Author: WorkCompAcademy

The California Department of Insurance announced a major enforcement action against State Farm General Insurance Company after an expedited investigation uncovered significant mishandling of insurance claims filed by survivors of the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. Acting on consumer complaints, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara ordered a Market Conduct Examination that documented a pattern of unlawful behavior in more than half of the claims reviewed.

State Farm policyholders filed approximately 11,300 residential claims related to the Los Angeles wildfires, nearly one-third of the 38,835 claims filed across all insurers, according to the Department’s official claims tracker. The violations identified by the Department indicate that thousands of survivors may have been affected.

The Department’s enforcement action seeks millions of dollars in penalties, considered the largest amount pursued this century following a wildfire disaster. In addition to penalties, the Department is requiring State Farm to take corrective actions to speed up payments and resolve outstanding claims

Department examiners reviewed a sample of 220 claims and found 398 violations of state law in 114 of those claims, many of which contained multiple violations. Major violations mirror the delays and denials reported by wildfire survivors to the Department, including:

– – Slow and inadequate investigation: State Farm failed to begin investigating claims within 15 days, failed to accept or deny claims within 40 days, and failed to pay accepted claims or provide written notice of the need for additional time within 30 days, as required by law.

– – Underpayment of claims: State Farm made unreasonably low settlement offers and underpaid claims.

– – Multiple adjusters causing confusion: State Farm failed to assign adjusters within statutory timelines and reassigned adjusters repeatedly, creating what survivors described as “adjuster roulette.”

– – Smoke damage claim denials and delays: Smoke damage claims represented nearly half of all consumer complaints. Examiners found that State Farm failed to provide required written denials for hygienist and environmental testing, misclassified testing costs, and misrepresented policy provisions related to inspections.

– – Inadequate communication: State Farm failed to respond to policyholders, send required status letters, or provide notice when additional time was needed to determine claims.

Since last January, the Department has recovered more than $280 million from all insurance companies for survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fires through direct intervention. As of March 3, 2026, insurers have paid out more than $23.7 billion to residential, commercial, and auto policyholders impacted by the fires.

The Department has filed an Accusation and Order to Show Cause against State Farm — the first step toward a public hearing before an administrative law judge. The filing alleges violations of the Unfair Insurance Claims Practices Act and related regulations, including the 398 violations identified in the Market Conduct Examination and 34 additional violations based on consumer complaints.

Under California Insurance Code Section 790.035, penalties may reach $5,000 per violation, or $10,000 for willful violations. Penalties may be imposed by the Commissioner following the administrative hearing.

Wildfire survivors experiencing delays, disputes, smoke damage issues, or other claim problems are encouraged to file a formal complaint with the Department of Insurance at insurance.ca.gov or by calling (800) 927-4357.

Separate from today’s action, the California Department of Insurance, Consumer Watchdog, and State Farm General recently reached a three-party settlement agreement over State Farm’s emergency rate request, now set to be reviewed by an impartial Administrative Law Judge.  

State Farm said in a statement it rejected any suggestions it “engaged in a general practice of mishandling or intentionally underpaying wildfire claims” and called the state’s insurance market “dysfunctional.” The company said it has paid out more than $5.7 billion on 13,700 auto and home insurance claims related to the fires.

“The threat to suspend State Farm General’s ability to serve customers over primarily administrative and procedural errors is a reckless, politically motivated attack that could ultimately cripple California’s homeowners insurance market,” the statement said.

Arturo Vela was hired by Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc. (Harbor) as a railcar repairman and was terminated five months later in October 2021. Before beginning work, Vela signed a mutual arbitration agreement covering all employment-related claims. The agreement also contained a class and representative action waiver, meaning Vela gave up his right to pursue claims on behalf of other workers.

Harbor was not itself a railroad, it was a repair and inspection contractor working under a service agreement with Pacific Harbor Line (PHL), a short-line railroad operating a train yard in Wilmington, California. Larger railroads Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific would deliver freight cars to PHL’s yard, where the cars were disconnected from locomotives, taken out of service, and left for inspection and repair. Vela’s work consisted of changing wheels and brake pads, disassembling and reassembling train cars, and welding and fabricating metal components — all performed on decommissioned cars sitting in the yard. Once repaired, the cars were returned to PHL and eventually back to the freight railroads.

In October 2023, Vela filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Harbor, asserting a slate of California Labor Code violations — unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, late final wages, noncompliant wage statements, and unreimbursed business expenses — along with an Unfair Competition Law claim. Vela brought these claims on his own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of current and former Harbor employees.

Harbor moved to compel Vela’s individual claims to arbitration and to dismiss his class claims. The trial court held multiple rounds of briefing and, after receiving supplemental evidence and argument, granted Harbor’s motion in February 2025. The court ordered Vela’s individual claims to arbitration and dismissed and struck his class claims, finding the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., governed the parties’ agreement and that no exemption removed it from the FAA’s reach.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal and striking of Vela’s class claims in the published case of Vela v. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc., Case No. B344723 (May, 2026).

Railroad Employee. Section 1 of the FAA exempts “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Vela argued he qualified as a “railroad employee” because his work was performed for PHL under Harbor’s service contract with that entity. The court rejected this theory on a threshold ground: a “contract of employment” under Section 1 must have the qualifying worker as one of its parties. Vela had no contract with PHL. Citing Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 97 F.4th 1190, 1196–1197 (9th Cir. 2024), and Amos v. Amazon Logistics, Inc., 74 F.4th 591, 596 (4th Cir. 2023), the court held that the Harbor–PHL service agreement — a business-to-business contract — could not qualify. The court also rejected Vela’s reliance on the Railway Labor Act’s definition of “employee,” finding no evidence that PHL supervised or directed Vela’s work; Harbor, by contract, retained exclusive control over its workers.

The FAA Exemption — Transportation Worker. The Supreme Court’s decision in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), requires courts to (1) identify the class of workers to which the individual belongs based on the work they typically perform, and then (2) determine whether that class is “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Under Saxon, workers who are “directly involved in transporting goods across state or international borders” fall within the exemption. For workers whose duties are more removed from that activity, they must play a “direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders” to qualify. The Ninth Circuit subsequently applied Saxon in Ortiz v. Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC, 95 F.4th 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 2024), requiring that a worker’s relationship to the movement of goods be “sufficiently close enough” to play “a tangible and meaningful role” in interstate commerce, and in Lopez v. Aircraft Service International, Inc., 107 F.4th 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2024), which found an airplane fuel technician qualified because refueling was a “vital component” of an aircraft’s ability to engage in interstate transportation.

Applying this framework, the court held that Vela’s class — workers who inspect and repair freight cars that have been removed from service and placed in a maintenance yard — is too far removed from actual transportation to qualify. The cars were decommissioned and unusable until Vela and his coworkers finished their tasks. It was only after repairs were completed that the cars re-entered service and resumed a role in moving goods. The court also noted the absence of any evidence that Vela’s class typically worked on cars that still contained freight. Cases Vela cited in support, including Betancourt v. Transportation Brokerage Specialists, Inc., 62 Cal.App.5th 552 (2021) (package delivery driver), and Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co., Inc., 33 Cal.App.5th 274 (2019) (delivery truck driver), were distinguished because those workers played active roles in moving goods — Vela did not.

Because the FAA applied and no exemption saved Vela from it, the class action waiver in his arbitration agreement was enforceable under federal law, which preempts California doctrine that would otherwise void such waivers. See Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348, 359 (2014).

For half a century, the medical world has classified traumatic brain injuries using essentially the same tool: the Glasgow Coma Scale, a bedside scoring system developed in 1974 that rates a patient’s eye opening, verbal responses, and motor function on a 15-point scale. A score of 13 to 15 is “mild,” 9 to 12 is “moderate,” and 3 to 8 is “severe.” That three-tier system has driven clinical decision-making, research design, insurance determinations, and — critically for this audience — workers’ compensation claims adjudication for decades.

That system is now being replaced. In May 2025, an international team of 94 experts from 14 countries, led by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, published a new classification framework in The Lancet Neurology. Called CBI-M, it represents the most significant change in how traumatic brain injuries are assessed and categorized since the Glasgow Coma Scale was introduced. Trauma centers nationwide are beginning to test it, and workers’ compensation professionals handling head injury claims need to understand what is coming.

The problem with the mild/moderate/severe classification is not that it is inaccurate — it is that it is incomplete. Within the “mild” TBI category alone, there is enormous variation. One patient might sustain a brief blow to the head with no loss of consciousness and a momentary gap in memory. Another patient in the same “mild” category might lose consciousness for 20 minutes and have a small brain bleed visible on imaging. Under the current system, both receive the same classification, the same label, and — too often — the same clinical follow-up, which for “mild” TBI frequently means discharge from the emergency department with minimal arrangements for ongoing care.

The new framework does not discard the Glasgow Coma Scale — it expands on it. CBI-M stands for Clinical, Biomarker, Imaging, and Modifier, representing four pillars of assessment that together provide a multidimensional picture of the injury rather than a single number.

The clinical pillar retains the Glasgow Coma Scale but uses each component score individually rather than collapsing them into a single sum. It also incorporates pupillary reactivity — whether the pupils respond normally to light — which is a significant predictor of outcomes that the traditional GCS sum score alone does not capture.

The biomarker pillar is entirely new to TBI classification. It incorporates blood-based measures that can detect the presence and extent of brain injury. The FDA approved the first blood test for brain injury in 2018, and the technology has advanced rapidly since. Specific proteins released when brain tissue is damaged — including glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), and S100 calcium-binding protein B (S100B) — can now be measured from a standard blood draw within hours of injury. Elevated levels indicate that brain injury has occurred, even when the patient’s clinical presentation appears mild and CT imaging looks normal.

The imaging pillar formalizes the role of brain imaging — CT and MRI — in characterizing the injury. Rather than simply asking whether a scan is “positive” or “negative,” the framework categorizes the specific types of pathology present, such as contusions, hemorrhages, or diffuse axonal injury, each of which carries different implications for recovery.

The modifier pillar accounts for individual factors that influence clinical presentation and outcome: the mechanism of injury, the patient’s age, preexisting medical conditions, prior head injuries, and psychosocial factors. These modifiers have always been relevant to prognosis, but the current classification system ignores them entirely.

Independent medical examinations will need to adapt. Medical evaluators who currently rely on the GCS classification to frame their opinions about injury severity and causation will need to engage with the new framework. The biomarker pillar deserves special attention because it introduces something the workers’ comp system has never had for traumatic brain injury: an objective, measurable indicator of injury that does not depend on patient self-reporting or clinical judgment. Brain injury has historically been one of the most difficult conditions to evaluate in the claims context precisely because it lacks the kind of objective evidence — an X-ray showing a fracture, an MRI showing a disc herniation — that other orthopedic injuries produce. Blood-based biomarkers change that equation.

This does not mean biomarker testing will resolve all disputes. Elevated protein levels indicate brain injury but do not, by themselves, predict the duration of symptoms or the degree of functional impairment. And the science is still maturing — reference ranges, timing windows for testing, and interpretation standards are all subjects of active research. But the direction is clear: TBI evaluation is moving from subjective to objective, and the workers’ comp system will need to keep pace.

The CBI-M framework is not yet in universal clinical use. The authors describe it as a framework that will require validation and refinement before full adoption. But it is being tested at trauma centers now, it was published in one of the world’s leading neurology journals, and it carries the imprimatur of the NIH. The trajectory is unmistakable.

For further reading, the CBI-M framework was published in The Lancet Neurology in May 2025: A New Characterisation of Acute Traumatic Brain Injury: The NIH-NINDS TBI Classification and Nomenclature Initiative. The NIH-NINDS also published an accessible summary: New Framework for Classifying Traumatic Brain Injury.