Author: WorkCompAcademy

The Sacramento Bee reports that California lawmakers are considering legislation to require people to prove they’re fully vaccinated against COVID-19 before entering indoor public spaces like restaurants, bars, movie theaters, gyms, hotels and stadiums.

The proposal hasn’t been formally introduced in the Legislature, and the timeline for action is unclear.

Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, said the coalition of lawmakers supporting the concept has not decided whether to push the plan immediately before the legislative year’s Sept. 10 deadline or wait until January when lawmakers return to work. The Sacramento Bee obtained a copy of the draft legislation, which Wicks said is also subject to change.

Wicks said she is in conversations with business leaders, union representatives and others whose support is necessary for any legislation to be successful.

“I think everyone right now is honestly and earnestly at the table,” Wicks said.

As currently written, the proposal would take effect immediately upon the governor’s signature, and would direct the Department of Public Health to develop an enforcement mechanism by Nov. 1.

The proposal, first reported by Politico, would create one of the strictest statewide vaccination requirements in the nation.

The state Department of Public Health said last week that it was leading the nation with a requirement that everyone attending an indoor event with 1,000 people or more show proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test. That requirement takes effect Sept. 20.

Wicks said the new verification requirement could help drive up vaccination rates in California and finally end a pandemic that has spread in the state for 18 months. The system could help schools and businesses keep their doors open, Wicks said, and ease overburdened hospitals clogged with COVID-19 patients amid the delta variant surge.

As the COVID-19 pandemic goes on, the workers’ compensation industry is still continuing to manage changing claim patterns and trends. As regulations and case rates continue to shift, Mitchell has analyzed its workers’ compensation claims data to identify how claim trends have changed over the past year and a half.  This report includes claim data through June 30, 2021.

From January through June 2021, the finance and insurance, transportation and warehousing and healthcare and social assistance industries reported significantly more workers’ compensation claims than in the first half of 2019.

On the other hand, Mitchell’s data reveals that some industries have not seen prepandemic claim volumes return. The arts, entertainment, and recreation, educational services, and accommodation and food services industries are all still reporting significantly fewer workers’ compensation COVID-19 claims. Though claim volumes are still down, all three of these industries are experiencing an increase in claims compared to 2020 volumes, but are subject to pandemic-related regulations and trends that may explain the lower volume of claims.

About a quarter of workers’ compensation COVID-19 claims include only indemnity costs (no medical costs) – and those costs have declined over time. In January 2021, Mitchell reported that the average indemnity cost (lost wages etc.), for a COVID-19 claim was $2,400 in 2020; now, that number has decreased by almost half to $1380.

On the other hand, average medical costs associated with COVID-19 claims have remained somewhat steady, with just a slight 5% increase since Mitchell’s last report.

According to NCCI, the makeup of claim types is a clear reversal when compared to historical workers’ compensation claim data – prior to the pandemic, about 75% of all workers’ compensation claims were medical-only. NCCI published similar findings to Mitchell’s data, reporting that 75% of COVID-19 claims were lost-time claims.

It comes as no surprise that the healthcare and social assistance industry sector is still the source of the majority of COVID-19-related workers’ compensation claims, accounting for 49% of the total. Similar to Mitchell’s previous reporting, the healthcare industry is still accounting for almost five times more COVID-19-related claims than the next largest source, public administration, which makes up about 10% of all COVID-19 claims.

A disbarred personal-injury lawyer was found guilty by a federal jury of 22 felonies for stealing the majority of a multimillion-dollar settlement that should have been paid to a car accident victim, as well as cheating on his federal income taxes.

Philip James Layfield, a.k.a. “Philip Samuel Pesin,” 48, of Las Vegas and formerly of Coto de Caza, was found guilty of 19 counts of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, one count of tax evasion, one count of failure to collect and pay over payroll taxes, and one misdemeanor charge of failure to file a tax return. Following the jury verdicts, Layfield was remanded into federal custody.

According to evidence presented at his 13-day trial, Layfield owned and operated law firms, including Layfield & Barrett (L&B), which, at various times, maintained offices in Irvine; Los Angeles; El Segundo; Park City, Utah; and Scottsdale, Arizona.

After he had misappropriated millions of dollars from clients’ settlements, Layfield relocated to Costa Rica. Just before getting on a flight to Costa Rica, Layfield borrowed $700,000 from a business lender by providing misleading information and failing to disclose material information. Then he used substantial portions of the loan proceeds for personal expenses, including buying a horse and shipping horses to Costa Rica.

In 2016, Layfield entered into an agreement to represent an individual who was struck by an automobile in Orange County and suffered significant injuries. After negotiating a $3.9 million settlement related to the accident, Layfield misappropriated most of the money owed to the victim – approximately $2 million for personal and business uses, including to pay clients whose settlement proceeds Layfield had earlier misappropriated. The car accident victim received only $25,000 of the settlement proceeds.

Layfield also failed to file a federal income tax return for the tax year 2016, despite receiving more than $3 million, including embezzled client settlement money. Layfield also caused his law firm to not pay approximately $120,976 in payroll taxes to the United States government for the second quarter of 2017.

The State Bar of California disbarred Layfield in October 2018. Layfield also was a certified public accountant, but his CPA license expired in July 2019, according to the California Board of Accountancy.

United States District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald has scheduled a November 8 sentencing hearing, at which time Layfield will face a statutory maximum sentence of more than 200 years in federal prison.

Homeland Security Investigations, IRS Criminal Investigation and the FBI investigated this matter.

Assistant United States Attorneys Mark R. Aveis and Carolyn S. Small of the Major Frauds Section and Ian V. Yanniello of the International Narcotics, Money Laundering and Racketeering Section are prosecuting this case.

American employees say that the number one workplace feature they’ll be searching for post-COVID is the ability to continue working remotely when they please.

That’s according to a new study reported by StudyFinds.org of 2,000 Americans who are still working from home during the pandemic. More than two in five (48%) say a company’s policy on remote work is now their number one desired workplace perk. It’s so important that nearly three in four (72%) claim they wouldn’t even consider working for a company that didn’t offer flexible work-from-home policies.

Although 36 percent think their job is more difficult when working remotely, 71 percent say they have a better work-life balance when working from home. Employees are happiest with the new flexibility in their schedules (45%) and the ability to take breaks anytime (44%), with the average person taking a break around every two and a half hours.

Over half the poll (51%) feel like their workplace contributions have been acknowledged more since they started working from home.

“People are embracing remote work more than ever before. Workplace norms have shifted and employees are expecting to have a more robust work-life balance,” says Dave Landa, CEO of Kintone, in a statement.

Unfortunately, working from home hasn’t been all rainbows and butterflies for employees. From not having the right office equipment (35%), to having difficulty communicating with coworkers (36%), or having too many distractions (34%), working from home isn’t a flawless system for many.

Employees also say they would like to purchase an internet upgrade (48%), a new computer (40%), or a new desk or workstation (38%) to improve their remote work experience. One in five (22%) expressed dissatisfaction with their company meeting employee needs while working from home.

Americans weren’t shy about suggesting ways their company could help improve their work from home experience. Almost half think adjusted company policies, including working hours and expectations (46%) would make a difference in their performance. Other ways that companies can make working from home better is by reimbursing their employees for internet service or other utility bills (43%) or providing a new computer or laptop (41%).

Communication is key for half of respondents (52%) who feel like their company can benefit from communicating more directly with employees. Almost six in 10 (57%) feel work-related communication was more productive in the office and 36 percent feel it has been a strain to effectively communicate with their leadership about career matters.

‘Every major transformation like this comes with hurdles and uncertainties. In the end, the benefits of happier, more satisfied employees will justify the efforts to address these challenges head on. Employers should create policies and find solutions to meet these concerns and strengthen communications so that remote and hybrid work experiences will only improve in the post-pandemic era,’ Landa adds.

Decedent Tara O’Sullivan, worked as a police officer for the City of Sacramento when she died from a gunshot wound on June 19, 2019.

Krista Horvath and Ms. O’Sullivan were sisters. Just prior to her death, decedent and Ms. Horvath agreed to move in together with Ms. Horvath’s fiancé. This would allow Ms. Horvath to save money for her planned wedding. They had signed a lease before the death, and intended to split the utility bills in half.

The Death Without Dependents Unit primarily argued at trial that Ms. Horvath would merely have been a roommate of decedent and that sharing the bills as part of a family pot is insufficient to establish dependency.

A Findings and Order issued which found that competing applicant, Krista Horvath was a partial dependent of deceased employee Tara O’Sullivan, and dismissed the claim of the Death Without Dependents Unit.

The WCAB panel denied the Death Without Dependents Unit Petition for Reconsideration in the panel decision of Krista Horvath for Tara O’Sullivan (Deceased), Death Without Dependents v. City OF Sacramento, (ADJ12601349)

Dependency is determined as of the time of injury, and may be found to be total or partial, depending on the facts established. Dependency may be defined as reliance upon another person for support. Partial dependents are those who at the time of injury have means of support other than the deceased’s contributions.

To prove partial dependency, it is sufficient to show that the claimants looked to the deceased’s contributions to maintain his or her accustomed mode of living and that the same living standard can no longer be maintained. (Atlantic Ricl1field Co. v. WCAB (Arvisu) (1982) (42 Cal.Comp.Cases 369) The contribution must be made in goods or money, and the value of services is not considered. (Great W. Power Co. v. IAC (Savercool) (1923) 192 Cal. 724.)

Death Without Dependents primarily argued at trial that applicant would merely have been a roommate of decedent and that sharing the bills as part of a family pot is insufficient to establish dependency.

While this is true, the facts establish that decedent intended to take on a greater share of the family pot so that applicant could save for her wedding.

If only applicant and decedent lived together, the splitting of rent and utilities would likely be insufficient to establish dependency as it is a true family pot with equal expenses split.

However, here, three people were to occupy the apartment, not two. Decedent agreed, in effect, to subsidize applicant’s rent and utilities. That agreement is sufficient to establish a partial dependency where the applicant is decedent’s sister.

The petition for reconsideration focuses on the undisputed facts that this was a promise for support prior to decedent s passing and that no actual support occurred prior to death. On this point, the argument proffered by DWD was too narrow.

A mere promise of future support is not, as a rule, a basis for a dependency finding, except where circumstances indicate a bona fide assumption of responsibility for support without opportunity to make contributions prior to the injury.” (Wings West Airlines v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1047, 1052.)

The significant fact here is that they signed a lease together prior to Ms. O’Sullivan’s death. By signing a lease contract, there was a bona fide assumption of responsibility for support, which occurred prior to death. The only reason that Ms. O’Sullivan did not make payments prior to her death was lack of opportunity.