Author: WorkCompAcademy

Biobots, also known as biological robots, are a type of robotics that utilizes living cells or their components to create machines that can perform various tasks. These devices are still in their early stages of development, but they hold immense potential for various applications, including medicine, environmental monitoring, and even space exploration.

Anthrobots are a type of biobot specifically created using human cells. These microscopic robots, ranging from the width of a human hair to the point of a sharpened pencil, are designed to carry out tasks depending on the functions of their individual cells and how they work together. They are self-assembled in a lab dish and show remarkable healing effects, particularly in neuron growth across damaged areas in lab conditions.

In a study published in Advanced Science this week, scientists investigated the behavior of Anthrobots that are capable of regenerating damaged neurons in a lab.

The heart of fundamental issues in evolutionary, developmental, cell, and synthetic biology, and has been taken up by a rapidly growing field focusing on building new kinds of active living structures: biobots.

This emerging multidisciplinary effort to control the behavior of cellular collectives has garnered much excitement for two main reasons. First, it offers the possibility of using engineering to reach outcomes that are too complex to micromanage directly, and hence promises to revolutionize efforts to produce complex tissues for clinical applications in regenerative medicine and beyond.

Second, increased control over the morphology and behavior of cellular collectives by leveraging morphogenetic tissue plasticity could enable the development of self-constructing living structures by design with predictable and programmable functional properties and numerous practical uses, greatly extending the current abilities of traditional fabrication practices in diverse fields as robotics,architecture, sustainable construction, and even space exploration.

In the last decade, interest in developing biological structures de novo has seen a rapid surge.Among these efforts, a subset of functional biogenic assemblies gave rise to a special class of motile synthetic structures dubbed biobots.

Early examples of biobots are hybrids between biological cells and inert chemical substances supporting them, such as gels or 3D-printed scaffolds. These assemblies incorporated living cells ranging from bacteria to diverse mammalian tissues such as nerve, muscle, and neuromuscular junctions (NMJs), as well as engineered cell lines with programmable features, all carefully crafted into diverse 3D scaffolds designed to harness and amplify the innate functionality of biological cells.

A different approach resulted in Xenobots, the first fully-biological biobots created by sculpting or molding amphibian embryonic cells into multicellular structures that can spontaneously locomote without external pacing.

But it was not known how general these phenomena are, whether this kind of plasticity extended to mammals, or what the throughput of this technology can be. Thus, researcher sought to address whether the capacity of genetically unaltered cells to generate a self-propelled, multicellular living structure in this way is unique to amphibian embryonic cells, and whether such a living structure can be built without needing to be individually sculpted or molded, but instead coaxed to self-construct from an initial seed cell, resulting in a high-throughput process wherein large numbers of biobots can be grown in parallel.

Their research found that Anthrobots induce efficient healing of defects in live human neural monolayers in vitro, causing neurites to grow into the gap and join the opposite sides of the injury. Passive materials did not recapitulate this effect, but it is not yet known which of the many possible biochemical and biophysical aspects of Anthrobot presence are required for this.

Biobots represent a promising area of research with the potential to revolutionize various fields. As scientists continue to develop and refine these technologies, we can expect to see even more innovative and impactful applications in the years to come. With enough development, the researchers believe Anthrobots may eventually acquire other applications, such as clearing plaque buildup for atherosclerosis patients, repairing damaged spinal cords or retinal nerves, detecting bacteria and cancer cells or even delivering drugs to specific body tissues.

Deniece Abraham worked for Wells Fargo at its business support call center in Sacramento. She was part of a team of traveling bankers that went to Virginia to train new call center employees who had been hired to staff a business support call center in that state.

As part of the traveling banker training, Wells Fargo promoted the traveling banker position as an opportunity to network with colleagues from other branches and pursue leadership roles. A trip to Virginia was scheduled to occur between November 24, 2019, and November 27, 2019, with each day’s training sessions lasting from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. After 3:00 p.m., the traveling bankers were considered to be on their own time and free to do whatever they wanted.

The trip was organized by a manager with Wells Fargo who arranged air travel, lodging, and rental car reservations. All of the traveling bankers from Sacramento were permitted to drive the rental cars reserved for the trip. Further, all the traveling bankers from Sacramento were included in a group text messaging conversation to communicate about the shared use of the rental cars so that everyone could efficiently travel to the training sessions, obtain dinner, or run errands. For the trip, Wells Fargo issued each traveling banker a “purchasing card” to pay for travel expenses and meals. The traveling bankers were prohibited from using the purchasing card to buy alcohol.

On the third day of the trip, November 26, 2019, the traveling bankers discussed plans for dinner that evening, including meeting with trainees and a supervisor from the Virginia office. After training ended for the day, the traveling bankers drank alcohol in the lobby of their hotel. Deniece Abraham and two of her colleagues went to dinner at a karaoke bar using one of the rental cars provided by Wells Fargo. They arrived at the karaoke bar around 8:00 p.m. There, they danced, drank alcohol, and ate chicken wings. Employees from the Virginia Wells Fargo branch arrived at the karaoke bar at approximately 10:00 p.m. and the group continued to dance, drink alcohol, and eat chicken wings.

Shortly after 1:30 a.m., Abraham and her two colleagues left the karaoke bar and used the rental car provided by Wells Fargo to drive back to their hotel room. Abraham was a passenger in the car. At approximately 2:00 a.m., the driver of the rental car crashed into a tree while exiting the freeway. Abraham died from her injuries.

Plaintiffs Diane and John Abraham sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Sheonta Malbrough for the wrongful death of their daughter Deniece Abraham. Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment, asserting plaintiff’s suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Specifically, Wells Fargo argued that, because Abraham was considered a commercial traveler at the time of her deat,her death was caused by a workplace injury that was exclusively compensable with workers’ compensation benefits.

The trial court agreed with Wells Fargo and granted the motion for summary judgment, ultimately leading to dismissal of the case. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal in the unpublished case of Abraham v. Wells Fargo Bank -C098233 (November 2023).

Under the “commercial traveler” rule, an employee traveling on the employer’s business is regarded as acting within the course of employment during the entire period of his, her, or their travel. (Wiseman v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 570, 572.) His or her acts in traveling, procuring food and shelter are all incidents of the employment, and where injuries are sustained during the course of such activities, the Workers’ Compensation Act applies.

The Court of Appeal concluded that “Here, Abraham was an employee of Wells Fargo traveling for the purpose of Wells Fargo’s business. During the business trip, Abraham went out for dinner and drinks with colleagues and then died on the way back to the hotel. These undisputed facts establish that Abraham was a commercial traveler at the time of her death, and thus her conduct of traveling and procuring food fell within the conditions of her employment.”

On November 18, 2021, two inspectors from the Division of Occupational Safety and Health were denied consent to inspect the premises of Calvary Chapel of San Jose (Employer), a private school located on church grounds.

On November 29, 2021, the Division sought an “inspection warrant” from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. The Division supported their request for a warrant with two declarations: one from Richard Haskell (Haskell), Associate Safety Engineer, and another from Lisa Brokaw (Brokaw), Staff Attorney. Haskell’s declaration stated, “We were directed to open this inspection in response to a complaint made to the Division’s Fremont District Office on November 16, 2021 that Calvary Christian Academy was not complying with Title 8, section 3205, COVID-19 Prevention, face covering and outbreak reporting requirements.”

On November 29, 2021, a Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted the Division’s request for an inspection warrant. The Division subsequently conducted a site inspection, commencing on November 30, 2021.

On March 10, 2022, the Division issued five citations to Employer, alleging twelve violations of safety orders contained in title 8 of the California Code of Regulations,1 and totaling $67,330 dollars in penalties. Employer filed timely appeals of all the citations on March 21, 2022.

On July 18, 2022, the Employer filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing all evidence from the inspection should be suppressed because the warrant had been issued without probable cause. The Division filed an opposition on July 28, 2022. Employer filed a reply on August 16, 2022.

On September 1, 2022, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Kerry Lewis issued an Order on Motion to Suppress Evidence, which granted Employer’s motion. The ALJ, relying on the Board’s prior jurisprudence, concluded she had jurisdiction to rule on the motion to suppress evidence, and granted the motion after determining the warrant had been issued without probable cause. The ALJ’s Order also excluded any evidence arising from the Division’s inspection of the site.

The Division filed a Petition for Reconsideration with the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (OSHAB) in the case of In Re Calvary Chapel San Jose -1564732 (November 2023). In this case OSHAB affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that Cal/OSHA’s warrant application lacked the requisite probable cause. However the case was remanded for a ruling, on the application of the good faith exception to suppression of the evidence.

Labor Code section 6314, subdivision (b), states that if permission to investigate a place of employment is refused, the Division may seek an inspection warrant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1822.50 et seq. “An inspection warrant is an order . . . signed by a judge of a court of record, directed to a state or local official, commanding him to conduct any inspection required or authorized by state or local law or regulation relating to building, fire, safety, plumbing, electrical, health, labor, or zoning.”

The Division’s petition for reconsideration argues, at length, that the Board and its ALJ lack authority to evaluate the validity of the inspection warrant issued by the Santa Clara County Superior Court, and lack authority to grant Employer’s motion to suppress evidence. The Division argues that the California Constitution solely vests courts with original jurisdiction to review such warrants for errors. The Division contends the Legislature can only divest the courts of such jurisdiction if they enact a law pursuant to express or implied constitutional authority, which the Division argues did not happen here.

Additionally, although the Division recognizes that the Board has previously found it had authority to review an inspection warrant based on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Goldin v. Public Utilities Commission (1979) 23 Cal.3d 638 (Goldin), the Division argues that the Goldin decision is inapposite, as it concerns the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) a much different agency with different constitutional authority.

Additionally, although the Division recognizes that the Board has previously found it had authority to review an inspection warrant based on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Goldin v. Public Utilities Commission (1979) 23 Cal.3d 638 (Goldin), the Division argues that the Goldin decision is inapposite, as it concerns the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) a much different agency with different constitutional authority.

Once an appeal has been initiated before the Board, the Board’s operative statutes require parties to contest the citations, and all related issues, to a final decision before the Board prior to seeking judicial review. (Lab. Code, § 6600-6633.) The statutes permit a party aggrieved by a final order or decision of a hearing officer to file a petition for reconsideration before the Board. (Lab. Code, § 6614.) The filing of such a petition for reconsideration is a prerequisite to judicial review, and all issues not in that petition are waived. (Lab. Code, §§ 6615, 6618.) Labor Code section 6615 states,

OSHAB then noted “Taken together, Labor Code sections 6615 and 6618 set forth an exhaustion requirement, providing that all objections, irregularities, and illegalities arising from a final order or decision are waived, and not subject to court review, unless first presented to the Board via a petition for reconsideration. As relevant here, these statutes demonstrate that the adequacy of the warrant must first be presented to the Board, and such remedies exhausted, to prevent waiver.” Thus the Board ruled that it had jurisdiction to entertain a motion to suppress.

Cases discussing the constitutionality of inspection warrants in Cal/OSHA proceedings have stated that the search and seizure requirements of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 13, of the California Constitution mandate a probable cause requirement for Cal/OSHA inspection warrants. (Salwasser Mfg. Co. v. Mun. Court (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 223, 231-232 (Salwasser I).)

The standard of probable cause, i.e., the level of scrutiny required for a Cal/OSHA inspection warrant, is detailed in Salwasser Mfg. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 625 (Salwasser II). Salwasser II found that the criminal probable cause standard is not applicable when the warrant application is based on employee complaints, and instead called for a “lesser standard of administrative probable cause.” (Salwasser II, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at 630.) Salwasser II relied on federal circuit court decisions when discussing and defining this lesser standard of administrative probable cause.

“The Board follows the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. (Southwest Marine, Inc., supra, Cal/OSHA App. 96-1902.) The Board has previously noted that it will only exclude evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule when it can be established that the warrant was not obtained in good faith.

The Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board concluded that the “ALJ has not yet ruled on application of the good faith exception in this particular case. Therefore, it remanded this matter back to hearing operations for consideration, and a ruling, on the application of the good faith exception in this case.

The U.S. Department of Labor has issued new data showing California’s State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW) edged down 0.48 percent from $1,650 to $1,642 in the 12 months ending March 31, 2023.

As a result, the California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) notes there will be no change in California’s minimum and maximum temporary total disability (TTD) and permanent total disability (PTD) rates for 2024 work injuries, or in other benefits that are tied to increases in the SAWW.

Under California law, minimum and maximum TTD and PTD rates are subject to annual changes, effective January 1 of each year, based on the percentage increase in the SAWW After increasing steadily for more than a decade, including a 5.159 percent increase last January on top of a record 13.521 percent increase in 2022, the maximum TTD/PTD rate for 2023 job injuries is now $1,619.15 per week, and the minimum is $242.86 per week.

But, with the decline in the SAWW last year, those rates will not need to be adjusted for claims with injury dates on or after January 1, 2024.

The 2022-2023 decline in the SAWW also means that annual cost of living adjustments to life pension and PTD payments on existing claims with injury dates on or after January 1, 2003 will not apply next January, and the maximum rate for death benefit installment payments, which are paid in the same manner and amount as TTD, will remain unchanged.

However, depending on the rate now being paid, some existing older claims that are eligible for more than 104 weeks of TD [e.g., claims involving amputations, hepatitis or any of 9 long-term injuries noted in LC §4656(c)(3)] will qualify for an increase in 2024 as LC §4661.5 requires that any TTD payment made two or more years after the injury date be based on the TTD rate in effect on the date of the payment, unless that would reduce the amount paid.

Thus, a worker who suffered an amputation on April 1, 2022, and who is still receiving TD at the 2022 maximum of $1,539.71, should see that payment increase to the current maximum of $1,619.15 on April 1, 2024 (assuming that rate is justified by their at-injury earnings).

Claims administrators are encouraged to review the latest SAWW figures with legal counsel to confirm that benefit payments are appropriate and accurate. For reference, California’s SAWW data can be found in the U.S. Department of Labor Unemployment Insurance database.

The Division of Workers’ Compensation has issued a second notice of public comment period beginning on November 21, 2023, for modifying the text of proposed amendments to the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) Regulations. The affected regulations are Title 8, California Code of Regulations Sections 1, 11, 11.5, 14, 33, 35, 35.5, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 55.1, 56, 57, 63, 10133.54 & 10133.55. (QME Process Regulations).

The proposed changes are necessary to bring existing regulations into compliance with amendments to the Labor Code and to clarify the Administrative Director’s authority with respect to the process related to appointment and reappointment of QMEs, which is granted by relevant statutory authority.

The proposed regulations are amended to provide greater clarity to the wording. Based upon issues of clarity and to provide ease of interpretation, DWC proposes to update the text of the proposed amendments of the regulations to:

– – Provide a clearer definition of and the reason for encryption of Electronic Transmissions.
– – Delete unnecessary phase-in periods for certain regulations as a result of the new anticipated effective date of April 1, 2024 for the proposed regulations.
– – Add a new regulation that delineates the new continuing education hour and subject matter requirements that apply to applications for reappointment after April 1 2026.
– – Clarify the definition “new medical legal evaluation” for purposes of satisfying criteria for QME unavailability.
– – Provide criteria for the Administrative Director’s use of the exercise of discretion in the QME reappointment process.
– – Provide examples of good cause, provide clarity to the regulatory language and delete confusing language where necessary in the regulations involving reappointment and denial of reappointment for QMEs.
– – Add and in some cases delete language and hours of accreditation to clarify the proper interpretation of regulations related to the Continuing Education requirements.
– – Define and add criteria for good cause in the exercise of discretion by the Administrative Director in granting an appeal of denial of reappointment when a hearing is anticipated.
– – Correct typographical errors.

DWC has also published a Supplemental Initial Statement of Reasons to provide additional information about the need for and economic impact of the proposed regulations.

DWC will consider all public comments. The 15-day notice of modification to the text of the proposed regulations and the text of the regulations can be found on DWC’s rulemaking page.

Written comments should be addressed to:

Maureen Gray, regulations coordinator
Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Workers’ Compensation
1515 Clay Street, 18th floor
Oakland, CA 94612

The Division’s contact person must receive all written comments concerning the proposed modification to the regulations no later than December 11, 2023. Written comments may be submitted by facsimile transmission (FAX), addressed to the contact person at (510) 286-0687. Written comments may also be sent electronically (via e-mail), using the following e-mail address: dwcrules@dir.ca.gov.