Author: WorkCompAcademy

In 2024, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 399, codified as California Labor Code § 1137, which became effective January 1, 2025. It was enacted in response to the Legislature’s concern about “captive audience meetings” held by employers during which employers share their opinions on political or religious matters unrelated to the employees’ job duties.

California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurant Association and the Western Growers Association filed a legal action last December over the enactment of  Senate Bill 399, arguing that it violates the rights of employers under the First Amendment and that the state law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.

Plaintiffs contend that SB 399 unlawfully regulates non-coercive speech of employers through implementing a “sweeping” limitation on speaking to employees about religious and political matters. In particular, Plaintiffs are concerned about the inclusion of “the decision to join or support any . . .labor organization” within the list of topics included within the definition of “political matters.” Plaintiffs argue that in enacting such a statute, the Legislature has placed its thumb on the scale in favor of labor.

Defendants and the Amici argue that Plaintiffs are distorting the description of SB 399 in defining it as a law that regulates non-coercive speech of employer. Rather, SB 399 is an anti-retaliation law that does not prohibit employers from speaking on matters of religious or political issues but prevents employers from punishing employees with adverse employment action who do not wish to attend such meetings.

The Amici argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief. Particularly, they contend that Plaintiffs cannot bring a pre-enforcement challenge because they have not adequately alleged a “concrete plan” to violate SB 399.

After hearing oral argument, a federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction on September 30, 2025 as requested by the plaintiffs, to block enforcement of the 2024 state law placing limits on employer communications with workers on a variety of issues, including possible union representation.

The Court found that Plaintiffs have adequately stated an injury in fact for purposes of a pre-enforcement injury. The Court also concluded that it is likely that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on their arguments that SB 399 is preempted by the NLRA, and also found that the Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits on their First Amendment argument.

“We are pleased the court agreed with the key issues in this case,” said CalChamber President & CEO Jennifer Barrera. “SB 399 sought to wrongly limit the speech of employers across California while also exposing companies of all sizes to new legal liabilities if their leaders communicate important political and legal updates that impact the workplace.”

CalChamber’s co-plaintiffs also issued statements on the ruling. “The Eastern District Court ruling is encouraging, because it recognizes the overstep of SB 399,” said Jot Condie, President & CEO of the California Restaurant Association. “This law would put employers in the impossible position of deciding what is ‘political’ and what is not and goes beyond regulating the so called ‘captive audience’ meetings already regulated at the Federal level.”

“This decision affirms what we have said from the beginning: SB 399 tramples on federal labor law and the First Amendment,” said Dave Puglia, President & CEO of the Western Growers Association. “By enjoining this unconstitutional law, the court has preserved the right of agricultural and all California employers to communicate openly with their employees without the State tipping the scales in union organizing campaigns. We are proud to stand with our coalition partners in defending these fundamental rights.”

Senate Bill 399 was identified by CalChamber as a ‘Job Killer’ during the 2024 legislative session, the only proposal on the organization’s list of problematic bills that was signed into law.

Jaime Ortiz filed two applications for adjudication of his claims. In Case No. ADJ9313543, applicant sustained injury to his bilateral knees and right shoulder while employed as an auto body worker by defendant City Auto Body from February 8, 2005 to May 12, 2005. In Case No. ADJ3093632, applicant sustained injury to his left knee while similarly employed by defendant City Auto Body on May 5, 2005. Both cases were resolved by Compromise and Release approved on February 18, 2014.

The parties proceeded to lien trial and placed in issue the liens of Reinherz Chiropractic, Tariq Mirza, M.D. and Mario Corzo Interpreting. The parties also framed related issues of, in relevant part, the reasonableness and necessity of treatment, liability for services, value of services, the “24-visit cap,” and defendant’s assertions that the interpreters were not certified.

The WCJ allowed the lien of Reinherz Chiropractic in an amount corresponding to 24 chiropractic visits prior to applicant’s June 1, 2006 surgery, and an additional 24 visits thereafter. The WCJ further determined that Dr. Mirza had not met the evidentiary burden of establishing that the provided services were medically reasonable and necessary, and disallowed the lien. The WCJ also found no evidence tat interpreter Mr. Corzo was certified or provisionally certified to act as an interpreter and thus disallowed the interpreting lien.

All three lien claimants Petitioned for Reconsideration. The WCAB panel affirmed the F&O except that the issue of whether Mr. Mario Corzo was certified or provisionally certified to provide interpreting services was deferred and returned to the WCAB for further proceedings in the panel decision of Ortiz v City Auto Body -ADJ3093632 -ADJ9313543 (September 2024).

Lien claimants’ joint Petition avers that notwithstanding the 24-visits maximum allowed under LC §  4604.5(c)(3), applicant in this instance “complained of injury to both knees,” and that “[a]t the very least, each knee should have been entitled to further treatment, in excess of the 24-visit cap.”

Petitioner avers that applicant’s June 1, 2006 surgery provided an exception to the 24-visit cap, and that applicant continued to experience ongoing knee pain after the surgery.

In response to this argument the WCAB panel wrote “Petitioners offer no persuasive legal argument as to why the WCJ’s application of section 4604.5 was in error. While Petitioners contend that the therapeutic allowances otherwise afforded under section 4604.5 are insufficient in light of the factual circumstances of this case, Petitioners offer no legal challenge to the validity or applicability of section 4604.5 in the first instance. Moreover, the WCJ has observed that the record lacks substantive evidence pertaining to a second knee surgery as alleged by petitioners. Accordingly, and in the absence of a colorable legal challenge to the application of section 4604.5 to the facts of this case, we decline to disturb the WCJ’s decision with respect to the lien of Reinherz Chiropractic.“

“Because the Petition offers no new legal or factual basis for a finding of medical necessity pursuant to section 4604.5, we decline to disturb the WCJ’s regarding the lien of Dr. Mirza.”

Finally, Petitioners challenge the WCJ’s application of the “Interpreter Services Regulations” to determine that Mr. Corzo was not regularly or provisionally certified at the time the interpreting services were rendered, and that Mr. Corzo’s lien is “not enforceable” as a result.

The WCAB previously addressed the issue of interpreter services in connection with medical treatment in Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders (2011) 76 Cal.Comp.Cases 228, 243 (Appeals Bd. en banc),3 wherein we held that in order “to recover its charges for interpreter services, the interpreter lien claimant has the burden of proving, among other things, that the services it provided were reasonably required, that the services were actually provided, that the interpreter was qualified to provide the services, and that the fees charged were reasonable.”

An interpreter lien claimant must also prove that the interpreter was qualified to provide the billed services. (Lab. Code, § 5705; Zenith Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Capi), 138 Cal.App.4th 373 [71 Cal. Comp. Cases 374];  Stokes v. Patton State Hospital(2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 996 (Significant Panel Decision). A “qualified interpreter” means a “certified” or “provisionally certified” interpreter pursuant to AD Rule 9795.1(f) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9795.1(f)), or, for purposes of section 4600, a “qualified interpreter” means an interpreter certified or deemed certified pursuant to the Government Code.

Here, the WCJ has determined that “there is no evidence that Mr. Corzo was certified or provisionally certified … [p]rovisionally certified means an interpreter otherwise qualified to perform interpreter services does so when a certified interpreter cannot be present or by agreement of the parties.”

However, it was not clear from this record whether the WCJ fully applied the analysis described in Guitron, supra, including a determination of whether Mr. Corzo was provisionally certified, i.e., “certified for interpreting at medical examinations or deemed certified for medical examinations by virtue of being certified for court or administrative hearing interpreting, or, if a certified interpreter is unavailable, the interpreter is provisionally certified by agreement of the parties or selected for provisional use by the treating physician.” For that reason the matter was referred back to the WCJ for further proceedings to clarify this issue.

The U.S. commercial auto insurance line continues to burden the overall property and casualty (P/C) industry, accounting for more than $10 billion in net underwriting losses over the past two years, according to a new AM Best report.

The Best’s Market Segment Report, “Stuck in Reverse: Commercial Auto Losses Keep Mounting,” states that the segment’s rising loss severity, increasing claims costs and adverse prior-year loss reserve development continue to produce net calendar year underwriting losses for commercial auto insurers. The commercial auto insurance sector has now generated an underwriting loss for the 14th consecutive year. In fact, the losses are getting worse: total underwriting losses in 2024 were $4.9 billion dollars. Over the past 11 years, the average underwriting loss has been a little over $2.9 billion annually.

“One bright spot to note is that during the past decade, insurers have trimmed about six percentage points off their underwriting expense ratio for commercial auto insurance,” said Christopher Graham, senior industry analyst, AM Best. “While commercial auto insurers are not recognized as often as personal auto insurers for adopting and leveraging technology through their operations, commercial auto insurers have nevertheless made some strides in improving their efficiency.”

According to the report, the difference between auto liability and physical damage results has been stark and diverging. The underwriting expense ratio is relatively similar for the two coverages, with both improving by approximately three percentage points of improvements compared with the expense ratios six to seven years ago. The difference in the net loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE) ratio for the coverage parts, however, has typically been significant and far higher for liability coverage. The distinction between compulsory liability coverage and optional physical damage coverage may lead to insureds finding physical damage coverage not worth the cost. “Even if insureds find benefits in physical damage coverage, they may opt for higher deductibles to pay less for coverage,” Graham said.

The report also notes that despite significant rate increases, commercial auto insurers have not been able to offset rising loss severity driven by inflation, rising replacement costs due to technological advancements and rising labor costs related to repairs. “Adverse loss development has been a constant drain on commercial auto results and is getting worse,” said David Blades, associate director, AM Best.

To access the full copy of this market segment report, please visit http://www3.ambest.com/bestweek/purchase.asp?record_code=358186.