Category: Daily News

The California Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in the case of Joseph Mayor v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board et.al., S287261 for April 2nd, 2026 at 1:30 pm.

In a triad of published decisions by three separate Court of Appeal panels, namely, Earley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., et al., 94 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2023) (“Earley”), Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., et al., 97 Cal. App. 5th 1213 (2023)(“Zurich”), and most recently in Mayor v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., et al., 104 Cal. App. 5th 1297 (2024) (“Mayor”), the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s “grant for study” orders pursuant to the former version of Labor Code section 5909 (Section 5909) have been found to be unlawful.

The Mayor court found that the Appeals Board exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued the order granting reconsideration beyond 60 days from the date the petition was filed with the DWC. (Mayor, supra, 104 Cal.App.5th at p. 725.) The court granted a writ of mandate and ordered that the Appeals Board rescind its order granting reconsideration and its January and February decisions. (Id. at p. 731.)

This appears to be a systemic problem with the WCAB. The Amicus Curiae Brief of American Property Casualty Insurance Association stated “[o]ne appellate court noted that, as of November 2021, there were over 500 pending cases in which the WCAB had invoked “Shipley tolling” and issued a boilerplate “further study” order. The practice since then has continued unabated, often ending in simple affirmances in unremarkable cases.”

The parties sought review of the Courts of Appeal decisions, and the Supreme Court granted review in Mayor. The Supreme Court is asked to answer the question presented by the essential issue “[m]ay the Appeals Board apply equitable tolling to act upon a petition for reconsideration beyond the 60-day period provided in Labor Code section 5909, when, through no fault of the parties, the Appeals Board did not receive the petition for reconsideration until after the 60-day period has elapsed?” Review was granted on December 11, 2024.

After the Petition for Review was granted, the parties filed briefs with the Supreme Court, presenting their view of the facts and law on the issues presented as follows.

– – Respondent, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Petition for Review Filed on October 7, 2024
– – Petitioner’s Answer to Petition for Review Filed on October 25, 2024
– – Respondent, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Reply to Answer to Petition for Review Filed on November 4, 2024
– – Respondent, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Opening Brief on the Merits Filed on February 10, 2025
– – Petitioner’s Answer Brief on the Merits Filed on March 10, 2025
– – Petitioner’s Notice of Errata Filed on March 11, 2025
– – Respondent, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Reply Brief on the Merits Filed on April 1, 2025
– – Amicus Curiae Brief of American Property Casualty Insurance Association Filed on June 2, 2025
– – Amicus Curiae Brief of Mashallah Ishal Filed on June 3, 2025
– – Respondent, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Response to Amicus Curiae Brief Filed on July 1, 2025
– – Respondent, Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Response to Amicus Curiae Brief Filed on July 3, 2025
– – Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief Filed on March 13, 2026

Subsequently, in City of Salinas v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Miraco) (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 801 (S293212): Review was granted on November 19, 2025, but briefing has been deferred pending a decision in the lead case of Mayor v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (S287261). No oral arguments are scheduled, and no decision has been issued in Miraco.

In the lead case, Joseph Mayor argues that Labor Code §5909 is mandatory and jurisdictional, and the appeals Board does not have fundamental jurisdiction to consider a petition for reconsideration after the expiration of the 60-day limit set forth in the statute.

The WCAB responds by saying “[f]or 30 years, the courts of this state followed the Fourth District’s decision in Shipley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1107 (“Shipley”), holding that because section 5909 is premised upon the Appeals Board having possession of a petition for reconsideration, equitable tolling may apply to extend the 60-day deadline to act in cases where the Appeals Board does not have the petition.” It urges the Supreme Court to follow the rationale in Shipley.

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) said it is the primary national trade association for home, auto, and business insurers, with a legacy dating back 150 years. APCIA’s members represent 65 percent of the United States property-casualty insurance market and write more than $65 billion in premiums in the State of California annually, including over 71 percent of the workers’ compensation insurance market.

APCIA said it “is interested in this case because the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s months-long delay in ruling on the petition for reconsideration here is part of a widespread and damaging practice.”

Target Corporation hired Daniel Husband in October 2020 as a fulfillment expert at its Burbank store. Although Target’s new-hire materials explained that the company would attempt to accommodate known physical or mental limitations, Husband did not disclose to any Target official that he had been diagnosed with bipolar I disorder. He worked without incident for approximately 20 months.

Things changed in the summer of 2022. On June 9, 2022, Husband entered the store while off duty and became visibly upset with an employee; the employee reported that Husband used profanity, though Husband denied it. He was verbally counseled and later received a written memo.

On July 7, 2022, Husband arrived for his night shift looking deflated, then suddenly became angry. He recounted hitting himself in the temple and said that his fulfillment workload was “laughing at him.” He became highly emotional, pointed fingers, and yelled at a coworker. His supervisor, Daniel Abts, sent him home. Abts found the behavior “somewhat disturbing” and emailed store leadership expressing concern for Husband’s “mental state.”

The next evening, July 8, Husband arrived shaking, distraught, and breathing heavily. He told Abts he thought he had “killed” his stepmother by speaking a word and asked whether he had killed anyone at the store. Abts found the statements “very irrational” and “very disturbing,” believed Husband “needed help,” and sent him home with a recommendation that he see a doctor or psychiatric professional. Husband and his father returned to the store that night and again the next morning, July 9, insisting Husband was “fine.” During the July 9 meeting with store leadership, managers reported that Husband erupted with profanity directed at Target, though Husband’s father denied the outburst occurred.

Later on July 9, Target’s store director, human resources lead, and district HR business partner decided to terminate Husband for violating the company’s workplace violence policy. At that time, Husband had never informed Target of his bipolar disorder or requested any accommodations. On July 10 — after the termination decision had been made but before Husband was informed — he arrived barefoot at the store, entered the employee-only area, grabbed security keys, ran out, claimed to be someone else, threw the keys at an employee, and began to disrobe. On July 18, Husband submitted a medical note clearing him to return to work but disclosing no diagnosis; he was informed that day of his termination. Subsequent requests for reinstatement, including a September 2022 letter from counsel asserting disability discrimination, went unanswered.

Husband sued Target under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in the interactive process. Target moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that Target had no knowledge of Husband’s mental disability when it decided to terminate him because there was more than one reasonable interpretation of his workplace conduct, and that Husband had never disclosed his disability or requested accommodation. The court also found that Target had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination — a genuine belief that Husband had made threats or engaged in violence against coworkers in violation of company policy.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed in the published case of Husband v. Target Corporation, -No. B342334 (May 2026).

The opinion addresses a question at the intersection of all three FEHA theories: under what circumstances will an employer be charged with knowledge of an undisclosed mental disability based solely on its own observations? The court held that, as a matter of law, two incidents of aggressive, emotional, and irrational behavior were insufficient to impute such knowledge.

For a FEHA discrimination claim, the court applied the standard from Brundage v. Hahn (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 228, 237: when an employee has not disclosed a disability, the employer is charged with knowledge only when “the fact of disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the known facts.” For failure-to-accommodate and interactive-process claims, the court applied the related standard from Pensinger v. Bowsmith, Inc. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 709, 724–725, and Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 570, 601: an employer’s duty is triggered only when observed symptoms “are so obviously manifestations of an underlying disability” that the existence of a disability “always follows” from them.

The court acknowledged that Husband’s conduct was consistent with a mental disability but concluded it was not uniquely indicative of one. His behavior could also reasonably be attributed to the effects of illegal substances, a combination of medications, or sleep deprivation — a point Husband himself conceded during his deposition. Abts’s subjective impression that Husband “needed help” and might benefit from seeing a psychiatric professional did not change the analysis. The standard is objective, the court emphasized, and one untrained supervisor’s speculation does not establish that a mental disability was the only reasonable interpretation of the facts. Allowing a co-worker’s subjective opinion to control would make employer liability turn on the vagaries of individual workplace knowledge and willingness to speculate.

The court rejected Husband’s reliance on Ninth Circuit decisions equating conduct caused by a disability with the disability itself, including Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc. (9th Cir. 2007) 486 F.3d 1087, 1093. Adopting that framework, the court reasoned, would effectively require every front-line supervisor to have mastered the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — an unwarranted assumption that would vastly expand FEHA liability beyond its purpose.

The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB) has published its latest Quarterly Experience Report, offering an updated view of statewide insurer experience valued as of December 31, 2025. The report reflects recent trends in premium, rates and system costs based on insurer-reported data.

Key findings from the report include:

– – Written premiums in calendar years 2022 through 2025 are relatively stable compared to large swings during the pandemic.
– – Average charged rates have declined steadily since 2014, reaching a historical low in 2025. The smaller decreases in the past two years suggest this trend may be leveling off.
– – The projected loss and allocated loss adjustment expense (ALAE) ratio for accident year 2025 (95%) is generally consistent with 2024 (94%).
– – The combined ratio rose 3 points in 2025 to 129%, its highest level in over 20 years. Recent increases are driven by higher claim frequency and higher loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE) costs, with relatively stable earned premium.
– – Combined ratios have exceeded 110% for the past five years. The last sustained period above 100% was prior to the Senate Bill No. 863 (SB 863) reforms.
– – Closing rates declined beginning in the second quarter of 2020 due to the pandemic and have trended lower since 2023, likely reflecting higher volumes of CT claims and increased litigation, which prolongs the claims process. The closing rate is 32.8% in 2025.
– – Since 2022, increases in indemnity claim frequency have been driven by growth in the frequency of CT claims. Excluding CT claims, recent changes have been more modest.
– – In 2025, overall frequency remains above the long- term trend due to continued elevated reporting of CT claims.
– – After increasing for eight consecutive years, projected total loss and ALAE severity is generally flat in 2025, but remains 29% above 2016.
– – ALAE severities have seen significant increases each year since 2021, with an 11% increase in 2025.
– – Following a modest increase in accident year 2024, projected indemnity severity declined slightly by 1% in accident year 2025. Indemnity severity in 2025 is 27% higher than 2016.
– – Average medical-legal costs per claim have increased sharply since 2022. This reflects both higher utilization and a continued increase in average payment per service, particularly for medical record review.
– – Recent increases are also associated with growth in CT claims, which have higher utilization of medical-legal services, as well as increased use of services involving psychological or psychiatric evaluations. Medical-legal cost increases are also more pronounced in Southern California.

The information presented reflects a compilation of individual insurer submissions of information to the WCIRB. While the individual insurer data submissions are regularly checked for consistency and comparability with other data submitted by the insurer as well as with data submitted by other insurers, the WCIRB wrote it can make no warranty with respect to the information provided by third parties.

Scott Eskra was employed by AF Builders, Inc., when he was struck and killed by a falling tree on March 7, 2018. He was survived by his biological daughter, Ariana Eskra, then a minor, and his wife, Brandy Eskra. Also living in his household were Brandy’s two children from a prior relationship: Jovie Fischer, who was nine years old and living with Scott and Brandy approximately 20 to 23 days per month, and Austin Evenson, who had graduated high school and joined the Marine Corps but still maintained a room at the family home.

Nearly five years after Scott’s death, Ariana Eskra filed an application for death benefits. Brandy Eskra was later joined as an applicant, followed by Jovie Fischer and Austin Evenson. The case required three separate trials to resolve preliminary issues — including statute of limitations questions, evidentiary disputes over a premarital agreement, and the need for additional financial records — before the dependency determinations could be made.

At trial, the evidence established that Brandy Eskra earned approximately $14,000 per year working two to two-and-a-half days per week as a hairdresser. Coworkers at the same salon corroborated that she could not have earned $30,000 per year. Scott Eskra had paid for housing, food, utilities, and other household expenses. Jovie Fischer’s biological father had been paying child support until late 2017, and a court-ordered support obligation was issued in December 2017. Austin Evenson was earning roughly $800 every two weeks in the Marine Corps but received occasional financial support from Scott, including gas money, hunting trip expenses, and a plane ticket to visit.

The WCJ issued findings on February 13, 2026, ruling that Brandy Eskra was a presumptive total dependent under Labor Code section 3501(b), which creates a conclusive presumption of total dependency for a surviving spouse who earned $30,000 or less in the twelve months before the employee’s death. The WCJ found that both Jovie Fischer and Austin Evenson were partial dependents, reasoning that Jovie did not qualify for the conclusive presumption under section 3501(a) because she was not Scott Eskra’s biological or adopted child, and because she had other sources of support including her biological father’s child support payments.

The WCAB denied Ariana Eskra’s petition for reconsideration and granted Brandy Eskra’s petition in the panel decision of Eskra v. AF Builders, Inc., – ADJ17262790 (May 2026). The Board affirmed the WCJ’s findings in all respects except one: it amended the decision to find that Jovie Fischer was a presumptive total dependent under Labor Code section 3501(a), not merely a partial dependent. The finding regarding Austin Evenson as a partial dependent was affirmed. Commissioner Razo dissented.

On Brandy Eskra’s total dependency, the Board upheld the WCJ’s finding without difficulty. The unrebutted evidence — Brandy’s own testimony, corroborating testimony from two coworkers, and the 2017 tax return showing gross income of $20,695 — established that she earned well under $30,000 in the year before Scott’s death. The Board rejected Ariana Eskra’s challenge to the tax return’s admission, noting that the WCJ had relied on both documentary evidence and consistent testimony from multiple witnesses.

On the premarital agreement, the Board affirmed its exclusion. The death benefits claim did not exist at the time the agreement was signed, the claim was not the decedent’s property to dispose of, and in any event workers’ compensation benefits cannot be released without a WCJ’s order approving and finding adequacy of consideration — none of which occurred here.

On Jovie Fischer’s dependency status, the Board broke from the WCJ. The central question was whether a non-biological, unadopted child living in the decedent’s household qualifies as a “child” under section 3501(a), which creates a conclusive presumption of total dependency for a child under 18 living with a deceased employee-parent at the time of injury.

Following its own reasoning in the panel decision Franco, dec’d v. Orange County Plastering Co., Inc., 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 258 (Appeals Board Panel Decision, July 14, 2025), the Board held that the plain and ordinary meaning of “child” includes stepchildren. The Board drew support from section 3503, which lists stepchildren among those who may qualify as dependents, and from section 3202, which mandates liberal construction of workers’ compensation law to extend benefits to injured workers and their dependents.

The Board also cited State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Asher) (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1645, which applied similar reasoning to conclude that minor grandchildren are entitled to extended death benefits. Because Jovie was living with the decedent at the time of his fatal injury, section 3501(a) applied regardless of whether she sometimes visited her biological father or whether that father paid child support.

On Austin Evenson, the Board agreed with the WCJ that he was a partial dependent. Although Austin was a good-faith member of the household under section 3503 and received some financial support from the decedent, he was over 18 and earning his own income in the Marine Corps, so the conclusive presumption of section 3501(a) did not apply. The exact amount of his dependency was deferred.

Commissioner Razo dissented on the Jovie Fischer issue, adopting the WCJ’s reasoning. He emphasized that Jovie was not living full-time with the decedent and that her biological father was paying child support, making a finding of total dependency inappropriate in his view. He would have left the WCJ’s partial dependency finding in place.

Eleven candidates are running in the top-two primary for insurance commissioner of California on June 2, 2026. Five have led in media attention: Stacy Korsgaden (R), Ben Allen (D), Steven Bradford (D), Jane Kim (D), and Patrick Wolff (D). Incumbent Ricardo Lara (D) is term-limited and is retiring from public office.

Stacy Korsgaden has warned she would crack down on insurance fraud and conduct a full audit of the California Department of Insurance if elected. Korsgaden is a licensed insurance professional (License #0750748) since 1988, small business owner, and lifelong Californian. And according to a report by the New York Post “[t]he reason that I’m running is that we have a situation that I cannot sit back anymore and watch, the inexperience in the policies that are being implemented throughout the state. That’s why I’m getting involved,” she said during a town hall in Tuolumne County.

Ben Allen is currently sitting on the California Senate. Allen wrote on his official candidate statement “I have a long track record of success working for the public interest: In the State Senate, I’ve taken on insurance industry lobbyists, passed some of the nation’s strongest consumer protection laws, and led efforts to invest $10 billion in wildfire prevention, water infrastructure improvements, and climate resilience. As Insurance Commissioner, my #1 priority will be putting consumers first. That means: Holding polluters accountable: I’ll make corporate polluters financially responsible for climate damages that drive up insurance costs.”

Allen is frequently described as a strong contender or frontrunner. He has significant fundraising (~$1.5M+ raised), high-profile endorsements (e.g., Adam Schiff), and experience in wildfire-affected areas. Recent endorsements (e.g., from newspapers) position him as a top choice.

Steven Bradford is a former State Senator where he sat on the State Legislature’s Insurance Committee where he helped build consensus on complex regulatory challenges. His plan “includes bringing transparency to insurance pricing, rewarding people who protect their homes, rebuilding the insurance market in high risk areas, and making rates make sense. Bradford will support safer moves for the most at-risk, modernize the Department of Insurance, and put equity front and center.”

Jane Kim is a civil rights attorney, organizer and consumer advocate. “As Insurance Commissioner, I’ll cap excessive profits and freeze your rates when you file a claim. I’ll create a public Disaster Insurance for All program so we are protected when fires, floods or earthquakes strike. I’ll crack down on illegal price-fixing, stop insurers from using credit scores to deny coverage, and fight for guaranteed healthcare for every child in California.” Kim is backed by progressives (e.g., Bernie Sanders ties via Working Families Party)

Patrick Wolff wrote that “[f]rom 2001–2005, I worked at a major bank where I built a home and auto ins urance brokerage. Since 2005, I have worked as a financial analyst where, among other sectors, I analyzed insurance markets and companies.” According to his website “I have a plan to solve our state’s insurance crisis by holding insurance companies accountable, increasing choice and competition, and improving transparency.”

Lower profile candidates include Republican Sean Lee.  Lee conducted scientific research at JPL / NASA through Caltech, developing a disciplined, data-driven approach to analyzing complex problems. He later applied those analytical skills in the insurance and financial services industries. He supports transparency, accountability, and effective oversight of insurance practices. Lee also supports the responsible use of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and lnsurTech, to improve efficiency and combat fraud.

Republican Robert P Howell unsuccessfully competed for Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. He has been the CEO of a Silicon Valley cybersecurity manufacturing company. He wrote ” I will hold insurance companies accountable to the rules and challenge abusive practices. I will implement an “Insurance Payers Bill of Rights” to protect policyholders from unfair cancellations and unjustified rate increases.”

Eduardo “Lalo” Vargas is the Peace and Freedom party candidate. He wrote “I pledge to freeze insurance rates and lower premiums, to investigate and hold insurance executives accountable for exploitative claim procedures, and to fight for a public insurance system that guarantees full and fair coverage for all.”

Republican candidate Merritt Farren is a California wildfire survivor, former Amazon lawyer, and former head of legal, guest claims, and security operations for the Disneyland Resort. He wrote ” I want to bring the customer-centric innovation I’ve learned to California insurance regulation.”

Keith Davis (American Independent) and Eric Aarnio do not have candidate statements on the official ballot. Both are lower-profile candidates compared to the leading Democrats and more prominent Republicans. Davis is an insurance agent from Riverside California. He emphasizes being a consumer advocate rather than aligned with big insurance companies. He has a campaign website (gokeithdavis.com) and has been active in interviews and outreach.

Eric Aarnio is a Republican, and a contractor from Sacramento with no prior elected office or formal insurance industry background. He has a very low-profile campaign (no website or social media listed in questionnaires) and minimal media presence.