- Exclusive Remedy Ends City Office Workers Asbestos Lawsuiton February 19, 2026 at 1:42 PM
The City of San Diego leased several floors of a downtown high-rise office building in 2017 where it stationed many employees. The City knew the building contained asbestos. That July, the building owner began a window renovation project that would involve the removal of approximately 40 tons of asbestos-containing materials. The City notified employees by email about the project, explained that air quality would be monitored daily, and designated Karen Johnson, a manager in its Real Estate Asset Department, as the liaison between employees and the building owner and renovation contractors.
Within days, employees began expressing concerns. Over the following months, they reported to Johnson and other City officials that they were experiencing respiratory problems. Employees also reported that renovation workers were wearing protective masks, that plastic barriers meant to contain dust and debris were failing, and that a ventilator for a sealed asbestos-containing area was blowing exhaust into the employee parking structure. Johnson relayed these complaints to the building owner, the contractors, and Ronald Villa, the City's deputy chief operating officer. Despite the ongoing complaints, the City decided not to relocate employees because it had no legal grounds to break its lease and no alternative space available.
That changed on January 25, 2018, when the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District received a complaint and took samples from multiple floors of the building. The samples tested positive for asbestos the following day. On January 26, the City notified its employees of the results and instructed them to stay out of the building. Over the next several weeks, the District confirmed widespread asbestos contamination throughout the building and found that air samples collected between February 1 and 5 contained asbestos fibers exceeding permissible levels.
On March 2, 2018, City officials held a meeting with affected employees. Villa told them the asbestos found on January 25 was not airborne and that prior air testing had shown levels within EPA tolerances. George Katsikaris of the City's Environmental Services Department similarly told employees that air samples collected before the evacuation were within safe, breathable levels and that dust samples had come back clean. A toxicologist told employees they should not worry about adverse health effects. Nevertheless, Villa acknowledged employees' concerns and encouraged anyone worried about cancer to take whatever steps they needed, and a workers' compensation manager explained how to file claims.
Alina Cadena and other City employees who had worked in the building during the renovations sued the City and Villa in his official capacity. They alleged the City intentionally exposed them to asbestos and concealed the extent of the exposure because it determined their health and safety were not worth the cost of breaking the lease. They asserted causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent concealment, sought compensatory damages, costs, and attorney fees, and sought punitive damages against Villa.
The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that workers' compensation was the employees' exclusive remedy under Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (a), and that the employees could not establish the fraudulent concealment exception to that exclusivity rule under subdivision (b)(2). The City alternatively sought summary adjudication of the emotional distress claim and the punitive damages claim against Villa. In support, the City submitted declarations from Johnson and Villa stating they had no knowledge of loose or uncontrolled asbestos before January 26, 2018, and that the renovation project manager had regularly reported air samples at normal background levels. The City also submitted deposition testimony, including from employees themselves, who admitted they had no evidence the City knew of loose asbestos debris before that date.
The court granted summary judgment, finding the fraudulent concealment exception did not apply and workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety, reviewing the summary judgment de novo in the unpublished case of Cadena v. City of San Diego, - D084784 (February, 2026).
The court explained that under the workers' compensation exclusivity rule, when an employee suffers an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, workers' compensation is the sole and exclusive remedy against the employer. (Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 812–813.) The fraudulent concealment exception in Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b)(2), requires the employee to prove three elements: the employer knew of the employee's work-related injury, the employer concealed that knowledge, and the concealment aggravated the injury.
The court found the employees failed to raise a triable issue on the first element - actual prior knowledge of their injuries. Citing Ashdown v. Ameron Internat. Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 868, 880, and Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1797, the court emphasized that constructive or imputed knowledge is insufficient; only actual knowledge will do. The City's evidence showed it did not know about loose asbestos debris until January 26, 2018, the same day it notified employees. The employees themselves admitted they had no evidence the City knew earlier. Moreover, since employees had the same information the City did, the fraudulent concealment exception did not apply, because the exception requires the employer to have known of the injury before the employee.
The employees argued their emotional distress claim should proceed to trial because the City's conduct in knowingly exposing them to a known carcinogen was not a normal part of the employment relationship. The court disagreed, surveying a line of California Supreme Court decisions holding that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against employers.
The court further relied on Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 465, 474–475, where the California Supreme Court held that even if an employer knowingly concealed asbestos dangers from employees, workers' compensation was the only remedy.
- Court of Appeal Affirms Workplace Violence Restraining Orderon February 19, 2026 at 1:42 PM
Rayan Zarrabi graduated from Scripps Ranch High School, part of the San Diego Unified School District, in 2019. In the years that followed, he engaged in an escalating pattern of hostility directed at two school employees - M.L., a vice principal, and D.L., one of his former teachers. A few months after graduating, Zarrabi attended an SRHS football game where he shouted profanity and raised his middle finger at D.L. In December 2022, he entered the campus without permission, was told to leave, and was then caught sneaking back in through a rear gate, after which M.L. instructed him never to return.
In May 2023, Zarrabi attended an off-campus SRHS volleyball game at Southwestern Community College, where he sent disturbing electronic messages to students that included references to graves and tombstone emojis. When M.L. told him to leave, campus police had to escort him out while he shouted vulgar insults at M.L. In June 2023, he yelled profanity at M.L. from his car as M.L. sat on a restaurant patio. Around the same time, he tracked down D.L.'s family members on Facebook and sent them hateful, profanity-laden messages attacking D.L.'s appearance and character.
In February 2024, Zarrabi contacted a coworker of M.L. and D.L. on Facebook, repeating the same type of messages and adding lengthy, hostile commentary about both men. Then, in May 2024, a witness flagged down police to report that Zarrabi had been speaking rapidly and intensely about his hatred for M.L. and D.L., stating that he hoped they would die, that they did not deserve to live, that it was all he could think about, and that he was going to get his revenge. Police prepared a crime report, a suspicious activity report, and a psychiatric emergency response team referral, and an officer advised M.L. to seek a restraining order. Zarrabi reportedly continued telling third parties, including current students, that he intended to "go after" the two employees.
In October 2024, the District filed a petition for a workplace violence restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 on behalf of M.L. and D.L., also requesting that M.L.'s immediate family members be included as protected persons. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order based on a credible threat of violence or stalking and set a hearing. Zarrabi filed a written response denying the allegations. Following a hearing in November 2024, the trial court granted the petition, ordering Zarrabi to stay at least 100 yards from the employees' workplaces, homes, and vehicles, as well as from SRHS events held off campus.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the restraining order in its entirety in the unpublished case of San Diego Unified School District v. Zarrabi, No. D085415 (February 2026). The court addressed Zarrabi's arguments on four grounds.
First, on sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that Zarrabi had forfeited this argument by failing to include a reporter's transcript or an agreed or settled statement from the hearing.The court went on to find that even setting aside the forfeiture, the record - including declarations from M.L. and D.L., copies of Zarrabi's electronic messages, and a police report - contained substantial evidence supporting the order.
Second, regarding the First Amendment, the court found that Zarrabi failed to present a cogent argument supported by relevant authority. It noted that the cases he cited were inapposite. Relying on City of San Jose v. Garbett (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 526, 537, the court explained that speech constituting a credible threat of violence under section 527.8 is not constitutionally protected and may properly be enjoined.
Third, on due process, Zarrabi complained that a police officer's declaration was filed shortly before the hearing and that he did not receive it in time. The court found he provided no evidence to support this claim, no evidence the trial court even considered the declaration, and no showing that the outcome would have been different without it, since the declarations of M.L. and D.L. alone were sufficient. The court cited City of Los Angeles v. Herman (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 97, 105, where a similar due process argument was rejected because the defendant had the opportunity to question witnesses and present his own evidence.
Fourth, the court rejected Zarrabi's claim that the restraining order caused him disproportionate reputational and employment harm. It found he supported this argument with neither citations to the record nor relevant legal authority.Even considering the argument on its merits, the court found that the record did not establish any harm to Zarrabi that was disproportionate to the need for protection.
- Two SoCal Attorney's 13 Year Dispute Resolves Complex Litigation Issueson February 18, 2026 at 2:09 PM
Douglas A. Bagby is an attorney who represented clients in the Los Angeles, California area, primarily in family law and general litigation. Joseph Daniel Davis:is a Pasadena/Los Angeles, California attorney whose practice included personal injury and products liability. He has also been involved in toxic tort, legal malpractice, and medical malpractice work. This new published appellate case arises from a long-running dispute between these two Southern California attorneys.
The conflict began in July 2013 when Bagby was involved in a motor vehicle collision in which he lost one leg below the knee. He hired Davis to represent him in a personal injury action, which went to trial in June 2016 and resulted in a jury verdict of more than $5 million in Bagby's favor. In May 2017, Bagby sued Davis for breach of contract and malpractice. Davis defaulted, then successfully moved to set aside the default. Bagby petitioned for a writ of mandate, which the Court of Appeal granted, ordering the trial court to reinstate the default. (Bagby v. Superior Court (Apr. 16, 2018) B287188 [nonpub. opn.].)
On remand, the trial court entered judgment for $27 million, but Davis appealed, arguing Bagby was limited to the $5 million demanded in his complaint. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed, directing the trial court to let Bagby choose between accepting a $5 million default judgment or vacating the default and filing an amended complaint. (Bagby v. Davis (Jan. 24, 2020) B294081 [nonpub. opn.].) Bagby chose the $5 million default judgment, which was entered in July 2020.
Bagby then attempted to enforce the judgment by seeking an order for sale of a residence Davis owned in Indian Wells and an order directing Davis to repatriate $3.5 million he had transferred to a limited liability company located in Nevis. The trial court denied those requests, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, explaining that the Indian Wells property sale had to be pursued in Riverside County and that unwinding the transfer required a separate fraudulent transfer action. (Bagby v. Davis (Dec. 13, 2022) B320533 [nonpub. opn.].) There was also a related appeal involving property in Idaho, which the Idaho Supreme Court resolved in 2023. (Bagby v. Davis (2023) 173 Idaho 903.)
In early 2023, Bagby obtained a writ of execution and sought to levy on two Individual Retirement Accounts belonging to Davis, held by LPL Financial Holdings Inc. The funds in those IRAs originated from an insurance policy held in a pension and profit-sharing plan established by Davis's former law firm, Davis & Thomas. The insurance policy had been cashed out and the proceeds rolled over into the IRAs.
Davis filed a claim of exemption, arguing the IRAs could not be collected upon for two reasons: first, because he had moved to Florida and Florida exemption law should govern; and second, because the IRAs were funded by proceeds traceable to exempt sources - specifically, an unmatured life insurance policy and a private retirement plan - both of which are exempt under California law.
The trial court held multiple hearings and issued several tentative rulings. Initially, the court considered applying Florida law but ultimately concluded that a claim of exemption must be determined under the law of the forum state - California - regardless of where the judgment debtor resides. The court relied on In re Marriage of DeLotel (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 21, which held that exemption laws govern the remedies available in each state's courts rather than creating substantive rights that follow the debtor.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order in its entirety in this new published case of Bagby v. Davis -B333649 (February 2026). The court addressed Davis's arguments in four categories: jurisdiction, choice of law, the merits under California law, and taxes.
Jurisdiction. Davis argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the IRA funds were physically located in South Carolina. The court rejected this, explaining that funds held in an account are intangible and have no physical location; they are deemed to be wherever personal jurisdiction exists over the custodian of the account, citing Pacific Decision Sciences Corp. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1107- 1108. Since Davis never challenged California's personal jurisdiction over LPL Financial, the funds were properly subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Choice of Law.The court held that claims of exemption are governed by the law of the forum state, directly following In re Marriage of DeLotel. That case established that exemption laws do not create substantive defenses but instead govern the remedies available in each state's courts. Davis's attempt to distinguish DeLotel on its facts was unpersuasive.
California Law - Life Insurance Exemption.The court addressed whether the proceeds from a voluntarily surrendered life insurance policy retain the exemption granted to unmatured policies under Code of Civil Procedure section 704.100, subdivision (a). The court held they do not. It reasoned that the purpose of the unmatured policy exemption is to prevent creditors from forcing a debtor to surrender a policy for its cash value, thereby preserving the policy as a source of future support. When the debtor voluntarily surrenders the policy, that protective purpose is fulfilled. The court further reasoned that treating a surrendered policy as still unmatured would produce an absurd result: there would be no loan value to collect and no procedural mechanism to collect it, effectively rendering the statutory provisions allowing partial collection a nullity, contrary to Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, 1037. Instead, the court held that a voluntarily surrendered policy should be treated as matured, meaning the funds are exempt only to the extent they are reasonably necessary for the debtor's support under section 704.100, subdivision (c). Davis made no attempt to prove the funds were necessary for his support.
California Law - Private Retirement Plan Exemption. The court found that Davis failed to prove the pension and profit-sharing plan qualified as a "private retirement plan" under Code of Civil Procedure section 704.115. While there is no statutory definition of the term, case law establishes that such a plan must be principally designed and used for retirement purposes, citing O'Brien v. AMBS Diagnostics, LLC (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 553, 560 and Yaesu Electronics Corp. v. Tamura (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 8, 13-14. The evidence showed that Davis controlled the plan, its sole asset was a single insurance policy, and he had borrowed heavily against it without explanation and allowed substantial interest to accumulate. None of this indicated a plan designed and used for retirement.
California Law - IRA Exemption. The court noted that IRAs are exempt under section 704.115, subdivision (e) only to the extent the funds are necessary to support the debtor in retirement, taking into account all available resources. Since Davis was already retired and reported income exceeding $500,000 per year, and since he offered no evidence that the IRA funds were necessary for his support, the exemption did not apply.
Taxes.Davis argued for the first time on appeal that the trial court should have allowed him to hold back funds to pay taxes and penalties on the IRA withdrawal, as contemplated by section 704.115, subdivision (e)(3). The court held this argument was forfeited because Davis never raised it below, again citing Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1074.
- Bayer Now Proposes $7.25B Roundup Litigation Settlementon February 18, 2026 at 2:09 PM
In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate - the active ingredient in Roundup - as "probably carcinogenic to humans." This finding became a catalyst for litigation. The IARC report initiated an avalanche of lawsuits American Council on Science and Health, even as the U.S. EPA and other regulators maintained that glyphosate was safe.
Federal lawsuits were consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As of early 2026, the Roundup MDL in the Northern District of California had about 4,511 pending cases out of 5,240 total.
On Tuesday, Bayer and attorneys for cancer patients announced a proposed $7.25 billion settlement to resolve thousands of U.S. lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn people that Roundup could cause cancer. The settlement was filed in St. Louis Circuit Court in Missouri. It is not clear at this time what effect this development will have on cases pending across the nation, and particularly cases pending here in California.
All three of the first Roundup trials took place in California, and all three resulted in massive plaintiff verdicts.
- - Johnson v. Monsanto (2018) — San Francisco Superior Court The first ever Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial was for Dewayne "Lee" Johnson, a groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District in the San Francisco Bay Area. Wisner Baum Johnson, 46, applied Roundup weedkiller 20 to 30 times per year while working as a groundskeeper for a school district near San Francisco. He testified that during his work, he had two accidents in which he was soaked with the product. He was diagnosed with terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2014. His case went first because in California, dying plaintiffs can be granted expedited trials. On August 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages - a total of $289 million. The trial judge later reduced the total to $78.5 million, and an appellate court slashed it a second time. Johnson finally got paid late in 2020: $20.5 million, a fraction of the initial jury award.
- - Hardeman v. Monsanto (2019) — U.S. District Court, Northern District of California Edwin Hardeman, 70, and his wife spent decades living in Sonoma County, California, on 56 acres of land. He started using Monsanto herbicides to treat poison oak, overgrowth, and weeds on his property in 1986 and continued using Roundup through 2012. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in February 2015. This case served as a federal "bellwether" trial - a test case for the thousands of cases in the MDL. In 2019, a six-person jury awarded Hardeman $75 million in punitive damages and $5 million in compensatory damages. The judge later reduced the total to $25 million. In May 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury's finding that Roundup caused Hardeman's cancer - the first federal appellate decision in the country on this issue. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Bayer's appeal of the Hardeman verdict.
- - Pilliod v. Monsanto (2019) — Alameda County Superior Court Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple, began using Roundup on their properties in 1982. Alva was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2011, and Alberta was diagnosed in 2015. On May 13, 2019, jurors returned a verdict awarding the Pilliods $2 billion in punitive damages and $55 million in compensatory damages - the largest Roundup verdict at that time. The judge later reduced their award to $87 million. Monsanto appealed, but the California Court of Appeal denied the appeal in August 2021, and the California Supreme Court denied review in November 2021. The U.S. Supreme Court also declined to take up the case in June 2022.
It wasn't all losses for Bayer. In October 2021, a jury in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles ruled in Bayer's favor in the Clark trial, finding that Roundup did not cause the plaintiff's child's illness. In December 2021, a jury in San Bernardino County ruled in Bayer's favor in the Stephens trial.
Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit's rejection of Bayer's federal preemption argument in Hardeman was a critical setback. In May 2021, the Ninth Circuit held that EPA's approval of a pesticide label does not immunize a manufacturer from liability in the tort system. However, Bayer continued to push the preemption argument, and the U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to hear a different case (Durnell) on this question, with oral arguments scheduled for late April 2026.
Although there are still over 4,500 cases pending in the California MDL, there is not a lot of focus on it at this point. Most new lawsuits are being filed in Pennsylvania, Missouri, or California, The litigation's center of gravity has shifted toward the state courts, the Supreme Court preemption case, and now the proposed $7.25 billion settlement filed in Missouri.
- More Employment Cases Unravel After Supreme Court Arbitration Rulingon February 17, 2026 at 12:43 PM
Jenny-Ashley Colon-Perez brought a claim against her employer, Security Industry Specialists, Inc., which was subject to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. During the arbitration process, the employer was required to pay arbitration fees by certain statutory deadlines under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. The employer had timely paid all prior arbitration invoices, but missed one payment deadline because defense counsel was dealing with a natural disaster that caused extensive property damage and forced her and her family to evacuate their home. The overdue invoice was paid within six days of the statutory deadline.
After the employer missed the payment deadline, Colon-Perez moved under section 1281.98 to withdraw from arbitration, arguing the late payment triggered her right to return to court litigation. The trial court granted that motion, allowing her to withdraw from arbitration. The employer then filed a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), seeking equitable relief from the withdrawal order on grounds of excusable neglect. The trial court denied that motion as well, effectively ending the employer's ability to enforce the arbitration agreement.
On the initial appeal, the First Appellate District affirmed the trial court, holding that section 1281.98 imposed a rigid, inflexible deadline and that section 473, subdivision (b) could not be used to excuse a failure to comply with that deadline, regardless of the reason for the late payment or how quickly payment was made afterward. That opinion was published as Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 403.
The California Supreme Court granted review and held the case pending its decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310. In Hohenshelt, the Supreme Court rejected the rigid construction that several Courts of Appeal, including this one, had applied to section 1281.98. The Supreme Court held that equitable relief statutes - specifically section 473, subdivision (b), Civil Code section 3275, and Civil Code section 1511 - remain available to excuse late arbitration fee payments. It also concluded that, construed in harmony with these background equitable relief statutes, section 1281.98 does not impermissibly burden arbitration contracts and is therefore not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
Following Hohenshelt, the Supreme Court transferred Colon-Perez back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate the prior opinion and reconsider in light of the new ruling. On remand, the Court of Appeal in the unpublished case of Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists -A168297 (February 2026) reversed the trial court's denial of the employer's section 473, subdivision (b) motion.
Rather than simply sending the case back for further proceedings, the court concluded that the record compelled granting the employer relief outright. The court found there was no suggestion whatsoever of strategic or willful nonpayment - the exact conduct section 1281.98 was designed to address. To the contrary, the employer had a consistent track record of timely payments, missed only one deadline due to a natural disaster, and cured the late payment within six days.
The court noted that the Supreme Court itself had cited this very case in Hohenshelt as an example of a non-deliberate late payment that should not result in forfeiture of arbitral rights. Given the six-day delay, the court also found no basis for any claim of prejudice to Colon-Perez.
The court reversed the order denying relief under section 473, subdivision (b) and remanded with directions to grant the employer's motion and vacate the order that had allowed Colon-Perez to withdraw from arbitration. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal.
- DIR Proposes to Adopt Workplace Inspections Walkaround Ruleon February 17, 2026 at 12:43 PM
OSHA's 2024 Walkaround Rule published on April 1, 2024, and effective May 31, 2024, amends 29 C.F.R. § 1903.8(c) to clarify that employees may designate a non-employee third party as their representative during an OSHA inspection. Prior to the rule, the existing standard required that an employees' designee had to be an employee of the business being investigated, unless the OSHA inspector saw good cause to designate an outside party. The rule also removed the suggestion that non-employee representatives should be limited to individuals with formal credentials such as safety engineers or industrial hygienists. The rule largely reinstated an OSHA policy from 2013 known as the "Fairfax Memo," which the Trump administration rescinded in 2017.
A coalition of business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers filed a lawsuit in a Texas federal court claiming OSHA exceeded its authority. The 2024 rule's ultimate fate has been subject to ongoing litigation and the change in administration.
Pursuant to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC § 651 et seq.), all states with occupational safety and health “state plans” must maintain workplace inspection rights and procedures that are at least as effective as those provided under federal law. (29 USC § 667(c)(3).) California is a state with its own approved occupational safety and health state plan. The Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Division”) is the agency responsible for administering and enforcing California’s state plan.
California has adopted its own similar law. Labor Code Section 6314 provides that during an investigation by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH or Cal/OSHA, also referred to as “the Division”), a representative of the employer and a representative authorized by the employees shall have the opportunity to accompany the Division’s representative during the inspection of a workplace.
Currently, there is no equivalent to 29 CFR § 1903.8 within Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. To ensure that California’s state inspection process is as effective as the federal process, which the law requires, the DIR just issued a Notice of Proposed Title 8 regulation that defines who can be considered an authorized representative of employees and does so in such a way as to make the Division’s worksite inspections at least as effective as those of OSHA.
The proposed rule will enhance the Division’s ability to conduct effective workplace inspections by permitting a broader array of experts to serve as employee representatives and to accompany the Division during the workplace inspection when they are needed. The proposed rule would mirror the federal rule and grant the Division the same ability as federal OSHA to rely on a broader array of employee representatives.
And according to the Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed regulations "Some employers refuse to consent to the Division’s inspection of their workplace. These denials may become even more common if the employer objects to the presence of the authorized representative of the employees. When an employer refuses access to the Division, the Division must seek a search warrant from the Superior Court. By codifying these rules, the Division will have stronger grounds for obtaining search warrants that allow for workplace access with the necessary representatives. Absent a rule that defines the representative authorized by employees, courts may be reluctant to issue a warrant which would permit the Division’s representative and third-party representative to access a workplace for purposes of conducting an inspection."
A public hearing has been scheduled to give all interested persons the opportunity to present statements or arguments, oral or in writing, with respect to the proposed amendments, on April 1, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time (US and Canada). Participants may use a Zoom link to join the meeting.
- City of Santa Ana Prevails in Injured Workers FEHA Caseon February 16, 2026 at 11:23 AM
Bilhah Lopez worked for the City of Santa Ana beginning in 1998, initially part-time and later as a full-time public works dispatcher. In January 2021, Lopez notified the City she had COVID-19 and would be absent from work. She was hospitalized and provided disability certificates excusing her from work, with her leave extended through June 1, 2021.
On June 1, 2021, the City contacted Lopez requesting either an updated doctor's note or her return to work, but she did not respond. On August 3, 2021, Lopez forwarded two work status forms to the City indicating she could return to work with specific accommodations, including no prolonged sitting or standing, and working in a low-stress environment with frequent breaks.
The City responded requesting clarification from Lopez's doctor and sending her a supplemental medical questionnaire to complete. The City asked Lopez to return the completed questionnaire within 14 days. Despite this request and follow-up letters, Lopez never responded or returned the questionnaire.
After receiving no response, the City sent Lopez a final letter stating that her extensive absence without approved leave was deemed a resignation, and she was separated from her position effective October 22, 2021.
Lopez filed suit in September 2022, alleging six causes of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to accommodate disability, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) age discrimination, (5) failure to prevent discrimination, and (6) retaliation.
The City filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted, entering judgment in favor of the City in August 2024. The trial court found the City had met its initial burden of showing the adverse employment action was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors - specifically, that Lopez had abandoned her employment. The court found Lopez failed to raise a triable issue of material fact showing her termination resulted from discrimination or pretext.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety in the unpublished case of Lopez v. City of Santa Ana -G064787 (February 2026).
The appellate court concluded the City met its initial burden by presenting evidence that Lopez was terminated because she abandoned her job. Lopez failed to respond to any subsequent communications, including requests for a completed medical questionnaire. The court rejected each of Lopez's arguments for pretext.
Lopez argued the City's risk management department already had her work status forms, but the court found she provided no evidence her doctor or workers' compensation attorney actually sent those documents to the City when issued.
The court was not persuaded that the City's decision to contact Lopez directly, rather than through her workers' compensation attorney, supported an inference of pretext, citing California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11069, subdivision (d)(4), which provides that direct communications are preferred but not required.
The court held the interactive process and failure to accommodate claims failed because the evidence showed Lopez was responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process, citing Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54. After receiving Lopez's work status forms, the City promptly sent a questionnaire requesting additional information from her doctor. Lopez failed to respond to the questionnaire or follow-up communications, and the court found no triable issue existed as to whether the City failed to act in good faith.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, with the City to recover its costs on appeal. The City's request for sanctions was denied, citing Cowan v. Krayzman (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 907, 919, which holds that sanctions cannot be sought in the respondent's brief.
- CDI Proposes Amendments to Prop 103 Intervenor Processon February 16, 2026 at 11:23 AM
Proposition 103, passed by California voters in 1988, established a prior approval system for property and casualty insurance rates. This requires insurers to obtain approval from the California Insurance Commissioner before implementing rate changes. It includes mechanisms for public participation, notably through intervenors and formal hearings often conducted by the Administrative Hearing Bureau (AHB) within the California Department of Insurance (CDI).
The intervenor process allows members of the public (typically consumer advocacy groups or representatives) to participate in rate review proceedings. This is authorized under Proposition 103 to ensure consumer interests are represented in rate-setting. This process promotes transparency and public oversight but has been debated, with some viewing it as delaying approvals or adding costs, while supporters see it as essential for consumer protection. Recent reforms (proposed in 2025 and amended in early 2026) aim to increase transparency, streamline procedures, clarify compensation standards (e.g., shifting from subjective "vexatious" to objective "wasteful" criteria), impose timelines, and enhance oversight.
Consequently, the California Insurance Commissioner just released the amended text of proposed regulations, first proposed in 2025, to modernizing California’s intervenor and Administrative Hearing Bureau processes under Proposition 103 - reforms designed to increase transparency, improve efficiency, and ensure that every dollar in the rate review process serves the public interest. The amended text is now available for public comment. The amended text reflects months of stakeholder engagement and public input.
Pursuant to state law, the amended text is now available for an additional 15-day public comment period. All changes are clearly identified, and supporting materials have been added to the rulemaking file to ensure full transparency.
The updated regulations:
- - Clarify prospective application so new rules apply moving forward, ensuring fairness and consistency in current ongoing proceedings.
- - Replace the prior “vexatious” standard with an objective “wasteful” standard for fee determinations focusing on whether work advances the issues in a proceeding, rather than subjective intent.
- - Strengthen scrutiny of excessive billing on a task-by-task basis.
- - Increase public access to rate proceeding documents by requiring timely online posting of pleadings, hearing calendars, and decisions.
- - Establish firm timelines and regular status updates from administrative law judges to reduce unnecessary delays.
- - Clarify definitions and procedural rules to streamline hearings and reinforce the Commissioner’s authority under Prop. 103.
These reforms are designed to uphold one of the core purposes of Prop. 103 – meaningful public participation – while ensuring that the process remains efficient, balanced, and focused squarely on consumer and ratepayer benefits.
These reforms are part of the Commissioner Sustainable Insurance Strategy - what he claims is "the most comprehensive overhaul of California’s insurance regulations in over 30 years - aimed at stabilizing the market, expanding availability, and ensuring a modern, resilient insurance system that works for all Californians."
- Former NFL Player Convicted for $197M Medicare Fraudon February 12, 2026 at 10:09 AM
A federal jury convicted Joel Rufus French, 47, of Amory, Mississippi, the owner of a marketing company, and former NFL player, for his role in a yearslong scheme to bilk Medicare and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) out of nearly $200 million by selling patient information and sham doctors’ orders for orthotic braces that patients did not want or need.
French had a brief and limited NFL career after a standout college tenure at Ole Miss.He signed as an undrafted free agent with the Seattle Seahawks in 1999. A knee injury sidelined him for the entire 2000 season, leading to his release from the team. He later signed with the Green Bay Packers in 2002 but never appeared in a regular-season game (likely on the practice squad or released without playing).
According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, French worked with overseas call centers that pressured elderly Americans to provide their personal and health insurance information and agree to accept medically unnecessary orthotic braces. Some of the individuals who agreed to the braces suffered from Alzheimer’s and dementia. In certain instances, the call centers altered call recordings to make it seem like Medicare patients agreed to the braces when they did not.
French paid sham telemedicine companies to obtain signed orders from doctors and nurse practitioners who never examined, and often never even spoke to, the patients. He sold the orders to marketers and medical supply companies, which then submitted claims to Medicare. French also defrauded Medicare and CHAMPVA, the health care program for spouses and children of veterans who have or had a permanent and total service-connected disability or who died from a service-connected condition, by billing the programs for orthotic braces through eight durable medical equipment supply companies that he owned and managed, using false documents to hide his connection to the companies from Medicare.
The evidence at trial showed that French and his co-conspirators caused Medicare to be billed for braces for amputees for limbs they did not have and for deceased beneficiaries. Also during the conspiracy, French withdrew approximately $225,000 in cash from a bank in Mississippi, over $10,000 of which was placed in a bag and driven to Orlando to pay accomplices who sold him beneficiaries’ personal and insurance information.
The jury convicted French of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy to offer, pay, solicit, and receive kickbacks. French faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, 10 years in prison for conspiracy to commit money laundering, and five years in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing date has not been set.
“This scheme built on sham operations exploited seniors and corrupted the federal health care system. By falsifying doctors’ orders and selling patient information, the defendant sought to turn Medicare into their own personal ATM machine,” said Acting Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Scott J. Lampert of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “HHS-OIG will stop and catch anyone who exploits vulnerable patients to bilk federal healthcare programs and hold them accountable to the full extent of the law.”
This case was similar to Operation Brace Yourself, a major 2019 Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement action (also called the "Telemedicine and Durable Medical Equipment Takedown") that charged dozens of individuals across multiple states for schemes involving kickbacks, bribes, sham telemedicine consultations, and fraudulent billing to Medicare for medically unnecessary braces (like back, knee, shoulder, and wrist braces). It resulted in charges related to over $1.7 billion in false claims, with significant cost avoidance for Medicare in the following years.
HHS-OIG, FBI, and VA-OIG investigated the case. Acting Assistant Chief Catherine Wagner and Trial Attorney William Hochul III of the Justice Department’s Fraud Section are prosecuting the case.
- The Workplace Overdose Reversal Kits (WORK) to Save Lives Acton February 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM
The Workplace Overdose Reversal Kits (WORK) to Save Lives Act is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of U.S. legislation aimed at addressing opioid overdoses in workplace settings by improving access to overdose reversal medications like naloxone (commonly known as Narcan). It was most recently reintroduced on February 10, 2026.
The bill directs the Secretary of Labor, through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), to issue non-mandatory guidance for private-sector employers on acquiring and maintaining opioid overdose reversal medications (such as naloxone kits). And offering voluntary annual training to employees on how to use such medications.
The goal is to integrate overdose response into workplace emergency preparedness plans, similar to how workplaces prepare for fires, cardiac events, or other emergencies. It emphasizes that overdose incidents can happen anywhere, including on the job, and quick access to naloxone can be lifesaving while waiting for emergency services.
Organizations like the National Safety Council (NSC) have publicly applauded the bill, noting rising workplace overdose deaths and the need for such tools. Other supporters, including overdose prevention advocates, highlight it as a practical, non-burdensome way to equip workplaces without imposing heavy new mandates on private employers (guidance is voluntary for them).
The bill was first introduced in the 118th Congress (2023-2024). Even strong bipartisan bills like this one often fail to become law due to systemic factors in Congress, rather than outright opposition such as:
- - Low Priority in a Crowded Agenda — Congress handles thousands of bills each session. Broader opioid crisis legislation (e.g., major funding packages, enforcement bills, or comprehensive reforms) often takes precedence over narrower, targeted measures like workplace-specific guidance. This bill is relatively modest (mostly non-mandatory guidance for private employers, with requirements only for federal agencies), so it doesn't generate the same urgency or media attention as bigger spending or regulatory fights.
- - Committee Bottlenecks — Labor and workplace safety bills go through committees like Education and the Workforce (House) or HELP (Senate), which have heavy workloads. Without strong leadership push, a dedicated champion on the committee, or external pressure (e.g., a major incident spotlighting the issue), bills can sit without hearings. Reports note that the 2023 versions "neither advanced out of committee," which is a classic sign of this.
- - No Major Opposition, But Also No Strong Momentum — There's little evidence of active resistance (e.g., from business groups or conservatives worried about mandates. But it hasn't built a groundswell of lobbying or public pressure to force movement. Bipartisanship helps avoid filibusters or veto threats, but it doesn't guarantee floor time.
- - Congressional Dysfunction and Timing — The 118th Congress saw gridlock on many issues due to divided government, narrow majorities, debt ceiling fights, and other priorities. Bills introduced late in a session (like this one in fall 2023) often expire without action. Reintroductions in new Congresses reset the clock, which is why it's back now.
In short, bipartisanship is a plus - it reduces partisan roadblocks - but it's not sufficient on its own. Many well-intentioned, low-controversy bills languish for years (or forever) unless they get attached to must-pass legislation, gain a powerful sponsor's priority, or ride a wave of public attention (e.g., a high-profile workplace overdose event). This one fits that pattern: sensible, supported, but not yet prioritized enough to move. Its recent reintroduction means there's still a window in the current session, especially with ongoing opioid crisis awareness.
- Exclusive Remedy Ends City Office Workers Asbestos Lawsuiton February 19, 2026 at 1:42 PM
The City of San Diego leased several floors of a downtown high-rise office building in 2017 where it stationed many employees. The City knew the building contained asbestos. That July, the building owner began a window renovation project that would involve the removal of approximately 40 tons of asbestos-containing materials. The City notified employees by email about the project, explained that air quality would be monitored daily, and designated Karen Johnson, a manager in its Real Estate Asset Department, as the liaison between employees and the building owner and renovation contractors.
Within days, employees began expressing concerns. Over the following months, they reported to Johnson and other City officials that they were experiencing respiratory problems. Employees also reported that renovation workers were wearing protective masks, that plastic barriers meant to contain dust and debris were failing, and that a ventilator for a sealed asbestos-containing area was blowing exhaust into the employee parking structure. Johnson relayed these complaints to the building owner, the contractors, and Ronald Villa, the City's deputy chief operating officer. Despite the ongoing complaints, the City decided not to relocate employees because it had no legal grounds to break its lease and no alternative space available.
That changed on January 25, 2018, when the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District received a complaint and took samples from multiple floors of the building. The samples tested positive for asbestos the following day. On January 26, the City notified its employees of the results and instructed them to stay out of the building. Over the next several weeks, the District confirmed widespread asbestos contamination throughout the building and found that air samples collected between February 1 and 5 contained asbestos fibers exceeding permissible levels.
On March 2, 2018, City officials held a meeting with affected employees. Villa told them the asbestos found on January 25 was not airborne and that prior air testing had shown levels within EPA tolerances. George Katsikaris of the City's Environmental Services Department similarly told employees that air samples collected before the evacuation were within safe, breathable levels and that dust samples had come back clean. A toxicologist told employees they should not worry about adverse health effects. Nevertheless, Villa acknowledged employees' concerns and encouraged anyone worried about cancer to take whatever steps they needed, and a workers' compensation manager explained how to file claims.
Alina Cadena and other City employees who had worked in the building during the renovations sued the City and Villa in his official capacity. They alleged the City intentionally exposed them to asbestos and concealed the extent of the exposure because it determined their health and safety were not worth the cost of breaking the lease. They asserted causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent concealment, sought compensatory damages, costs, and attorney fees, and sought punitive damages against Villa.
The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that workers' compensation was the employees' exclusive remedy under Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (a), and that the employees could not establish the fraudulent concealment exception to that exclusivity rule under subdivision (b)(2). The City alternatively sought summary adjudication of the emotional distress claim and the punitive damages claim against Villa. In support, the City submitted declarations from Johnson and Villa stating they had no knowledge of loose or uncontrolled asbestos before January 26, 2018, and that the renovation project manager had regularly reported air samples at normal background levels. The City also submitted deposition testimony, including from employees themselves, who admitted they had no evidence the City knew of loose asbestos debris before that date.
The court granted summary judgment, finding the fraudulent concealment exception did not apply and workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety, reviewing the summary judgment de novo in the unpublished case of Cadena v. City of San Diego, - D084784 (February, 2026).
The court explained that under the workers' compensation exclusivity rule, when an employee suffers an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, workers' compensation is the sole and exclusive remedy against the employer. (Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 812–813.) The fraudulent concealment exception in Labor Code section 3602, subdivision (b)(2), requires the employee to prove three elements: the employer knew of the employee's work-related injury, the employer concealed that knowledge, and the concealment aggravated the injury.
The court found the employees failed to raise a triable issue on the first element - actual prior knowledge of their injuries. Citing Ashdown v. Ameron Internat. Corp. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 868, 880, and Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1797, the court emphasized that constructive or imputed knowledge is insufficient; only actual knowledge will do. The City's evidence showed it did not know about loose asbestos debris until January 26, 2018, the same day it notified employees. The employees themselves admitted they had no evidence the City knew earlier. Moreover, since employees had the same information the City did, the fraudulent concealment exception did not apply, because the exception requires the employer to have known of the injury before the employee.
The employees argued their emotional distress claim should proceed to trial because the City's conduct in knowingly exposing them to a known carcinogen was not a normal part of the employment relationship. The court disagreed, surveying a line of California Supreme Court decisions holding that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against employers.
The court further relied on Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 465, 474–475, where the California Supreme Court held that even if an employer knowingly concealed asbestos dangers from employees, workers' compensation was the only remedy. - Court of Appeal Affirms Workplace Violence Restraining Orderon February 19, 2026 at 1:42 PM
Rayan Zarrabi graduated from Scripps Ranch High School, part of the San Diego Unified School District, in 2019. In the years that followed, he engaged in an escalating pattern of hostility directed at two school employees - M.L., a vice principal, and D.L., one of his former teachers. A few months after graduating, Zarrabi attended an SRHS football game where he shouted profanity and raised his middle finger at D.L. In December 2022, he entered the campus without permission, was told to leave, and was then caught sneaking back in through a rear gate, after which M.L. instructed him never to return.
In May 2023, Zarrabi attended an off-campus SRHS volleyball game at Southwestern Community College, where he sent disturbing electronic messages to students that included references to graves and tombstone emojis. When M.L. told him to leave, campus police had to escort him out while he shouted vulgar insults at M.L. In June 2023, he yelled profanity at M.L. from his car as M.L. sat on a restaurant patio. Around the same time, he tracked down D.L.'s family members on Facebook and sent them hateful, profanity-laden messages attacking D.L.'s appearance and character.
In February 2024, Zarrabi contacted a coworker of M.L. and D.L. on Facebook, repeating the same type of messages and adding lengthy, hostile commentary about both men. Then, in May 2024, a witness flagged down police to report that Zarrabi had been speaking rapidly and intensely about his hatred for M.L. and D.L., stating that he hoped they would die, that they did not deserve to live, that it was all he could think about, and that he was going to get his revenge. Police prepared a crime report, a suspicious activity report, and a psychiatric emergency response team referral, and an officer advised M.L. to seek a restraining order. Zarrabi reportedly continued telling third parties, including current students, that he intended to "go after" the two employees.
In October 2024, the District filed a petition for a workplace violence restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 on behalf of M.L. and D.L., also requesting that M.L.'s immediate family members be included as protected persons. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order based on a credible threat of violence or stalking and set a hearing. Zarrabi filed a written response denying the allegations. Following a hearing in November 2024, the trial court granted the petition, ordering Zarrabi to stay at least 100 yards from the employees' workplaces, homes, and vehicles, as well as from SRHS events held off campus.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the restraining order in its entirety in the unpublished case of San Diego Unified School District v. Zarrabi, No. D085415 (February 2026). The court addressed Zarrabi's arguments on four grounds.
First, on sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that Zarrabi had forfeited this argument by failing to include a reporter's transcript or an agreed or settled statement from the hearing.The court went on to find that even setting aside the forfeiture, the record - including declarations from M.L. and D.L., copies of Zarrabi's electronic messages, and a police report - contained substantial evidence supporting the order.
Second, regarding the First Amendment, the court found that Zarrabi failed to present a cogent argument supported by relevant authority. It noted that the cases he cited were inapposite. Relying on City of San Jose v. Garbett (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 526, 537, the court explained that speech constituting a credible threat of violence under section 527.8 is not constitutionally protected and may properly be enjoined.
Third, on due process, Zarrabi complained that a police officer's declaration was filed shortly before the hearing and that he did not receive it in time. The court found he provided no evidence to support this claim, no evidence the trial court even considered the declaration, and no showing that the outcome would have been different without it, since the declarations of M.L. and D.L. alone were sufficient. The court cited City of Los Angeles v. Herman (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 97, 105, where a similar due process argument was rejected because the defendant had the opportunity to question witnesses and present his own evidence.
Fourth, the court rejected Zarrabi's claim that the restraining order caused him disproportionate reputational and employment harm. It found he supported this argument with neither citations to the record nor relevant legal authority.Even considering the argument on its merits, the court found that the record did not establish any harm to Zarrabi that was disproportionate to the need for protection. - Two SoCal Attorney's 13 Year Dispute Resolves Complex Litigation Issueson February 18, 2026 at 2:09 PM
Douglas A. Bagby is an attorney who represented clients in the Los Angeles, California area, primarily in family law and general litigation. Joseph Daniel Davis:is a Pasadena/Los Angeles, California attorney whose practice included personal injury and products liability. He has also been involved in toxic tort, legal malpractice, and medical malpractice work. This new published appellate case arises from a long-running dispute between these two Southern California attorneys.
The conflict began in July 2013 when Bagby was involved in a motor vehicle collision in which he lost one leg below the knee. He hired Davis to represent him in a personal injury action, which went to trial in June 2016 and resulted in a jury verdict of more than $5 million in Bagby's favor. In May 2017, Bagby sued Davis for breach of contract and malpractice. Davis defaulted, then successfully moved to set aside the default. Bagby petitioned for a writ of mandate, which the Court of Appeal granted, ordering the trial court to reinstate the default. (Bagby v. Superior Court (Apr. 16, 2018) B287188 [nonpub. opn.].)
On remand, the trial court entered judgment for $27 million, but Davis appealed, arguing Bagby was limited to the $5 million demanded in his complaint. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed, directing the trial court to let Bagby choose between accepting a $5 million default judgment or vacating the default and filing an amended complaint. (Bagby v. Davis (Jan. 24, 2020) B294081 [nonpub. opn.].) Bagby chose the $5 million default judgment, which was entered in July 2020.
Bagby then attempted to enforce the judgment by seeking an order for sale of a residence Davis owned in Indian Wells and an order directing Davis to repatriate $3.5 million he had transferred to a limited liability company located in Nevis. The trial court denied those requests, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, explaining that the Indian Wells property sale had to be pursued in Riverside County and that unwinding the transfer required a separate fraudulent transfer action. (Bagby v. Davis (Dec. 13, 2022) B320533 [nonpub. opn.].) There was also a related appeal involving property in Idaho, which the Idaho Supreme Court resolved in 2023. (Bagby v. Davis (2023) 173 Idaho 903.)
In early 2023, Bagby obtained a writ of execution and sought to levy on two Individual Retirement Accounts belonging to Davis, held by LPL Financial Holdings Inc. The funds in those IRAs originated from an insurance policy held in a pension and profit-sharing plan established by Davis's former law firm, Davis & Thomas. The insurance policy had been cashed out and the proceeds rolled over into the IRAs.
Davis filed a claim of exemption, arguing the IRAs could not be collected upon for two reasons: first, because he had moved to Florida and Florida exemption law should govern; and second, because the IRAs were funded by proceeds traceable to exempt sources - specifically, an unmatured life insurance policy and a private retirement plan - both of which are exempt under California law.
The trial court held multiple hearings and issued several tentative rulings. Initially, the court considered applying Florida law but ultimately concluded that a claim of exemption must be determined under the law of the forum state - California - regardless of where the judgment debtor resides. The court relied on In re Marriage of DeLotel (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 21, which held that exemption laws govern the remedies available in each state's courts rather than creating substantive rights that follow the debtor.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order in its entirety in this new published case of Bagby v. Davis -B333649 (February 2026). The court addressed Davis's arguments in four categories: jurisdiction, choice of law, the merits under California law, and taxes.
Jurisdiction. Davis argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the IRA funds were physically located in South Carolina. The court rejected this, explaining that funds held in an account are intangible and have no physical location; they are deemed to be wherever personal jurisdiction exists over the custodian of the account, citing Pacific Decision Sciences Corp. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1107- 1108. Since Davis never challenged California's personal jurisdiction over LPL Financial, the funds were properly subject to the court's jurisdiction.
Choice of Law.The court held that claims of exemption are governed by the law of the forum state, directly following In re Marriage of DeLotel. That case established that exemption laws do not create substantive defenses but instead govern the remedies available in each state's courts. Davis's attempt to distinguish DeLotel on its facts was unpersuasive.
California Law - Life Insurance Exemption.The court addressed whether the proceeds from a voluntarily surrendered life insurance policy retain the exemption granted to unmatured policies under Code of Civil Procedure section 704.100, subdivision (a). The court held they do not. It reasoned that the purpose of the unmatured policy exemption is to prevent creditors from forcing a debtor to surrender a policy for its cash value, thereby preserving the policy as a source of future support. When the debtor voluntarily surrenders the policy, that protective purpose is fulfilled. The court further reasoned that treating a surrendered policy as still unmatured would produce an absurd result: there would be no loan value to collect and no procedural mechanism to collect it, effectively rendering the statutory provisions allowing partial collection a nullity, contrary to Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029, 1037. Instead, the court held that a voluntarily surrendered policy should be treated as matured, meaning the funds are exempt only to the extent they are reasonably necessary for the debtor's support under section 704.100, subdivision (c). Davis made no attempt to prove the funds were necessary for his support.
California Law - Private Retirement Plan Exemption. The court found that Davis failed to prove the pension and profit-sharing plan qualified as a "private retirement plan" under Code of Civil Procedure section 704.115. While there is no statutory definition of the term, case law establishes that such a plan must be principally designed and used for retirement purposes, citing O'Brien v. AMBS Diagnostics, LLC (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 553, 560 and Yaesu Electronics Corp. v. Tamura (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 8, 13-14. The evidence showed that Davis controlled the plan, its sole asset was a single insurance policy, and he had borrowed heavily against it without explanation and allowed substantial interest to accumulate. None of this indicated a plan designed and used for retirement.
California Law - IRA Exemption. The court noted that IRAs are exempt under section 704.115, subdivision (e) only to the extent the funds are necessary to support the debtor in retirement, taking into account all available resources. Since Davis was already retired and reported income exceeding $500,000 per year, and since he offered no evidence that the IRA funds were necessary for his support, the exemption did not apply.
Taxes.Davis argued for the first time on appeal that the trial court should have allowed him to hold back funds to pay taxes and penalties on the IRA withdrawal, as contemplated by section 704.115, subdivision (e)(3). The court held this argument was forfeited because Davis never raised it below, again citing Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1074. - Bayer Now Proposes $7.25B Roundup Litigation Settlementon February 18, 2026 at 2:09 PM
In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate - the active ingredient in Roundup - as "probably carcinogenic to humans." This finding became a catalyst for litigation. The IARC report initiated an avalanche of lawsuits American Council on Science and Health, even as the U.S. EPA and other regulators maintained that glyphosate was safe.
Federal lawsuits were consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As of early 2026, the Roundup MDL in the Northern District of California had about 4,511 pending cases out of 5,240 total.
On Tuesday, Bayer and attorneys for cancer patients announced a proposed $7.25 billion settlement to resolve thousands of U.S. lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn people that Roundup could cause cancer. The settlement was filed in St. Louis Circuit Court in Missouri. It is not clear at this time what effect this development will have on cases pending across the nation, and particularly cases pending here in California.
All three of the first Roundup trials took place in California, and all three resulted in massive plaintiff verdicts.
- - Johnson v. Monsanto (2018) — San Francisco Superior Court The first ever Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial was for Dewayne "Lee" Johnson, a groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District in the San Francisco Bay Area. Wisner Baum Johnson, 46, applied Roundup weedkiller 20 to 30 times per year while working as a groundskeeper for a school district near San Francisco. He testified that during his work, he had two accidents in which he was soaked with the product. He was diagnosed with terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2014. His case went first because in California, dying plaintiffs can be granted expedited trials. On August 10, 2018, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages - a total of $289 million. The trial judge later reduced the total to $78.5 million, and an appellate court slashed it a second time. Johnson finally got paid late in 2020: $20.5 million, a fraction of the initial jury award.
- - Hardeman v. Monsanto (2019) — U.S. District Court, Northern District of California Edwin Hardeman, 70, and his wife spent decades living in Sonoma County, California, on 56 acres of land. He started using Monsanto herbicides to treat poison oak, overgrowth, and weeds on his property in 1986 and continued using Roundup through 2012. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in February 2015. This case served as a federal "bellwether" trial - a test case for the thousands of cases in the MDL. In 2019, a six-person jury awarded Hardeman $75 million in punitive damages and $5 million in compensatory damages. The judge later reduced the total to $25 million. In May 2021, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury's finding that Roundup caused Hardeman's cancer - the first federal appellate decision in the country on this issue. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Bayer's appeal of the Hardeman verdict.
- - Pilliod v. Monsanto (2019) — Alameda County Superior Court Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a Bay Area couple, began using Roundup on their properties in 1982. Alva was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2011, and Alberta was diagnosed in 2015. On May 13, 2019, jurors returned a verdict awarding the Pilliods $2 billion in punitive damages and $55 million in compensatory damages - the largest Roundup verdict at that time. The judge later reduced their award to $87 million. Monsanto appealed, but the California Court of Appeal denied the appeal in August 2021, and the California Supreme Court denied review in November 2021. The U.S. Supreme Court also declined to take up the case in June 2022.
It wasn't all losses for Bayer. In October 2021, a jury in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles ruled in Bayer's favor in the Clark trial, finding that Roundup did not cause the plaintiff's child's illness. In December 2021, a jury in San Bernardino County ruled in Bayer's favor in the Stephens trial.
Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit's rejection of Bayer's federal preemption argument in Hardeman was a critical setback. In May 2021, the Ninth Circuit held that EPA's approval of a pesticide label does not immunize a manufacturer from liability in the tort system. However, Bayer continued to push the preemption argument, and the U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to hear a different case (Durnell) on this question, with oral arguments scheduled for late April 2026.
Although there are still over 4,500 cases pending in the California MDL, there is not a lot of focus on it at this point. Most new lawsuits are being filed in Pennsylvania, Missouri, or California, The litigation's center of gravity has shifted toward the state courts, the Supreme Court preemption case, and now the proposed $7.25 billion settlement filed in Missouri. - More Employment Cases Unravel After Supreme Court Arbitration Rulingon February 17, 2026 at 12:43 PM
Jenny-Ashley Colon-Perez brought a claim against her employer, Security Industry Specialists, Inc., which was subject to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. During the arbitration process, the employer was required to pay arbitration fees by certain statutory deadlines under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. The employer had timely paid all prior arbitration invoices, but missed one payment deadline because defense counsel was dealing with a natural disaster that caused extensive property damage and forced her and her family to evacuate their home. The overdue invoice was paid within six days of the statutory deadline.
After the employer missed the payment deadline, Colon-Perez moved under section 1281.98 to withdraw from arbitration, arguing the late payment triggered her right to return to court litigation. The trial court granted that motion, allowing her to withdraw from arbitration. The employer then filed a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), seeking equitable relief from the withdrawal order on grounds of excusable neglect. The trial court denied that motion as well, effectively ending the employer's ability to enforce the arbitration agreement.
On the initial appeal, the First Appellate District affirmed the trial court, holding that section 1281.98 imposed a rigid, inflexible deadline and that section 473, subdivision (b) could not be used to excuse a failure to comply with that deadline, regardless of the reason for the late payment or how quickly payment was made afterward. That opinion was published as Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists, Inc. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 403.
The California Supreme Court granted review and held the case pending its decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310. In Hohenshelt, the Supreme Court rejected the rigid construction that several Courts of Appeal, including this one, had applied to section 1281.98. The Supreme Court held that equitable relief statutes - specifically section 473, subdivision (b), Civil Code section 3275, and Civil Code section 1511 - remain available to excuse late arbitration fee payments. It also concluded that, construed in harmony with these background equitable relief statutes, section 1281.98 does not impermissibly burden arbitration contracts and is therefore not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
Following Hohenshelt, the Supreme Court transferred Colon-Perez back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate the prior opinion and reconsider in light of the new ruling. On remand, the Court of Appeal in the unpublished case of Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialists -A168297 (February 2026) reversed the trial court's denial of the employer's section 473, subdivision (b) motion.
Rather than simply sending the case back for further proceedings, the court concluded that the record compelled granting the employer relief outright. The court found there was no suggestion whatsoever of strategic or willful nonpayment - the exact conduct section 1281.98 was designed to address. To the contrary, the employer had a consistent track record of timely payments, missed only one deadline due to a natural disaster, and cured the late payment within six days.
The court noted that the Supreme Court itself had cited this very case in Hohenshelt as an example of a non-deliberate late payment that should not result in forfeiture of arbitral rights. Given the six-day delay, the court also found no basis for any claim of prejudice to Colon-Perez.
The court reversed the order denying relief under section 473, subdivision (b) and remanded with directions to grant the employer's motion and vacate the order that had allowed Colon-Perez to withdraw from arbitration. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. - DIR Proposes to Adopt Workplace Inspections Walkaround Ruleon February 17, 2026 at 12:43 PM
OSHA's 2024 Walkaround Rule published on April 1, 2024, and effective May 31, 2024, amends 29 C.F.R. § 1903.8(c) to clarify that employees may designate a non-employee third party as their representative during an OSHA inspection. Prior to the rule, the existing standard required that an employees' designee had to be an employee of the business being investigated, unless the OSHA inspector saw good cause to designate an outside party. The rule also removed the suggestion that non-employee representatives should be limited to individuals with formal credentials such as safety engineers or industrial hygienists. The rule largely reinstated an OSHA policy from 2013 known as the "Fairfax Memo," which the Trump administration rescinded in 2017.
A coalition of business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers filed a lawsuit in a Texas federal court claiming OSHA exceeded its authority. The 2024 rule's ultimate fate has been subject to ongoing litigation and the change in administration.
Pursuant to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC § 651 et seq.), all states with occupational safety and health “state plans” must maintain workplace inspection rights and procedures that are at least as effective as those provided under federal law. (29 USC § 667(c)(3).) California is a state with its own approved occupational safety and health state plan. The Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Division”) is the agency responsible for administering and enforcing California’s state plan.
California has adopted its own similar law. Labor Code Section 6314 provides that during an investigation by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH or Cal/OSHA, also referred to as “the Division”), a representative of the employer and a representative authorized by the employees shall have the opportunity to accompany the Division’s representative during the inspection of a workplace.
Currently, there is no equivalent to 29 CFR § 1903.8 within Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. To ensure that California’s state inspection process is as effective as the federal process, which the law requires, the DIR just issued a Notice of Proposed Title 8 regulation that defines who can be considered an authorized representative of employees and does so in such a way as to make the Division’s worksite inspections at least as effective as those of OSHA.
The proposed rule will enhance the Division’s ability to conduct effective workplace inspections by permitting a broader array of experts to serve as employee representatives and to accompany the Division during the workplace inspection when they are needed. The proposed rule would mirror the federal rule and grant the Division the same ability as federal OSHA to rely on a broader array of employee representatives.
And according to the Initial Statement of Reasons for the proposed regulations "Some employers refuse to consent to the Division’s inspection of their workplace. These denials may become even more common if the employer objects to the presence of the authorized representative of the employees. When an employer refuses access to the Division, the Division must seek a search warrant from the Superior Court. By codifying these rules, the Division will have stronger grounds for obtaining search warrants that allow for workplace access with the necessary representatives. Absent a rule that defines the representative authorized by employees, courts may be reluctant to issue a warrant which would permit the Division’s representative and third-party representative to access a workplace for purposes of conducting an inspection."
A public hearing has been scheduled to give all interested persons the opportunity to present statements or arguments, oral or in writing, with respect to the proposed amendments, on April 1, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time (US and Canada). Participants may use a Zoom link to join the meeting. - City of Santa Ana Prevails in Injured Workers FEHA Caseon February 16, 2026 at 11:23 AM
Bilhah Lopez worked for the City of Santa Ana beginning in 1998, initially part-time and later as a full-time public works dispatcher. In January 2021, Lopez notified the City she had COVID-19 and would be absent from work. She was hospitalized and provided disability certificates excusing her from work, with her leave extended through June 1, 2021.
On June 1, 2021, the City contacted Lopez requesting either an updated doctor's note or her return to work, but she did not respond. On August 3, 2021, Lopez forwarded two work status forms to the City indicating she could return to work with specific accommodations, including no prolonged sitting or standing, and working in a low-stress environment with frequent breaks.
The City responded requesting clarification from Lopez's doctor and sending her a supplemental medical questionnaire to complete. The City asked Lopez to return the completed questionnaire within 14 days. Despite this request and follow-up letters, Lopez never responded or returned the questionnaire.
After receiving no response, the City sent Lopez a final letter stating that her extensive absence without approved leave was deemed a resignation, and she was separated from her position effective October 22, 2021.
Lopez filed suit in September 2022, alleging six causes of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to accommodate disability, (3) failure to engage in the interactive process, (4) age discrimination, (5) failure to prevent discrimination, and (6) retaliation.
The City filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted, entering judgment in favor of the City in August 2024. The trial court found the City had met its initial burden of showing the adverse employment action was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors - specifically, that Lopez had abandoned her employment. The court found Lopez failed to raise a triable issue of material fact showing her termination resulted from discrimination or pretext.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety in the unpublished case of Lopez v. City of Santa Ana -G064787 (February 2026).
The appellate court concluded the City met its initial burden by presenting evidence that Lopez was terminated because she abandoned her job. Lopez failed to respond to any subsequent communications, including requests for a completed medical questionnaire. The court rejected each of Lopez's arguments for pretext.
Lopez argued the City's risk management department already had her work status forms, but the court found she provided no evidence her doctor or workers' compensation attorney actually sent those documents to the City when issued.
The court was not persuaded that the City's decision to contact Lopez directly, rather than through her workers' compensation attorney, supported an inference of pretext, citing California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11069, subdivision (d)(4), which provides that direct communications are preferred but not required.
The court held the interactive process and failure to accommodate claims failed because the evidence showed Lopez was responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process, citing Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 54. After receiving Lopez's work status forms, the City promptly sent a questionnaire requesting additional information from her doctor. Lopez failed to respond to the questionnaire or follow-up communications, and the court found no triable issue existed as to whether the City failed to act in good faith.
The appellate court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, with the City to recover its costs on appeal. The City's request for sanctions was denied, citing Cowan v. Krayzman (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 907, 919, which holds that sanctions cannot be sought in the respondent's brief. - CDI Proposes Amendments to Prop 103 Intervenor Processon February 16, 2026 at 11:23 AM
Proposition 103, passed by California voters in 1988, established a prior approval system for property and casualty insurance rates. This requires insurers to obtain approval from the California Insurance Commissioner before implementing rate changes. It includes mechanisms for public participation, notably through intervenors and formal hearings often conducted by the Administrative Hearing Bureau (AHB) within the California Department of Insurance (CDI).
The intervenor process allows members of the public (typically consumer advocacy groups or representatives) to participate in rate review proceedings. This is authorized under Proposition 103 to ensure consumer interests are represented in rate-setting. This process promotes transparency and public oversight but has been debated, with some viewing it as delaying approvals or adding costs, while supporters see it as essential for consumer protection. Recent reforms (proposed in 2025 and amended in early 2026) aim to increase transparency, streamline procedures, clarify compensation standards (e.g., shifting from subjective "vexatious" to objective "wasteful" criteria), impose timelines, and enhance oversight.
Consequently, the California Insurance Commissioner just released the amended text of proposed regulations, first proposed in 2025, to modernizing California’s intervenor and Administrative Hearing Bureau processes under Proposition 103 - reforms designed to increase transparency, improve efficiency, and ensure that every dollar in the rate review process serves the public interest. The amended text is now available for public comment. The amended text reflects months of stakeholder engagement and public input.
Pursuant to state law, the amended text is now available for an additional 15-day public comment period. All changes are clearly identified, and supporting materials have been added to the rulemaking file to ensure full transparency.
The updated regulations:
- - Clarify prospective application so new rules apply moving forward, ensuring fairness and consistency in current ongoing proceedings.
- - Replace the prior “vexatious” standard with an objective “wasteful” standard for fee determinations focusing on whether work advances the issues in a proceeding, rather than subjective intent.
- - Strengthen scrutiny of excessive billing on a task-by-task basis.
- - Increase public access to rate proceeding documents by requiring timely online posting of pleadings, hearing calendars, and decisions.
- - Establish firm timelines and regular status updates from administrative law judges to reduce unnecessary delays.
- - Clarify definitions and procedural rules to streamline hearings and reinforce the Commissioner’s authority under Prop. 103.
These reforms are designed to uphold one of the core purposes of Prop. 103 – meaningful public participation – while ensuring that the process remains efficient, balanced, and focused squarely on consumer and ratepayer benefits.
These reforms are part of the Commissioner Sustainable Insurance Strategy - what he claims is "the most comprehensive overhaul of California’s insurance regulations in over 30 years - aimed at stabilizing the market, expanding availability, and ensuring a modern, resilient insurance system that works for all Californians." - Former NFL Player Convicted for $197M Medicare Fraudon February 12, 2026 at 10:09 AM
A federal jury convicted Joel Rufus French, 47, of Amory, Mississippi, the owner of a marketing company, and former NFL player, for his role in a yearslong scheme to bilk Medicare and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) out of nearly $200 million by selling patient information and sham doctors’ orders for orthotic braces that patients did not want or need.
French had a brief and limited NFL career after a standout college tenure at Ole Miss.He signed as an undrafted free agent with the Seattle Seahawks in 1999. A knee injury sidelined him for the entire 2000 season, leading to his release from the team. He later signed with the Green Bay Packers in 2002 but never appeared in a regular-season game (likely on the practice squad or released without playing).
According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, French worked with overseas call centers that pressured elderly Americans to provide their personal and health insurance information and agree to accept medically unnecessary orthotic braces. Some of the individuals who agreed to the braces suffered from Alzheimer’s and dementia. In certain instances, the call centers altered call recordings to make it seem like Medicare patients agreed to the braces when they did not.
French paid sham telemedicine companies to obtain signed orders from doctors and nurse practitioners who never examined, and often never even spoke to, the patients. He sold the orders to marketers and medical supply companies, which then submitted claims to Medicare. French also defrauded Medicare and CHAMPVA, the health care program for spouses and children of veterans who have or had a permanent and total service-connected disability or who died from a service-connected condition, by billing the programs for orthotic braces through eight durable medical equipment supply companies that he owned and managed, using false documents to hide his connection to the companies from Medicare.
The evidence at trial showed that French and his co-conspirators caused Medicare to be billed for braces for amputees for limbs they did not have and for deceased beneficiaries. Also during the conspiracy, French withdrew approximately $225,000 in cash from a bank in Mississippi, over $10,000 of which was placed in a bag and driven to Orlando to pay accomplices who sold him beneficiaries’ personal and insurance information.
The jury convicted French of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy to offer, pay, solicit, and receive kickbacks. French faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, 10 years in prison for conspiracy to commit money laundering, and five years in prison for conspiracy to defraud the United States. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing date has not been set.
“This scheme built on sham operations exploited seniors and corrupted the federal health care system. By falsifying doctors’ orders and selling patient information, the defendant sought to turn Medicare into their own personal ATM machine,” said Acting Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Scott J. Lampert of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “HHS-OIG will stop and catch anyone who exploits vulnerable patients to bilk federal healthcare programs and hold them accountable to the full extent of the law.”
This case was similar to Operation Brace Yourself, a major 2019 Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement action (also called the "Telemedicine and Durable Medical Equipment Takedown") that charged dozens of individuals across multiple states for schemes involving kickbacks, bribes, sham telemedicine consultations, and fraudulent billing to Medicare for medically unnecessary braces (like back, knee, shoulder, and wrist braces). It resulted in charges related to over $1.7 billion in false claims, with significant cost avoidance for Medicare in the following years.
HHS-OIG, FBI, and VA-OIG investigated the case. Acting Assistant Chief Catherine Wagner and Trial Attorney William Hochul III of the Justice Department’s Fraud Section are prosecuting the case. - The Workplace Overdose Reversal Kits (WORK) to Save Lives Acton February 12, 2026 at 10:08 AM
The Workplace Overdose Reversal Kits (WORK) to Save Lives Act is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of U.S. legislation aimed at addressing opioid overdoses in workplace settings by improving access to overdose reversal medications like naloxone (commonly known as Narcan). It was most recently reintroduced on February 10, 2026.
The bill directs the Secretary of Labor, through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), to issue non-mandatory guidance for private-sector employers on acquiring and maintaining opioid overdose reversal medications (such as naloxone kits). And offering voluntary annual training to employees on how to use such medications.
The goal is to integrate overdose response into workplace emergency preparedness plans, similar to how workplaces prepare for fires, cardiac events, or other emergencies. It emphasizes that overdose incidents can happen anywhere, including on the job, and quick access to naloxone can be lifesaving while waiting for emergency services.
Organizations like the National Safety Council (NSC) have publicly applauded the bill, noting rising workplace overdose deaths and the need for such tools. Other supporters, including overdose prevention advocates, highlight it as a practical, non-burdensome way to equip workplaces without imposing heavy new mandates on private employers (guidance is voluntary for them).
The bill was first introduced in the 118th Congress (2023-2024). Even strong bipartisan bills like this one often fail to become law due to systemic factors in Congress, rather than outright opposition such as:
- - Low Priority in a Crowded Agenda — Congress handles thousands of bills each session. Broader opioid crisis legislation (e.g., major funding packages, enforcement bills, or comprehensive reforms) often takes precedence over narrower, targeted measures like workplace-specific guidance. This bill is relatively modest (mostly non-mandatory guidance for private employers, with requirements only for federal agencies), so it doesn't generate the same urgency or media attention as bigger spending or regulatory fights.
- - Committee Bottlenecks — Labor and workplace safety bills go through committees like Education and the Workforce (House) or HELP (Senate), which have heavy workloads. Without strong leadership push, a dedicated champion on the committee, or external pressure (e.g., a major incident spotlighting the issue), bills can sit without hearings. Reports note that the 2023 versions "neither advanced out of committee," which is a classic sign of this.
- - No Major Opposition, But Also No Strong Momentum — There's little evidence of active resistance (e.g., from business groups or conservatives worried about mandates. But it hasn't built a groundswell of lobbying or public pressure to force movement. Bipartisanship helps avoid filibusters or veto threats, but it doesn't guarantee floor time.
- - Congressional Dysfunction and Timing — The 118th Congress saw gridlock on many issues due to divided government, narrow majorities, debt ceiling fights, and other priorities. Bills introduced late in a session (like this one in fall 2023) often expire without action. Reintroductions in new Congresses reset the clock, which is why it's back now.
In short, bipartisanship is a plus - it reduces partisan roadblocks - but it's not sufficient on its own. Many well-intentioned, low-controversy bills languish for years (or forever) unless they get attached to must-pass legislation, gain a powerful sponsor's priority, or ride a wave of public attention (e.g., a high-profile workplace overdose event). This one fits that pattern: sensible, supported, but not yet prioritized enough to move. Its recent reintroduction means there's still a window in the current session, especially with ongoing opioid crisis awareness.