post-operative checks - a meaningful consideration in workers' comp, where mileage reimbursement, time off work for medical appointments, and delays in scheduling all add friction and cost to the system.
Fourth, consider the long-term implications. The sensor battery is designed to last at least 10 years, and the device can help detect early signs of implant loosening, abnormal wear patterns, or biomechanical changes that might signal a problem before the patient even notices symptoms. Since workers' comp carriers often remain responsible for future medical treatment related to the original injury - including revision surgery - early detection of developing problems could mean smaller, less invasive, and less expensive interventions down the road.
Finally - and perhaps most significantly for litigators - think about the evidentiary implications. These implants generate a continuous, objective record of the patient's functional capacity. Daily step counts. Walking speed. Stride length. Range of motion trends over weeks and months. That data could become powerful evidence in disputes over functional limitations, compliance with prescribed physical therapy, and readiness to return to work. It cuts both ways: it could support a claimant who is doing everything right but still struggling, or it could undermine a claim where the reported limitations don't match the biomechanical data.
The smart knee is not yet the standard of care for every total knee replacement — cost, patient comfort with the technology, and the need for home Wi-Fi are still limiting factors. But adoption is growing quickly, and as it does, workers' comp professionals on both sides of the aisle will need to understand what this data means, how to obtain it, and how to use it.
This is one worth watching. - DOJ Sues UCLA for Hostile Work Environmenton February 26, 2026 at 8:34 AM
The United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division filed an 81 page lawsuit against the University of California alleging it engaged in a hostile work environment against Jewish and Israeli faculty and staff at its University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) campus, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
According to the complaint, after the Hamas-led massacre in Israel on October 7, 2023, antisemitic acts pervaded UCLA. The suit alleges the university engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title VII against Jewish and Israeli employees at UCLA by failing to prevent and correct discriminatory and harassing conduct. The lawsuit further alleges the university negligently permitted a hostile work environment against two charging parties and other aggrieved Jewish and Israeli employees.
In 2024, the university allowed antisemitic harassment to continue unabated for days in front of its iconic Royce Hall: among other acts, Jews were not permitted on portions of the main quad, Jewish professors were assaulted, and swastikas were graffitied on university buildings.
The university has ignored, and continues to ignore, gross and repeated violations of viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions involving these and other actions directed against Jewish and Israeli employees. Jewish and Israeli faculty have been physically threatened, had their classrooms disrupted, and had their workplaces papered with disturbing images.
Jewish professors have been, and continue to be, subjected to ostracism and harassment by their colleagues and students, while their colleagues and supervisors not only have failed to report those acts as required but have even participated in them. Numerous Jewish and Israeli employees have been forced to take leave, work from home, and even leave their jobs to avoid the hostile work environment.
“UCLA failed to live up to its systemwide commitment to diversity and equal opportunity when it stood by as Jewish employees were subjected to harassment,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli. “The federal government has an obligation to step in and ensure a discrimination-free environment at our universities.”
“Based on our investigation, UCLA administrators allegedly allowed virulent anti-Semitism to flourish on campus, harming students and staff alike,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Today’s lawsuit underscores that this Department of Justice stands strong against hate and anti-Semitism in all its vile forms.”
“The litany of vile acts of antisemitism that allegedly took place, and continue to take place, at UCLA are, if found to be true, a mark of shame against the University of California,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department will ensure that UCLA maintains an environment for its employees free from antisemitic harassment.”
The lawsuit stems from a Commissioner’s Charge filed by then-Commissioner Andrea Lucas of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in June 2024. The EEOC was instrumental in investigating the allegations of harassment at UCLA and in identifying the university’s poor complaint system. “The EEOC is committed to eradicating antisemitism at work,” said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. “If a university will not investigate and remedy repeated allegations of antisemitism against its employees, then EEOC will.”
DOJ attorneys allege "Until the United States Department of Justice issued its notice of investigation letter to UCLA in March 2025, not a single one of the dozens of civil rights complaints filed by Jewish and Israeli employees since October 7 was properly investigated. UCLA’s Office of Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion (EDI Office), tasked with oversight of all discrimination complaints, routinely ignored complaints of antisemitism. And UCLA continues to mishandle them. Then-interim Chancellor Darnell Hunt testified to the Regents of the University of California (Regents or UC) that UCLA received “hundreds” of antisemitism complaints after October 7 and that “all those cases were taken up” for investigation. Yet not a single student, staff member, or faculty member was ultimately formally disciplined for antisemitic behavior - including those who were arrested for illegal conduct."