Menu Close

Author: WorkCompAcademy

Workers’ Comp is in a “Total System Breakdown” – For California Firefighters

No one tracks how many of Cal Fire’s 12,000 firefighters and other employees suffer from mental health problems, but department leaders say post traumatic stress disorder and suicidal thoughts have become a silent epidemic at the agency responsible for fighting California’s increasingly erratic and destructive wildfires.

In an online survey of wildland firefighters nationwide, about a third reported considering suicide and nearly 40% said they had colleagues who had committed suicide; many also reported depression and anxiety.

Nonetheless, CalMatters claims the response of the California workers’ compensation system for these injured firefighters is a “total system breakdown.”

And  CalMatters goes on to say “California’s workers’ comp – which is supposed to help people get medical treatment for workplace illnesses and injuries – can be a nightmare for firefighters and other first responders with PTSD.

Claims filed by firefighters and law enforcement officers are more likely to involve PTSD than claims by the average worker in California – and they have been denied more often than claims for other medical conditions, according to the research institute RAND.

From 2008 to 2019 in California, workers’ comp officials denied PTSD claims filed by firefighters and other first responders at more than twice the rate of their other work-related conditions, such as back injuries and pneumonia, RAND reported. About a quarter of firefighters’ 1,000 PTSD claims were denied, a higher rate than for PTSD claims from other California workers.

“It’s a fail-first system. You have to get a broken leg to show you are in need of support. With mental illness, we are constantly having to prove to everybody why we were ill. You have to get to the point of suicide,” said Jessica Cruz, the California chief executive officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

CalMatters provides an example to back up its claim. Todd Nelson, former Cal Fire captain, “was running on the Foresthill Bridge, the highest in California, fleeing cops and firefighters after his wife reported that he was su icidal. He hurdled a concrete barrier and straddled the railing of the bridge in the Sierra Nevada foothills, staring down at a large rock 730 feet below. As the rescuers closed in, Nelson leaned precariously over the chasm. His strategy – making the fatal plunge appear accidental, allowing his family to collect his life insurance.”It was not Nelson’s first suicide attempt, he had tried to take his life many times before.

The incident began the firefighter’s arduous, years-long journey toward wellness, threaded through a bureaucratic labyrinth strewn with more obstacles than he’d ever encountered on a California wildfire: finding qualified medical help, battling an insurance company to pay for it and navigating the tangled morass of California’s workers’ comp. All without going broke or returning to his dark place.”

Jennifer Alexander, Nelson’s therapist, said patients in acute crisis simply don’t have the mental capacity to ride herd on stubborn workers’ comp claims. Alexander said she was once on hold for more than six hours with Cal Fire’s mental health provider attempting to get one of her bills paid, and she has waited years to get paid for treating firefighters.

“People give up. It’s a battle … They are not fully functional,” said Alexander, who for 21 years has specialized in treating first responders with trauma and PTSD and has spent an estimated 25,000 hours treating them. “You are not talking about healthy individuals who can sit on the phone for hours.”

Cal Fire firefighters and other workers also have trouble finding qualified therapists, especially outside major cities in rural areas, where many are based. In 2021, less than half of people with a mental illness in the U.S. were able to access timely care. Therapists are reluctant to take workers’ comp, or sometimes any type of insurance. because they often have to wait months or years to be reimbursed.

Michael Dworsky, a senior economist at the research institute RAND and one of the study’s project leaders, called workers’ comp “challenging and bureaucratic.”

“Even if the claim is accepted, there can be disputes about the medical necessity of individual bills. Just because your claim is accepted, doesn’t mean you are done fighting with the insurance company,” he said.

In 2020 lawmakers took a major step,adding a legal shortcut or “presumption” to the state labor code, stipulating that firefighters and other first responders are considered at high risk for PTSD in the course of doing their job. A law enacted last year extended the presumption to 2029.

Before enacting the law, state officials asked RAND researchers to report on the scope of the problem. They analyzed nearly 6 million claims filed between 2008 through 2019 and interviewed dozens of experts, including a representative sample of 13 first responders. The researchers found a consistent and troubling trend among the 13: “Nearly all workers said that they had filed a workers’ compensation claim for their mental health conditions – yet almost none received PTSD care paid for by workers’ compensation.”

Many therapists say they haven’t seen much, if any, improvement. Nelson’s therapist, Alexander, called workers’ comp a “total system breakdown.” A spokesman for the Department of Industrial Relations refused to grant interview requests from CalMatters or answer questions or provide data about firefighters’ mental health claims.

Former Camarillo Insurance Agent Sentenced to 16 Years for $1.2M Scam

Former licensed insurance agent Brett E. Lovett, 53, of Camarillo was sentenced to 16 years and eight months in jail after being found guilty, after a 9 week jury trial, of 29 felony counts including grand theft, elder abuse, money laundering, and burglary.

Translated into real time, that comes to about four years, according to Casey Nelson, who prosecuted the case and argued Lovett should get 28 years. The probation report – citing the utter financial ruin Lovett visited upon his elderly victims – many of whom he met through Carpinteria’s Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses – argued for 26 years. Ultimately, the judge imposed a lighter sentence, citing Lovett’s lack of prior criminal charges.

A 15-month California Department of Insurance investigation found he defrauded at least nine victims, including senior citizens, of close to $1.2 million.

Lovett was arrested in October 2017 after the Department’s investigation revealed that between 2011 and 2016, he defrauded at least nine victims. Several of his victims were senior citizens whom he met and befriended at a place of worship in Carpinteria. Other victims sought legal advice from Lovett through his legal aid information business.

Victims entrusted Lovett with their money for proposed investments that never existed, or for financial management purposes. Lovett then misappropriated the money for his own personal use and to repay some of his victims — sometimes using his Power of Attorney and Promissory Notes to embezzle funds from victims.

Lovett has a history of embezzling money from members of the places of worship he attends.

In 2007, doing business as Northwest Asset Fund, he was ordered to pay more than $675,900 in restitution, fines and sanctions by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Lovett never paid the fines or restitution.

The CFTC entered a permanent injunction against Lovett, who never registered with the CFTC. Between October 2002 and August 2005, Lovett fraudulently solicited money from individuals, purportedly to trade commodity futures, through false promises of high returns from a low-risk investment.

Lovett’s license to transact insurance expired in May 2000. He was not acting as an insurance agent during this time, but he was giving financial advice which he was not licensed to give.

The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office prosecuted this case

.

June 17, 2024 – News Podcast


Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: WCAB En Banc Clarifies Confusion on Use of “Kite” Based CVC Rebuttal. AB 5 Survives Uber and Postmates’ Constitutional Challenge. The EEOC Sued 15 Employers for Failure to File EEO-1 Report. Coalition of 36 State Attorney Generals Urge SCOTUS to Limit PBMs. Farm Labor Contracting Companies Face $30M Payroll Fraud Charges. California Chamber of Commerce “Job Killer Bills” Miss Key Deadline. DWC Sets Public Hearing for Proposed UR Regulation Changes. Watchdog Group Says Trailer Bill Insurance Rate Provisions Will Cost Billions.

DLSE Imposition of Labor Code Penalties on Contractor Affirmed on Appeal

In 2014, San Marcos Unified School District awarded Lusardi Construction Company a contract to construct the San Marcos K-8 School Project. Lusardi subcontracted with Pro Works to install the iron reinforcing work for the Project..

In 2015, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) opened an investigation into a complaint that Pro Works violated former Labor Code section 1777.5 by failing to: (1) provide contract award information; (2) request dispatch of apprentices from applicable apprentice committees; (3) employ registered apprentices in compliance with a required apprentice to journeyperson ratio; and (4) make certain required training fund contributions to an approved apprenticeship program.

Deputy Labor Commissioner Kari Anderson served several documents on Lusardi and Pro Works including a “notice of investigation” and a request that the forward certain listed documents. The entities responded differently to Anderson’s documents request.

Anderson issued a “Penalty Review” summarizing her findings. She concluded that in February 2015, Pro Works violated the statutes and regulations relating to apprenticeships by failing to submit compliant DAS 140 and 142 forms and other required information. Anderson found that Pro Works “failed to hire any apprentices.” She also concluded Pro Works had a “history” of apprentice violations, and specifically listed their dates and descriptions. Anderson concluded the penalty should be assessed based on Pro Works’s failure to comply with four out of the five factors set forth in former Labor Code section 1777.7, subdivision (f). Penalties were assessed in the amount of $30,800, consisting of $200 per each of 154 days of section 1777.5 violations.

Lusardi timely filed a request for review of Anderson’s decision with the Director. Before the review hearing started, the hearing officer ruled the 2014 version of the relevant Labor Code provisions and regulations would apply, based on the Project’s bid advertisement date. He also ruled regarding the burden of proof that “DLSE will have to come forward with sufficient evidence to provide prima facie support for the penalty assessment.” If this is done, “Lusardi will have . . . the burden of proof set forth in [California Code of Regulations, title 8, section] 232.50[, subdivision] (b).”

On the first day of the hearing, Lusardi’s counsel initially stated three of its representatives as well as Senior Deputy Labor Commissioner Michael Nagtalon who had reviewed and approved the “Penalty Review” would be called to testify. But Nagtalon was not available. DLSE’s sole witness, Anderson, was the only person who testified that day.

On the second and last day of the hearing, Lusardi’s counsel sought the testimony of Nagtalon, who was under subpoena. DLSE’s counsel explained Nagtalon was unavailable as he was outside of the country, but he offered to produce Nagtalon for a rescheduled hearing. However, Lusardi elected not to request a continuance to obtain Nagtalon’s testimony or to put on its case. Instead, its counsel stated, “Lusardi will rest without presenting any further evidence and will not move any of Lusardi’s exhibits into evidence in this matter.” Counsel explained: “We are not going to present any evidence because we feel very strongly the Labor Commissioner has failed to meet its burden in this matter.”

Lusardi’s administrative appeal was unsuccessful and the Director affirmed the hearing officer’s findings, concluding DLSE met its burden to present evidence showing prima facie support for the penalty assessment, including that Lusardi knew of Pro Works’s violations and was liable for the penalties. Lusardi filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, which the superior court denied. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Director in the published case of Lusardi Construction Co. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations – D081704 (June 2024.)

On appeal, among other issues Lusardi contended the court erroneously adopted the Director’s “interpretation and unprecedented application of the two prongs of [former] Labor Code section 1777.7, subdivision (d)(1)-(4).”

Former section 1777.7, subdivision (d) provided: “If a subcontractor is found to have violated Section 1777.5, the prime contractor of the project is not liable for any penalties under subdivision (a), unless the prime contractor had knowledge of the subcontractor’s failure to comply with the provisions of Section 1777.5 (and the second prong in this case) or unless the prime contractor fails to comply with any of the following requirements” and four additional requirements are listed in this law.

The superior court denied Lusardi’s writ petition, interpreting former section 1777.7 subdivision (d) in the disjunctive: “Based on the plain language of the statute, the [c]ourt believes that the Legislature intended for the [Director] to have the burden of establishing that petitioner had knowledge of the subcontractor’s failure to comply with [former section] 1777.5 or that petitioner failed to comply with any [of] the requirements set forth in [former section 1777.7 subdivision] (d)(1)-(4). [¶] . . . [¶] The Director focused on the first prong of [former section] 1777.7[,subdivision] (d), and made a finding that Lusardi had knowledge of the subcontractor’s apprentice violations.”

The Court of Appeal noted that “Statutory construction is a question of law we decide de novo. [Citation.] Our primary objective in interpreting a statute is to determine and give effect to the underlying legislative intent. [Citation.] ”

In interpreting the disjunctive parts of former section 1777.7, subdivision (d), The Court turned to one court’s discussion of the challenges in interpreting the conjunction “or”: “The fact is that there is nothing very plain about the use of the connective “or” in legal drafting.’ [Citation.] “Sometimes it joins alternatives; sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes or means and; sometimes it doesn’t[ ].” [Citation.] “Additionally, if ‘or’ is a disjunctive connector, sometimes it connects words in the inclusive sense (i.e., A or B, or both); other times, it connects words in the exclusive sense (i.e., A or B, but not both). [Citation.] Thus, the potential ambiguity created by ‘or’ is not one dimensional.”

The Court of Appeal concluded that “the court did not err in interpreting former section 1777.7, subdivision (d). The statute’s plain language provides two inclusive and alternative ways for imposing liability on a prime contractor for penalties resulting from the subcontractor’s violations of former section 1777.5. Specifically, first, the prime contractor is not liable for the penalties ‘unless [it] had knowledge of the subcontractor’s failure to comply’ with the statute; or, second, it is not liable for the penalties ‘unless the prime contractor fails to comply with any of the’ requirements set forth in the remainder of section (d).”

Newsom’s Budget Woes Delay Start of Healthcare Minimum Wage Hike

Healthcare cost payers and employers who pay for health and workers’ compensation insurance have been bracing for the effects of the California mandated increase in pay for healthcare workers.

It might be with some relief to know that California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislators have reached an agreement on the 2024 state budget, which includes delaying the start of minimum wage increases for healthcare workers to at least the fall.

Mr. Newsom, Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas announced the agreement June 22 – less than a month after the governor signed SB 828 in May, which postponed the start of the wage adjustments to July 1, the beginning of the state’s fiscal year.

The legislation signed last month allowed additional time for the governor’s administration to continue to work with state lawmakers and stakeholders to tie provisions related to the healthcare worker minimum wage law, SB 525, to state budget conditions, according to CalMatters.

Under the new agreement, the new minimum wage would be delayed until at least Oct. 15, according to Bloomberg.

If state lawmakers approve the agreement, healthcare workers could begin seeing raises on that date, provided that state revenues from July to September exceed current estimates by at least 3%, according to the publication.

Should that fail to occur, implementation of the raises could be delayed to Jan. 1, Bloomberg reported.

Governor Newsom signed SB 525 in October to gradually raise the minimum wage for healthcare workers to $25 per hour through a series of annual increases ranging from $18 to $25 per hour, with healthcare facilities expected to reach a $25 per hour minimum wage by June 1, 2028, or, for some in rural locations, 2033.

The governor then indicated he wanted to potentially delay the increases in the face of the state’s projected budget shortfall.

If delayed until January, the new minimum wage is expected to cost the state general fund approximately $600 million in the next fiscal year, according to Bloomberg, which cited preliminary data from the administration.

Mr. Newsom said in a news release that the June 22 agreement “sets the state on a path for long-term fiscal stability – addressing the current shortfall and strengthening budget resilience down the road.”

Approximately 426,000 workers are expected to benefit from the law, according to the latest estimates from the UC Berkeley Labor Center. This includes medical assistants, front office staff, medical billing personnel, patient techs, janitors, food service workers, among others. The law also applies to contracted workers who work primarily on-site at an eligible facility.

The delay preserves a hard-fought victory for one of the state’s largest labor unions – and one of Democrats’ largest campaign donors. Dave Regan, president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, said workers are disappointed they won’t get raises this summer.

Cal/OSHA Adopts Indoor Heat Protection Standard With Prison Exemptions

On June 20 the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board approved an indoor heat standard to protect indoor workers from heat illness. The new regulation will require indoor workplaces to be cooled below 87 degrees Fahrenheit if feasible when employees are present, and below 82 degrees if feasible in places where workers wear protective clothing that restricts heat removal or work in high radiant heat areas.

Back in March, CalMatters reported that the rule was expected to be finally voted into place by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board at a meeting in San Diego. But state officials ordered that it be pulled from the agenda after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration suddenly withdrew a required stamp of approval, saying it learned the rule would cost state prisons much more money than anticipated.

For state government, the standards board last year estimated the Department of Corrections would need to pay less than $1 million in the rule’s first year and less than $500,000 annually after that to comply. About half of the state’s 1,500 correctional institutions are either already climate controlled or located in areas that won’t be hot enough to trigger the heat rule, the Department of Industrial Relations stated. That was after finance officials told the department in 2021 that it underestimated prison costs; the department said its updated analysis resulted in double the cost to the state.

But State Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer told CalMatters the finance department received more updated information in recent weeks that costs to the corrections department would be in the billions of dollars instead. He could not explain what could account for such a drastic difference in estimates in just one year, saying “we’ve been trying to get an understanding of that.”

Then on April 18, Cal/OSHA said it planed to pass rules this summer, except for workers at prisons.

As planned, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, on June 20, 2024, approved California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 3396, “Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment.” The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has 30 working days to review and approve or deny the proposal. The Standards Board requested that the regulation take effect immediately after OAL approval.

Local and state correctional facilities as well as emergency operations directly involved in the protection of life or property are exempted from the proposed regulation for indoor heat. Cal/OSHA is in the process of developing an industry-specific regulation for local and state correctional facilities to protect their workers from indoor heat hazards. In the interim, for these exempted employers, Cal/OSHA will continue investigating potential indoor heat violations under existing regulations such as the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (Title 8, Section 3203) and Water Supply (Title 8, Section 3363).

Cal/OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment regulation applies to most indoor workplaces, such as restaurants, warehouses, and manufacturing facilities. For indoor workplaces where the temperature reaches 87 degrees Fahrenheit, employers must take steps to protect workers from heat illness. Some of the requirements include providing water, rest, cool-down areas, methods for cooling down the work areas under certain conditions, and training.

Employers may be covered under both the indoor and outdoor regulations if they have both indoor and outdoor workplaces. See the Comparison Chart of Indoor and Outdoor Heat Illness Prevention Standards.

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, a seven-member body appointed by the Governor, is the standards-setting agency within the Cal/OSHA program. The Standards Board’s objective is to adopt reasonable and enforceable standards that are at least as effective as federal standards. The Standards Board also has the responsibility to grant or deny applications for variances from adopted standards and respond to petitions for new or revised standards.

There are more resources for employers and workers on Cal/OSHA’s Heat Illness Prevention web page and the 99calor.org informational website, as well as a Heat Illness Prevention online tool. The advisory includes a toll free number for workers who have questions about heat illness prevention in indoor and outdoor places of employment can speak with a Cal/OSHA representative, 1-833-579-0927, and information on how to file confidential complaints with Cal/OSHA district offices about workplace safety and health hazards.

American Labor Alliance Executives Convicted of $2.4M Worker’s Comp Fraud

Following a 19-day trial, on Tuesday, a jury convicted Fresno residents Marcus Asay, 68; Antonio Gastelum, 53; and their company, Agricultural Contracting Services Association dba American Labor Alliance (ALA), of committing a multi-year pension fraud scheme, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.

The jury also convicted Asay and ALA of committing separate workers’ compensation and hardship exemption fraud schemes. The hardship exemption fraud scheme involved a supposed exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that people obtain health insurance or pay a significant shared responsibility payment when they file their taxes. Finally, the jury convicted Asay of laundering money that he received from the pension fraud scheme.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Asay was the founder and chairman of ALA, and Gastelum was the company’s Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Compliance Officer. Gastelum is also the former city manager for the City of Parlier. From 2011 through 2019, the defendants offered three sham products: retirement plan, workers’ compensation coverage, and hardship exemption.

Pension Fraud Scheme

For the pension fraud scheme, Asay, Gastelum, and ALA falsely represented to over 3,000 people that they would protect and invest their retirement money through a 401(k) Plan when, in fact, they used the money for improper business and personal expenses. The improper expenses included restaurants, travel, credit cards, rare coins, transfers to Asay’s personal retirement account, online companion websites, and rent for Asay’s lakefront house in Fresno. The defendants then covered up the fact that the retirement money was gone by taking money the company received from the workers’ compensation fraud scheme and holding those funds out as pension funds. The loss caused by the pension fraud scheme was over $750,000.

Workers’ Compensation Fraud Scheme

For the workers’ compensation fraud scheme, Asay and ALA falsely represented that national insurers backed the workers’ compensation coverage that the company offered in several states, including California. The defendants did so by listing the national insurers on the certificates of insurance and policy declarations that the company issued to customers. The accuracy of the certificates of insurance and policy declarations was important to the customers because they needed to present these items to their own customers and regulators as proof of having workers’ compensation coverage in order to continue doing business. When government authorities began investigating the workers’ compensation fraud scheme, the defendants sent letters to customers telling them not to cooperate. The loss caused by the workers’ compensation fraud scheme was over $2,250,000.

Hardship Exemption Fraud Scheme

For the hardship exemption fraud scheme, Asay and ALA falsely represented that for a few hundred dollars they could provide people with an exemption that would protect them from The Affordable Care Act’s shared responsibility payment for not having health insurance when, in fact, only government agencies could issue such exemptions. Moreover, the exemptions were free to those who qualified.

This case is the product of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration and Office of Labor-Management Standards, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the IRS Criminal Investigation, and the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael Tierney, Joseph Barton, and Stephanie Stokman are prosecuting the case.

The defendants are scheduled to be sentenced on Oct. 21, 2024, by U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Asay and Gastelum face up to 20 years in prison for each count of conviction as well as maximum fines ranging from $250,000 to $500,000 per count. ALA faces up to an $8.5 million fine. The actual sentences, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

Newsom and Business Leaders Announce PAGA Reform Agreement

Governor Gavin Newsom, in partnership with legislative leadership and business and labor groups, announced an agreement on needed reforms to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that avoids a contentious ballot measure campaign.

Once the legislation reflecting this agreement is passed and signed into law by the Governor, proponents of the PAGA ballot initiative eligible for the November ballot have agreed to withdraw their measure. Here’s what this PAGA reform proposal would do:

Reform penalty structure

– – Encourages compliance with labor laws by capping penalties on employers who quickly take steps to fix policies and practices, and make workers whole, after receiving a PAGA notice, as well as on employers that act responsibly to take steps proactively to comply with the labor code before even receiving a PAGA notice.
– – Creates new, higher penalties on employers who act maliciously, fraudulently or oppressively in violating labor laws.
– – Ensures that more of the penalty money goes to employees by increasing the amount allocated to employees from 25% to 35%.

Reducing and streamlining litigation

– – Expands which Labor Code sections can be cured to reduce the need for litigation and make employees whole quickly.
– – Protects small employers by providing a more robust right to cure process through the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to reduce litigation and costs.
– – Codifies that a court may limit both the scope of claims presented at trial to ensure cases can be managed effectively.

Improving measures for injunctive relief and standing

– – Allows courts to provide injunctive relief to compel businesses to implement changes in the workplace to remedy labor law violations.
– – Requires the employee to personally experience the alleged violations brought in a claim.

Strengthening state enforcement

– – Give the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) the ability to expedite hiring and fill vacancies to ensure effective and timely enforcement of employee labor claims.

“This package provides meaningful reforms that ensure workers continue to have a strong vehicle to get labor claims resolved, while also limiting the frivolous litigation that has cost employers billions without benefiting workers,” said Jennifer Barrera, President & CEO, California Chamber of Commerce. “We thank Governor Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore McGuire and Assembly Speaker Rivas for navigating this agreement, and we encourage the legislature to pass this package quickly.”

“We are happy to have negotiated reforms to PAGA that better ensure abusive practices by employers are cured and that workers are made whole, quicker,” said Lorena Gonzalez, principal officer of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. “PAGA is an essential tool to help workers hold corporations accountable for widespread wage theft, safety violations, and misclassification. We appreciate the work of the Governor’s office and Legislative Leadership to help us reach agreement with the Cal Chamber of Commerce to protect this innovative law and strengthen labor law enforcement.”

“Today’s agreement is critical to the long-term success of workers and businesses here in the Golden State,” said Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire (D-North Coast). “Commonsense reform of PAGA has been discussed for years, and thanks to the collaboration of all sides, including the work of the Governor, this agreement will continue to provide strong worker protections and implement long talked-about reforms. Next steps include working with Speaker Rivas to move legislation forward in the days to come.”

“This agreement is important because it protects working people, who are the real engine behind California’s economic strength,” said Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas (D-Salinas). “It also recognizes companies that follow labor laws, and it puts more muscle into enforcement. I grew up watching farmworkers and employers find common ground, so it means a lot to me that so many groups came together and found consensus. This is a hard-earned agreement, and that makes the positive outcomes we’ll see for businesses and workers even better.”

After Imposing $40K in Sanctions WCAB Seeks More Against Garretts

After issuing a notice of intent on April 10, 2024, and having received and reviewed the responses of Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett, on May 16, 2024, the Appeals Board issued an en banc order imposing sanctions and costs in eight cases collectively of $20,000.00 against attorney Susan Garrett (CA BAR #195580) in eight (8) instances where she filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or where it appeared that such actions were indisputably without merit.

The Appeals Board issued a second order imposing costs and sanctions collectively of $20,000.00 against hearing representative Lance Garrett in eight (8) instances where he filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or where it appeared that such actions were indisputably without merit.

Prior to these orders the Garretts were provided with a Notice of Intent and were given an opportunity to present their defense to the charges.

The WCAB characterized the response by writing “Susan Garrett and Lance Garrett’s responses trivialize the act of filing multiple frivolous petitions for reconsideration as an ‘inconvenience.’ However, their conduct here goes far beyond inconvenience. The filing of frivolous petitions for reconsideration significantly hampers the work of the Appeals Board. Each petition costs significant time and resources and delays the issuance of other decisions pending at the Appeals Board. More significantly, it delays a determination of applicant’s benefits in each of the cases at bar.”

And that may have precipitated the WCAB to seek even more than the $40,000 total sanction imposed thus far. The WCAB just announced two new groups of cases where it intends to impose even more sanctions, and has issued it’s Notice of Intent, En Banc, accordingly.

On June 17, 2024, in Abel Hidalgo, et al vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop, permissibly self-insured, Case Nos. ADJ13332737, ADJ15218980, ADJ12640295, the Appeals Board issued an en banc order consolidating three cases and issued a notice of intention to impose costs and sanctions collectively up to $7,500.00 against attorney Susan Garrett (CA BAR #195580) in three (3) instances where it appeared that she filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or where it appeared that such actions were indisputably without merit.

In the same case the Appeals Board issued a second notice of intention to impose costs and sanctions collectively up to $7,500.00 against hearing representative Lance Garrett in three (3) instances where it appeared that he filed petitions for reconsideration with willful intent to disrupt or delay the proceedings of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or with an improper motive, or where it appeared thaIt such actions were indisputably without merit. Garrett has 20 plus 5 days to file a response to the notice.

And also in Guillermo Gonzalez, et al vs. The Bicycle Casino; Arch Indemnity Ins. Co., administered by Gallagher Bassett, et al.Case No. ADJ12226694, ADJ12414651, ADJ12414992, ADJ12414993, two nearly identical Notices of Intent for two instances of alleged sanctionable conduct, and each are subject to an additional $5000.

They both have 25 days to respond to the Notice of Intent.

June 10, 2024 – News Podcast


Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: WCAB Affirms WCJ’s Apportionment in Psyche Case. WCAB Rescinds WCJ Order to Compel Answers to Interrogatories. No Discovery of Attorney Work Product in Carrier’s Subrogation Case. New Trial Ordered in Employers’ Class Action Against Sutter Health. Palomar Hospital Pays $250,000 for Diverting Fentanyl. Growing Number of Female Minority Doctors in California Report Burnout. FDA Approves Traumatic Brain Injury. Rapid Test Using One Drop of Blood. Data from MRI Can Detect Who Will Get Alzheimer’s and When.