- Applicant Attorneys Battle Out Law Practice Sale Fee Split in En Banc Caseon September 6, 2024 at 1:16 PM
On September 4, 2024, the Appeals Board issued en banc orders which consolidated multiple cases pending on removal and ordered the parties to produce supplemental pleadings in those cases. Upon a unanimous vote of its members, the Appeals Board issues this decision as an en banc decision.
In each of the underlying cases, applicant’s attorney, Patrick C. Gorman, seeks either removal or disqualification of the entire Redding and Eureka district offices as relates to a dispute over the division of attorney’s fees between Mr. Gorman, and applicant’s former attorney, Steven D. Riley.
Their dispute appears centered upon a contract for the sale of a law practice from Mr. Riley to Mr. Gorman. In each of these cases, the Appeals Board seeks additional information, particularly on the issue of jurisdiction as relates to the contractual claims alleged.
Current attorney for applicants, Patrick C. Gorman, alleges that WCJs at those offices have approved attorney’s fees where it is alleged that former attorney for applicants, Steven D. Riley, failed to file a proper disclosure in compliance with Labor Code section 4906.
These matters involve an alleged course of conduct that appears to have occurred across five (5) cases involving the current attorney for applicants, Mr. Gorman, and the former attorney for applicants, Mr. Riley.
None of these matters have proceeded to a hearing on the merits of the issues raised in the disqualification petitions. The Appeals Board takes judicial notice of the Electronic Adjudication Management System ("EAMS") files in each of these cases.
Based on the allegations in the pleadings submitted the WCAB wrote "it appears that the two attorneys entered into a contract for sale of a law firm from Mr. Riley to Mr. Gorman. It appears that the contract provided that the attorneys would thereafter split all fees in half for all cases transferred to Mr. Gorman. It appears that Mr. Gorman argues grounds to either invalidate the contract, or otherwise request that no fees be awarded to Mr. Riley for the cases transferred. Mr. Gorman represents that this same issue may exist across hundreds of cases."
"It appears that Mr. Riley alleges that Mr. Gorman is in breach of their contract to split fees. In response to this alleged breach, Mr. Riley has filed attorney’s fee liens in the cases where Mr. Gorman has not paid pursuant to the contract."
The WCAB ordered that current attorney for applicants, Mr. Gorman, and former attorney for applicants, Mr. Riley, meet and confer and provide supplemental pleadings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) Pleadings shall be verified under the penalty of perjury and may be joint as to any issues where they agree. Pleadings shall include a response to the following issues:
1. The attorneys shall advise the Appeals Board as to whether they can reach a mutual resolution of their dispute, and barring a resolution, whether they can agree on how they wish to proceed, either through mediation, arbitration, or litigation.
2. If the attorneys wish to proceed through litigation, they must clearly identify the stipulations and the issues, including any legal basis to support a conclusion as to disposition of each issue and the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration of each issue.
3. Do the attorneys agree that they are bound by the contract for the sale of the law practice? If not, please explain the basis for any contrary position.
4. Does either attorney seek to rescind the contract for the sale of the law practice? If so, explain the legal basis for the position and identify the proper venue to consider the issue.
5. If the attorneys agree that they are bound by the contract for the sale of the law practice, please address the following issues:
- - a. whether they agree that the Appeals Board has jurisdiction to hear the issue of the liens for attorney’s fees;
- - b. whether they agree that the Appeals Board has jurisdiction to hear the issue of any split of the attorney’s fees between them; and
- - c. whether they agree that the terms of the contract should be considered by the WCAB in deciding any split of attorney’s fee?
- - d. if the attorneys do not agree that the Appeals Board has jurisdiction please explain the basis for such disagreement and explain in which court jurisdiction exists to hear their dispute.
6. If the attorneys do not agree that they are bound by the contract for the sale of the law practice, do they agree that any issue as to splitting of attorney’s fees before the WCAB should be deferred pending resolution of the issue of whether the contract should be rescinded, modified, or upheld?
"We encourage the attorneys to review the State Bar guidelines on attorney civility and professionalism as they meet and confer to resolve this dispute, and to consider the State Bar rules as to the division of attorneys’ fees. If the parties agree upon a disposition, they may file a joint letter to that effect.
"Upon receipt of the supplemental pleadings, the WCAB will consider the responses and take further action as necessary."
- Special Shout-Out for Floyd Skeren Partner for Defense of $75M Civil Claimon September 6, 2024 at 1:16 PM
Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP, is pleased to announce that its Business Litigation team, led by Eric E. Ostling (partner), along with David Graziani (associate attorney), successfully defended its client in a complex, seventy-five million dollar lawsuit, in which plaintiffs alleged substantial damages for contract interference and interference with prospective economic advantage.
The lawsuit was filed in 2020, and involved allegations against multiple businesses, including FSML’s client.
The eight-day trial was held in Los Angeles County Superior Court, and Mr. Ostling obtained a defense judgment on all causes of action against FSML’s client.
Mr. Ostling is a partner and the Managing Attorney of the Law Offices of Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin’s Sacramento office. Mr. Ostling earned his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Davis, before attending the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, where he earned his Juris Doctor degree. He then obtained his Master of Law and Taxation Degree, also from the University of the Pacific. Mr. Ostling has been Certified as a Specialist in Workers’ Compensation Law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization since 2006.
Prior to joining the Law Offices of Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP in 2007, Mr. Ostling spent twenty years litigating civil, employment and workers’ compensation issues before various Federal District Courts, California Superior Courts, as well as the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
As a result of this litigation experience, Mr. Ostling brings with him a breadth of knowledge on subrogation, employment and civil litigation to allow him to effectively represent Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin’s clients in the WCAB, Superior Court, or Federal Court.
Currently, Mr. Ostling represents employers, insurance entities, self-insured entities and third party administrators before the WCAB on standard workers’ compensation defense, §132a discrimination claims and serious and willful misconduct allegations.
Mr. Ostling also represents clients in State and Federal Court proceedings involving subrogation, general liability defense (product defect, premises liability, motor vehicle), and labor and employment law matters (claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, privacy violations, wrongful termination, PAGA, and wage & hour violations).
- VA Hospitals' Quality Ratings Continue to Outperform Private Sectoron September 5, 2024 at 3:15 PM
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs announced that VA hospitals outperformed non-VA hospitals in two major independent, nationwide reviews for patient satisfaction and care quality:
- - Patient Satisfaction Survey: VA outperformed non-VA hospitals in the most recent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems star ratings, with 79% of VA facilities receiving a summary star rating of 4 or 5 stars compared to 40% of non-VA hospitals. This represents the ninth consecutive quarter in which VA facilities have outperformed non-VA counterparts.
- - Hospital Quality Ratings: In this year’s CMS Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, more than 58% of VA hospitals included received 4- or 5-star ratings compared to 40% of non-VA hospitals. This is only the second year VA hospitals have been included in this review, and VA has outperformed non-VA health care in both years.
These findings come at a time when Veteran trust in VA outpatient care has reached an all-time record high of 92%, based on a survey of more than 440,000 Veterans. Additionally, these findings are consistent with a recent systematic review that found that VA health care is consistently as good as - or better than - non-VA health care.
The new quality assessment reviewed - in a report by Military.com - of U.S. hospitals by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that despite the drop in overall scores from last year, VA Under Secretary for Health Dr. Shereef Elnahal told reporters that the ratings were "great news" for veterans and the VA employees who treat them.
This year, 35 VA hospitals earned a five-star quality rating, one more than last year, and 15 of the 35 also earned five stars on CMS' patient survey ratings. "Veterans [are] able to see how VA hospitals are comparing to other options they may have in the civilian sector," Elnahal said. "[If] they have Medicare or private health insurance, they can get care at both options. What this will allow is for them to compare, including -- if they qualify for community care, as supported by VA -- choices in the civilian sector."
The new star ratings, which can be found on the Care Compare website, mark the second year the VA was included in the database by CMS, a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. The agency gave star ratings to 109 VA facilities, with the remaining VA hospitals or medical centers not being rated, either because they don't meet qualification thresholds or the level of metrics needed to assess them. In addition to the 35 VA hospitals that earned five stars, 27 earned four stars, 23 earned three stars, 14 earned two stars and 10 earned one star -- up from nine last year but with fluctuations on the one-star list.
The facilities receiving the lowest ratings were the VA Southern Arizona Health Care System in Tucson; Bay Pines VA Health Care System and West Palm Beach VA Medical Center in Florida; Overton Brooks VA Medical Center in Shreveport, Louisiana; VA New Jersey Health Care System; Syracuse VA Medical Center and VA New York Harbor Health Care System in New York; VA Pittsburgh Health Care System; Providence VA Medical Center in Rhode Island; and VA Caribbean Health Care System in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
New to the one-star list were the VA medical centers in Tucson, New Jersey, Syracuse and New York Harbor Health Care. Those that received one star on last year's list but have since increased their ratings include the James J. Peters VA Medical Center in The Bronx, New York; New Mexico VA Health Care System in Albuquerque; and the Memphis VA Medical Center, Tennessee, all of which are now two-star facilities.
In Southern California, VA San Diego Healthcare System received five stars, while the remainder were all three stars. In Northern California Palo Alto VA Medical Center, VA N California Healthcare System in Mather, were also rated five starts, with two others rated at three.
A one-star rating signifies that the facilities performed well below the average for specific measurements, such as death rates for patients with heart failure, surgical complications and pneumonia; readmission rates for certain ailments; hospital-acquired infections; patient satisfaction; and more.
The data for this year's star ratings was collected between July 2019 and March 2023, according to the VA.
Among the criticisms of the rankings from advocacy groups and industry associations such as the American Association for Physician Leadership, is that they don't take into account the socioeconomic status of patients or the surrounding community, which may not have access to routine health care and have worse health outcomes for acute and chronic conditions.
- American Academy of Physician Associates Calls Out AMA Turf Waron September 5, 2024 at 3:15 PM
The American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is the national professional society for PAs (physician associates/physician assistants). It represents a profession of more than 178,700 PAs across all medical and surgical specialties in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and the uniformed services. It was founded in 1968.
AAPA advocates and educates on behalf of the profession and the patients PAs serve. It works to ensure the professional growth, personal excellence and recognition of PAs. We also enhance their ability to improve the quality, accessibility and cost-effectiveness of patient-centered healthcare.
AAPA sent a second letter to the American Medical Association (AMA), after the AMA did not respond to the request for a meeting included in AAPA’s July 30th letter.
The follow-up continued to underscore AAPA’s intention to collaborate with the AMA on a better path forward and once again urged the AMA to put an end to its so-called "scope creep" campaign. However, the silence from the AMA and its continued spread of misinformation compels AAPA to respond on behalf of the PA profession.
The newest communication served as the release of an open letter with 8,000 PA signatures condemning the AMA’s misrepresentation of the PA profession. AAPA claims that the "AMA’s repeated blocking of legislation aimed at expanding access to care and creation of false narrative about the profession reflects a troubling disregard for the urgent needs of patients and the healthcare system. These efforts by the AMA hinder progress and undermine the value PAs bring to patient care. We urge the AMA to stop using divisive rhetoric and instead engage in a constructive dialogue with AAPA"
AAPA’s letter also included new survey results that illuminate the negative impacts of AMA’s campaign.
The results of the survey reflect the opinions of more than 4,900 PAs. The findings make it clear that this campaign is hurting the PA profession, PA relationships with patients, and the healthcare system at large.
Key findings of the survey shared with AMA include the following:
- - 96.0% say the campaign has had a negative impact on addressing healthcare workforce shortages.
- - 95.2% believe it has negatively impacted efforts to expand access to care for patients.
- - 90.4% of PAs report that the campaign has negatively impacted the healthcare system.
- - 81.0% report it has had a negative or very negative effect on their ability to provide care.
- - 81.7% reported a negative or very negative impact of the campaign on their relationships with patients.
- - 91.9% assert it has negatively impacted patients’ trust in the U.S. healthcare system.
- - 89.5% believe the AMA’s scope creep campaign has negatively impacted patients’ understanding of PA qualifications to provide care.
The AAPA further explains on its Stop Healthcare Obstruction page, that the AMA " 'scope creep' campaign is an effort led by the AMA to restrict the roles and responsibilities of PAs and other healthcare providers. It claims that PAs are seeking to expand their scope of practice beyond their traditional roles, which the AMA says will compromise patient safety and disrupt established healthcare hierarchies."
Physician assistant (PA) scope of practice laws vary throughout the United States.Generally, the physician assistant scope of practice in California is more restrictive for PAs than in other states.Gov. Newsom signed Senate Bill 697 (SB 697) in 2019. This bill relaxed chart review and physician signature requirements. It also allowed physicians to create practice agreements with their PAs, as opposed to service agreements. This grants more freedom and flexibility to both parties when providing medical care. Because of SB 697, California does not require on-site or in-person physician oversight. It redefines "supervision" to not require the physical presence of the physician. Although they should be available through electronic communication. PAs must have an active license in the state of California to practice.
The AMA's main arguments against PA autonomy include:
- - The AMA contends that PAs lack the necessary training and experience to practice independently, and that their actions could pose a risk to patient safety.
- - The AMA believes that physicians should maintain ultimate control over patient care, and that PAs should be supervised by physicians at all times.
- - The AMA argues that PAs should adhere to the same standards of practice as physicians, and that they should be subject to the same oversight and disciplinary procedures.
The debate over the scope of practice of PAs has been ongoing for many years, and it is likely to continue for some time. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of healthcare in the United States.
- No Pay for Uninsured Contractor Even After Retroactive Reinstatementon September 4, 2024 at 1:56 PM
Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC was hired by a local school district to construct a two-story classroom building at an elementary school. In June 2017, Balfour Beatty hired ABI as a subcontractor to perform concrete, framing, and structural steel work on the project and agreed to pay ABI over $700,000 for its work.
When ABI began its work on the project in August 2017, it had a workers’ compensation insurance policy issued through State Compensation Insurance Fund. In December 2017, State Fund sent ABI a notice of cancellation, informing ABI that its 2017 2018 workers’ compensation policy would be canceled in January 2018 if ABI did not pay approximately $33,000 in outstanding premiums. ABI received the notice, but failed to pay, and its policy was canceled. ABI refused to pay outstanding insurance premiums charged on a prior policy, since ABI believed (correctly as it turns out) it was being overcharged
As a result of the policy cancellation, ABI’s contractor’s license was suspended by operation of law on January 25, 2018, due to ABI’s "failure . . . to . . . maintain workers’ compensation insurance coverage." (Bus. & Prof. Code, §7125.2.) The Contractors' State License Board gave ABI notice of the license suspension on January 29 and informed ABI that its contractor’s license would be suspended if ABI failed to submit a valid insurance certificate or exemption certificate within 45 days. (See § 7125.2, subd. (b) [requiring registrar to give notice of license suspension].) ABI did neither. In mid-March, the Board sent ABI a letter notifying ABI that its license had been retroactively suspended effective January 25 under section 7125.2.
Mr. Vo, ABI’s principal,filed an "Exemption from Workers Compensation" form with the Board in early April 2018, declaring under penalty of perjury that ABI does not need workers’ compensation insurance because it does "not employ anyone." This was false. As Vo later admitted at trial, ABI had at least nine employees working on the project at the time. Vo nonetheless decided to falsely claim the exemption because ABI was heavily invested in the project and he did not want to lose money. Upon receipt of the exemption form, the Board reinstated ABI’s license effective April 5, 2018.
As for the construction project, Balfour Beatty refused to pay ABI for its work. Accordingly, in May 2019, ABI sued Balfour Beatty and several construction bonding surety companies for fraud, breach of contract, quantum meruit, recovery against bonds, and statutory penalties. Balfour Beatty cross-complained against ABI and Vo for fraud, express indemnity, and equitable indemnity. Balfour Beatty also asserted as its 31st affirmative defense that ABI "was not properly licensed at all times as required by Business and Professions Code section 7031," and as a result "is barred from recovering payment for any labor, materials or equipment furnished to the project."
Several years into that litigation, ABI settled its old premium dispute with its workers’ compensation insurer and had the canceled policy retroactively reinstated as part of the settlement. ABI then applied to the Contractors' State License Board for retroactive reinstatement of its contractor’s license, asserting that ABI’s failure to file a certificate of workers’ compensation coverage had been "due to circumstances beyond [its] control," in that the policy had been canceled "unbeknownst to" ABI. The Board accepted ABI’s representation and retroactively reinstated its contractor’s license under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7125.1.
In November 2022, the trial court held a bench trial on the bifurcated issue of Defendants' 31st affirmative defense - ABI’s failure to be duly licensed. During trial, State Fund’s underwriting manager admitted that State Fund had overcharged ABI for premiums, that State Fund generally does not cancel a policy for nonpayment of a bill until the dispute over the bill is resolved, that State Fund should not have canceled ABI’s 2017-2018 policy, and that ABI’s license suspension occurred because of the way State Fund handled the dispute.
The trial court found in favor of Defendants on the 31st affirmative defense, concluding ABI was "not 'a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance' of the contract" and therefore "may not 'bring or maintain' this action 'or recover' compensation for its work." Defendants filed a motion for attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 and the subcontract’s prevailing party fee provision, and also filed motions to tax costs. After granting the motions in part, the trial court entered an amended judgment in favor of Defendants and against ABI, which included an award of over $270,000 in costs and over $1.55 million in attorney fees to Defendants.
The Court of Appeal affirmed in the published case of American Building Innovations v. Balfour Beatty Construction -G062471 (Sept 2024).
This appeal involves the interplay of several statutes and what circumstances are "beyond the control of the licensee" for purposes of retroactive license reinstatement. In this case ABI was fully aware it was unlicensed and uninsured, and nevertheless continued its work.
The Court of Appeal concluded section 7031 does indeed bar ABI’s current claims. A suspended contractor’s license can be retroactively reinstated under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7125.1 only if "the failure to have a certificate on file was due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee." (Id., subd. (b).)
In this case, the lapse in coverage was not beyond ABI’s control. The record "demonstrates the policy cancellation occurred because ABI chose not to pay billed insurance premiums. ABI learned of the policy cancellation days after it took effect, yet ABI did not procure replacement coverage until years later when it settled the premium dispute with its insurer".
"The insurer’s retroactive reinstatement of the policy following that settlement was essentially meaningless because it occurred long after the statute of limitations ran on any workers’ compensation claims, rendering the coverage illusory."
"As the prevailing party in that action, Defendants are entitled to attorney fees; the fee award must therefore be affirmed."
- After 9 Years, 3 Jury Trials, 2 Appeals - Attorney Fees are Far More Than Awardon September 4, 2024 at 1:56 PM
Plaintiff T.J. Simers was a well-known and sometimes controversial columnist for Los Angeles Times Communications LLC. In August 2013, plaintiff was demoted to a senior reporter. Shortly thereafter, he obtained a position as a columnist with a rival newspaper and filed this action against The Times for constructive termination and age and disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
There have been three jury trials in this case.
In the first trial, the jury found defendant was liable for both discrimination and constructive termination. The jury awarded plaintiff $2,137,391 in economic damages for harm caused by his constructive termination, and $5 million in noneconomic damages, without identifying which noneconomic damages were caused by the constructive termination and which were caused by the discrimination. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on plaintiff’s constructive termination claim and granted a new trial on noneconomic damages.
Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s orders and remanded the case for a new trial on damages for plaintiff’s demotion. (Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1248 (Simers).)
In the second trial, the jury awarded plaintiff $15.4 million in noneconomic damages. The trial court, however, granted defendant’s motion for a new trial on two grounds.
In the third trial, again the only issue was the amount of noneconomic damages plaintiff could recover for his demotion. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to return a verdict between $30 and $50 million, and defense counsel argued that an award between $500,000 and $1 million was reasonable. The jury returned a verdict of $1.25 million. The jury’s verdict was the exact amount of an offer defendant made on December 7, 2021, shortly before the third trial began, to settle under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (section 998).
In June 2022, defendant paid plaintiff $1,292,123.29 in partial satisfaction of the judgment.
In May 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees, requesting fees of more than $15.5 million. This consisted of $7,860,475, based on hours spent multiplied by hourly rates (the "lodestar" amount), with a 2.0 multiplier based on contingent risk and other factors. The time spent included time on all three trials and on the appeals after the first trial.Plaintiff claimed costs of $577,890.29.
Defendant opposed the attorney fee motion. Among other contentions, defendant argued that section 998 precluded any fee recovery after the December 7, 2021 section 998 offer; that plaintiff could not recover fees for work on the second trial because that would reward plaintiff for his counsel’s egregious misconduct; and that plaintiff could not recover fees for the appeals after the first trial because he did not prevail on his appeal and this court’s disposition stated that the parties would bear their own costs.
The trial court awarded plaintiff $3,264,906 in attorney fees. The court granted defendant’s motion to tax costs in part, allowing plaintiff to recover $210,882.55 in costs. The defendant and the plaintiff both appealed. After the briefs were filed in these appeals, plaintiff T.J. Simers passed away. The motion of Virginia Simers, the sole beneficiary and executor of Mr. Simers’s will, to substitute herself as plaintiff was granted.
The Court of Appeal found "no abuse of discretion in any part of the trial court's order" in the published case of Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC -B323715 (August 2024)
The primary issue is the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff should not have recovered any fees for counsel’s work on the second trial, because the third trial was necessitated by counsel’s misconduct in closing argument at the second trial. Defendant also challenges fees awarded for certain work on plaintiff’s unsuccessful appeal after the first trial.
Plaintiff contends he should recover his attorney fees for this appeal, despite the trial court’s order that he cannot recover any fees or costs incurred after he rejected the defendant’s offer of compromise on December 7, 2021, shortly before the third trial, and failed to obtain a more favorable judgment.
"Section 998 expressly requires the court to exclude postoffer costs in determining whether the plaintiff has obtained a more favorable judgment than the offer. (§ 998, subd. (c)(2)(A).) That is exactly what the trial court did."
The Court off Appeal said it "cannot find any failure to 'adequately' or 'independently' consider the factors defendant raises. The court clearly stated that it considered the misconduct that necessitated a third trial in making its award of fees that 'as a whole are reasonable.' We find no basis to conclude the trial court abused its discretion."
- Court of Appeal Again Limits WCAB Jurisdiction on Reconsideration to 60 Dayson September 3, 2024 at 2:17 PM
On March 2, 2023, a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an award of total permanent disability in favor of Mayor based on an industrial injury he suffered in December 2013 during his employment by Ross Valley.
Ross Valley filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board on March 23, 2023. The Board’s electronic filing system, Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS), showed it was received the same day. Mayor filed his answer to the petition on April 3, 2023.
At the time, former Labor Code section 5909 stated, "A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date of filing." On June 5, 2023, 74 days after Ross Valley filed its petition, Ross Valley wrote to the Board, inquiring about the status of its petition and noting that it had been more than 60 days since Ross Valley had filed it.
On July 19, 2023, Mayor requested a hearing to enforce the WCJ’s award.
On August 14, 2023, 144 days after Ross Valley filed its petition, the Board issued a document titled, "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration." Attached to the Board’s order granting reconsideration was a document titled, "Notice Pursuant to Shipley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493]." This notice states, "Reconsideration has been sought with regard to the decision filed on March 2, 2023. Labor Code section 5909 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) The petition(s) was filed on March 23, 2023. The Appeals Board first received notice of the petition(s) on or about June 15, 2023. (Shipley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493] [allowing tolling as a matter of due process.].) The Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration filed simultaneously with this Notice may be considered timely if issued within 60 days of the Appeals Board receiving notice of the petition(s). (Id.)"
Mayor wrote to the Board in September 2023, asking it to clarify why it first received notice of the petition on June 15, 2023, when Ross Valley filed it on March 23, 2023.
After receiving no reply, Mayor filed his petition for writ of mandate on January 9, 2024, asking the Court of Appeal to direct the Board to rescind its order granting reconsideration because former section 5909 dictated that the Board lost jurisdiction over the matter 60 days after Ross Valley filed its petition for reconsideration. On January 26, 2024, the Board issued a document titled, "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration." The Board then reconsidered and rescinded that order and issued a revised version on February 2, 2024. The revised order stated that the Board was rescinding the WCJ’s award and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
According to the revised order, "due to an administrative irregularity" that was not the fault of either party, the Board did not receive Ross Valley’s petition for reconsideration until more than 60 days after the date Ross Valley filed it, March 23, 2023. EAMS, which the Board does not control, does not give the Board direct notification of filings. Instead, the staff of the district office must manually notify the Board that a party is requesting reconsideration and transmit the case to the Board. Mistakes and delays from "normal human error" can thwart the manual transmission of information from the district offices to the Board. When this occurred, the Board’s practice was to treat the 60-day deadline in former section 5909 as tolled and issue a decision on the petition within 60 days of receipt of the petition. The Board’s order stated that Ross Valley secured a statutory right to reconsideration upon timely filing its petition for reconsideration, so its conduct "is not and should not be at issue."
The Court of Appeal agreed with Mayor and the recent decision in Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1213 (Zurich) that the Board’s action after 60 days exceeded its jurisdiction in the published case of Mayor v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd A169465 (August 2024).
Mayor argues that when the Board failed to act on Ross Valley’s petition for 60 days, former section 5909 dictated that it was denied by operation of law. According to Mayor, the Board’s attempt to grant the petition on August 14, 2023, 144 days after it was filed, was therefore in excess of its jurisdiction and must be set aside. Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd recently accepted this argument in factual and procedural circumstances essentially identical to those here, and Mayor urged the Court of Appeal to follow it.
The Board, conversely, seeks to minimize, distinguish, or refute Zurich’s reasoning on a variety of grounds. Thus the Court of Appeal began by reviewing it and the legal principles it applied. After doing so it concluded that for "the reasons Zurich set forth at length, we agree with Mayor that former section 5909 was mandatory and the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in purporting to grant Ross Valley’s petition after 60 days had passed since Ross Valley filed it.
It went on to say that the "Board’s various attempts to avoid or defeat Zurich’s reasoning are unpersuasive." Among other reasons the Opinion said "Given the goal of average or substantial, but expeditious, justice in workers’ compensation proceedings, opposing parties need not subordinate their rights to prompt resolution of disputes to accommodate open-ended delays that the Board claims are necessary for it to rule on petitions for reconsideration." In doing so, it overruled anything said in Shipley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd to the contrary.
It must be noted that while Mayor’s petition was pending in the Court of Appeal, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 171 which amended former Labor Code section 5909 which now states, "(a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board. [¶] (b)(1) When a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board, the trial judge shall provide notice to the parties of the case and the appeals board. [¶] (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), service of the accompanying report, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5900, shall constitute providing notice. [¶] (c) This section shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed." The former version of section 5909 is currently set to be reinstated on July 1, 2026.
- Cal/OSHA Cites 9 Employers $168K For Silica Health and Safety Violationson September 3, 2024 at 2:17 PM
California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) cited nine employers in Sun Valley within the greater Los Angeles area following efforts to address the growing number of silicosis cases among stone workers in California.
As California faces an increase in silicosis cases among stone workers, Cal/OSHA continues ramping up enforcement efforts and today announced citing nine more employers, this time in Sun Valley. The safety violations include over $168,000 in fines. Cal/OSHA cited the following employers:
- - Miguel Clavel - Total Fine: $18,320
- - Gasper Marble and Tile - Total Fine: $18,785
- - Jose Sandoval Marble and Granite - Total Fine: $18,785
- - Valley Marble - Total Fine: $18,785
- - Edward Ponce - Total Fine: $18,785
- - Durango Marble - Total Fine: $18,785
- - Nacho Brothers Marble Inc. - Total Fine: $18,785
- - M & M Three Marble Inc. - Total Fine: $18,785
- - LB Quality Stone Experts Inc. - Total Fine: $18,785
The Van Nuys District Office conducted inspections and it was determined that all the employers were in violation of multiple Title 8 Safety and Health Regulations, including failure to use methods to effectively suppress dust and failed to provide their employees with full-face, tight-fitting power air purifying respirators.
Cal/OSHA’s workplace safety laws and emergency temporary standard are key components to ensure that workers are safe. Increasing awareness to employers and employees of the dangerous effects of inhaling respirable crystalline silica dust from tasks like grinding, drilling and cutting, can help save lives and avoid incurable health conditions like silicosis, lung cancer and kidney diseases.
With cases of silicosis increasing across the state, Cal/OSHA has intensified its enforcement and education efforts. In December of last year an emergency temporary standard was adopted to enhance existing guidelines for respirable crystalline silica hazards. The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) voted to readopt the emergency temporary standard at its August 15 meeting.
DIR and Cal/OSHA recently launched a bilingual public awareness and education campaign that offers employers and workers resources and information about the proper use of safety equipment and safe worksite practices. The campaign website, worksafewithsilica.org, also provides vital information for workers on workplace safety rights and how to report safety violations.
Since 2019, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has confirmed a total of 176 cases of silicosis related to engineered stone, including at least 13 deaths and at least 19 individuals who have undergone a lung transplant. A total of 105 of the 176 cases occurred in Los Angeles County, with the remainder occurring in other parts of the state.
- Jury Finds Infamous Plaintiff Lawyer Tom Girardi Guilty of Defrauding Clientson August 29, 2024 at 12:06 PM
Disbarred 85 year old plaintiffs' personal injury attorney Thomas Vincent Girard,of Seal Beach California, was found guilty this week of leading a years-long scheme in which he embezzled tens of millions of dollars of money that belonged to his clients, some of whom awaited payment for treatment of severe physical injuries.He was found guilty of four counts of wire fraud.
Throughout his more than 50-year career, Girardi had two claims to fame: he played a key role in winning a $333 million settlement for residents of Hinkley, California, in their lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric, a case that later became the basis for the film "Erin Brockovich." Decades later, he and his wife Erika Jayne were cast on the reality show "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills."
According to evidence presented at a 13-day trial, Girardi - a once-powerful figure in California’s legal community - ran the now-defunct law firm Girardi Keese. For years, Girardi misappropriated and embezzled millions of dollars from client trust accounts at his law firm. The scheme involved defendant Girardi stealing millions of dollars in client settlement funds and failing to pay Girardi Keese clients - some of whom had suffered serious injuries in accidents - the money they were owed.
In carrying out this scheme, from October 2010 to late 2020, Girardi provided a litany of lies for failure to pay clients and directed a law firm employee to pay previously defrauded clients or other unrelated expenditures. Girardi sent lulling communications to the clients that, among other things, falsely denied that the settlement proceeds had been paid and falsely claimed that Girardi Keese could not pay the settlement proceeds to clients until certain purported requirements had been met. These bogus requirements included addressing supposed tax obligations, settling bankruptcy claims, obtaining supposedly necessary authorizations from judges, and satisfying other debts.
Girardi diverted tens of millions of dollars from his law firm’s operating account to pay illegitimate expenses, including more than $25 million to pay the expenses of EJ Global, a company formed by his wife related to her entertainment career, as well as spent millions of dollars of Girardi Keese funds on private jet travel, jewelry, luxury cars, and exclusive golf and social clubs.
At the end of 2020, as Girardi and his law firm faced mounting legal problems related to his years-long theft of client funds, Girardi Keese was forced into involuntary bankruptcy. The State Bar of California disbarred Girardi in July 2022.
United States District Judge Josephine L. Staton scheduled a December 6 sentencing hearing, at which time Girardi will face a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison for each count.
Relatedly, co-defendant Christopher Kazuo Kamon, 50, formerly of Encino and Palos Verdes and who was residing in The Bahamas at the time of his November 2022 arrest on a federal criminal complaint, awaits trial in this matter in January 2025.
Kamon, the former chief financial officer at Girardi Keese, is charged with multiple fraud counts for allegedly aiding and abetting Girardi’s scheme to defraud clients. Kamon allegedly also embezzled millions of dollars from the law firm’s accounts for his own personal enrichment. Kamon, who remains in federal custody, has pleaded not guilty to these charges.
Girardi, Kamon, and David R. Lira, Girardi’s son-in-law and a former lawyer at Girardi Keese, also face federal fraud charges in Chicago. Trial in that case is scheduled for March 3, 2025.
- 2,325 People Died From Heat Last Year, Mostly In The Desert Southweston August 29, 2024 at 12:06 PM
Researchers from the Department of Public Health, University of Texas at San Antonio, Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, and Pennsylvania State University, State College analyzed all deaths from 1999 to 2023.
The data search was then reduced to deaths in which the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision code was P81 (environmental hyperthermia of newborn), T67 (effects of heat and light), or X30 (exposure to excessive natural heat) as either the underlying cause or as a contributing cause of death, as recorded in the Multiple Cause of Death file.
Data were accessed through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER platform,which combines death counts with population estimates produced by the US Census Bureau to calculate mortality rates.
For each year, researchers extracted age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 person-years for heat-related deaths. The AAMR accounts for differences due to age structures, allowing direct comparisons across time. The approach of analyzing cause-specific mortality rates rather than excess mortality is warranted because the excess mortality methodology is subject to confounding from the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2023. This study used publicly available, deidentified aggregate data; thus, it was not considered human subjects research.
Joinpoint version 5.2.0 (National Cancer Institute) regression6 was used to analyze AAMRs to assess trends and determine elbow points where the trend began to shift to a new trajectory. Results of joinpoint analyses are reported as average annual percentage change (AAPC) in rates with 95% CIs.
The resulting new study just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that heat-related mortality rates in the US increased between 1999 and 2023, especially during the last 7 years. This study is the first to the knowledge of the authors to demonstrate a reversal of this trend from 2016 to 2023.
Recent studies have found exposure to extreme heat to be associated with mortality, with variability by age, sex, and race and ethnicity. Recent research suggests that heat-related mortality risk is increasing globally, but formal analyses of heat-related mortality trends in the US through 2023 are lacking.
This study examined trends in heat-related mortality rates in the US population from 1999 to 2023. From 1999 to 2023, 21,518 deaths were recorded as heat-related underlying or contributing cause of death.
The warmest average temperature recorded since 1850 occurred in 2023. The lowest number of heat-related deaths in the study period was 311 in 2004, whereas the highest, 2325, was in 2023. The number of heat-related deaths showed year-to-year variability, with spikes in 2006 and 2011, before showing steady increases after 2016.
These results align with site-specific data analyzed in a global study that suggest increases in heat-related mortality.As temperatures continue to rise because of climate change,he recent increasing trend is likely to continue.
Study limitations include the potential for misclassification of causes of death, leading to possible underestimation of heat-related mortality rates; potential bias from increasing awareness over time; and lack of data for vulnerable subgroups.
The researchers concluded by saying "Local authorities in high-risk areas should consider investing in the expansion of access to hydration centers and public cooling centers or other buildings with air conditioning."
- Applicant Attorneys Battle Out Law Practice Sale Fee Split in En Banc Caseon September 6, 2024 at 1:16 PM
On September 4, 2024, the Appeals Board issued en banc orders which consolidated multiple cases pending on removal and ordered the parties to produce supplemental pleadings in those cases. Upon a unanimous vote of its members, the Appeals Board issues this decision as an en banc decision.
In each of the underlying cases, applicant’s attorney, Patrick C. Gorman, seeks either removal or disqualification of the entire Redding and Eureka district offices as relates to a dispute over the division of attorney’s fees between Mr. Gorman, and applicant’s former attorney, Steven D. Riley.
Their dispute appears centered upon a contract for the sale of a law practice from Mr. Riley to Mr. Gorman. In each of these cases, the Appeals Board seeks additional information, particularly on the issue of jurisdiction as relates to the contractual claims alleged.
Current attorney for applicants, Patrick C. Gorman, alleges that WCJs at those offices have approved attorney’s fees where it is alleged that former attorney for applicants, Steven D. Riley, failed to file a proper disclosure in compliance with Labor Code section 4906.
These matters involve an alleged course of conduct that appears to have occurred across five (5) cases involving the current attorney for applicants, Mr. Gorman, and the former attorney for applicants, Mr. Riley.
None of these matters have proceeded to a hearing on the merits of the issues raised in the disqualification petitions. The Appeals Board takes judicial notice of the Electronic Adjudication Management System ("EAMS") files in each of these cases.
Based on the allegations in the pleadings submitted the WCAB wrote "it appears that the two attorneys entered into a contract for sale of a law firm from Mr. Riley to Mr. Gorman. It appears that the contract provided that the attorneys would thereafter split all fees in half for all cases transferred to Mr. Gorman. It appears that Mr. Gorman argues grounds to either invalidate the contract, or otherwise request that no fees be awarded to Mr. Riley for the cases transferred. Mr. Gorman represents that this same issue may exist across hundreds of cases."
"It appears that Mr. Riley alleges that Mr. Gorman is in breach of their contract to split fees. In response to this alleged breach, Mr. Riley has filed attorney’s fee liens in the cases where Mr. Gorman has not paid pursuant to the contract."
The WCAB ordered that current attorney for applicants, Mr. Gorman, and former attorney for applicants, Mr. Riley, meet and confer and provide supplemental pleadings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) Pleadings shall be verified under the penalty of perjury and may be joint as to any issues where they agree. Pleadings shall include a response to the following issues:
1. The attorneys shall advise the Appeals Board as to whether they can reach a mutual resolution of their dispute, and barring a resolution, whether they can agree on how they wish to proceed, either through mediation, arbitration, or litigation.
2. If the attorneys wish to proceed through litigation, they must clearly identify the stipulations and the issues, including any legal basis to support a conclusion as to disposition of each issue and the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration of each issue.
3. Do the attorneys agree that they are bound by the contract for the sale of the law practice? If not, please explain the basis for any contrary position.
4. Does either attorney seek to rescind the contract for the sale of the law practice? If so, explain the legal basis for the position and identify the proper venue to consider the issue.
5. If the attorneys agree that they are bound by the contract for the sale of the law practice, please address the following issues:
- - a. whether they agree that the Appeals Board has jurisdiction to hear the issue of the liens for attorney’s fees;
- - b. whether they agree that the Appeals Board has jurisdiction to hear the issue of any split of the attorney’s fees between them; and
- - c. whether they agree that the terms of the contract should be considered by the WCAB in deciding any split of attorney’s fee?
- - d. if the attorneys do not agree that the Appeals Board has jurisdiction please explain the basis for such disagreement and explain in which court jurisdiction exists to hear their dispute.
6. If the attorneys do not agree that they are bound by the contract for the sale of the law practice, do they agree that any issue as to splitting of attorney’s fees before the WCAB should be deferred pending resolution of the issue of whether the contract should be rescinded, modified, or upheld?
"We encourage the attorneys to review the State Bar guidelines on attorney civility and professionalism as they meet and confer to resolve this dispute, and to consider the State Bar rules as to the division of attorneys’ fees. If the parties agree upon a disposition, they may file a joint letter to that effect.
"Upon receipt of the supplemental pleadings, the WCAB will consider the responses and take further action as necessary." - Special Shout-Out for Floyd Skeren Partner for Defense of $75M Civil Claimon September 6, 2024 at 1:16 PM
Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP, is pleased to announce that its Business Litigation team, led by Eric E. Ostling (partner), along with David Graziani (associate attorney), successfully defended its client in a complex, seventy-five million dollar lawsuit, in which plaintiffs alleged substantial damages for contract interference and interference with prospective economic advantage.
The lawsuit was filed in 2020, and involved allegations against multiple businesses, including FSML’s client.
The eight-day trial was held in Los Angeles County Superior Court, and Mr. Ostling obtained a defense judgment on all causes of action against FSML’s client.
Mr. Ostling is a partner and the Managing Attorney of the Law Offices of Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin’s Sacramento office. Mr. Ostling earned his undergraduate degree from the University of California, Davis, before attending the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, where he earned his Juris Doctor degree. He then obtained his Master of Law and Taxation Degree, also from the University of the Pacific. Mr. Ostling has been Certified as a Specialist in Workers’ Compensation Law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization since 2006.
Prior to joining the Law Offices of Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP in 2007, Mr. Ostling spent twenty years litigating civil, employment and workers’ compensation issues before various Federal District Courts, California Superior Courts, as well as the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
As a result of this litigation experience, Mr. Ostling brings with him a breadth of knowledge on subrogation, employment and civil litigation to allow him to effectively represent Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin’s clients in the WCAB, Superior Court, or Federal Court.
Currently, Mr. Ostling represents employers, insurance entities, self-insured entities and third party administrators before the WCAB on standard workers’ compensation defense, §132a discrimination claims and serious and willful misconduct allegations.
Mr. Ostling also represents clients in State and Federal Court proceedings involving subrogation, general liability defense (product defect, premises liability, motor vehicle), and labor and employment law matters (claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, privacy violations, wrongful termination, PAGA, and wage & hour violations). - VA Hospitals' Quality Ratings Continue to Outperform Private Sectoron September 5, 2024 at 3:15 PM
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs announced that VA hospitals outperformed non-VA hospitals in two major independent, nationwide reviews for patient satisfaction and care quality:
- - Patient Satisfaction Survey: VA outperformed non-VA hospitals in the most recent Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems star ratings, with 79% of VA facilities receiving a summary star rating of 4 or 5 stars compared to 40% of non-VA hospitals. This represents the ninth consecutive quarter in which VA facilities have outperformed non-VA counterparts.
- - Hospital Quality Ratings: In this year’s CMS Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings, more than 58% of VA hospitals included received 4- or 5-star ratings compared to 40% of non-VA hospitals. This is only the second year VA hospitals have been included in this review, and VA has outperformed non-VA health care in both years.
These findings come at a time when Veteran trust in VA outpatient care has reached an all-time record high of 92%, based on a survey of more than 440,000 Veterans. Additionally, these findings are consistent with a recent systematic review that found that VA health care is consistently as good as - or better than - non-VA health care.
The new quality assessment reviewed - in a report by Military.com - of U.S. hospitals by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that despite the drop in overall scores from last year, VA Under Secretary for Health Dr. Shereef Elnahal told reporters that the ratings were "great news" for veterans and the VA employees who treat them.
This year, 35 VA hospitals earned a five-star quality rating, one more than last year, and 15 of the 35 also earned five stars on CMS' patient survey ratings. "Veterans [are] able to see how VA hospitals are comparing to other options they may have in the civilian sector," Elnahal said. "[If] they have Medicare or private health insurance, they can get care at both options. What this will allow is for them to compare, including -- if they qualify for community care, as supported by VA -- choices in the civilian sector."
The new star ratings, which can be found on the Care Compare website, mark the second year the VA was included in the database by CMS, a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. The agency gave star ratings to 109 VA facilities, with the remaining VA hospitals or medical centers not being rated, either because they don't meet qualification thresholds or the level of metrics needed to assess them. In addition to the 35 VA hospitals that earned five stars, 27 earned four stars, 23 earned three stars, 14 earned two stars and 10 earned one star -- up from nine last year but with fluctuations on the one-star list.
The facilities receiving the lowest ratings were the VA Southern Arizona Health Care System in Tucson; Bay Pines VA Health Care System and West Palm Beach VA Medical Center in Florida; Overton Brooks VA Medical Center in Shreveport, Louisiana; VA New Jersey Health Care System; Syracuse VA Medical Center and VA New York Harbor Health Care System in New York; VA Pittsburgh Health Care System; Providence VA Medical Center in Rhode Island; and VA Caribbean Health Care System in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
New to the one-star list were the VA medical centers in Tucson, New Jersey, Syracuse and New York Harbor Health Care. Those that received one star on last year's list but have since increased their ratings include the James J. Peters VA Medical Center in The Bronx, New York; New Mexico VA Health Care System in Albuquerque; and the Memphis VA Medical Center, Tennessee, all of which are now two-star facilities.
In Southern California, VA San Diego Healthcare System received five stars, while the remainder were all three stars. In Northern California Palo Alto VA Medical Center, VA N California Healthcare System in Mather, were also rated five starts, with two others rated at three.
A one-star rating signifies that the facilities performed well below the average for specific measurements, such as death rates for patients with heart failure, surgical complications and pneumonia; readmission rates for certain ailments; hospital-acquired infections; patient satisfaction; and more.
The data for this year's star ratings was collected between July 2019 and March 2023, according to the VA.
Among the criticisms of the rankings from advocacy groups and industry associations such as the American Association for Physician Leadership, is that they don't take into account the socioeconomic status of patients or the surrounding community, which may not have access to routine health care and have worse health outcomes for acute and chronic conditions. - American Academy of Physician Associates Calls Out AMA Turf Waron September 5, 2024 at 3:15 PM
The American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) is the national professional society for PAs (physician associates/physician assistants). It represents a profession of more than 178,700 PAs across all medical and surgical specialties in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and the uniformed services. It was founded in 1968.
AAPA advocates and educates on behalf of the profession and the patients PAs serve. It works to ensure the professional growth, personal excellence and recognition of PAs. We also enhance their ability to improve the quality, accessibility and cost-effectiveness of patient-centered healthcare.
AAPA sent a second letter to the American Medical Association (AMA), after the AMA did not respond to the request for a meeting included in AAPA’s July 30th letter.
The follow-up continued to underscore AAPA’s intention to collaborate with the AMA on a better path forward and once again urged the AMA to put an end to its so-called "scope creep" campaign. However, the silence from the AMA and its continued spread of misinformation compels AAPA to respond on behalf of the PA profession.
The newest communication served as the release of an open letter with 8,000 PA signatures condemning the AMA’s misrepresentation of the PA profession. AAPA claims that the "AMA’s repeated blocking of legislation aimed at expanding access to care and creation of false narrative about the profession reflects a troubling disregard for the urgent needs of patients and the healthcare system. These efforts by the AMA hinder progress and undermine the value PAs bring to patient care. We urge the AMA to stop using divisive rhetoric and instead engage in a constructive dialogue with AAPA"
AAPA’s letter also included new survey results that illuminate the negative impacts of AMA’s campaign.
The results of the survey reflect the opinions of more than 4,900 PAs. The findings make it clear that this campaign is hurting the PA profession, PA relationships with patients, and the healthcare system at large.
Key findings of the survey shared with AMA include the following:
- - 96.0% say the campaign has had a negative impact on addressing healthcare workforce shortages.
- - 95.2% believe it has negatively impacted efforts to expand access to care for patients.
- - 90.4% of PAs report that the campaign has negatively impacted the healthcare system.
- - 81.0% report it has had a negative or very negative effect on their ability to provide care.
- - 81.7% reported a negative or very negative impact of the campaign on their relationships with patients.
- - 91.9% assert it has negatively impacted patients’ trust in the U.S. healthcare system.
- - 89.5% believe the AMA’s scope creep campaign has negatively impacted patients’ understanding of PA qualifications to provide care.
The AAPA further explains on its Stop Healthcare Obstruction page, that the AMA " 'scope creep' campaign is an effort led by the AMA to restrict the roles and responsibilities of PAs and other healthcare providers. It claims that PAs are seeking to expand their scope of practice beyond their traditional roles, which the AMA says will compromise patient safety and disrupt established healthcare hierarchies."
Physician assistant (PA) scope of practice laws vary throughout the United States.Generally, the physician assistant scope of practice in California is more restrictive for PAs than in other states.Gov. Newsom signed Senate Bill 697 (SB 697) in 2019. This bill relaxed chart review and physician signature requirements. It also allowed physicians to create practice agreements with their PAs, as opposed to service agreements. This grants more freedom and flexibility to both parties when providing medical care. Because of SB 697, California does not require on-site or in-person physician oversight. It redefines "supervision" to not require the physical presence of the physician. Although they should be available through electronic communication. PAs must have an active license in the state of California to practice.
The AMA's main arguments against PA autonomy include:
- - The AMA contends that PAs lack the necessary training and experience to practice independently, and that their actions could pose a risk to patient safety.
- - The AMA believes that physicians should maintain ultimate control over patient care, and that PAs should be supervised by physicians at all times.
- - The AMA argues that PAs should adhere to the same standards of practice as physicians, and that they should be subject to the same oversight and disciplinary procedures.
The debate over the scope of practice of PAs has been ongoing for many years, and it is likely to continue for some time. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of healthcare in the United States. - No Pay for Uninsured Contractor Even After Retroactive Reinstatementon September 4, 2024 at 1:56 PM
Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC was hired by a local school district to construct a two-story classroom building at an elementary school. In June 2017, Balfour Beatty hired ABI as a subcontractor to perform concrete, framing, and structural steel work on the project and agreed to pay ABI over $700,000 for its work.
When ABI began its work on the project in August 2017, it had a workers’ compensation insurance policy issued through State Compensation Insurance Fund. In December 2017, State Fund sent ABI a notice of cancellation, informing ABI that its 2017 2018 workers’ compensation policy would be canceled in January 2018 if ABI did not pay approximately $33,000 in outstanding premiums. ABI received the notice, but failed to pay, and its policy was canceled. ABI refused to pay outstanding insurance premiums charged on a prior policy, since ABI believed (correctly as it turns out) it was being overcharged
As a result of the policy cancellation, ABI’s contractor’s license was suspended by operation of law on January 25, 2018, due to ABI’s "failure . . . to . . . maintain workers’ compensation insurance coverage." (Bus. & Prof. Code, §7125.2.) The Contractors' State License Board gave ABI notice of the license suspension on January 29 and informed ABI that its contractor’s license would be suspended if ABI failed to submit a valid insurance certificate or exemption certificate within 45 days. (See § 7125.2, subd. (b) [requiring registrar to give notice of license suspension].) ABI did neither. In mid-March, the Board sent ABI a letter notifying ABI that its license had been retroactively suspended effective January 25 under section 7125.2.
Mr. Vo, ABI’s principal,filed an "Exemption from Workers Compensation" form with the Board in early April 2018, declaring under penalty of perjury that ABI does not need workers’ compensation insurance because it does "not employ anyone." This was false. As Vo later admitted at trial, ABI had at least nine employees working on the project at the time. Vo nonetheless decided to falsely claim the exemption because ABI was heavily invested in the project and he did not want to lose money. Upon receipt of the exemption form, the Board reinstated ABI’s license effective April 5, 2018.
As for the construction project, Balfour Beatty refused to pay ABI for its work. Accordingly, in May 2019, ABI sued Balfour Beatty and several construction bonding surety companies for fraud, breach of contract, quantum meruit, recovery against bonds, and statutory penalties. Balfour Beatty cross-complained against ABI and Vo for fraud, express indemnity, and equitable indemnity. Balfour Beatty also asserted as its 31st affirmative defense that ABI "was not properly licensed at all times as required by Business and Professions Code section 7031," and as a result "is barred from recovering payment for any labor, materials or equipment furnished to the project."
Several years into that litigation, ABI settled its old premium dispute with its workers’ compensation insurer and had the canceled policy retroactively reinstated as part of the settlement. ABI then applied to the Contractors' State License Board for retroactive reinstatement of its contractor’s license, asserting that ABI’s failure to file a certificate of workers’ compensation coverage had been "due to circumstances beyond [its] control," in that the policy had been canceled "unbeknownst to" ABI. The Board accepted ABI’s representation and retroactively reinstated its contractor’s license under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7125.1.
In November 2022, the trial court held a bench trial on the bifurcated issue of Defendants' 31st affirmative defense - ABI’s failure to be duly licensed. During trial, State Fund’s underwriting manager admitted that State Fund had overcharged ABI for premiums, that State Fund generally does not cancel a policy for nonpayment of a bill until the dispute over the bill is resolved, that State Fund should not have canceled ABI’s 2017-2018 policy, and that ABI’s license suspension occurred because of the way State Fund handled the dispute.
The trial court found in favor of Defendants on the 31st affirmative defense, concluding ABI was "not 'a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance' of the contract" and therefore "may not 'bring or maintain' this action 'or recover' compensation for its work." Defendants filed a motion for attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 and the subcontract’s prevailing party fee provision, and also filed motions to tax costs. After granting the motions in part, the trial court entered an amended judgment in favor of Defendants and against ABI, which included an award of over $270,000 in costs and over $1.55 million in attorney fees to Defendants.
The Court of Appeal affirmed in the published case of American Building Innovations v. Balfour Beatty Construction -G062471 (Sept 2024).
This appeal involves the interplay of several statutes and what circumstances are "beyond the control of the licensee" for purposes of retroactive license reinstatement. In this case ABI was fully aware it was unlicensed and uninsured, and nevertheless continued its work.
The Court of Appeal concluded section 7031 does indeed bar ABI’s current claims. A suspended contractor’s license can be retroactively reinstated under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7125.1 only if "the failure to have a certificate on file was due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee." (Id., subd. (b).)
In this case, the lapse in coverage was not beyond ABI’s control. The record "demonstrates the policy cancellation occurred because ABI chose not to pay billed insurance premiums. ABI learned of the policy cancellation days after it took effect, yet ABI did not procure replacement coverage until years later when it settled the premium dispute with its insurer".
"The insurer’s retroactive reinstatement of the policy following that settlement was essentially meaningless because it occurred long after the statute of limitations ran on any workers’ compensation claims, rendering the coverage illusory."
"As the prevailing party in that action, Defendants are entitled to attorney fees; the fee award must therefore be affirmed." - After 9 Years, 3 Jury Trials, 2 Appeals - Attorney Fees are Far More Than Awardon September 4, 2024 at 1:56 PM
Plaintiff T.J. Simers was a well-known and sometimes controversial columnist for Los Angeles Times Communications LLC. In August 2013, plaintiff was demoted to a senior reporter. Shortly thereafter, he obtained a position as a columnist with a rival newspaper and filed this action against The Times for constructive termination and age and disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.).
There have been three jury trials in this case.
In the first trial, the jury found defendant was liable for both discrimination and constructive termination. The jury awarded plaintiff $2,137,391 in economic damages for harm caused by his constructive termination, and $5 million in noneconomic damages, without identifying which noneconomic damages were caused by the constructive termination and which were caused by the discrimination. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on plaintiff’s constructive termination claim and granted a new trial on noneconomic damages.
Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s orders and remanded the case for a new trial on damages for plaintiff’s demotion. (Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1248 (Simers).)
In the second trial, the jury awarded plaintiff $15.4 million in noneconomic damages. The trial court, however, granted defendant’s motion for a new trial on two grounds.
In the third trial, again the only issue was the amount of noneconomic damages plaintiff could recover for his demotion. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to return a verdict between $30 and $50 million, and defense counsel argued that an award between $500,000 and $1 million was reasonable. The jury returned a verdict of $1.25 million. The jury’s verdict was the exact amount of an offer defendant made on December 7, 2021, shortly before the third trial began, to settle under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (section 998).
In June 2022, defendant paid plaintiff $1,292,123.29 in partial satisfaction of the judgment.
In May 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees, requesting fees of more than $15.5 million. This consisted of $7,860,475, based on hours spent multiplied by hourly rates (the "lodestar" amount), with a 2.0 multiplier based on contingent risk and other factors. The time spent included time on all three trials and on the appeals after the first trial.Plaintiff claimed costs of $577,890.29.
Defendant opposed the attorney fee motion. Among other contentions, defendant argued that section 998 precluded any fee recovery after the December 7, 2021 section 998 offer; that plaintiff could not recover fees for work on the second trial because that would reward plaintiff for his counsel’s egregious misconduct; and that plaintiff could not recover fees for the appeals after the first trial because he did not prevail on his appeal and this court’s disposition stated that the parties would bear their own costs.
The trial court awarded plaintiff $3,264,906 in attorney fees. The court granted defendant’s motion to tax costs in part, allowing plaintiff to recover $210,882.55 in costs. The defendant and the plaintiff both appealed. After the briefs were filed in these appeals, plaintiff T.J. Simers passed away. The motion of Virginia Simers, the sole beneficiary and executor of Mr. Simers’s will, to substitute herself as plaintiff was granted.
The Court of Appeal found "no abuse of discretion in any part of the trial court's order" in the published case of Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC -B323715 (August 2024)
The primary issue is the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff should not have recovered any fees for counsel’s work on the second trial, because the third trial was necessitated by counsel’s misconduct in closing argument at the second trial. Defendant also challenges fees awarded for certain work on plaintiff’s unsuccessful appeal after the first trial.
Plaintiff contends he should recover his attorney fees for this appeal, despite the trial court’s order that he cannot recover any fees or costs incurred after he rejected the defendant’s offer of compromise on December 7, 2021, shortly before the third trial, and failed to obtain a more favorable judgment.
"Section 998 expressly requires the court to exclude postoffer costs in determining whether the plaintiff has obtained a more favorable judgment than the offer. (§ 998, subd. (c)(2)(A).) That is exactly what the trial court did."
The Court off Appeal said it "cannot find any failure to 'adequately' or 'independently' consider the factors defendant raises. The court clearly stated that it considered the misconduct that necessitated a third trial in making its award of fees that 'as a whole are reasonable.' We find no basis to conclude the trial court abused its discretion." - Court of Appeal Again Limits WCAB Jurisdiction on Reconsideration to 60 Dayson September 3, 2024 at 2:17 PM
On March 2, 2023, a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an award of total permanent disability in favor of Mayor based on an industrial injury he suffered in December 2013 during his employment by Ross Valley.
Ross Valley filed a petition for reconsideration with the Board on March 23, 2023. The Board’s electronic filing system, Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS), showed it was received the same day. Mayor filed his answer to the petition on April 3, 2023.
At the time, former Labor Code section 5909 stated, "A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date of filing." On June 5, 2023, 74 days after Ross Valley filed its petition, Ross Valley wrote to the Board, inquiring about the status of its petition and noting that it had been more than 60 days since Ross Valley had filed it.
On July 19, 2023, Mayor requested a hearing to enforce the WCJ’s award.
On August 14, 2023, 144 days after Ross Valley filed its petition, the Board issued a document titled, "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration." Attached to the Board’s order granting reconsideration was a document titled, "Notice Pursuant to Shipley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493]." This notice states, "Reconsideration has been sought with regard to the decision filed on March 2, 2023. Labor Code section 5909 provides that a petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Appeals Board) acts on the petition within 60 days of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) The petition(s) was filed on March 23, 2023. The Appeals Board first received notice of the petition(s) on or about June 15, 2023. (Shipley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104 [57 Cal.Comp.Cases 493] [allowing tolling as a matter of due process.].) The Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration filed simultaneously with this Notice may be considered timely if issued within 60 days of the Appeals Board receiving notice of the petition(s). (Id.)"
Mayor wrote to the Board in September 2023, asking it to clarify why it first received notice of the petition on June 15, 2023, when Ross Valley filed it on March 23, 2023.
After receiving no reply, Mayor filed his petition for writ of mandate on January 9, 2024, asking the Court of Appeal to direct the Board to rescind its order granting reconsideration because former section 5909 dictated that the Board lost jurisdiction over the matter 60 days after Ross Valley filed its petition for reconsideration. On January 26, 2024, the Board issued a document titled, "Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration." The Board then reconsidered and rescinded that order and issued a revised version on February 2, 2024. The revised order stated that the Board was rescinding the WCJ’s award and returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.
According to the revised order, "due to an administrative irregularity" that was not the fault of either party, the Board did not receive Ross Valley’s petition for reconsideration until more than 60 days after the date Ross Valley filed it, March 23, 2023. EAMS, which the Board does not control, does not give the Board direct notification of filings. Instead, the staff of the district office must manually notify the Board that a party is requesting reconsideration and transmit the case to the Board. Mistakes and delays from "normal human error" can thwart the manual transmission of information from the district offices to the Board. When this occurred, the Board’s practice was to treat the 60-day deadline in former section 5909 as tolled and issue a decision on the petition within 60 days of receipt of the petition. The Board’s order stated that Ross Valley secured a statutory right to reconsideration upon timely filing its petition for reconsideration, so its conduct "is not and should not be at issue."
The Court of Appeal agreed with Mayor and the recent decision in Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1213 (Zurich) that the Board’s action after 60 days exceeded its jurisdiction in the published case of Mayor v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd A169465 (August 2024).
Mayor argues that when the Board failed to act on Ross Valley’s petition for 60 days, former section 5909 dictated that it was denied by operation of law. According to Mayor, the Board’s attempt to grant the petition on August 14, 2023, 144 days after it was filed, was therefore in excess of its jurisdiction and must be set aside. Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd recently accepted this argument in factual and procedural circumstances essentially identical to those here, and Mayor urged the Court of Appeal to follow it.
The Board, conversely, seeks to minimize, distinguish, or refute Zurich’s reasoning on a variety of grounds. Thus the Court of Appeal began by reviewing it and the legal principles it applied. After doing so it concluded that for "the reasons Zurich set forth at length, we agree with Mayor that former section 5909 was mandatory and the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in purporting to grant Ross Valley’s petition after 60 days had passed since Ross Valley filed it.
It went on to say that the "Board’s various attempts to avoid or defeat Zurich’s reasoning are unpersuasive." Among other reasons the Opinion said "Given the goal of average or substantial, but expeditious, justice in workers’ compensation proceedings, opposing parties need not subordinate their rights to prompt resolution of disputes to accommodate open-ended delays that the Board claims are necessary for it to rule on petitions for reconsideration." In doing so, it overruled anything said in Shipley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd to the contrary.
It must be noted that while Mayor’s petition was pending in the Court of Appeal, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 171 which amended former Labor Code section 5909 which now states, "(a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board. [¶] (b)(1) When a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board, the trial judge shall provide notice to the parties of the case and the appeals board. [¶] (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), service of the accompanying report, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 5900, shall constitute providing notice. [¶] (c) This section shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed." The former version of section 5909 is currently set to be reinstated on July 1, 2026. - Cal/OSHA Cites 9 Employers $168K For Silica Health and Safety Violationson September 3, 2024 at 2:17 PM
California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) cited nine employers in Sun Valley within the greater Los Angeles area following efforts to address the growing number of silicosis cases among stone workers in California.
As California faces an increase in silicosis cases among stone workers, Cal/OSHA continues ramping up enforcement efforts and today announced citing nine more employers, this time in Sun Valley. The safety violations include over $168,000 in fines. Cal/OSHA cited the following employers:
- - Miguel Clavel - Total Fine: $18,320
- - Gasper Marble and Tile - Total Fine: $18,785
- - Jose Sandoval Marble and Granite - Total Fine: $18,785
- - Valley Marble - Total Fine: $18,785
- - Edward Ponce - Total Fine: $18,785
- - Durango Marble - Total Fine: $18,785
- - Nacho Brothers Marble Inc. - Total Fine: $18,785
- - M & M Three Marble Inc. - Total Fine: $18,785
- - LB Quality Stone Experts Inc. - Total Fine: $18,785
The Van Nuys District Office conducted inspections and it was determined that all the employers were in violation of multiple Title 8 Safety and Health Regulations, including failure to use methods to effectively suppress dust and failed to provide their employees with full-face, tight-fitting power air purifying respirators.
Cal/OSHA’s workplace safety laws and emergency temporary standard are key components to ensure that workers are safe. Increasing awareness to employers and employees of the dangerous effects of inhaling respirable crystalline silica dust from tasks like grinding, drilling and cutting, can help save lives and avoid incurable health conditions like silicosis, lung cancer and kidney diseases.
With cases of silicosis increasing across the state, Cal/OSHA has intensified its enforcement and education efforts. In December of last year an emergency temporary standard was adopted to enhance existing guidelines for respirable crystalline silica hazards. The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) voted to readopt the emergency temporary standard at its August 15 meeting.
DIR and Cal/OSHA recently launched a bilingual public awareness and education campaign that offers employers and workers resources and information about the proper use of safety equipment and safe worksite practices. The campaign website, worksafewithsilica.org, also provides vital information for workers on workplace safety rights and how to report safety violations.
Since 2019, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has confirmed a total of 176 cases of silicosis related to engineered stone, including at least 13 deaths and at least 19 individuals who have undergone a lung transplant. A total of 105 of the 176 cases occurred in Los Angeles County, with the remainder occurring in other parts of the state. - Jury Finds Infamous Plaintiff Lawyer Tom Girardi Guilty of Defrauding Clientson August 29, 2024 at 12:06 PM
Disbarred 85 year old plaintiffs' personal injury attorney Thomas Vincent Girard,of Seal Beach California, was found guilty this week of leading a years-long scheme in which he embezzled tens of millions of dollars of money that belonged to his clients, some of whom awaited payment for treatment of severe physical injuries.He was found guilty of four counts of wire fraud.
Throughout his more than 50-year career, Girardi had two claims to fame: he played a key role in winning a $333 million settlement for residents of Hinkley, California, in their lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric, a case that later became the basis for the film "Erin Brockovich." Decades later, he and his wife Erika Jayne were cast on the reality show "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills."
According to evidence presented at a 13-day trial, Girardi - a once-powerful figure in California’s legal community - ran the now-defunct law firm Girardi Keese. For years, Girardi misappropriated and embezzled millions of dollars from client trust accounts at his law firm. The scheme involved defendant Girardi stealing millions of dollars in client settlement funds and failing to pay Girardi Keese clients - some of whom had suffered serious injuries in accidents - the money they were owed.
In carrying out this scheme, from October 2010 to late 2020, Girardi provided a litany of lies for failure to pay clients and directed a law firm employee to pay previously defrauded clients or other unrelated expenditures. Girardi sent lulling communications to the clients that, among other things, falsely denied that the settlement proceeds had been paid and falsely claimed that Girardi Keese could not pay the settlement proceeds to clients until certain purported requirements had been met. These bogus requirements included addressing supposed tax obligations, settling bankruptcy claims, obtaining supposedly necessary authorizations from judges, and satisfying other debts.
Girardi diverted tens of millions of dollars from his law firm’s operating account to pay illegitimate expenses, including more than $25 million to pay the expenses of EJ Global, a company formed by his wife related to her entertainment career, as well as spent millions of dollars of Girardi Keese funds on private jet travel, jewelry, luxury cars, and exclusive golf and social clubs.
At the end of 2020, as Girardi and his law firm faced mounting legal problems related to his years-long theft of client funds, Girardi Keese was forced into involuntary bankruptcy. The State Bar of California disbarred Girardi in July 2022.
United States District Judge Josephine L. Staton scheduled a December 6 sentencing hearing, at which time Girardi will face a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison for each count.
Relatedly, co-defendant Christopher Kazuo Kamon, 50, formerly of Encino and Palos Verdes and who was residing in The Bahamas at the time of his November 2022 arrest on a federal criminal complaint, awaits trial in this matter in January 2025.
Kamon, the former chief financial officer at Girardi Keese, is charged with multiple fraud counts for allegedly aiding and abetting Girardi’s scheme to defraud clients. Kamon allegedly also embezzled millions of dollars from the law firm’s accounts for his own personal enrichment. Kamon, who remains in federal custody, has pleaded not guilty to these charges.
Girardi, Kamon, and David R. Lira, Girardi’s son-in-law and a former lawyer at Girardi Keese, also face federal fraud charges in Chicago. Trial in that case is scheduled for March 3, 2025. - 2,325 People Died From Heat Last Year, Mostly In The Desert Southweston August 29, 2024 at 12:06 PM
Researchers from the Department of Public Health, University of Texas at San Antonio, Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, and Pennsylvania State University, State College analyzed all deaths from 1999 to 2023.
The data search was then reduced to deaths in which the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision code was P81 (environmental hyperthermia of newborn), T67 (effects of heat and light), or X30 (exposure to excessive natural heat) as either the underlying cause or as a contributing cause of death, as recorded in the Multiple Cause of Death file.
Data were accessed through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER platform,which combines death counts with population estimates produced by the US Census Bureau to calculate mortality rates.
For each year, researchers extracted age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 person-years for heat-related deaths. The AAMR accounts for differences due to age structures, allowing direct comparisons across time. The approach of analyzing cause-specific mortality rates rather than excess mortality is warranted because the excess mortality methodology is subject to confounding from the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2023. This study used publicly available, deidentified aggregate data; thus, it was not considered human subjects research.
Joinpoint version 5.2.0 (National Cancer Institute) regression6 was used to analyze AAMRs to assess trends and determine elbow points where the trend began to shift to a new trajectory. Results of joinpoint analyses are reported as average annual percentage change (AAPC) in rates with 95% CIs.
The resulting new study just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that heat-related mortality rates in the US increased between 1999 and 2023, especially during the last 7 years. This study is the first to the knowledge of the authors to demonstrate a reversal of this trend from 2016 to 2023.
Recent studies have found exposure to extreme heat to be associated with mortality, with variability by age, sex, and race and ethnicity. Recent research suggests that heat-related mortality risk is increasing globally, but formal analyses of heat-related mortality trends in the US through 2023 are lacking.
This study examined trends in heat-related mortality rates in the US population from 1999 to 2023. From 1999 to 2023, 21,518 deaths were recorded as heat-related underlying or contributing cause of death.
The warmest average temperature recorded since 1850 occurred in 2023. The lowest number of heat-related deaths in the study period was 311 in 2004, whereas the highest, 2325, was in 2023. The number of heat-related deaths showed year-to-year variability, with spikes in 2006 and 2011, before showing steady increases after 2016.
These results align with site-specific data analyzed in a global study that suggest increases in heat-related mortality.As temperatures continue to rise because of climate change,he recent increasing trend is likely to continue.
Study limitations include the potential for misclassification of causes of death, leading to possible underestimation of heat-related mortality rates; potential bias from increasing awareness over time; and lack of data for vulnerable subgroups.
The researchers concluded by saying "Local authorities in high-risk areas should consider investing in the expansion of access to hydration centers and public cooling centers or other buildings with air conditioning."