Category: Daily News

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.

A U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California decision ruling that Grimmway Farms – purportedly the largest grower, producer, and shipper of carrots in the world – engaged in a pattern or practice of disability discrimination against farmworkers. The ruling comes after the State of California Civil Rights Department (CRD) filed a lawsuit against the farm in 2021. As a result of the decision, the case can now move forward to trial on potential monetary damages and other forms of relief for affected workers.

The plaintiff, California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD), sued defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.(Case No. 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). CRD alleges patterns or practices of disability discrimination against a group of over 600 employees referred to Grimmway’s “Interactive Process Section” (for handling disability accommodations). Claims include disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, unlawful interference, and failure to prevent discrimination/retaliation.

According to CRD, while some employees were able to use workers’ compensation benefits, as soon as those benefits expired, they faced a choice: take unpaid leave or get back to work without accommodations. As a result, hundreds of workers were allegedly deprived of their rights and many were effectively terminated.

“This decision is a major victory for disability rights and the rights of farmworkers across California,” said CRD Director Kevin Kish. “The court has ruled loud and clear that forcing injured workers into unpaid leave is disability discrimination. Here in California, farmworkers have rights, they are protected, and we will not shy away from fighting on their behalf.”

In a more than 50-page decision on cross motions for summary judgment, the federal court found that Grimmway Farms engaged in systemic disability discrimination by automatically placing disabled workers on unpaid leave when other reasonable accommodations were available. The court also ruled that CRD may pursue relief on a group-wide basis.

The case proceeds to trial on the issues unresolved by the cross summary judgment motions as follows:

– – ADA-based claim 1 (discrimination) re: unpaid leave.
– – ADA/FEHA claims 2-3 (accommodation/interactive process) re: unpaid leave, assistive technology, and reassignment.
– – ADA/FEHA claims 1-3 re: assistive technology and reassignment.
– – Claims 4-5 (retaliation/interference).
– – Claims 6-7 (failure to prevent discrimination/retaliation), except sexual harassment prevention.
– – Defendant’s remaining affirmative defenses (e.g., good faith, no discrimination).
– – Punitive damages (disputed).

According to a report by kvpr (NPR Network) Grimmway Farms representatives disagreed with the Civil Rights Division’s complaint and said the matter is not yet fully resolved.

“We firmly disagree with CRD’s characterizations of the court’s pre-trial decisions, noting that many of the motions were resolved in Grimmway’s favor,” Officials wrote to KVPR. “The allegations do not reflect the principles or values that guide our company, and we will respectfully see the matter through trial and the proper legal process.”

On September 19, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued a presidential proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” targeting perceived abuses of the H-1B visa program, which allows temporary entry for specialty occupation workers, particularly in STEM fields. The proclamation argues that the program has been exploited by employers – especially IT outsourcing firms – to displace American workers with lower-paid foreign labor, suppressing wages, exacerbating unemployment among U.S. graduates (e.g., 6.1% for computer science majors aged 22-27), and posing national security risks by discouraging Americans from pursuing tech careers. It cites examples of major tech layoffs coinciding with H-1B approvals, such as one company laying off 15,000 while securing 5,000 visas.

Key provisions include:

– – Entry Restriction: Effective 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 21, 2025, H-1B petitions for workers outside the U.S. require a $100,000 payment (per the proclamation) to be approved or supplemented; without it, entries are restricted for 12 months (expiring September 21, 2026, unless extended). This applies only to new entries post-effective date and does not retroactively affect existing visa holders or approved petitions.
– – Exceptions: The Secretary of Homeland Security can waive the restriction for individuals, companies, or industries in the “national interest” without security threats (e.g., critical sectors).
– – Implementation: Employers must document the fee before filing; USCIS and State Department will verify and deny non-compliant petitions. Guidance prevents B-1/B-2 visa misuse for early H-1B starts before October 1, 2026.
– – Further Actions: Directs the Secretary of Labor to revise prevailing wage levels upward via rulemaking; Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize high-wage, high-skilled H-1B admissions. A joint agency report on extension is due 30 days after the next H-1B lottery.

The policy invokes INA sections 212(f) and 215(a) to protect U.S. economic and security interests, with no impact on current H-1B workers’ status or travel, per subsequent clarifications.

Effects on California Employers

California, home to Silicon Valley and the Bay Area’s tech ecosystem, relies heavily on H-1B visas – accounting for about 40% of all issuances annually, with firms like Google, Meta, and Apple sponsoring thousands. The $100,000 fee (a 20-50x increase from prior $2,000-$5,000 costs) is expected to impose steep financial and operational burdens, particularly on startups and mid-sized firms, while sparking panic, legal scrutiny, and talent pipeline disruptions. Here’s a breakdown based on recent media analyses:

– – Cost Escalation and Hiring Disruptions: The fee applies per new petition, potentially adding millions in costs for high-volume sponsors (e.g., a firm filing 1,000 H-1Bs faces $100 million). This could force California tech employers to slash foreign hires, pivot to domestic talent amid a reported 3.02% unemployment spike in computer occupations, or pass costs to workers via lower salaries – exacerbating wage suppression the policy aims to fix. Bay Area experts predict “major disruptions” to innovation, as startups – already cash-strapped – may abandon H-1B recruitment altogether.
– – Panic and Immediate Chaos: The announcement triggered a “fast and furious” rush of H-1B workers abroad to reenter the U.S. before September 21, with flights booked en masse and aborted international trips. Tech giants like Microsoft and Amazon (with major California footprints) urged employees to stay put, fearing reentry denials despite clarifications. Immigration attorneys reported “aborted takeoffs” and confusion, delaying projects and straining HR teams.
– – Disproportionate Hit to Startups and SMEs: Silicon Valley startups, which sponsor ~20% of H-1Bs but lack big-firm resources, fear being “put in a bind” and “shut out” of global talent, hindering growth in AI, software, and biotech. One venture-backed firm estimated a 30% drop in engineering hires, potentially stalling funding rounds.
– – Broader Economic and Legal Repercussions: California’s Attorney General criticized the policy as having an “adverse impact” on the state’s $500B+ tech economy, vowing to assess legal violations (e.g., under INA or equal protection). Business groups like the Chamber of Commerce predict lawsuits, while supporters argue it could boost U.S. worker employment by 6-11% in tech. Long-term, it risks eroding U.S. competitiveness, as foreign talent eyes alternatives like Canada.

Overall, while large employers may absorb costs via the national interest waiver, smaller California firms face the brunt, with effects unfolding in the FY2026 lottery (March 2026). According to Politico the demand for H-1B visas far surpasses the number available, which Congress has capped at 65,000 annually plus an additional 20,000 for people with advanced degrees.

In the 2024 fiscal year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved nearly 400,000 employment petitions, with more than 70 percent coming from India and 12 percent from China. H-1B visas are awarded via lottery.

The case Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH and West Publishing Corporation v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 25-2153, is an interlocutory appeal pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

West Publishing Corporation, a subsidiary of Thomson Reuters, is a leading provider of legal research tools, notably the Westlaw database. It holds a significant share of the U.S. legal research market, estimated at 40-50% based on industry reports and its dominance alongside competitors like LexisNexis. The company serves millions of legal professionals, offering access to over 28 million case headnotes, statutes, and other legal materials. Exact revenue and employee figures are not publicly disclosed, but Thomson Reuters’ broader legal division reported $7.2 billion in revenue for 2024, with Westlaw as a core component. Its market strength stems from comprehensive content, proprietary annotations, and integration with legal workflows.

In 2014, Ross Intelligence Inc., built ROSS the world’s first AI legal search engine that allowed the public to ask a question in plain English and returned ranked excerpts from judicial opinions as answers. As part of training this engine, Ross paid for 25,000 legal memoranda. Each memo featured one question and four to six answers. As Ross claims it later learned, the questions in those memoranda were developed from a small fraction of Westlaw’s millions of headnotes – what Ross claims are verbatim or close-to-verbatim quotes from uncopyrightable judicial opinions.

Ross is no longer actively operating as a company. It ceased operations in 2021 amid the ongoing copyright litigation with Thomson Reuters, which drained its resources, and is now considered a deadpooled entity. The company raised approximately $8.82 million in funding prior to shutdown but has had no reported revival or new activities since. Its website remains online with outdated “About Us” content from its founding era, but no indications of current functionality. The recent 2025 court ruling and appellate briefing are handled through legal proceedings, not business operations.

This interlocutory appeal stems from a 2020 copyright infringement lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (No. 1:20-cv-00613). At its core, the dispute involves allegations that Ross Intelligence unlawfully scraped and copied thousands of proprietary “headnotes” (concise summaries of legal points from court opinions) from Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw database to train its AI-powered legal research tool, which aimed to compete with Westlaw.

Ross countered that its actions constituted fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, arguing the headnotes were not sufficiently original to be copyrightable and that the use was transformative for AI training.

On February 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly granted partial summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters on direct copyright infringement for 2,243 specific headnotes, finding Ross had willfully copied them. The court rejected Ross’s fair use defense after weighing the four statutory factors: Purpose and Character of Use (Factor 1) – Nature of the Copyrighted Work (Factor 2) – Amount and Substantiality (Factor 3) – Effect on the Potential Market (Factor 4).

Overall, the court concluded fair use did not apply, denied Ross’s cross-motions, and rejected ancillary defenses like merger doctrine and copyright misuse. This marked one of the first rulings rejecting fair use for AI training on copyrighted materials. Ross was certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) due to the substantial legal questions involved.

The Third Circuit docket opened on June 24, 2025, however briefing was delayed multiple times at Ross’s request, with the opening brief due September 22, 2025.

In its September 22, 2025, opening brief (filed in both sealed and redacted versions), Ross urges reversal, calling the district ruling the “first to examine fair use in the context of AI training materials” and arguing it contains “critical errors.” Key Ross arguments include:

– – Headnotes Not Copyrightable: They are near-verbatim quotes from uncopyrightable judicial opinions, lacking originality under precedents like Banks v. Manchester (1888) and Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020), which prohibit monopolizing the law. Protecting them would violate the merger doctrine.
– – Transformative Use: Ross’s AI training created a “spectacularly transformative” tool for semantic search, advancing technology without superseding Westlaw’s market – citing Authors Guild v. Google (2015) and Google v. Oracle (2021) for intermediate copying in innovation.
– – Minimal Amount Used: Only ~0.08% of headnotes (25,000 out of 28+ million) were involved, transformed into numerical data without retaining expressive content.
– – No Market Harm: No evidence of substitution; Westlaw doesn’t license headnotes for AI or sell them separately, and any impact is from lawful competition, not copyright infringement. – – Broader Implications: Affirming would stifle AI progress, harming public access to justice and U.S. innovation, as evidenced by Ross’s shutdown due to litigation costs.

Thomson Reuters’ response brief is due later, per the briefing schedule. No oral argument date has been set, and the case is actively monitored for its potential to shape fair use doctrine in AI copyright disputes. The district court proceedings are stayed pending appeal.

While no other companies have been directly sued yet, emerging players without exclusive licenses from incumbents like Thomson Reuters or LexisNexis could be vulnerable if their models ingest similar proprietary data.