- 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.
- OSHA Clarifies Recording Workplace Injuries Related to Lithium-Ion Batterieson February 11, 2026 at 3:48 PM
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a letter of interpretation clarifying whether injuries resulting from the use of personal rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in the workplace should be recorded as work-related on the OSHA Forms 300, 301, and 300-A or equivalent forms.
The letter addressed a scenario in which employees bring rechargeable lithium-ion batteries from home to the workplace for use in e-cigarettes, and that are not used in any equipment or device related to employee work duties. In this scenario, the battery terminals are unprotected and the employee or employees improperly carry these batteries in their pants pocket, a fire is sparked by the batteries, and that the fire results in employee injury.
If a work-related injury caused by a lithium-ion battery meets one or more of the general recording criteria in Section 1904.7 of the Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses standard, it must be recorded on the OSHA logs.
OSHA's Response: "No, section 1904.5(b)(3) of OSHA's recordkeeping regulation does not apply in this scenario, assuming that the employee was at your workplace during assigned work hours and present as a condition of employment."
However the Notice of Interpretation letter addresses recordkeeping requirements and highlights the growing need for awareness of safety risks associated with lithium-ion batteries in workplace environments. These batteries can pose safety and health risks to workers during manufacturing, usage, emergency response, disposal, and recycling. Potential risks include fires, explosions, and exposure to harmful chemicals.
Safety measures employers can take include implementing hazard controls during battery design and production; ensuring proper ventilation; storing batteries in cool, dry locations; monitoring storage areas for flammable and toxic gases; using designated recycling facilities for disposal; and providing safety showers and eyewash stations when handling battery materials.
A Letter of Interpretation is OSHA's official response to questions about how its requirements apply to specific workplace situations or hazards. They cannot create additional employer obligations. Each letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. These letters can help stakeholders understand how to comply with Federal OSHA standards, regulations, and section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in specific workplace situations.
In June, the Department of Labor launched its opinion letter program, which expands the department's longstanding commitment to providing meaningful compliance assistance that helps workers, employers, and other stakeholders understand how federal labor laws apply in specific workplace situations.
The public is encouraged to use the division's new opinion letters page to explore past guidance and submit new requests. The division will exercise discretion in determining whether and how it will respond to each request, which will focus primarily on attempting to address issues of broad-based concern.
Learn more about OSHA and safety practices related to lithium-ion batteries.
Note however that California is regulated by Cal/OSHA, which operates under an OSHA-approved state plan (approved in 1973). This means Cal/OSHA has primary authority to enforce occupational safety and health standards for both private-sector and public-sector (state and local government) workplaces in the state.
Under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), state plans like California's must be "at least as effective" as federal OSHA standards. Federal OSHA standards serve as a floor (minimum baseline): Cal/OSHA must cover all the same issues addressed by federal standards and cannot be less protective.
Cal/OSHA can (and often does) adopt more stringent or additional standards. California frequently issues rules that exceed federal requirements (e.g., stricter permissible exposure limits for chemicals, more comprehensive heat illness prevention, workplace violence prevention measures, or shorter injury reporting deadlines). In these cases, the more protective Cal/OSHA rule prevails for California employers.
Employers in California must comply with a stricter Cal/OSHA provision if there is one. Federal OSHA does not preempt or override a state plan's more stringent rules once the plan is approved.
- ACOEM Studies Office Space/Room Design for Excessive Sittingon February 11, 2026 at 3:48 PM
The phrase "sitting is the new smoking" is a popular health slogan that highlights the serious health risks of prolonged sedentary behavior (especially sitting for extended periods), comparing them to the well-established dangers of smoking cigarettes. It emphasizes how modern lifestyles - desk jobs, screen time, commuting - lead to excessive sitting, which is linked to increased risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, metabolic issues, and even premature death, independent of regular exercise.
The phrase is widely attributed to Dr. James A. Levine, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine formerly at the Mayo Clinic (now associated with initiatives like the Mayo Clinic-Arizona State University Obesity Solutions). He is credited with coining or popularizing it in the early 2010s as part of his research on non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) and the metabolic impacts of sedentary time.
A key early mention appeared in a 2014 Los Angeles Times article titled "'Get Up!' or lose hours of your life every day, scientist says," where Levine is quoted saying things like: “Sitting is more dangerous than smoking, kills more people than HIV and is more treacherous than parachuting. We are sitting ourselves to death.” This tied into his book Get Up!: Why Your Chair Is Killing You and What You Can Do About It (published around that time).
And perhaps concerns about the health hazards of excessive sitting influenced researchers to conduct a new study, published ahead of print in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Researchers decided to explore how workplace design influences office workers' sitting behaviors, which are linked to health risks like cardiovascular disease and reduced productivity. The research draws on affordance theory and ecological models, emphasizing that environments can "invite" sitting or standing.
Cluster analysis identified 7 office types. Workers stood longer in large shared offices with trash cans out of reach and few decorations. They stood shorter in small shared offices with screens/boards,but this was explained by lower worktime control in those offices.
Individual features were studied. Longer standing took place in offices with two workstations compared to one, or additional chairs. Shorter sitting (quicker stand-ups) with trash cans or waste paper bins within arm's reach, and small under-desk cabinets.
The study concluded that workplace design is associated with sitting patterns to some extent, but primarily indirectly - through the work tasks, goals, and collegial interactions it affords (e.g., focused desk work in offices promotes sitting; interactions in shared spaces encourage standing). Key principles: (1) Office designs as wholes may impact sitting differently than isolated features (per Gestalt theory); (2) Design influences sitting via enabled behaviors, not just physical cues.
To reduce prolonged sitting (~70-80% of work time), designs should promote task variety and interactions (e.g., shared offices, out-of-reach bins to encourage movement). However, work characteristics like time control may be more influential than design alone. This supports holistic interventions combining environmental changes with behavioral strategies.
- 8 Carriers Targeted for Advance Premium Tax Credit Fraud Probeon February 10, 2026 at 1:40 PM
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in December 2025 highlighting significant vulnerabilities and instances of fraud in the Advance Premium Tax Credit (APTC) Program, which provides subsidies to reduce health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare). Key findings on the scale of improper payments and fraud include:
- - Overall Program Scale and Unreconciled Payments: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated $124 billion in APTC payments for 19.5 million enrollees in plan year 2024. A preliminary analysis identified over $21 billion in unreconciled APTC (representing 32% of APTC for enrollees who provided Social Security Numbers in plan year 2023), which could indicate overpayments or fraud but is not yet fully verified.
- - Payments to Deceased Individuals: CMS disbursed over $94 million in APTC for households where Social Security Numbers matched Social Security Administration death data in plan year 2023. Over 58,000 such SSNs (0.42% of those receiving APTC) were flagged, with CMS failing to conduct periodic reviews for all enrollees.
- - Identity Theft and SSN Misuse: More than 29,000 SSNs (0.21%) in plan year 2023 and nearly 66,000 (0.37%) in plan year 2024 had over 365 days of coverage, suggesting potential identity theft or errors. GAO's covert testing revealed weak controls, with all four fictitious applications in 2024 and 18 of 20 in 2025 receiving subsidized coverage despite invalid SSNs, fictitious documentation, and unverified income or citizenship. This resulted in about $2,350 in monthly APTC for late-2024 tests and over $10,000 monthly for active 2025 fictitious enrollees.
- - Unauthorized Enrollment Changes: At least 30,000 applications (0.4%) in plan year 2023 and 160,000 (1.5%) in plan year 2024 showed signs of unauthorized changes by agents or brokers, such as multiple brokers editing the same application on the same day. CMS received 275,000 complaints about unauthorized enrollments or plan switches from January to August 2024, with some leading to indictments for falsified applications.
The report notes that fraud is exacerbated by incentives for brokers (paid per enrollment) to enroll ineligible individuals, potentially leading to consumer harm like loss of provider access, higher costs, or subsidy repayments. GAO recommended CMS update its outdated 2018 fraud risk assessment, strengthen controls (e.g., SSN verification and death data reviews), and develop an antifraud strategy. Estimates from external analyses, such as one by the Paragon Health Institute, suggest federal spending on ineligible enrollees could exceed $20 billion in 2024.
On December 15, 2025, House Judiciary Committee Republicans sent letters (described in some contexts as demands under subpoena authority) to the CEOs of eight major health insurance companies as part of an oversight probe into ACA subsidy fraud, triggered by the GAO report.
The House Judiciary Committee sent letters to Blue Shield of California, Centene Corporation, CVS Health, Elevance Health, Kaiser Permanente, Oscar Health Inc. and GuideWell, demanding detailed information on their enrollment services.
These companies are involved in offering ACA marketplace plans, facilitating enrollments through brokers or agents, and receiving APTC subsidies on behalf of enrollees. The probe focuses on their role in potentially enabling or overlooking fraud, such as through broker incentives that encourage improper enrollments. The committee requested documents on enrollment numbers, unused benefits, internal fraud communications, and anti-fraud staff.
Some of the fraud comes from brokers, who are paid by insurance companies for each enrollment and are, therefore, incentivized to enroll as many people as possible - whether eligible or not. Brokers have targeted individuals with deceptive advertisements and pressured enrollees to lie about their incomes to obtain Obamacare subsidies. Evidence suggests that many individuals do not even know they are signing up for health insurance or agreeing to switch plans.
Last year, a federal judge blocked a regulation issued by the Trump Administration to fight Obamacare subsidy fraud, claiming it violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
- LCO Resolves Farm Workers' Wage-and-Hour Case for $6Mon February 10, 2026 at 1:40 PM
The California Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO) has secured a $6,175,000 settlement with Santa Maria-based Alco Harvesting LLC dba Bonipak Produce Inc. and related entities for widespread wage-and-hour violations that affected more than 10,000 farmworkers, including H-2A workers living in employer-provided housing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The LCO opened this investigation in 2020 after receiving information that a farmworker living in employer-provided housing had died from COVID-19. It discovered that Alco Harvesting failed to provide workers with the legally required written notice of available paid sick leave and COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. Without this information, workers could not effectively use these protections.
During the early days of the pandemic, workers who did not know how much paid sick leave they had were effectively prevented from staying home when sick, increasing the risk of COVID-19 transmissions. In some cases, H-2A workers believed to have COVID-19 were quarantined in crowded employer-provided motel rooms. The investigation also found other labor law violations, including unpaid transportation time, overtime and minimum wage.
The LCO filed this lawsuit on July 16, 2021, in Santa Barbara Superior Court against Alco Harvesting LLC dba Bonipak Produce Inc., and related entities. The court consolidated the LCO’s lawsuit with a separate action filed by the California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) on behalf of H-2A workers, along with several related lawsuits filed by other plaintiffs. Additional details about the defendants and the terms of the settlement are outlined in the court order.
As the case progressed, the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE) and CRLA referred additional H-2A workers to LCO investigators and supported outreach efforts. These organizations helped ensure workplace conditions were documented and violations were reported. CRLA and the PAGA plaintiffs consolidated with the LCO’s lawsuit also helped identify additional wage-and-hour violations, expanding the relief available to workers.
Of the total settlement, $4.2 million will be distributed directly to affected farmworkers, including approximately $1.5 million for paid sick leave and minimum wage violations. Remaining funds will be used to pay wages and other damages, penalties and interest to workers, counsel fees and expenses, individual plaintiff claims, and administrator expenses.
The settlement also includes non-monetary relief, such as required postings and additional notices to H-2A workers about paid sick leave, and ongoing compliance and reporting requirements.
CAUSE and CRLA are part of the California Workplace Outreach Project launched in 2020 to help address workplace concerns related to COVID-19.
- 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. - OSHA Clarifies Recording Workplace Injuries Related to Lithium-Ion Batterieson February 11, 2026 at 3:48 PM
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued a letter of interpretation clarifying whether injuries resulting from the use of personal rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in the workplace should be recorded as work-related on the OSHA Forms 300, 301, and 300-A or equivalent forms.
The letter addressed a scenario in which employees bring rechargeable lithium-ion batteries from home to the workplace for use in e-cigarettes, and that are not used in any equipment or device related to employee work duties. In this scenario, the battery terminals are unprotected and the employee or employees improperly carry these batteries in their pants pocket, a fire is sparked by the batteries, and that the fire results in employee injury.
If a work-related injury caused by a lithium-ion battery meets one or more of the general recording criteria in Section 1904.7 of the Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses standard, it must be recorded on the OSHA logs.
OSHA's Response: "No, section 1904.5(b)(3) of OSHA's recordkeeping regulation does not apply in this scenario, assuming that the employee was at your workplace during assigned work hours and present as a condition of employment."
However the Notice of Interpretation letter addresses recordkeeping requirements and highlights the growing need for awareness of safety risks associated with lithium-ion batteries in workplace environments. These batteries can pose safety and health risks to workers during manufacturing, usage, emergency response, disposal, and recycling. Potential risks include fires, explosions, and exposure to harmful chemicals.
Safety measures employers can take include implementing hazard controls during battery design and production; ensuring proper ventilation; storing batteries in cool, dry locations; monitoring storage areas for flammable and toxic gases; using designated recycling facilities for disposal; and providing safety showers and eyewash stations when handling battery materials.
A Letter of Interpretation is OSHA's official response to questions about how its requirements apply to specific workplace situations or hazards. They cannot create additional employer obligations. Each letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. These letters can help stakeholders understand how to comply with Federal OSHA standards, regulations, and section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in specific workplace situations.
In June, the Department of Labor launched its opinion letter program, which expands the department's longstanding commitment to providing meaningful compliance assistance that helps workers, employers, and other stakeholders understand how federal labor laws apply in specific workplace situations.
The public is encouraged to use the division's new opinion letters page to explore past guidance and submit new requests. The division will exercise discretion in determining whether and how it will respond to each request, which will focus primarily on attempting to address issues of broad-based concern.
Learn more about OSHA and safety practices related to lithium-ion batteries.
Note however that California is regulated by Cal/OSHA, which operates under an OSHA-approved state plan (approved in 1973). This means Cal/OSHA has primary authority to enforce occupational safety and health standards for both private-sector and public-sector (state and local government) workplaces in the state.
Under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), state plans like California's must be "at least as effective" as federal OSHA standards. Federal OSHA standards serve as a floor (minimum baseline): Cal/OSHA must cover all the same issues addressed by federal standards and cannot be less protective.
Cal/OSHA can (and often does) adopt more stringent or additional standards. California frequently issues rules that exceed federal requirements (e.g., stricter permissible exposure limits for chemicals, more comprehensive heat illness prevention, workplace violence prevention measures, or shorter injury reporting deadlines). In these cases, the more protective Cal/OSHA rule prevails for California employers.
Employers in California must comply with a stricter Cal/OSHA provision if there is one. Federal OSHA does not preempt or override a state plan's more stringent rules once the plan is approved. - ACOEM Studies Office Space/Room Design for Excessive Sittingon February 11, 2026 at 3:48 PM
The phrase "sitting is the new smoking" is a popular health slogan that highlights the serious health risks of prolonged sedentary behavior (especially sitting for extended periods), comparing them to the well-established dangers of smoking cigarettes. It emphasizes how modern lifestyles - desk jobs, screen time, commuting - lead to excessive sitting, which is linked to increased risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, metabolic issues, and even premature death, independent of regular exercise.
The phrase is widely attributed to Dr. James A. Levine, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine formerly at the Mayo Clinic (now associated with initiatives like the Mayo Clinic-Arizona State University Obesity Solutions). He is credited with coining or popularizing it in the early 2010s as part of his research on non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) and the metabolic impacts of sedentary time.
A key early mention appeared in a 2014 Los Angeles Times article titled "'Get Up!' or lose hours of your life every day, scientist says," where Levine is quoted saying things like: “Sitting is more dangerous than smoking, kills more people than HIV and is more treacherous than parachuting. We are sitting ourselves to death.” This tied into his book Get Up!: Why Your Chair Is Killing You and What You Can Do About It (published around that time).
And perhaps concerns about the health hazards of excessive sitting influenced researchers to conduct a new study, published ahead of print in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Researchers decided to explore how workplace design influences office workers' sitting behaviors, which are linked to health risks like cardiovascular disease and reduced productivity. The research draws on affordance theory and ecological models, emphasizing that environments can "invite" sitting or standing.
Cluster analysis identified 7 office types. Workers stood longer in large shared offices with trash cans out of reach and few decorations. They stood shorter in small shared offices with screens/boards,but this was explained by lower worktime control in those offices.
Individual features were studied. Longer standing took place in offices with two workstations compared to one, or additional chairs. Shorter sitting (quicker stand-ups) with trash cans or waste paper bins within arm's reach, and small under-desk cabinets.
The study concluded that workplace design is associated with sitting patterns to some extent, but primarily indirectly - through the work tasks, goals, and collegial interactions it affords (e.g., focused desk work in offices promotes sitting; interactions in shared spaces encourage standing). Key principles: (1) Office designs as wholes may impact sitting differently than isolated features (per Gestalt theory); (2) Design influences sitting via enabled behaviors, not just physical cues.
To reduce prolonged sitting (~70-80% of work time), designs should promote task variety and interactions (e.g., shared offices, out-of-reach bins to encourage movement). However, work characteristics like time control may be more influential than design alone. This supports holistic interventions combining environmental changes with behavioral strategies. - 8 Carriers Targeted for Advance Premium Tax Credit Fraud Probeon February 10, 2026 at 1:40 PM
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in December 2025 highlighting significant vulnerabilities and instances of fraud in the Advance Premium Tax Credit (APTC) Program, which provides subsidies to reduce health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare). Key findings on the scale of improper payments and fraud include:
- - Overall Program Scale and Unreconciled Payments: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated $124 billion in APTC payments for 19.5 million enrollees in plan year 2024. A preliminary analysis identified over $21 billion in unreconciled APTC (representing 32% of APTC for enrollees who provided Social Security Numbers in plan year 2023), which could indicate overpayments or fraud but is not yet fully verified.
- - Payments to Deceased Individuals: CMS disbursed over $94 million in APTC for households where Social Security Numbers matched Social Security Administration death data in plan year 2023. Over 58,000 such SSNs (0.42% of those receiving APTC) were flagged, with CMS failing to conduct periodic reviews for all enrollees.
- - Identity Theft and SSN Misuse: More than 29,000 SSNs (0.21%) in plan year 2023 and nearly 66,000 (0.37%) in plan year 2024 had over 365 days of coverage, suggesting potential identity theft or errors. GAO's covert testing revealed weak controls, with all four fictitious applications in 2024 and 18 of 20 in 2025 receiving subsidized coverage despite invalid SSNs, fictitious documentation, and unverified income or citizenship. This resulted in about $2,350 in monthly APTC for late-2024 tests and over $10,000 monthly for active 2025 fictitious enrollees.
- - Unauthorized Enrollment Changes: At least 30,000 applications (0.4%) in plan year 2023 and 160,000 (1.5%) in plan year 2024 showed signs of unauthorized changes by agents or brokers, such as multiple brokers editing the same application on the same day. CMS received 275,000 complaints about unauthorized enrollments or plan switches from January to August 2024, with some leading to indictments for falsified applications.
The report notes that fraud is exacerbated by incentives for brokers (paid per enrollment) to enroll ineligible individuals, potentially leading to consumer harm like loss of provider access, higher costs, or subsidy repayments. GAO recommended CMS update its outdated 2018 fraud risk assessment, strengthen controls (e.g., SSN verification and death data reviews), and develop an antifraud strategy. Estimates from external analyses, such as one by the Paragon Health Institute, suggest federal spending on ineligible enrollees could exceed $20 billion in 2024.
On December 15, 2025, House Judiciary Committee Republicans sent letters (described in some contexts as demands under subpoena authority) to the CEOs of eight major health insurance companies as part of an oversight probe into ACA subsidy fraud, triggered by the GAO report.
The House Judiciary Committee sent letters to Blue Shield of California, Centene Corporation, CVS Health, Elevance Health, Kaiser Permanente, Oscar Health Inc. and GuideWell, demanding detailed information on their enrollment services.
These companies are involved in offering ACA marketplace plans, facilitating enrollments through brokers or agents, and receiving APTC subsidies on behalf of enrollees. The probe focuses on their role in potentially enabling or overlooking fraud, such as through broker incentives that encourage improper enrollments. The committee requested documents on enrollment numbers, unused benefits, internal fraud communications, and anti-fraud staff.
Some of the fraud comes from brokers, who are paid by insurance companies for each enrollment and are, therefore, incentivized to enroll as many people as possible - whether eligible or not. Brokers have targeted individuals with deceptive advertisements and pressured enrollees to lie about their incomes to obtain Obamacare subsidies. Evidence suggests that many individuals do not even know they are signing up for health insurance or agreeing to switch plans.
Last year, a federal judge blocked a regulation issued by the Trump Administration to fight Obamacare subsidy fraud, claiming it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. - LCO Resolves Farm Workers' Wage-and-Hour Case for $6Mon February 10, 2026 at 1:40 PM
The California Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO) has secured a $6,175,000 settlement with Santa Maria-based Alco Harvesting LLC dba Bonipak Produce Inc. and related entities for widespread wage-and-hour violations that affected more than 10,000 farmworkers, including H-2A workers living in employer-provided housing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The LCO opened this investigation in 2020 after receiving information that a farmworker living in employer-provided housing had died from COVID-19. It discovered that Alco Harvesting failed to provide workers with the legally required written notice of available paid sick leave and COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. Without this information, workers could not effectively use these protections.
During the early days of the pandemic, workers who did not know how much paid sick leave they had were effectively prevented from staying home when sick, increasing the risk of COVID-19 transmissions. In some cases, H-2A workers believed to have COVID-19 were quarantined in crowded employer-provided motel rooms. The investigation also found other labor law violations, including unpaid transportation time, overtime and minimum wage.
The LCO filed this lawsuit on July 16, 2021, in Santa Barbara Superior Court against Alco Harvesting LLC dba Bonipak Produce Inc., and related entities. The court consolidated the LCO’s lawsuit with a separate action filed by the California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) on behalf of H-2A workers, along with several related lawsuits filed by other plaintiffs. Additional details about the defendants and the terms of the settlement are outlined in the court order.
As the case progressed, the Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE) and CRLA referred additional H-2A workers to LCO investigators and supported outreach efforts. These organizations helped ensure workplace conditions were documented and violations were reported. CRLA and the PAGA plaintiffs consolidated with the LCO’s lawsuit also helped identify additional wage-and-hour violations, expanding the relief available to workers.
Of the total settlement, $4.2 million will be distributed directly to affected farmworkers, including approximately $1.5 million for paid sick leave and minimum wage violations. Remaining funds will be used to pay wages and other damages, penalties and interest to workers, counsel fees and expenses, individual plaintiff claims, and administrator expenses.
The settlement also includes non-monetary relief, such as required postings and additional notices to H-2A workers about paid sick leave, and ongoing compliance and reporting requirements.
CAUSE and CRLA are part of the California Workplace Outreach Project launched in 2020 to help address workplace concerns related to COVID-19.