The California Labor Commissioner’s Office cited Costco Wholesale Corporation, Ryder Last Mile Inc., and Mega Nice Trucking LLC for misclassification and labor law violations affecting 58 delivery drivers. Mega Nice Trucking, based in Chula Vista, served as a subcontractor for third-party logistics companies, including Ryder Last Mile, which contracted with drivers to deliver large items from big box retailers across the San Diego region. An investigation by the LCO’s Bureau of Field Enforcement (BOFE) determined that drivers working under Mega Nice Trucking were systematically misclassified as independent contractors, depriving them of basic workplace protections such as minimum wage, overtime pay, and legally mandated meal and rest breaks. Although the drivers were reclassified as employees in 2023, the violations persisted. Workers continued to receive a flat daily rate without proper compensation for overtime hours or missed meal breaks. Investigators also uncovered falsified payroll records, suggesting deliberate efforts to conceal these ongoing labor law violations. The LCO also found that Costco and Ryder Last Mile exercised both direct and indirect control over the delivery drivers. They scheduled deliveries, mandated uniforms, enforced specific protocols, and closely monitored driver performance. These actions establish a joint employer relationship with Mega Nice Trucking and make Costco and Ryder Last Mile equally liable for the misclassification and resulting wage theft. The investigation began in July 2024 after two former Mega Nice Trucking employees filed complaints alleging wage theft and misclassification. During the investigation, Mega Nice Trucking admitted to misclassifying its drivers. Investigators also discovered that the company had previously been penalized by the California Employment Development Department for similar violations, indicating a repeated pattern of noncompliance. Costco, Ryder Last Mile, and Mega Nice Trucking have been jointly cited by the LCO for a total of $868,128, of which $662,978 is payable to the affected workers. All three employers have appealed the citations. The Bureau of Field Enforcement (BOFE) is a unit within the LCO enforcing key labor laws through on-site investigations and strategic enforcement actions. BOFE targets industries with high rates of labor violations, conducting workplace inspections to uncover wage theft, child labor violations, failure to carry workers’ compensation insurance, and other unlawful employment practices. Its work helps ensure fair treatment for workers while promoting a level playing field for responsible employers. BOFE has issued more than 2,200 citations against employers for labor law violations between January 2022 and October 2025, recovering over $48.4 million in stolen wages, damages, and interest on behalf of workers. This comes on top of multiple announcements this year highlighting a range of violations, including a settlement of $431,601 to return unpaid wages and damages to 86 carpenters, $1.1 Million in penalties issued to a Buena Park restaurant over wage and sick leave violations, and a citation of over $2 million for another case of misclassifying workers. BOFE has also issued more than 3,100 notices to discontinue labor law violations in the past year, and corrected violations that collectively impacted more than 40,000 California workers ...

The NCCI Medical Inflation Insights report provides a quarterly overview of the latest insights and analysis into what is driving changes in claim costs, and how these changes may or may not impact workers compensation. NCCI released its latest quarterly edition on October 30, 2025. The Workers Compensation Weighted Medical Price Index (WCWMI) is a composition of medical cost components from the Producer Price Index and the Consumer Price Index, reweighted using our Medical Call data to better match the mix of spend in workers compensation. In the third quarter of 2025, the average medical cost for a lost-time workers-compensation claim climbed 3.8 % compared with the same quarter a year earlier - noticeably above the 2.4 % rise in the Consumer Price Index for Medical Care yet only half the 7–8 % jumps seen in group-health plans. Physician services, which make up four out of every ten medical dollars, rose 4.2 %, pushed higher by more office visits and pricier evaluation-and-management codes. Hospital outpatient payments jumped 5.1 % as facilities layered on extra facility fees and shifted routine injections into hospital-owned clinics. Inpatient hospital costs stayed nearly flat, gaining just 0.8 %, thanks to fixed per-diem schedules in many states. Prescription-drug spend held steady at 0.0 % change, the eighth straight quarter of no inflation, as generics now fill 93 % of scripts and opioid volume has fallen 45 % in five years. Zoom out and the picture softens: the one-year rolling average sits at +3.5 %, the three-year average at +2.9 %, and the five-year average at +2.4 % - all comfortably below the 4–6 % medical inflation that carriers baked into 2025 rate filings. However, based on historical trends and the broader economic backdrop, NCCI believe this softening is more likely to be temporary than a new emerging trend. Should hospital services price growth rise back into the 4% to 5% range next year and other categories remain constant, overall price growth would be closer to 3% rather than the current 2.5% Looking ahead, early 2026 claim data show physician and outpatient prices still accelerating, but a wave of new generic launches and tighter hospital networks should keep the full-year increase under 4 %. For the first time in three years, workers-comp medical trend is once again tracking below both Medicare and group-health benchmarks, giving underwriting teams breathing room on loss costs and reserves ...

On September 25, 2019, at a Trader Joe's store where Ortiz and her brother, Noe Ortiz, were employed, Noe was knocked to the ground when another employee, Alex Salas, slammed a U-boat cart loaded with produce into Noe's flatbed cart. Noe appeared visibly injured and upset, though he stated he was okay. Ortiz expressed concern about the incident to a supervisor, who allegedly disciplined her verbally and told her to mind her own business. Ortiz was terminated a few days later for purportedly unprofessional conduct, which she claimed was pretextual retaliation for reporting unsafe workplace conditions. Ortiz filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, retaliation under Labor Code section 6310 (prohibiting discharge for reporting work-related injuries or unsafe conditions), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on Labor Code § 6310 and 132a (barring retaliation for workers' compensation claims). Trader Joe's demurred to the contract and implied covenant claims and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the implied covenant claim but overruled it as to the breach of contract claim. Ortiz did not appear at the demurrer hearing, and the record on appeal lacked a transcript or the court's written ruling on this matter. Trader Joe's subsequently moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims, arguing that Ortiz could not establish protected activity under Labor Code § 6310, as there was no evidence of a work-related injury to Noe (e.g., no broken bones, medical treatment, or workers' compensation claim) or an unsafe working condition (the incident was described as an isolated accident without malice or prior similar occurrences). Trader Joe's also presented evidence that Ortiz was terminated for repeated violations of its Crew Member Conduct Policy, including prior performance reviews documenting unprofessional behavior and a statement from Salas describing Ortiz's combative response to him. Additionally, Trader Joe's contended that Ortiz was an at-will employee, defeating her breach of contract claim, and that there was no link between her 2012 workers' compensation application and her 2019 termination, undermining her Labor Code § 132a-based claim. Ortiz opposed the motion focusing on her retaliation claim and submitting a declaration asserting that Noe appeared hurt, that she reported the incident because he was injured, and that it involved unsafe work practices. Following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment finding no triable issues: no evidence of injury or unsafe conditions under Labor Code § 6310, at-will employment status barring the contract claim, and no retaliation linked to section 132a. On appeal, Ortiz challenged the demurrer ruling on her implied covenant claim and the summary judgment grant. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the unpublished case of Ortiz v. Trader Joe's Co., -B329657.PDF (October 2025).The opinion emphasized that isolated accidents without harm or systemic risks do not constitute protected reports under Labor Code § 6310. The appellate court held that Ortiz forfeited her demurrer challenge due to an inadequate record (lacking the trial court's ruling or hearing transcript) and insufficient briefing, which failed to articulate the claim's elements or explain why the allegations sufficed, violating California Rules of Court and established precedents emphasizing the appellant's burden to provide reasoned argument and authority. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609 (Jameson).) “ ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ ” [Citation.] ‘Consequently, [the appellant] has the burden of providing an adequate record.’ ” (Id. at p. 609.) Regarding summary judgment, reviewed de novo, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to Ortiz's Labor Code § 6310 retaliation claim, requiring a prima facie showing of protected activity, adverse action, and causation. Trader Joe's met its initial burden by citing Ortiz's deposition testimony confirming no injury (e.g., no medical treatment or lost time) and describing the incident as an isolated accident. The burden then shifted to Ortiz, who failed to raise a triable issue. Her declaration was deemed speculative, conclusory, and self-serving, contradicted by her own testimony and other evidence (e.g., Noe's statement that he was "good," and no corroboration of injury). The court interpreted "work-related injury" under Labor Code § 6310 by analogy to reportable occupational injuries under section Labor Code § 6409.1, requiring lost time or medical treatment beyond first-aid criteria unmet here. Similarly, no evidence supported a reasonable belief in an unsafe working condition or practice. As Ortiz's wrongful termination claim depended on violations of Labor Code § 6310 or 132a, it failed accordingly ...

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its adult and child immunization schedules to apply individual-based decision-making to COVID-19 vaccination and recommend that toddlers receive protection from varicella (chickenpox) as a standalone immunization rather than in combination with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. The immunization schedules adopt recent recommendations by the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which were approved recently by Acting Director of the CDC and Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Jim O'Neill. "Informed consent is back," said Deputy Secretary O'Neill. "CDC's 2022 blanket recommendation for perpetual COVID-19 boosters deterred health care providers from talking about the risks and benefits of vaccination for the individual patient or parent. That changes today. "I commend the doctors and public health experts of ACIP for educating Americans about important vaccine safety signals. I also thank President Trump for his leadership in making sure we protect children from unintended side effects during routine immunization." Unlike the COVID-19 primary series vaccination pioneered by Operation Warp Speed (OWS) that reached a estimated nearly 85% of the U.S. adult population, just 23% of adults followed the CDC's most recent seasonal booster recommendation according to its National Immunization Survey. The booster shots prompted widespread risk-benefit concerns about their safety and efficacy as the COVID-19 virus became endemic following population-wide immunity acquired during the pandemic and OWS. ACIP's recommendation emphasized that the risk-benefit of vaccination in individuals under age 65 is most favorable for those who are at an increased risk for severe COVID-19 and lowest for individuals who are not at an increased risk, according to the CDC list of COVID-19 risk factors. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved marketing authorization for COVID-19 vaccines for individuals who have one or more of these risk factors, as well as for individuals age 65 and older. Individual-based decision-making is referred to on the CDC's immunization schedules as vaccination based on shared clinical decision-making, which references providers including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. It means that the clinical decision to vaccinate should be based on patient characteristics that unlike age are difficult to incorporate in recommendations, including risk factors for the underlying disease as well as the characteristics of the vaccine itself and the best available evidence of who may benefit from vaccination. Like routine recommendations, individual-based-decision-making allows for immunization coverage through all payment mechanisms including entitlement programs such as the Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Vaccines for Children Program, as well as insurance plans regulated by the Affordable Care Act. The CDC child and adolescent immunization schedule's new recommendation of standalone chickenpox vaccination for toddlers through age three follows evidence presented to ACIP by the CDC Immunization Safety Office's that healthy 12–23 months old toddlers have increased risk of febrile seizure seven to 10 days after vaccination for the combined measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine compared to those given immunization for chickenpox separately. The combination vaccine doubles the risk of febrile seizures without conferring additional protection from varicella compared to standalone vaccination ...

The California Department of Insurance will conduct a prenotice public discussion regarding contemplated adoption of California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 5, Subchapter 3, Article 4.7 (commencing with section 2319.7). The proposed regulations aim to clarify the information related to emerging risks faced by insurance companies that the Department will consider during future financial examinations. Participation in this prenotice public discussion will be in addition to, and not in substitution for, any participation in any formal rulemaking process that may follow. This invitation to the prenotice public discussion does not constitute a Notice of Proposed Action. Consequently, comments (oral or written) received in connection with these prenotice public discussions will not be included in any record of rulemaking that may follow. Similarly, the Department is not required to respond to comments received in connection with the prenotice public discussion. For this reason, if you wish to have comments included in any rulemaking file that may follow, or if you wish for the Department to respond to your comments as part of the process by which it adopts this regulation, you must present your comments during the public comment period according to the procedures outlined in any Notice of Proposed Action. To increase public participation and improve the quality of regulations, interested parties are invited to attend the virtual meeting and offer comment, if they so choose. In connection with this prenotice public discussion, the Department hereby seeks public input regarding alternatives to the contemplated regulations. This meeting is scheduled for November 14, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. The virtual workshop shall continue until all in attendance wishing to provide comments have commented, or 12:00 p.m., whichever is earlier. The link to register for the Web-based Virtual Format is https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_8L5R7ixrQK-e5QiKOTReig. Other methods of submitting comments are contained in the Prenotice Public Discussion Invitation. The Long-Term Solvency Regulation aligns with the Commissioner’s work as a member of the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), where he contributed to the development of guidance for insurance supervisors on climate risks, as well as various reports and standards. The regulation focuses on solvency strategies and leverages the growing implementation of standardized climate risk disclosures by regulators worldwide, alongside UN-led efforts to establish the Principles for Sustainable Insurance and the Sustainable Development Goals. Topics of Interest Include: - - Using global tools to safeguard Californians: Financial regulators from the Banque de France, the Bank of England, the Bank of the Netherlands, Canada’s chief insurance regulator, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore have participated in scenario analysis exercises. This presents an opportunity for enhanced collaboration among regulators to promote sustainability in insurance markets and to develop frameworks for addressing emerging risks. As the largest sub-national insurance market in the world, California's regulator must actively engage and secure a seat at the table in global discussions on long-term risk analysis and solvency. - - Robust financial oversight is essential for the security of Californians: The Department of Insurance supervises California-based insurance companies to ensure their stability and capacity to meet future obligations. According to the draft regulatory text released today, these companies must provide information to the Department to strengthen consumer protection against unforeseen challenges. Over the past three years, The Commissioner has contributed to the technical guidance of the IAIS climate risk framework, which has informed this proposed regulation as well as existing regulations in Europe for the banking industry. - - New information on impact of climate and technology: Insurance companies are significant institutional investors in the U.S., with approximately $8.2 trillion in assets reported in 2022. Their investment performance directly influences their capacity to underwrite new policies. The Long-Term Solvency Regulation requires documentation of risks and opportunities projected for 2030, 2040, and 2050, which could impact underwriting, investments, or operations. - - Addressing cybersecurity and artificial intelligence: The regulation will also address the evolving landscape of cybersecurity, focusing on data quality, the use of large datasets, and artificial intelligence. - - Mitigating catastrophic risk: Companies will be required to share information on strategies to mitigate climate-related risks, such as extreme weather patterns and gradual market shifts expected to become pronounced by 2050. These risks include sea-level rise, changes in land use, and variations in water availability and agricultural productivity. - - Enhancing stability amid transitions: The regulation will require information on transition risks associated with new technologies, particularly regarding the reduction of reliance on greenhouse gas-emitting technologies. Central to this effort are "stress tests" of climate risk scenarios for 2030, 2040, and 2050. “Scenario analysis is a critical risk management tool for navigating uncertainty,” said Dr. Sean Carmody, Executive Director, Policy and Advice Division of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the country’s insurance regulator. “It helps institutions anticipate and prepare for emerging risks—such as the impact of a changing climate and rapid technological innovation—by exploring a range of plausible futures and identifying areas of vulnerability and strategies that can strengthen resilience in the financial system.” ...

The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) has posted proposed changes to its Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) Rules to its online forum where members of the public may review and comment on the proposals. The forum will be closed after November 12, 2025. The EAMS Rules have not been updated since 2012. The proposed updates allow for submission of documents with electronic signatures, consistent with Government Code and Secretary of State Regulations authorizing digital signatures on communications with public entities. The proposed updates also allow for electronic filing and service of all WCAB case related documents in EAMS rather than requiring service by mail. The proposed changes will update the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Chapter 4.5, Division of Workers’ Compensation, Subchapter 1.8.5, Electronic Adjudication Management System Rules, Sections 10205.3, 10205.4, 10205.5, 10205.6, 10205.7, 10205.8, 10205.9, 10205.10, 10205.11, 10205.12, 10206.1 and 10206.2. These proposed changes will increase the efficiency of EAMS for stakeholders and reduce costs to DWC, parties and members of the public by decreasing expenditures on paper and postage. The forum can be found online on the DWC forums web page under “current forums.” Comments will be accepted on the forum until 5 p.m. on November 12, 2025 ...

Darren Gilbert, who had lost part of his left leg and some toes on his right foot, relied on a prosthetic leg and wheelchair to get around. In August 2021, he pulled his wheelchair-accessible van into a 7-Eleven in Rio Linda, California. The van-accessible parking spot was taken, so he parked in a regular space, climbed out on his prosthetic, and made his way across the lot. The curb ramp to the sidewalk was steep and uneven; he struggled to keep his balance and felt exhausted by the effort just to reach the door. Inside, he bought a few items and left. Two months later, Gilbert sued 7-Eleven under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He claimed the store’s parking lot and entryway violated federal accessibility standards and denied him equal access because of his disability. He wanted the barriers fixed and statutory damages under state law. While the case was pending, 7-Eleven quietly remodeled the parking lot and entrance. By the time the case went to trial, the store had a fully compliant van-accessible stall, access aisle, curb ramp, and walkway. The district judge ruled that the ADA claim for an injunction was now moot - there was nothing left to fix. But the violations had existed when Gilbert visited, and because any ADA violation automatically triggers liability under the Unruh Act, the judge awarded Gilbert $4,000 in statutory damages. 7-Eleven appealed, making three main arguments.First, it said Gilbert hadn’t proven that removing the barriers was “readily achievable” under the ADA - after all, he hadn’t submitted cost estimates or design plans. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Yes, plaintiffs typically have to propose a plausible fix whose benefits seem to outweigh the costs. But 7-Eleven had already fixed everything voluntarily, without claiming it was burdensome. That alone proved removal was feasible. The company could not meet its own burden to show otherwise. Secondly, 7-Eleven argued that Gilbert needed to prove his experience was worse than an able-bodied person’s - that the barriers affected him specifically because of his disability. The court rejected that argument also. If a physical barrier violates the ADA’s technical standards and relates to the plaintiff’s type of disability (here, mobility impairment), and the plaintiff personally encounters it, that’s discrimination. No side-by-side comparison is required. Finally, 7-Eleven attacked Gilbert’s standing under the Unruh Act. The district judge had found that Gilbert’s real reason for visiting was to build a lawsuit - he’d filed about 70 similar cases - and that his purchase was just a pretext. 7-Eleven insisted that without a “bona fide” intent to be a genuine customer, he could not recover. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s award of statutory damages for Gilbert’s claim that 7-Eleven violated § 51(f) of the Unruh Act in the published case of Gilbert v. 7-Eleven, Inc. 23-4045 (October 2025). California law is clear: if you walk (or roll) into a store, encounter discrimination, and transact business, you have been injured under the Unruh Act. Motivation to sue is irrelevant. The California Supreme Court had already said so in earlier cases: even “professional plaintiffs” who pay a discriminatory fee or face a real barrier have standing. And for construction-related accessibility claims like this one, state law spells out exactly what’s needed: personal encounter plus some difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment. Intent to return or shop again is not on the list. The court distinguished a recent California Supreme Court case involving online terms of service in White v. Square, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 1019 (2019) 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 446 P.3d 276, where intent did matter - because the plaintiff never transacted at all. Here, Gilbert bought something from the store at the time of his visit. That was enough. Darren Gilbert passed away in July 2024, before the appeal was decided. His successors stepped in. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the $4,000 award in full and sent the case back only to sort out the substitution formalities. In the end, a voluntary fix helped prove the violation, a completed purchase established standing, and a litigation motive changed nothing. The barriers were real, the injury was personal, and California law demanded accountability ...

The California Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) announced that registration for its 33rd annual Educational Conference is now open. The conference will take place in person on March 5-6, 2026 at the Oakland Marriott City Center Hotel and on March 19-20, 2026 at the Los Angeles Airport Marriott. This annual event is the largest workers’ compensation training in the state and allows claims administrators, medical providers, attorneys, rehabilitation counselors, employers, human resources professionals and others to learn firsthand about the most recent developments in the system. Attendees will have the opportunity for face-to-face networking with colleagues and will learn about current topics from a variety of workers’ compensation experts from DWC, other state and public agencies, as well as the private sector. DWC has applied for continuing educational credits from attorney, rehabilitation counselor, case manager, disability management, human resource and qualified medical examiner certifying organizations, among others. Organizations who would like to become sponsors of the DWC conference can do so by going to the International Workers’ Compensation Federation (IWCF) website. Attendee, exhibitor, and sponsor registration may be found at the DWC Educational Conference webpage. Tentative Topics Include: • DWC Update • AI with a Claims Focus • Medical and Legal Ethics • Women in Law and Business • Cumulative Trauma • Apportionment • Chronic Pain Treatment • Case Law Update • Top Litigation Tips • Med/Legal Report Writing • Alternative Dispute Resolution ...

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent, non-profit research institute that conducts evidence-based reviews of health care interventions, including prescription drugs, other treatments, and diagnostic tests. In collaboration with patients, clinical experts, and other key stakeholders, ICER analyzes the available evidence on the benefits and risks of these interventions to measure their value and suggest fair prices. ICER also regularly reports on the barriers to care for patients and recommends solutions to ensure fair access to prescription drugs. ICER just released its new 118 page “Launch Price and Access Report,” finding that drug launch prices continue to rise at a rate that exceeds inflation, gross domestic product (GDP) growth, and overall healthcare costs. ICER’s analysis focused on “net price,” or the actual price paid after rebates and discounts, offering crucial information to policymakers, given that most previous analyses of drug pricing trends focus on the publicly available “list price,” which does not always reflect the actual price paid. The report, using net prices, found that the inflation-adjusted median annual launch price of drugs increased by 51% from 2022 to 2024, while the annual list price increased 24% during the same period. Even after accounting for the differences in the mix of drugs approved each year (by holding certain characteristics constant, like the number of gene therapies approved), the annual net launch price increased by 33% per year. ICER also conducted an in-depth review of the 23 drugs in scope that had been previously reviewed by ICER. The analysis indicated that aligning the prices of these therapies with ICER’s Health Benefit Price Benchmark (HBPB) could have saved approximately $1.3 to $1.5 billion in the first year post-approval alone – savings that could have been redirected to higher-value drugs and services. To evaluate the patient access barriers to newly launched drugs, ICER focused on the novel drugs approved in 2024. For the majority of these drugs, insurance coverage policies were not publicly available, even up to one year after approval, and the majority of commercial first-time prescriptions for newly approved drugs were rejected. Non-coverage of the drug was the most common reason for rejection. “The results of ICER’s independent analysis on trends in launch pricing and patient access highlight the critical moment facing the U.S. health care system,” stated ICER’s President and CEO Sarah K. Emond, MPP. “Launch prices are going up, patient access is going down, and in many cases, we are overpaying for treatments. As Americans confront rising health insurance premiums and risk losing health insurance altogether, it has never been more critical to move towards a system that pays for value. When we price treatments based on the benefits they deliver to patients, we ensure Americans have access to affordable, high-quality treatments, all while continuing to reward the hallmark innovation of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.” ...

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, increased prevalence of remote work has created a major shift in US work patterns, with external estimates suggesting that 20–30% of all workers work remotely some or all of the time, up from 4–7% before the pandemic. This study reviews the impact of this shift on workers compensation frequency. In this study, we assess the “remote-friendliness” of different types of occupations and focus much of our analysis on workers at businesses in what we define as the Combined Office sector of the economy or workers whose payroll is classified in a standard exception code for workers compensation or similar codes, what we define as Special Classes. Almost all remote-friendly workers fall into one or both of these categories. We find evidence that more remote-friendly jobs are associated with lower frequency. Using NCCI data, we observe a 40% decline in frequency for Combined Office workers in Special Classes from 2019 to 2022, much larger than the overall frequency decline in the same time period. Workers who fall into one of these categories but not both also experienced larger frequency declines than the average observed over this period across all jobs. These findings hold when using regression analysis to account for more nuanced differences between classes and sectors. We estimate downward effects of remote work on workers compensation frequency, especially for the group of Combined Office workers who are also in Special Classes - the group with the greatest remote work prevalence. We find larger effects of remote work on slip and fall injuries and motor vehicle accidents than for strains and contact injuries. However, the focus on office workers and exception classes puts an upper bound on the overall impact of remote work on workers compensation frequency. Workers who are either in the Combined Office sector or in a Special Class make up a slight majority of payroll as reported to NCCI, but just one-tenth of the premium. Workers in both groups make up even less: around 20% of payroll but only 2% of premium. Thus, even the large change in frequency among such workers that we observed only led to a modest change in overall frequency patterns. This may explain why, despite the large shift in the work environment, remote work has had a modest impact on overall WC trends in recent years. Key Findings - - Remote work has created a major and durable shift in the US work environment since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, primarily in office and clerical work. Currently, about 20–30% of US workers work remotely. - - We estimate that about half of all workers in either an office-based business or a clerical class code have remote-friendly jobs. The share rises to about three-fourths for workers who fall into both categories. Very few workers who fall outside both of these groups have remote-friendly jobs. - - These two categories of workers account for over half of all workers compensation payroll but only 11% of workers compensation premium. - - Remote-friendly work is associated with the observance of significant frequency declines in the last five years. The impact of remote work on overall workers compensation frequency is small because such workers represent a small share of overall premium. - - The prevalence of remote work has been mostly stable since the end of 2021, with a relatively small amount of net return to office since then. However, it is not yet clear whether the workers compensation system has fully adjusted to the potential impacts of remote work. Check out the complete report to learn more ...

A Marin County resident was sentenced October 20 in Superior Court to 180 days in Marin County Jail and potentially additional prison time after pleading guilty to felony insurance fraud. The Marin County District Attorney’s Office filed multiple insurance fraud charges against Marilyn Gibson, 46, on February 13, 2025. On July 28, Gibson pled guilty to a felony violation of Penal Code section 550(a)(4), Filing a False Insurance Claim, and admitted several enhancements related to her prior criminal history, which included multiple prior fraud-related convictions. At the conclusion of the October 20 sentencing hearing, Gibson was remanded into custody to serve 180 days in jail. Judge Kelly Simmons imposed a three-year prison term that is stayed pending Gibson’s successful completion of probation. Gibson is on a two-year grant of supervised probation during which she must pay a penal fine of $1,000, complete 40 hours of community service, and complete a theft awareness class. Should Gibson fail to comply with the terms of her probation, she will be required to serve the three-year prison sentence. On September 15, 2021, Gibson rear-ended another car, causing significant damage to the hood of her car. The following day, Gibson called an insurance company and obtained a policy without disclosing the accident she had caused. Eight days later, Gibson submitted a false claim under the recently acquired policy, asserting her car was parked near Carlotta Circle in unincorporated Strawberry when it was struck by another car that fled the scene. That claim was denied due to lack of proper collision coverage, and the policy later was canceled for nonpayment. Six weeks later, Gibson obtained a second insurance policy with a different insurance carrier effective December 8, 2021. After waiting one month, on January 8, 2022, Gibson submitted a false claim under this second policy, asserting that her recently parked car was struck by another car that fled the scene. Gibson submitted the same photos showing damage to the hood of her car that she had submitted in support of the September 23, 2021, false claim. An investigator for the second insurance company determined that Gibson had made the same claim to the first insurance company and confronted her in a telephone interview. Gibson denied making the first claim and insisted that she bought the car in September 2021 and had not experienced any accidents whatsoever. The DA’s Office filed charges following a detailed review and analysis of the case. The DA’s Office would like to remind the public that reporting false information to an auto insurance carrier when making an insurance claim constitutes insurance fraud. A person still can be prosecuted for fraud even if the claim is denied and no money is obtained from the insurance company. Auto insurance fraud is a felony that can result in a maximum punishment of five years in prison and a $50,000 fine ...

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2025 (H.R. 5258) is a bipartisan bill introduced in the 119th Congress (2025-2026) aimed at curbing frivolous lawsuits in federal courts by reinstating mandatory sanctions on attorneys who file baseless claims. It builds on similar legislation from prior sessions, such as the 2017 version (H.R. 720), which passed the House but stalled in the Senate. As of October 23, 2025, H.R. 5258 remains pending, having been introduced on August 1, 2025, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee without further action yet. This act addresses concerns that changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in 1993 - making sanctions for frivolous filings discretionary - have led to an increase in meritless litigation, costing businesses and the economy billions annually (estimated at over $250 billion in direct tort costs). Proponents argue it restores accountability to the legal system by deterring "lawsuit abuse," where attorneys file weak cases to extract settlements, harming defendants through prolonged litigation and fees. The bill's core goal is to protect victims of such abuse by ensuring full compensation for their expenses. The bill primarily amends Rule 11(c) to: - - Mandate Sanctions: Courts must impose penalties on attorneys, law firms, or parties filing frivolous, meritless, or abusive claims, rather than leaving it optional. - - Types of Sanctions: These can include monetary fines, reimbursement of the opposing party's reasonable attorney's fees and costs, public censures, or other appropriate measures. - - Eliminate Safe Harbor: Removes the 21-day "safe harbor" provision, which previously allowed filers to withdraw or correct pleadings to avoid sanctions. - - Scope: Applies to federal civil actions, with potential extension to state cases affecting interstate commerce in some versions. - - Additional Accountability: Requires prevailing parties to recover full litigation costs if a Rule 11 motion succeeds, and subjects the discovery phase to sanctions. These changes aim to make frivolous filings riskier for attorneys, potentially reducing court congestion and economic burdens. Sponsors and Support - - Primary Sponsor: Representative Doug Collins (R-GA), with cosponsors including Representatives Mike Johnson (R-LA) and others focused on judicial reform. - - Historical Backing: Earlier iterations were championed by figures like former House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), with cosponsors such as Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK). - - Endorsements: Supported by business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which highlight real-world impacts (e.g., a New York ladder manufacturer bankrupted by litigation costs despite no lost judgments). Prior Versions: - - 2017 (H.R. 720): Passed House (230-188) but did not advance in Senate. - - 2015 (H.R. 758): Passed House Judiciary but stalled. - - 2011 (H.R. 966) and 2004 (H.R. 4571): Similar proposals that did not become law. Given the Republican majority in the 119th Congress and alignment with tort reform priorities, it could see movement if prioritized, but faces procedural hurdles like committee approval. Supporters view it as essential for economic efficiency and fairness, but opponents - including civil rights advocates and the American Bar Association - argue it could: - - Chill Legitimate Claims: Novel or high-risk cases (e.g., civil rights or environmental suits) might be deterred due to sanction fears. - - Increase Satellite Litigation: More motions for sanctions could clog courts further. - - Disproportionate Impact: May burden plaintiffs' attorneys more than defendants, potentially undermining access to justice. Overall, the act represents ongoing Republican-led efforts to tighten federal litigation rules, with its fate likely tied to broader judicial reform agendas in the 119th Congress. For the full bill text and updates, check Congress.gov ...

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a historic $4 billion settlement in April 2025 to resolve over 11,000 claims of sexual abuse occurring in county-run juvenile detention facilities and foster homes, with allegations dating back to 1959. This settlement, the largest of its kind in U.S. history, aimed to compensate victims without requiring extensive individual vetting or depositions, prioritizing a bulk resolution to avoid potential bankruptcy from prolonged litigation. It was enabled in part by California's Assembly Bill 218, which extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims starting in 2020. A separate additional settlement was announced in October 2025 for about 400+ more claims (~$828 million) under a law change in 2020 that allowed older claims. The settlement dwarfs previous sexual abuse payouts, including the nearly $2.5 billion settlement by the Boy Scouts of America to the more than 84,000 people who allege they were sexually abused as children by Boy Scout leaders, as well as the more than $1 billion paid by the University of Southern California to settle lawsuits related to George Tyndall, a gynecologist accused of sexually abusing patients at the student health center. It would also surpass the $880 million that the archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay in 2024 to cover more than 1,300 claims of childhood sexual abuse, as well as the $500 million that Michigan State University agreed to pay in 2018 to the hundreds of alleged victims of sports physician Larry Nassar. On October 2, 2025, the Los Angeles Times published an investigation revealing allegations of fraud in the settlement process, specifically involving recruiters who allegedly paid vulnerable individuals cash incentives to file lawsuits as plaintiffs. The Times identified seven initial plaintiffs who claimed they received payments ranging from $20 to $200 to sign up, with some admitting they were given "scripts" to fabricate stories of abuse at facilities like Central Juvenile Hall or Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, despite never experiencing such incidents or even being detained there. Recruiters reportedly targeted economically disadvantaged people outside county social services offices in areas like South Los Angeles and Long Beach, sometimes under false pretenses such as offering work as "movie extras" or promising referral bonuses of $100 per person signed up. These activities were described as occurring sporadically over the past year, with recruiters paid per signup. Some plaintiffs were allegedly represented by the Downtown L.A. Law Group (DTLA), which handles over 2,700 cases - about a quarter of the total in the settlement - and stands to collect 45% of each client's payout in fees. A follow-up Times article on October 16, 2025, detailed two additional plaintiffs who came forward after the initial report, bringing the total to nine, with four now explicitly admitting to inventing their claims based on provided scripts. For example, Austin Beagle and Nevada Barker, recent arrivals from Texas, said they were approached outside a Long Beach office, driven to DTLA's headquarters, instructed to memorize a detailed abuse narrative from around 2005, and paid $100 each after signing retainers. They were told "the worse it was, the better" for their potential payout, which could range from $100,000 to $3 million under the settlement terms. Such practices could violate California laws against "capping," where non-attorneys solicit clients for firms, and raise concerns about the integrity of mass tort settlements. Downtown L.A. Law Group has denied any involvement in or knowledge of payments, recruitment under false pretenses, or encouraging fabricated claims, emphasizing its vetting process and stating it would terminate any associated parties engaging in such behavior. Following the Times' reporting, DTLA requested dismissals with prejudice for at least two cases and implemented additional screening to remove potentially false claims. According to The Times, four days after The Times’ investigation was published, DTLA asked for a lawsuit on behalf of Carlshawn Stovall, one of the men who said he fabricated claims, to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled. The firm requested a second case spurred by Juan Fajardo, who said he made up a claim using the name of a family member, to be dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 9 after Fajardo says he told lawyers he wanted to drop the lawsuit. According to The Times October 2nd report, Juan Fajardo said he used to sell phones next to the recruitment activity, and he would watch a man pull up outside the social services office in a Tesla most Fridays and hand the recruiters cash, which they would dole out the following week to potential plaintiffs. The recruiters told him they were paid per person they signed up, he said. “Just make up a story, say you got touched, here’s $50,” Fajardo recalled the recruiters who set up shop next to him saying. “They’ll give it to you and then say, ‘Hey you never know, you might even get a lawsuit.’” After a few months of watching, Fajardo said, he decided to make up a story, too. He didn’t want to give his real name, so he gave the recruiter the name of a family member and a fake birth date. He said he took $50 and later got a call from a law firm. Ten minutes after the call, he said, he was told his case had been accepted. DTLA filed the lawsuit under the family’s member name on Aug. 28, 2024. Fajardo said he doesn’t feel right trying to collect the money. “I said something like, ‘They videotaped us while we’re in the showers, touching us while they pat us down,’” he recounted. “That’s what everyone was saying. I was like, ‘I’ll just use that instead of trying to make up a whole different lie.’” The LA County Board of Supervisors voted on October 15, 2025, to launch an investigation into the settlement amid these allegations. Separately, on October 17, 2025, the county announced a tentative additional $828 million settlement for about 400 more abuse claims, building on the original accord ...

Training repayment agreement provisions, known as "TRAPs," refer to clauses in employment contracts that require the worker to pay for training programs if the worker leaves their job within a certain amount of time. These provisions are gaining popularity especially in light of many state and federal proposals to ban noncompete agreements that temporarily prohibit departing employees from joining or starting competing enterprises. A report by the Student Borrower Protection Center in 2022 estimated that three industries heavily reliant on the clauses – healthcare, trucking, and retail – employ one third of US workers. A 2022 survey of registered nurses (RNs) found that nearly 40% of RNs who started their career in the past decade were subject to a TRAP for new graduate residency programs. The California Legislature approved Assembly Bill 695, an act to add Section 16608 to the Business and Professions Code, and to add Section 926 to the Labor Code, relating to employment. AB 695 was approved and signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 13, 2025. This new law, which takes effect on January 1, makes it unlawful to include in any employment contract, or to require a worker to execute as a condition of employment or a work relationship a contract that includes, specified contract terms that require a worker to assume a debt if the employment is terminated, except as provided; provides that the unlawful contract is a contract in restraint of trade and is void; and provides for a private right of action. Proponents of these "stay-or-pay" provisions argue that they are necessary to lessen the costs of turnover, and are a more narrowly tailored and fairer substitute for noncompete clauses, given that TRAPs only apply if the worker leaves before the employer's investment has been recouped. However, opponents argue that these programs shift onto workers the costs of basic on-the-job training, and limit their mobility and bargaining power. The California Nurses Association, Student Borrower Protection Center, California Employment Lawyers Association, California Federation of Labor Unions AFL-CIO, and American Economic Liberties Project, co-sponsors of this measure, state that, "In 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)'s comprehensive report on employer-driven debt included examples of TRAPs where workers were indebted to their employers between $4,000 and $30,000. Through TRAPs, employers often shift onto workers the costs of on-the-job training, orientation, equipment, or other supplies necessary to perform their work duties. In other stay-or-pay contracts, employers force workers into contracts with income-share requirements, quit fees, liquidated damages provisions, or other financial arrangements that a worker must pay their employer if they leave their job before fulfilling a minimum work commitment ...

The federal judicial branch of government announced that beginning on Monday, Oct. 20, it will no longer have funding to sustain full, paid operations. Until the ongoing lapse in government funding is resolved, federal courts will maintain limited operations necessary to perform the Judiciary’s constitutional functions. Federal judges will continue to serve, in accordance with the Constitution, but court staff may only perform certain excepted activities permitted under the Anti-Deficiency Act. The Anti-Deficiency Act is a key piece of legislation that ensures federal agencies adhere to the financial guidelines set by Congress. It prohibits federal agencies from obligating or expending federal funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation, and from accepting voluntary services. The Act is codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341 (a) (1) (A) and § 1342, and it is enforced to prevent the incurring of obligations or expenditures that exceed the amounts available in appropriations or funds. Violations of the Act can lead to administrative and penal sanctions, including fines, imprisonment, or both. Examples of excepted work include activities necessary to perform constitutional functions under Article III, activities necessary for the safety of human life and protection of property, and activities otherwise authorized by federal law. Excepted work will be performed without pay during the funding lapse. Staff members not performing excepted work will be placed on furlough. Each appellate, district, and bankruptcy court will make operational decisions regarding how its cases and probation and pretrial supervision will be conducted during the funding lapse. Each court and federal defender’s office will determine the staffing resources necessary to support such work. Anyone with Judiciary business should direct questions to the appropriate clerk of court’s office, probation and pretrial supervision office, or federal defender organization, or consult their websites. Find contact information and websites for federal court units. Other shutdown information: - - The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system will remain in operation for electronic filing of documents. Case information will be available on PACER. - - Individual courts will determine which cases will continue on schedule, and which may be delayed. - - The jury program is funded by money not affected by the appropriations lapse and will continue to operate. Jurors should follow instructions from courts and report to courthouses as directed. - - The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which maintains this website on behalf of the Judiciary, will not have staffing to answer the AO’s public telephone number. View contact information for the Administrative Office during the funding lapse. A government-wide shutdown began Oct. 1. The Judiciary was able to continue paid operations through Oct. 17, with limited additional work performed over the weekend of Oct. 18-19, using court fee balances and other funds not dependent on a new appropriation ...

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Kaiser Permanente are currently in ongoing settlement negotiations regarding the Medicare fraud allegations in case 3:18-cv-01347-EMC (one of several consolidated whistleblower suits under the broader action United States ex rel. Osinek v. Kaiser Permanente, No. 3:13-cv-03891-EMC). According to a Stipulation to Stay Proceedings filed by the parties on October 17, 2025, "the parties have made substantial progress in reaching an agreement to fully resolve Case Nos. 3:13-cv-03891-EMC, 3:18-cv-01347-EMC, and 3:21-cv-03894-EMC and wish to continue those discussions." And based on the stipulations of the parties "the parties jointly request the Court stay proceedings and all case deadlines for ninety (90) days to continue discussions regarding potential options for resolving the case and, to the extent the parties have not reached a resolution at the end of the stay, the parties agree to submit a revised Case Management Order for consideration by the Court on or before January 15, 2026." The federal judge granted a 90 day stay of the proceedings in the remaining three cases (out of an original six, with three dismissed of three of them due to an overlap). The United States has intervened in six complaints pending in Northern California federal court, alleging that members of the Kaiser Permanente consortium violated the False Claims Act by submitting inaccurate diagnosis codes for its Medicare Advantage Plan enrollees in order to receive higher reimbursements. The Kaiser Permanente consortium members are headquartered in Oakland, California. The six lawsuits were filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to sue on behalf of the government and to receive a share of any recovery. The Act also permits the government to intervene in such lawsuits, as it has done here. Ronda Osinek was the first-filed case and was followed by five other cases: Taylor, Arefi, Stein, Bryant, and Bicocca.The cases were consolidated in June 2021. Osinek alleged that starting around 2007, Kaiser Permanente began a “scheme to upcode diagnoses to ensure Medicare payments for reimbursable, high-value conditions.” This was done was by use of data mining for high value cases, and then determining the diagnoses its doctors would need to make to support the Medicare reimbursement. She then alleges that there is “an escalation process for physicians who do not agree with the data mining prompts”; “[p]hysicians will have to meet one-on-one with Data Quality Trainers if they refused to make diagnoses changes that are presented by data mining”; “physicians have personal report cards based on how they perform in certain areas [including response to refreshing and data mining prompts], which are tied to their compensation”; and there are “mandatory meetings called ‘coding parties,’ where physicians are gathered in a single room with computers and asked to review past progress notes for addenda related to revised medical diagnoses.” ...

On August 1, 2022, Cal/OSHA issued a citation to Uber Technologies Inc., pursuant to Labor Code section 6317, subdivision (a), identifying three alleged regulatory violations during the period April 29, 2022 to August 1, 2022: (1) failure to establish an effective injury and illness prevention program (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 3203, subd. (a)); (2) failure to maintain records (id.,§ 3203, subd. (b)); and (3) failure to establish an effective Covid-19 prevention program for its drivers (id., § 3205, subd. (c)). Uber appealed the citation to the Appeals Board (the Uber Cal/OSHA appeal) and asserted affirmative defenses challenging Cal/OSHA’s jurisdiction on the theory that, under Business and Professions Code section 7451, subdivisions (a)–(d), the drivers working for Uber were independent contractors, not employees. On March 17, 2023, four Uber drivers, LaShon Hicks, James Jordan, Robert Moreno, and Karen VanDenBerg (collectively, the Uber Drivers), moved for party status in the Uber Cal/OSHA appeal, asserting they were “affected employees.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 354, subd. (b).) Uber objected to the motion on the same ground asserted in its affirmative defenses, i.e., Cal/OSHA did not have jurisdiction to issue the citation because, under Business and Professions Code section 7451, the Uber Drivers were independent contractors, not employees. The Appeals Board granted the Uber Drivers’ motion to be made parties to the Uber Cal/OSHA appeal. Uber asked the Appeals Board to reconsider that decision, again asserting the Uber Drivers could not be “‘affected employees’” because they were independent contractors, not employees. The same day it filed its petition for reconsideration, Uber filed a complaint for declaratory relief in Orange County Superior Court against Cal/OSHA, the chief of Cal/OSHA, and the Uber Drivers. The complaint asked the court to “enter a declaratory judgment, declaring that the [Uber Drivers] are independent contractors, and not Uber’s employees, under [section 7451’s] standard,” as well as “a declaratory judgment, declaring that Cal/OSHA is exceeding its jurisdiction in investigating and issuing its citation to Uber.” Cal/OSHA and the Uber Drivers demurred to Uber’s complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend on the ground Uber had not exhausted its administrative remedies because the question of the drivers’ employment status - and the related question of Cal/OSHA’s jurisdiction - were still pending in the Uber Cal/OSHA appeal. A judgment of dismissal was entered against Uber, which appealed to the Callifornia Court of Appeal. The facts regarding Lyft are similar. On August 1, 2022, Cal/OSHA issued a citation to Lyft identifying the same three alleged regulatory violations as those set forth in the Uber citation, for the same three-month period. Plaintiffs’ appeals for all purposes. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court dismissal on the ground that the Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies in the unpublished case of Uber Technologies v. Cal. Dept. of Industrial Relations -G064372 (October 2025). “Generally, ‘a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts. [Citations.] Under this rule, an administrative remedy is exhausted only upon “termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.”’ [Citations.] ‘The rule “is not a matter of judicial discretion, but is a fundamental rule of procedure . . . binding upon all courts.”’ [¶] The exhaustion doctrine is primarily grounded on policy concerns related to administrative autonomy and judicial efficiency. [Citation.] The doctrine favors administrative autonomy by allowing an agency to reach a final decision without interference from the courts. [Citation.] Unless circumstances warrant judicial involvement, allowing a court to intervene before an agency has fully resolved the matter would ‘constitute an interference with the jurisdiction of another tribunal.’ [Citation.] Further, creating an agency with particular expertise to administer a specific legislative scheme would be frustrated if a litigant could bypass the agency in the hope of seeking a different decision in court. [¶] As to judicial efficiency, the doctrine allows an administrative agency to provide relief without requiring resort to costly litigation. [Citation.] Even when an administrative remedy does not resolve all issues or provide complete relief, it still may reduce the scope of litigation. [Citation.] Requiring a party to pursue an available administrative remedy aids judicial review by allowing the agency to draw upon its expertise and develop a factual record for the court’s consideration.” (Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 372, 382–383.) In short, as our Supreme Court has underscored, “courts should not interfere with an agency determination until the agency has reached a final decision” and “overworked courts should decline to intervene in an administrative dispute unless absolutely necessary.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 391, italics added, cited with approval in Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080 (Coachella).) "This fundamental principle is fully applicable here." This undoubtedly is just one of many court battles that will be fought over the Cal/OSHA jurisdiction over Uber/Lyft and potentially other gig economy employees ...

AI now brings its superpowers to mammography, boosting the screening tool’s known abilities to help detect breast cancer earlier and increase the chances of successful treatment. California-based Sutter Health is one organization embracing the innovation. The integrated, not-for-profit has expanded access to AI-driven breast health diagnostics across its system. Powered by Ferrum Health’s platform, this secure AI infrastructure now supports more than 60 imaging sites across the system, helping optimize performance by standardizing care, accelerating detection and delivering insights to clinicians and patients alike. Since launching, the overall AI-powered program across Sutter has already delivered measurable impact. Breast cancer detection rates increased from 4.8 to more than 6.0 per 1,000 screenings. In the second quarter of 2025 alone: - - More than 35,000 screening mammograms processed using AI - - 14% of women flagged as high-risk - - 7% identified as extremely high-risk, enabling early intervention - - 38% of patients had dense breast tissue, where AI offers added value - - 44% of studies showed no AI marks, helping radiologists read with greater efficiency and confidence “By expanding access and investing in innovation, we’re redefining cancer care from prevention to survivorship, today and for the future,” said Dr. Nitin Rohatgi, medical oncologist and chair of the Breast Cancer Programs of Oncology Distinction, or POD, at Sutter Health. Sutter’s latest AI-enhanced mammography is now part of the Carol Ann Read Breast Health Center’s 40-foot mobile mammography van. A state-of-the-art clinic on wheels, it brings 3D mammography services to women in the East Bay and surrounding areas. The service is particularly helpful to those who face challenges with transportation, scheduling or access to traditional clinic settings. Since launching in the spring, the van has helped process nearly 500 screening mammograms using AI through September. Additionally it has flagged 12% of women as high-risk and identified 3% as extremely high-risk, enabling early intervention. “We are honored to work with Sutter Health in extending access to life-changing diagnostics throughout their footprint,” said Pelu Tran, CEO and co-founder of Ferrum Health. “Our platform is built to support health systems so they have the oversight they need to deploy safe and powerful clinical AI tools — from major medical centers to mobile vans serving vulnerable populations — while maintaining security, privacy and strong governance.” ...

In 2022, the California Health Care Quality and Affordability Act (SB 184, Chapter 47, Statutes of 2022) established the Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA) within the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI). (Health and Safety Code, Division 107, Part 2, Chapter 2.6). Title 22, Division 7, Chapter 11.5, Article 1 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth the regulatory requirements for Material Change Transaction Notices and Cost and Market Impact Reviews. A lawsuit filed this week in San Francisco County Superior Court by the California Hospital Association (and its membership of about 400 hospitals) alleges that the California Office of Health Care Affordability's (OHCA) board, what the Association claims is "a group of eight unelected bureaucrats," has raced to implement health care spending caps while ignoring critical factors, including: - - The underlying costs of care (labor expenses, advancements in clinical care, pharmaceutical prices, etc.) - - A rapidly aging population that will require more intensive care - - National and statewide inflationary pressures - - State and federal policy changes, such as passage earlier this year of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which will strip tens of billions of dollars from California’s health care system over the next decade The California Hospital Association asks the court to prohibit OHCA from implementing five actions, effectively requiring the board to revisit: - - The creation of a 3.5% statewide spending target for 2025, declining to 3% by 2029 - - The adoption of a hospital sector - - The adoption of a hospital sector spending target equal to the statewide cost target - - The adoption of criteria for identifying supposed “high-cost outlier” hospitals - - The adoption of reduced spending targets for the “outlier” hospitals, starting at 1.8% for 2026 and declining to 1.6% by 2029 “Since its inception, OHCA has continually flouted both the letter and spirit of the law that created it,” said Carmela Coyle, President & CEO of the California Hospital Association. “Lawmakers intentionally established a multi-year time frame for OHCA - to ensure its board engaged in a thoughtful, data-driven approach to making health care more affordable without sacrificing access to care, quality of care, health care jobs, and more. Yet, the office’s illegal and breakneck pursuit of cost-cutting - regardless of the impact on patients and workers - has now put vital health care services for all Californians at risk.” According to the lawsuit, the Legislature’s intent was clear: “OHCA’s work to improve health care affordability must promote, rather than come at the expense of, health care access, equity, and quality, and the stability of the health care workforce.” Instead, it alleges that OHCA has rushed to establish hospital spending targets while ignoring “voluminous and complex information,” according to the lawsuit. OHCA has “relied on incomplete and at times faulty data” in establishing “improperly-focused, and unattainable cost targets, which neither consider the actual factors that impact hospital costs nor are constructed to actually ensure consumer affordability,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit alleges that actions taken to date by OHCA officials are “arbitrary and capricious,” contain repeated violations of state law, and do not ensure that savings from the imposed cost targets “would be passed to consumers in the form of lower premiums and cost sharing, rather than simply being retained by payers as higher profits.” While OHCA has targeted hospitals with “unattainably low” cost targets, health insurance companies are increasing the premiums paid by consumers by 10% or more each year - calling into question the agency’s actual impact on the pocketbooks of working Californians. “The spending caps set by politically appointed bureaucrats could force cuts that result in many Californians traveling farther for care, facing longer emergency room wait times, experiencing more overcrowding, and losing access to critical services like maternity care, cancer treatment, behavioral health services, and surgical care,” Coyle said. “OHCA has unfairly targeted hospitals without the necessary research and analysis. This has resulted in a handful of unelected individuals who have chosen to cut billions from California’s health care system, endangering access to health care in vulnerable communities across the state.” ...

Remote working arrangements have become increasingly prevalent in recent years. An estimated 11.8 percent of full- time employees in the United States work fully remotely while an additional 29 percent work partly remotely. In theory, remote work can be viewed as either a positive or negative amenity: It offers greater scheduling flexibility, enhancing work- life balance, but it may also limit access to face- to-face mentoring and raise concerns about potential career growth penalties. The tech sector provides a particularly interesting context given its high work- from-home rate and its status as arguably the highest - paying and most innovative industry.The Harvard-Brown-UCLA study, titled "Home Sweet Home: How Much Do Employees Value Remote Work?" and published in the AEA Papers and Proceedings (2025), examines employees' preferences for remote work arrangements and the associated wage-setting practices in the US tech sector. Using revealed preference data from job offers and choices, the authors (Zoë Cullen, Bobak Pakzad-Hurson, and Ricardo Perez-Truglia) estimate the amenity value of remote work. They find that workers are willing to forgo a substantial portion of their compensation for remote options, but counterintuitively, remote positions do not command lower wages - in fact, they may pay slightly more. The analysis draws on a sample of 1,396 tech workers surveyed between May 2023 and December 2024, in collaboration with levels.fyi, a platform for tech salary data. The tech sector is highlighted for its high remote work adoption (11.8% fully remote and 29% hybrid nationally, per Barrero, Bloom, and Davis 2023) and its status as a high-paying, innovative industry. It includes detailed information on job offers received by participants, such as total compensation (base salary, bonus, and equity), job location, and remote status (fully in-person, partly remote/hybrid, or fully remote). For participants who hadn't yet accepted an offer, the survey captured the likelihood of acceptance. Participants were predominantly male (83.7%), average 32 years old, with 6.7 years of experience. Common roles include software engineer, product manager, and data scientist; top employers are Google, Meta, and Apple. Average total compensation per offer is $239,000 (68.8% base salary, 7.5% bonus, 23.7% equity). 18.3% of offers are fully in-person; 81.7% are remote (40.7% fully remote, 59.3% partly remote). Given high Willingness to Pay (WTP) for remote work, theory predicts a compensating differential: lower pay for remote positions as an amenity. The authors test this using levels.fyi salary submissions (June 2023-June 2024), comparable to the survey sample.However, the study showed remote positions pay 1.1% more on average than identical in-person ones. This opposes the expected ~25% discount for remote. The study concludes that tech workers highly value remote work (WTP ~25%), but no compensating wage discount exists - remote pays slightly more ...