Author: WorkCompAcademy

Vincent Albano joined the Los Angeles Police Department in 1997. He developed chronic fatigue syndrome caused by a Coxsackie B4 virus in 2003, leading to severe fatigue, insomnia, and body aches. In 2004, he took medical leave, returned with restrictions for “desk duties/low stress” and “day shifts only,” and was assigned to the detectives’ desk at Harbor Division, where he worked from 2004 to 2018 with positive performance reviews.

In 2018, despite plans to transition Albano to the Property Disposition Coordinator role, which suited his medical restrictions, the LAPD reassigned him to a night shift patrol desk position, violating his restrictions. This decision followed a meeting with Teresa Chin, who inquired about his condition but did not discuss accommodations or inform him of the reassignment. The new captain, Greg McManus, reportedly believed Albano was faking his illness and eliminated the detectives’ desk position.

No further interactive process occurred to address Albano’s restrictions or explore alternative accommodations, despite his long-standing medical documentation and prior engagement with the department.

The reassignment exacerbated Albano’s symptoms, causing severe hypertension, chronic fatigue flare-ups, and emotional distress, leading to medical leave in December 2018. Feeling targeted and unable to work night shifts, Albano retired in June 2019 after 21.5 years of service, incurring financial hardship due to a reduced pension and medical subsidy.

He filed a lawsuit in 2020, alleging FEHA violations. At trial, the jury rejected the failure-to-accommodate claim but found the City liable for failing to engage in the interactive process, awarding Albano $700,000 in past noneconomic damages and $300,000 in future noneconomic damages for physical pain, emotional distress, and loss of identity.

The City’s motion for a new trial was denied, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict and damages award in the unpublished case of Albano v. City of Los Angeles – B329165 (April 2025).

On appeal, the City of Los Angeles raised two primary arguments challenging the jury’s verdict and damages award in Vincent Albano’s case.

The City contended that substantial evidence did not support the jury’s finding that it failed to engage in the interactive process under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Specifically, the City argued that Albano failed to initiate the interactive process after learning of his reassignment to the night shift patrol desk position in December 2018, asserting that he bore the burden of reinitiating the process. Albano’s medical leave starting December 11, 2018, halted the interactive process because LAPD policy prohibited engaging in the process until he returned to work.

It also argued that Albano could not prevail because he failed to identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available during the interactive process. The jury’s verdict was inconsistent, as the finding that the City failed to engage in the interactive process could not be reconciled with the jury’s finding that the City did not fail to provide a reasonable accommodation. (Note: This argument was referenced in the trial court motion but not developed in the City’s opening brief on appeal, leading the court to consider it abandoned or forfeited.)

In its second primary argument the City claimed that the jury’s award of $700,000 in past noneconomic damages and $300,000 in future noneconomic damages was excessive and not supported by substantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding substantial evidence supported both the jury’s finding of liability for failing to engage in the interactive process and the damages award, and that the award did not shock the conscience or suggest passion, prejudice, or corruption by the jury.

The California Attorney General along with 38 attorneys generals, which includes those representing United States territories and the District of Columbia, urge Congress to pass an act prohibiting pharmacy benefit managers, their parent companies or affiliates from owning or operating pharmacies, according to an April 14 letter to Congress.

According to this letter, “PBMs have overtaken the market and now wield outsized power to reap massive profits at the expense of consumers. The rise of PBMs as middlemen in the prescription drug market has resulted in patients facing fewer choices, lower quality care, and higher prices.3 PBMs’ use of affiliated pharmacies—pharmacies owned by either the PBM itself or the PBM’s parent company—has exacerbated the problem of manipulated prices and unavailability of certain prescription medications.”

“Over the past few decades, horizontal consolidation and vertical integration have transformed PBMs from useful administrative service providers into market-dominating behemoths that control the industry. The three largest PBMs process 80% of the nation’s prescriptions and bring in 70% of the specialty drug revenue. Furthermore, these same PBMs, along with the next largest three, are vertically integrated both upstream and down. Each of the top six PBMs operate their own affiliated pharmacies, while five of the top six are also a part of parent conglomerates that operate insurance companies and health care clinics.”

“The PBMs then use their place as middlemen to exert this power in ways that harm independent pharmacies, forcing these small businesses to accept contractual terms that are ‘confusing, unfair, arbitrary, and harmful.’ PBMs’ position further allows and incentivizes them to provide their affiliated pharmacies with more favorable contract terms, steer consumers away from independent pharmacies to their own affiliated pharmacies, and otherwise engage in tactics aimed at forcing their competition out of business. Over the course of the last decade, approximately ten percent of rural independent pharmacies in the United States have closed.”

“The control of the pharmaceutical ecosystem by PBMs has resulted in decreased access, affordability, and choice for many Americans seeking prescription healthcare. Congressional action is warranted to restore a free market and protect consumers and small businesses.”

“As self-designated middlemen, PBMs should not be permitted to own or operate affiliated pharmacies. Further, they should not be able to skirt such a prohibition by having a parent company or other affiliated healthcare conglomerate own a pharmacy. PBMs should be prohibited from having direct ownership ties to the parties they purport to be bridging. This requirement would allow pharmacies to compete on fair terms and create a market that is more accessible to consumers.”

A Hearst Newspapers investigation, published on April 16, 2025, revealed that surgeons across the United States have inadvertently left surgical materials – such as sponges, wires, needles, drill bits, instruments, and broken tool fragments – inside patients’ bodies over the past decade. The full article is available on Hearst Newspapers’ platforms, such as the San Francisco Chronicle or Houston Chronicle

These incidents, known as retained surgical items (RSIs) or “never events,” are rare but can have severe consequences, including infections, organ damage, additional surgeries, and, in extreme cases, death. The investigation, conducted by reporters Emilie Munson and Leila Merrill, highlights the persistence of these medical errors despite protocols designed to prevent them, such as mandatory counting of surgical items and the use of radiopaque sponges visible on X-rays.

While exact numbers vary due to underreporting, studies cited in related sources estimate RSIs occur in approximately 1 in every 5,500 surgical procedures, with around 1,500 cases annually in the U.S. The Hearst investigation emphasizes that these incidents often require additional surgeries, extend hospital stays, and cause significant patient harm, such as infections, abscesses, or organ damage. For example, retained sponges, which account for 48% to 69% of RSIs, can lead to “gossypiboma,” where the body forms a mass around the foreign object, causing pain or complications like fistulas or bowel obstructions.

The investigation notes a range of items left behind, including:

– – Surgical sponges and gauze (most common, often used in large quantities during procedures).
– – Needles, wires, and drill bits.
– – Surgical instruments like clamps or retractors.
– – Broken fragments of tools, such as catheter tips or parts of wire cutters.These items are typically left in the abdomen, pelvis, or chest, but cases have been reported in vaginas, spinal canals, and even brains

The investigation points to human error as a primary cause, often due to:

– – Inaccurate manual counting of surgical items, which can be disrupted by complex procedures, shift changes, or distractions.
– – Poor communication among surgical teams.
– – Complacency or overconfidence in counts reported as correct, even when items are missing.
– – Inadequate documentation or failure to follow protocols like the World Health Organization’s surgical safety checklist.

The investigation references specific cases to illustrate the human toll:

– – A 2021 case where a woman suffered for 18 months after a plastic wound retractor (the size of a dinner plate) was left inside her abdomen following a C-section. An abdominal CT scan eventually
– – A 2018 case in Japan where a woman experienced abdominal bloating for six years due to two gauze sponges left during a C-section, which had adhered to her connective tissue and colon
– – A California man who suffered infections and septic shock from two retained surgical clamps, leading to a stroke.

The investigation underscores systemic challenges, including:

– – Underreporting of RSIs due to inconsistent definitions, varying reporting requirements, and fear of litigation.
– – Limitations of manual counting processes, which are prone to error in high-stress, complex surgeries, especially those involving obese patients or trauma cases requiring numerous instruments
– – Resistance to adopting new technologies, such as RFID-tagged sponges or barcode systems, due to cost or integration challenges, despite their potential to reduce errors.
– – RSIs lead to significant costs for hospitals, with a single case potentially costing up to $600,000 due to corrective surgeries and legal fees. Malpractice claims are common, with a 2003 study noting an average of $52,000 in compensation and legal expenses per case.

Hospitals employ several strategies to prevent RSIs, including:

– – Surgical teams count sponges, instruments, and other items before and after procedures. However, studies show that counts are often recorded as correct even when items are left behind.
– – Sponges and some instruments are embedded with X-ray-detectable materials to aid identification if left inside a patient.
– – The WHO surgical safety checklist and National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures aim to standardize safety checks, but compliance varies.
– – Systems like ORLocate’s Surgical Counting and Detection System use RFID or barcode technology to track items more accurately, but adoption is not widespread.

Despite these measures, the investigation notes that errors persist due to the complexity of surgical environments, staff fatigue, and organizational pressures, such as high workloads or frequent staff changes during procedures.

The Hearst investigation aligns with prior studies and reports highlighting RSIs as a persistent patient safety issue. For instance, a 2008 study at the Mayo Clinic found RSIs in 1 in 5,500 surgeries, with most counts incorrectly reported as accurate. A 2017 article from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) notes that RSIs can be life-threatening, often requiring further operations. The investigation also reflects Hearst Newspapers’ history of award-winning investigative journalism, as seen in their Polk Awards for reporting by the San Antonio Express-News and San Francisco Chronicle.

Discover Magazine on RSIs discusses real-world cases, such as the 2021 C-section retractor case and the 2018 Japanese gauze case, with broader implications. Washington Post on Never Events Reports 4,857 objects left in patients over two decades, with insights into malpractice claims and systemic issues. Times Union on New York Cases details specific RSI incidents, including a surgical sponge missed during a hysterectomy due to incorrect counting. PSNet on RSI Epidemiology offers data from California’s reporting system (2007–2011), noting 58% of RSI cases involved sponges or towels. Minnesota Department of Health reports 270 retained objects since 2003, emphasizing sponges and clamps as common items.

Chester Taylor worked as a kosher food manager/inmate laborer for State of California, Department of Corrections Inmate Claims when he sustained an industrial injury to his bilateral arms on January 20, 2017.

The injury was resolved through a Stipulated Findings & Award on April 6, 2024, which provided him with a 76% permanent disability rating. The defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), paid permanent disability benefits at a weekly rate of $160.00, totaling $49,406.39 through December 13, 2024.

Mr. Taylor filed a petition to commute his remaining permanent disability benefits into a lump sum, covering the period from December 13, 2024, for the remainder of his life expectancy.

At trial, he testified that his monthly income (from Social Security, workers’ compensation, and SNAP benefits) totaled $2,428.00, while his expenses (rent, food, medical copays, and dental expenses) amounted to $1,251.00. He claimed to be in arrears by $300.00 to $600.00 per month, borrowing approximately $600.00 per week from his daughter. However, he provided no documentary evidence to substantiate these figures.

The presiding Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge (PWCJ) denied Mr. Taylor’s petition, finding that he failed to meet the burden of proof under Labor Code § 5100(a). The lack of documentary evidence supporting his financial claims and the unclear calculations of his expenses were critical factors.

The WCAB denied reconsideration in the panel decision of Chester Taylor vs. State of California, Department of Corrections Inmate Claims – ADJ13319691 (April 2025).

Under Labor Code § 5100(a), commutation of benefits is allowed if it is “necessary for the protection of the person entitled thereto, or for the best interest of the applicant.” Additionally, § 5100(b) requires that commutation must avoid inequity and not cause undue expense or hardship to the applicant.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has discretion to grant or deny commutation, and the applicant bears the burden of proving the necessity of commutation. (Hulse v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 221, 226 [41 Cal.Comp.Cases 691].)

The PWCJ also noted that commuting the benefits could potentially cause undue hardship, as Mr. Taylor’s current income, including permanent disability payments, was insufficient to cover his expenses. Commuting the benefits would reduce or eliminate this income stream, potentially exacerbating his financial difficulties.

The WCAB, in its Opinion and Order dated April 8, 2025, adopted and incorporated the PWCJ’s report and denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the PWCJ’sdenial of commutation.

The WCAB noted that Mr. Taylor remains free to file a new petition for commutation if he can provide adequate evidence meeting the requirements of Labor Code § 5100(a) and (b).

Hugo Osoy hired Pablo Arredondo Padron in 2019 to install two skylights in Osoy’s home, a project expected to take 10–12 days (80–96 hours). Padron, who lacked a contractor’s license, agreed to the job for $4,000.

On July 31, 2019, while working, Padron fell from a ladder held by Osoy, suffering serious injuries after less than 52 hours of work. Padron lost consciousness and could not recall the cause of the fall. He was unable to continue the project and was paid $1,000 for his work.

On May 21, 2020, Padron sued Osoy in Los Angeles Superior Court for negligence, premises liability, and labor code violations, alleging Osoy provided a defective ladder and failed to ensure safety.

Osoy moved for summary judgment, arguing workers’ compensation was Padron’s exclusive remedy, as he had a homeowners’ insurance policy with workers’ compensation coverage from the Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (AAA)

It was undisputed that Padron and Osoy contracted for Padron to perform residential work exceeding 52 hours (specifically, 80–96 hours for the skylight installation). The trial court concluded that the exclusion in Labor Code section 3352 (a)(8)(A) which applies to employment “was, or was contracted to be, for less than 52 hours” – did not apply because the contracted duration surpassed the 52-hour threshold, – regardless of Padron’s injury occurring after fewer hours.The trial court granted summary judgment for Osoy, and Padron appealed.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment in favor of defendant Hugo Osoy in the published case of Padron v. Osoy – B333512 (April 2025) – holding that plaintiff Pablo Padron’s exclusive remedy for injuries sustained while working on Osoy’s home was through workers’ compensation, not a civil lawsuit.

The central dispute involved interpreting Labor Code section 3352 (a)(8)(A), which excludes workers from workers’ compensation coverage if their employment “was, or was contracted to be, for less than 52 hours” in the 90 days before the injury. Padron argued that because he worked less than 52 hours before his injury, he was excluded from workers’ compensation and could sue in court.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. “When employment is contracted to be for more than 52 hours, the exclusion in section 3352(a)(8)(A) does not turn on the fortuity of how many hours into that employment a worker is when they are injured. Rather, section 3352(a)(8)(A) excludes from workers’ compensation (1) employment contracted to be for less than 52 hours, and (2) employment for less than 52 hours where no time period was contracted for.”

“Because Padron contracted to do more than 52 hours of work, section 3352(a)(8)(A) does not exclude him from workers’ compensation coverage regardless of his injury occurring in less than 52 hours of work.”

Padron also contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there is a triable issue whether Osoy should be estopped from relying on the exclusivity defense. As the factual predicate for this estoppel claim, Padron relies on evidence that Osoy and his insurer, a homeowners’ insurance policy from the Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (AAA), which included workers’ compensation coverage, delayed informing Padron that he was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits and providing him with a claim form.

“Despite raising a claim of estoppel, Padron did not adduce any evidence to show that Osoy or AAA made any factual misrepresentations regarding Padron’s eligibility for workers’ compensation coverage. Even if Osoy and AAA remained silent as to whether Padron was eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, such inaction does not show a triable issue of affirmative conduct intended to convey facts to Padron regarding potential workers’ compensation coverage.”