Menu Close

Category: Daily News

Physician’s Suspension by DIR Unaffected by PC 1385 Dismissal

WorkCompAcademy

In May 2019, Dr. Duke Ahn, a licensed physician, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of Business and Professions Code section 650 for receiving compensation for patient referrals.

He was placed on three years’ probation, paid $80,114 in restitution and $8,000 to a victim witness fund, and successfully moved for dismissal of the case in August 2020 under Penal Code section 1385, before completing probation.

In August 2022, the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) suspended Ahn from the workers’ compensation system under Labor Code section 139.21, which mandates suspension for physicians convicted of certain crimes, including fraud related to the workers’ compensation system or patient care.

Ahn challenged the suspension in an administrative hearing, arguing that the dismissal under Penal Code section 1385 nullified his conviction, rendering Labor Code section 139.21 inapplicable. The administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the suspension, noting that the dismissal did not erase the guilty plea or its factual basis.

Ahn filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, which was denied on December 6, 2023. The court found that Ahn’s guilty plea constituted a “conviction” under Labor Code section 139.21, subdivision (a)(4)(C), and the dismissal did not exempt him from suspension. Ahn appealed, arguing that the Penal Code section 1385 dismissal meant he was not “convicted” under Labor Code section 139.21.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the unpublished case of Ahn v. Parisotto – B337936 (September 2025). The Court of Appeal affirmed the suspension, finding it supported by the plain language of Labor Code section 139.21.

The legal issue was whether a dismissal under Penal Code section 1385 negates a guilty plea for the purposes of suspension under Labor Code section 139.21, which defines “convicted” to include a guilty plea accepted by a court.

The Court of Appeal conducted a de novo review, as the issue was purely legal with no disputed facts. Labor Code section 139.21, subdivision (a)(4)(C) explicitly defines “convicted” as including a guilty plea accepted by a court, with no exceptions for subsequent dismissals. The court emphasized that the statute’s plain language does not allow for inserting exceptions not provided by the Legislature.

The court distinguished cases like People v. Barro (2001) and People v. Chavez (2016, 2018), which dealt with criminal sentencing or post-probation dismissal procedures, as inapplicable to the administrative context of Labor Code section 139.21.

The court noted that Labor Code section 139.21, enacted in 2016 and amended in 2018, is a specific, later-enacted statute compared to the general Penal Code section 1385 (enacted 1872). If there were a conflict, the more specific and recent statute would control.

The court concluded that Ahn’s guilty plea, accepted by the court, met the definition of “convicted” under Labor Code section 139.21, and the subsequent dismissal did not negate this. Thus, the DIR’s suspension was legally supported.

Key Takeaway: A guilty plea, once accepted by a court, constitutes a “conviction” under Labor Code section 139.21 for the purpose of suspending a physician from the workers’ compensation system, regardless of a subsequent dismissal under Penal Code section 1385.

View More

Owner of San Diego Residential Care Facility Faces Felony Charges

WorkCompAcademy

A felony complaint has been filed by the People of the State of California against Defendant Maria Erolina Delgado (DOB: 6/17/1963) in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central Division.

The complaint, brought by the California Attorney General’s Division of Medi-Cal Fraud & Elder Abuse, alleges multiple counts of elder and dependent adult abuse under Penal Code sections 368(b)(1) and 368(c). The offenses are alleged to have occurred in San Diego County and other counties in California between January 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020.

The criminal charges against Delgado are for alleged severe neglect of residents at J & M Happy Guest Home, a residential care facility for the elderly in San Diego County.

J & M Happy Guest Home is licensed by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Community Care Licensing Division as an RCFE with a capacity of 6 beds. It is described in public directories as providing “loving and dignified care” in a home setting, with services like assistance with daily activities.

The facility is not rated on state volunteer programs like Choose Well and has no publicly detailed citations or complaints in recent profiles (last updated June 10, 2025, for licensing; August 31, 2025, for citations).

However, one public report from October 30, 2024, notes a fire clearance violation, resulting in an immediate civil penalty assessment. No other historical violations, complaints, or enforcement actions are publicly detailed in available sources, though state databases update quarterly.

Delgado is the owner of J & M and allegedly left the facility severely understaffed, often leaving residents in bed all day in soiled diapers, sometimes for days at a time. As a result of this neglect, multiple residents suffered from bed sores, dehydration, and malnourishment.

The California Department of Justice’s Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse (DMFEA) works to protect Californians by investigating and prosecuting those responsible for abuse and neglect of elderly and dependent adults and those who perpetrate fraud on the Medi-Cal program.

The Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse receives 75 percent of its funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under a grant award totaling $69,244,976 for Federal fiscal year (FY) 2025. The remaining 25 percent is funded by the State of California. FY 2025 is from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025.

View More

Carriers Not Obligated to Refund Approved but Excessive Rates

WorkCompAcademy

Plaintiffs Joseph Davis and Shavonda Early brought a class action lawsuit against defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange (CSAA), an automobile insurance company, claiming that automobile insurance rates became excessive during the COVID-19 pandemic when there was less driving and fewer traffic accidents. Plaintiffs alleged that, in 2020 and 2021, CSAA was the fifth largest automobile insurance company in the state and insured over one million California drivers.

The complaint alleged two causes of action under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) (UCL) and a cause of action for unjust enrichment. The complaint alleged that, by not unilaterally refunding premiums, CSAA violated Insurance Code § 1861.05, subdivision (a) (section 1861.05(a)).2 This section, titled “Approval of Insurance Rates,” provides that “[n]o rate shall be approved or remain in effect which is excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory or otherwise in violation of this chapter.”

CSAA filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained with leave to amend. The court interpreted section 1861.05(a)’s language that no excessive rate shall “remain in effect” as applying to the insurance commissioner’s system of approving rates, and meant to “ensure that a previously approved rate does not ‘remain in effect’ if the circumstances have changed.” The court found that the statute allowed for prospective rate reductions when rates become excessive, but not retroactive modifications of previously approved rates.

In their first amended and consolidated complaint, plaintiffs reasserted the UCL claims, and reiterated that CSAA received an “unprecedented windfall” from the COVID-19 pandemic by continuing to charge preapproved rates as driving and traffic accidents decreased dramatically. At the same time, plaintiffs acknowledged that some refunds were given. They recognized that, in April 2020, the insurance commissioner issued a bulletin directing insurers to “make an initial premium” refund for the prior two months. Although CSAA gave a 20 percent refund to policyholders, plaintiffs alleged that this amount was inadequate and the approved rates for this period remained excessive. Plaintiffs also recognized that the commissioner sent additional bulletins extending the directive for refunds. Although CSAA subsequently gave a 10 percent refund for May and June 2020, plaintiffs alleged that the rates were still excessive. According to plaintiffs, in 2021 the commissioner described the premium returns by California insurance companies as “insufficient.”

Plaintiffs asserted that CSAA’s failure to provide sufficient refunds violated section 1861.05(a) and was unfair and unlawful. They sought restitution for the “unearned premiums acquired from [named plaintiffs] and the Class along with CSAA’s investment returns on those unearned premiums.” CSAA again demurred, and this time the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal affirmed in the published case of Davis v. CSAA Ins. Exchange – A169729 (September 2025).

The central question in this appeal is whether Insurance Code § 1861.05(a) imposes an independent obligation on insurers to refund premiums that were collected under approved rates when those rates later become purportedly excessive.

Section 1861.05(a) was enacted through the passage of Proposition 103 in 1988. Its stated purpose was “to protect consumers from arbitrary insurance rates and practices, to encourage a competitive insurance marketplace, to provide for an accountable Insurance Commissioner, and to ensure that insurance is fair, available, and affordable for all Californians.” Proposition 103 was one of five competing insurance initiatives on the ballot, but the only one that passed.

Proposition 103 required automobile insurance rates to be determined by applying three factors – the insured’s driving safety record, the annual number of miles driven, and the years of driving experience – and it allowed the insurance commissioner to adopt additional factors. It prohibited rates that were “unfairly discriminatory” and specified that the business of insurance was subject to California’s unfair business practice laws. Proposition 103 also designated the insurance commissioner to be an elected official, no longer appointed by the governor.

In arguing that the section imposes an independent obligation on insurers to issue refunds when approved rates become excessive, plaintiffs focus on the language in the first sentence that no “excessive” rate shall “remain in effect.”

Plaintiffs contend that the term “approved” and the phrase “remain in effect” in section 1861.05(a) are two distinct directives, and the latter phrase would be surplusage if the statute were interpreted to impose no obligation on insurers to unilaterally refund previously approved rates when circumstances render them excessive.

After reviewing the parties arguments, and citations supporting these arguments, the Court of Appeal wrote that “we conclude that section 1861.05(a) does not impose an independent obligation on insurers to retroactively refund premiums, based on rates that were approved by the insurance commissioner, when those rates later become purportedly excessive.”

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

View More

Man Pleads Guilty to Impersonated Doctors to Prescribe Narcotics

WorkCompAcademy

A man pleaded guilty in a federal court in Los Angeles to leading a long-running scheme in which dozens of medical doctors’ personal information was stolen and then used to create fraudulent e-prescribing accounts, which his accomplices then used to issue thousands of fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances.

Benjamin Jamal Washington, 25, of Hyattsville, Maryland, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Washington remains in federal custody.

According to his plea agreement, from September 2020 to May 2023, Washington and his co-conspirators obtained personal identifying information (PII) belonging to dozens of doctors, including their names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, National Provider Identification number, and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Registration Numbers.

After obtaining this information, the co-conspirators impersonated the victims by obtaining fake drivers’ licenses in their names. They also paid corrupt telephone company employees to perform illegal subscriber identity module (SIM) swaps – fraudulently inducing a phone carrier to reassign a cell phone number from the legitimate subscriber to a phone controlled by the co-conspirators – to gain access to the physicians’ phone numbers.

Washington and his co-conspirators then used the fraudulent drivers’ licenses and the stolen phone numbers to open fraudulent e-prescribing accounts in the physicians’ names. At least one co-conspirator spoke with a pharmacy technician to understand the patterns and practices of physicians submitting e-prescriptions so Washington and his co-conspirators could avoid detection and issue more fraudulent prescriptions.

Once the co-conspirators opened the fraudulent e-prescribing accounts, Washington and others used the accounts to submit at least 5,600 fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances, including illegal prescriptions of oxycodone and promethazine with codeine.

The co-conspirators then traveled to pharmacies across the United States, including pharmacies within the Los Angeles and Orange county area, to pick up the illegally prescribed controlled substances, which they sold for a significant profit.

Washington has a criminal history in Maryland, including arrests for robbery-related probation violations in 2022 and 2024, as well as an escape from pre-trial release in St. Mary’s County in September 2022 after tampering with his GPS monitor.

United States District Judge Wesley L. Hsu scheduled a January 13, 2026, sentencing hearing, at which time Washington will face a statutory maximum sentence of 42 years in federal prison, including a mandatory two-year consecutive prison sentence for the aggravated identity theft count.

View More

Man Pleads Guilty to Impersonating Doctors to Prescribe Narcotics

WorkCompAcademy

A man pleaded guilty in a federal court in Los Angeles to leading a long-running scheme in which dozens of medical doctors’ personal information was stolen and then used to create fraudulent e-prescribing accounts, which his accomplices then used to issue thousands of fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances.

Benjamin Jamal Washington, 25, of Hyattsville, Maryland, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Washington remains in federal custody.

According to his plea agreement, from September 2020 to May 2023, Washington and his co-conspirators obtained personal identifying information (PII) belonging to dozens of doctors, including their names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, National Provider Identification number, and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Registration Numbers.

After obtaining this information, the co-conspirators impersonated the victims by obtaining fake drivers’ licenses in their names. They also paid corrupt telephone company employees to perform illegal subscriber identity module (SIM) swaps – fraudulently inducing a phone carrier to reassign a cell phone number from the legitimate subscriber to a phone controlled by the co-conspirators – to gain access to the physicians’ phone numbers.

Washington and his co-conspirators then used the fraudulent drivers’ licenses and the stolen phone numbers to open fraudulent e-prescribing accounts in the physicians’ names. At least one co-conspirator spoke with a pharmacy technician to understand the patterns and practices of physicians submitting e-prescriptions so Washington and his co-conspirators could avoid detection and issue more fraudulent prescriptions.

Once the co-conspirators opened the fraudulent e-prescribing accounts, Washington and others used the accounts to submit at least 5,600 fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances, including illegal prescriptions of oxycodone and promethazine with codeine.

The co-conspirators then traveled to pharmacies across the United States, including pharmacies within the Los Angeles and Orange county area, to pick up the illegally prescribed controlled substances, which they sold for a significant profit.

Washington has a criminal history in Maryland, including arrests for robbery-related probation violations in 2022 and 2024, as well as an escape from pre-trial release in St. Mary’s County in September 2022 after tampering with his GPS monitor.

United States District Judge Wesley L. Hsu scheduled a January 13, 2026, sentencing hearing, at which time Washington will face a statutory maximum sentence of 42 years in federal prison, including a mandatory two-year consecutive prison sentence for the aggravated identity theft count.

View More

Supreme Court Clears Worker Injured at Yacht Club to Sue Employer

WorkCompAcademy

The Alamitos Bay Yacht Club in Long Beach hired Brian Ranger as a maintenance worker. He helped the club with its fleet by painting, cleaning, maintaining, repairing, unloading, and mooring vessels.

One day, Ranger used a hoist to lower a club boat into navigable waters. He stepped from the dock onto its bow, fell, was hurt, and applied for workers’ compensation. Then he sued the club in state court on federal claims of negligence and unseaworthiness.

The trial court sustained the club’s final demurrer to the second amended complaint. The trial court ruled there was no admiralty jurisdiction.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court decision to dismiss the case in the published case of Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club – 95 Cal. App. 5th 240, 313 Cal. Rptr. 3d (September 2023). The opinion concluded that “In sum, California’s workers’ compensation law is Ranger’s exclusive remedy. Congress in 1984 decreed this state law aptly covers his situation. A core part of the state workers’ compensation bargain is that injured workers get speedy and predictable relief irrespective of fault. In return, workers are barred from suing their employers in tort. The trial court correctly dismissed Ranger’s tort suit against his employer.”

The California Supreme Court reversed in Ranger II v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club 17 Cal.5th 532 (February 2025). It ruled the Longshore Act’s exclusion of club workers from the act’s coverage meant only that the state, rather than the federal, workers’ compensation system applies, but did not otherwise deprive workers of their federal right to pursue available tort remedies under general maritime law. (Ranger, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 548.)

The state’s top court wrote “To the extent the Court of Appeal’s opinion suggests that California’s workers’ compensation scheme in itself displaces general maritime remedies and constitutes Ranger’s exclusive remedy, we disagree. It is true that California’s workers’ compensation system provides ‘a comprehensive statutory scheme governing compensation given to California employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment.” (Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810 [102 Cal.Rptr.2d 562, 14 P.3d 234].) Under Labor Code section 3602, the workers’ compensation remedy “provides an injured employee’s “exclusive” remedy against an employer for compensable work-related injuries.’ (King, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 1046.) We conclude, though, that the exclusive-remedy provision does not displace federal law in this case.”

The California Supreme Court remanded the case to back to the Court of Appeal to consider: 1) whether federal jurisdiction exists; 2) whether Ranger can assert the tort of unseaworthiness; and 3) whether Ranger can assert a negligence claim against his vessel- owning employer.

On remand the California Court of Appeal in the unpublished case of Ranger III v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club -B315302 (September 2025) answered these three questions.

In answering the first question, the Court of Appeal began with the step analysis in Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (1995) 513 U.S. 527 and reviewed and applied case law following that decision and held that admiralty jurisdiction applies to Ranger’s claim.

The review next turned to the Club’s contention that, even if Ranger’s claim is within admiralty jurisdiction, he cannot bring a claim for unseaworthiness because this claim can only be brought by Jones Act seamen. After reviewing case law beginning with Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, (1946) 328 U.S. 85 and following, the Court of Appeal ruled that this “argument is incorrect. Ranger has an unseaworthiness claim.”

The Court of Appeal then moved to the third question. “We turn finally to the Club’s faulty contention that Ranger cannot bring a claim against it for negligence as a vessel owner because it is also his employer.” The Club’s argument fails because it is founded in the Longshore Act, which does not cover Ranger.”

“The fact that the Longshore Act only prohibits workers engaged in certain types of service to the vessel from bringing a negligence claim suggests that even covered workers not engaged in those services can sometimes appropriately sue the vessel owner for negligence. The Club has not established Ranger cannot sue the Club for negligence as the vessel owner.”

View More

State Drug Pricing Preemption Battle Launched in 9th Circuit

WorkCompAcademy

AstraZeneca is suing Hawaii over a state statute that requires pharmaceutical companies to offer discounted “340B” drugs to contract pharmacies. The company claims the statute is preempted by federal law and that federal appeals courts have made it clear that federal statute regulating such drugs does not require manufacturers to provide discounted drugs to “unlimited” contract pharmacies.

Hawaii is in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction covers the western United States, including the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Thus if this case is appealed, the outcome of the appeal will likely to some degree apply here in California, at least as to the preemption issue.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program, established under Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. § 256b), requires pharmaceutical manufacturers participating in Medicaid to offer discounted outpatient drugs to qualifying “covered entities” such as safety-net hospitals, community health centers, and certain clinics serving low-income or underserved populations.

These entities can contract with external pharmacies (known as “contract pharmacies”) to dispense the discounted drugs to their patients, but the federal statute itself does not explicitly mandate that manufacturers provide these discounts through an unlimited number of such pharmacies.

Over the past few years, disputes have arisen as some manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, have imposed restrictions on contract pharmacy arrangements, citing concerns over program integrity, duplicate discounts, and diversion of drugs to ineligible patients. Federal appeals courts have largely sided with manufacturers on this point, ruling that the 340B statute does not prohibit such restrictions.

In response, several states have enacted laws to protect access to 340B discounts via contract pharmacies, effectively requiring manufacturers to honor unlimited arrangements. Hawaii joined this trend on May 30, 2025, when Governor Josh Green signed Act 143 (also known as Senate Bill 3202) into law, with an effective date of July 1, 2025.

The AstraZeneca complaint cites the Third Circuit’s decision in Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC v. HHS (58 F.4th 696, 706 (3d Cir. 2023)), which held that restrictions on contract pharmacy discounts “do[es] not violate Section 340B” and enjoined HHS from enforcing a contrary interpretation. Similarly, the D.C. Circuit in Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Johnson (102 F.4th 452, 459 (D.C. Cir. 2024)) rejected the idea that Section 340B prohibits manufacturers from imposing “any conditions” on discounts involving contract pharmacies. AstraZeneca notes that Hawaii submitted amicus briefs in both cases supporting unlimited access, but the courts ruled against that position.

Should this case be favorable to drug makers, and be successfully affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it will become binding on California unless the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case.  It is therefore a case of interest to those states who are included in 9th Circuit jurisdiction.

View More

Corrections Officer Wrongly Accused of WC Fraud Sues Employer

WorkCompAcademy

Yvette Fortier Bline a former correctional deputy at the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office in California, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the County and Tehama County District Attorney Matthew D. Rogers, Tehama County Sheriff Dave Kain, Tehama County Under Sheriff Jeff Garrett and District Attorney’s Office investigator, Defendant Eric Clay,

The lawsuit alleges she accepted a position in the Tehama County Sherriffs Office in September 2008. After approximately two years of employment, she became a Correctional Deputy. Bline successfully completed required training, including P.O.S.T. Certification, to serve as a Correctional Officer at the Tehama County Jail.

In February 2017, during a 12-hour training that was fairly physically intense, Bline injured her right shoulder and neck region. Bline developed numbness and tingling in both hands following her injuries, and claimed to have developed a torn meniscus as a result to the training. She filed a workers compensation claim and was provided benefits and medical treatment.

Bline was approved for neck surgery for the injuries she sustained from the previous training incident. The spinal injuries were later included in a cumulative Workers’ Compensation claim in January 7, 2023 following her spine fusion.

Joseph Ambrose, D.C., performed a Qualified Medical Evaluation on July 7, 2022. He diagnosed lumbar disc protrusion with bilateral radiculopathy; lumbar myoligamentous sprain/strain; patellofemoral syndrome, bilateral; sacroiliac sprain/strain, chondromalacia patella; and meniscus tears in both knees. He attributed this to the continuous trauma of 13 years of employment with the County. She continued to receive medical care following his report. And disputes arose between the parties over authorization for some of the recommended care.

The complaint alleges that Bline’s “medical costs had risen to approximately a half a million dollars by the summer of 2023 for her cumulative trauma sustained during her 13 years employment working with Tehama County. Because Plaintiffs medical costs and benefits, and the costs incurred due to Plaintiffs on the job injuries at Tehama County were expensive and as of January 23, 2023, and were escalating, Defendants’ allegedly decided to form a scheme to falsely accuse Plaintiff of Insurance Fraud to retaliate against her for exercising her statutory right to seek redress through the California Workers’ Compensation benefits system by procuring unlawful search warrants to gather evidence to try to convince a trier of fact that Plaintiff performed actions that, in their opinion, were evidence of malingering.”

She was ultimately charged with two counts of insurance fraud under California Penal Code Section 550(a). She claims her reputation in the community was damaged by press releases such as an article published by the Tri-County News which was based on the press release from the District Attorney’s Office. The first sentence stated: “A Tehama County Sheriffs correctional deputy is being accused of workers’ compensation fraud in excess of $500,000.” Another press release was published by the Red Bluff Daily News on August 30, 2023, the day Bline was arrested.

After Bline was arrested, she alleges she was placed on an ankle monitor during the pendency of charges, subjected to warrantless searches of her home and property, restricted in her travel, and deprived of her county salary, employment benefits, and liberty.

The prosecution was eventually terminated in her favor. After a preliminary hearing involving several prosecution witnesses Judge Laura Woods told the prosecutor: “So, Ms. Frost you have completely failed to even remotely meet your burden. As we know, a burden of proof at a preliminary hearing is incredibly low. And you haven’t even met that.”  

The court then informed the prosecutor that: “Quite frankly, I think you can tell that I’m a little irritated and annoyed and angry that I have spent all these hours, that she has been charged with a felony, that she spent the night in jail based on these charges. It’s absolutely unconscionable to me.”

The judge continued to express her dismay: “I’ve been doing this for a long time. I was a prosecutor, and I was a defense attorney, and I’ve never seen a case like this. I cannot believe this. You should be embarrassed. The S.O. should be embarrassed. And I say that having known all these guys for 25 years This is absolutely unacceptable. And I just can’t believe it. I’m probably making inappropriate comments, but this is outrageous to me. And quite frankly, I’m angry that I had to sit here and listen to this. And I didn’t even spend the night in jail. And I didn’t have to hire a defense attorney.”

“So, I think you guys need to go back to your office and really rethink what is happening. This is ridiculous. I have known Eric Clay for a long time. I don’t have any problem telling him this is unbelievable. So-I would tell Under Sheriff Garrett that, and I would tell Sheriff Kain that as well.”

Bline’s federal lawsuit makes claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conspiracy to violate her civil rights, specifically breaches of her First Amendment rights (retaliation for protected activity), Fourth Amendment rights (unlawful seizure and searches), and Fourteenth Amendment rights (due process violations through fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution).

View More

ACOEM Reports Long COVID Linked to Work Productivity Loss

WorkCompAcademy

At two years after diagnosis of COVID-19, employees who experience long COVID symptoms have substantially reduced work productivity, reports a study in the August issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Led by Hiten Naik, MD, SM, of The University of British Columbia and the Post-COVID-19 Interdisciplinary Clinical Care Network, Vancouver, the online survey study included 908 employed patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021. Of these, 165 patients were classified as having long COVID, defined as continued symptoms three months after an initial positive COVID-19 test. Work productivity loss and work performance impairment were assessed using validated questionnaires.

About 75% of participants with ongoing long COVID symptoms reported any productivity loss within the last three months, compared to 47% of those without long COVID. After adjustment for other characteristics, employees in the long COVID group were about three times more likely to report lost productivity.

Average paid productivity loss over three months was about 62 hours, including 33 hours of absenteeism and 29 hours of presenteeism (decreased productivity at work). Long COVID was also associated with high unpaid productivity loss, including activities such as caregiving and household chores: about 37 hours, on average.

About 73% of participants with long COVID reported impaired work performance within the past week, compared to 39% of those without long COVID symptoms. On adjusted analysis, employees with long COVID were four times more likely to have work performance impairment. Based on average hourly wage, the economic impact of total productivity loss was estimated at nearly $14,000 CAD over a year.

Long COVID has been described as a “global public health crisis,” affecting over 400 million people worldwide. Although studies have shown that long COVID can impair health and occupational functioning, the overall impact on work productivity loss has been unclear.

Long COVID is “associated with substantial productivity loss, even two years after the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and even in individuals who have returned to work,” Dr. Naik and coauthors conclude. “Clinicians, health systems, and employers should understand that long COVID can have long-lasting impacts on occupational functioning and requires long-term support.”

View More

Walgreens Agrees to Continue Providing Essential Pharmacy Services

WorkCompAcademy

On March 6, 2025, Walgreens announced that it agreed to be acquired by private equity firm, Sycamore. The proposed transaction, which involves over 450 California Walgreens stores. Howevever a settlement was reached under Assembly Bill 853 (AB 853), which requires notice and review by the Attorney General of transactions involving retail pharmacies and grocery stores in order to assess impact on access and labor. AB 853 was authored by former Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego) and went into effect on October 8, 2023. The settlement is subject to court approval.

Walgreens is the last nationwide and statewide independent pharmacy chain – that is, a chain not owned by one of the Big Three Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), which are CVS Caremark, Optum Rx, and Express Scripts. The proposed transaction between Walgreens and Sycamore includes, but is not limited to, the following Walgreens stores in California: six in Bakersfield, 11 in Fresno, five in Huntington Beach, 13 in Los Angeles, eight in Modesto, five in Riverside, seven in Sacramento, seven in San Diego, 26 in San Francisco, 10 in San Jose, and seven in Stockton.

The California Attorney General announced a settlement with Walgreens Co. and its succeeding owner, Sycamore Partners Management, L.P. (Sycamore), that would operate as an injunction and protect competition, patients, and pharmacy-related workers.

Under the settlement, Walgreens and Sycamore agree to the following conditions for the next seven years:

– – Use best efforts to maintain all California Walgreens stores remaining as of the date of the agreement, as well as all required licenses.
– – Provide 90-day notice of sale or closure of any remaining Walgreens stores.
– – Prohibition from reselling any of the Walgreens stores in California to any of the Big Three PBMs.
– – Prohibition from using any dividend recapitalization or other distribution of profits where such a dividend recapitalization or other distribution of profits would reasonably be likely to materially impair the operations of Walgreens.
– – Use best efforts to continue participation in Medi-Cal and Medicare.
– – Use best efforts to provide financial assistance to patients.
– – Ensure best efforts regarding compliance with state staffing levels.
– – Maintain a hiring list for all employees from stores that close going forward for preferential hiring at other Walgreens stores.
– – Use commercially reasonable efforts to pay retirement contributions if collective bargaining agreements require such payments.
– – Use commercially reasonable efforts to abstain from contesting unemployment for individuals who are laid off as a result of the sale or closure of Walgreens stores if no nearby Walgreens store offers employment.
– – Use commercially reasonable efforts to bargain with any unions in good faith.
– – Comply with nondiscrimination rules in the provision of healthcare services.

This settlement is the second reached by the California Attorney General under AB 853. The first settlement was with Rite Aid and was announced on August 19, 2024. In addition, on April 14, 2025, the California Attorney General joined a bipartisan coalition of 39 attorneys general in urging the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to enact a law that prohibits PBMs, their parent companies, or affiliates from owning or operating pharmacies.

Created in the late 1960s to process claims for drug companies, PBMs were supposed to help consumers access low-cost pharmaceutical care through negotiated volume-pricing discounts, generic substitution, manufacturer rebates, and other tools. However, PBMs have overtaken the market and now wield outsized power to reap massive profits at the expense of consumers and local community pharmacies.

View More