Addiction specialists say they’re expecting an onslaught of teens addicted to Xanax and other sedatives in a class of anti-anxiety drugs known as benzodiazepines, or 'benzos." Many teens view Xanax as a safer and more plentiful alternative to prescription opioids and heroin - with similar euphoric effects.
But addiction experts warn that the pills kids are taking, often found in their parents’ or grandparents’ medicine cabinets, can be just as deadly as opioids, especially when taken in combination with other drugs or alcohol. And it’s much harder to kick the habit.
Nationwide, prescription drug abuse among adolescents has dropped dramatically in the last 15 years, according to survey results published in December by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Last year’s results indicate that about 4 percent of high school seniors misused prescription painkillers, a sharp decline from 2004, when nearly 1 in 10 teens misused opioids.
In fact, an increasing percentage of high school kids - at least 26 percent of seniors in 2014, up from 5 percent in 1976 - are abstaining from all substances, including alcohol, marijuana and tobacco, according to an historical analysis of the survey data published in July.
Even so, addiction practitioners say they’re seeing a surge in the number of young patients who are hooked on Xanax. Many take high daily doses of the drug, sometimes in deadly combination with opioids and alcohol.
"Adolescent benzo use has skyrocketed" said Sharon Levy, director of adolescent addiction treatment at Boston Children’s Hospital and lead author of the adolescent drug use study "and more kids are being admitted to hospitals for benzo withdrawal because the seizures are so dangerous." At the same time, she said, far fewer kids are seeking treatment for prescription opioid addiction.
Marc Fishman, an addiction psychiatrist and professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said benzos are quickly overtaking opioids as the primary prescription drug of abuse among the adolescent patients he sees at Mountain Manor Treatment Centers in Baltimore and other Maryland locations. And many of them are extreme, high-dose users, he said.
Like opioids prescribed for pain, benzodiazepines prescribed for anxiety eventually stop working, forcing users to take higher and higher doses to get the same effect. Kids who can’t get the pills at home buy them on the dark web or concoct designer versions of benzos in their bathtubs, he said.
But no medicines exist to blunt the withdrawal symptoms and cravings associated with benzodiazepine addiction. Instead, patients typically enter residential treatment where a specialist gradually tapers them off the medication. If stopped too quickly, benzodiazepine withdrawal can result in seizures and even death.
The burgeoning abuse of Xanax and other benzodiazepines among high school kids and young adults over the last several years primarily stems from the fact that there are more of the pills out there, Levy argued.
As more adults are prescribed Xanax, Valium, Ativan and other benzodiazepines to calm their nerves and promote sleep, "we’re creating these vast reservoirs for kids to find," she said.
The other problem, she said, is that adolescents think the benzos are safe because their parents use them. Many kids say they don’t take the pills to get high; they take them to feel normal, Levy said. “Some patients even ask me to just prescribe Xanax for them so they don’t have to buy it illegally. They think it’s good for them."
"That one idea - that something is safe or beneficial or medical - has launched many an epidemic in the past," Levy said. "So, my colleagues and I are watching this with trepidation."
...
But addiction experts warn that the pills kids are taking, often found in their parents’ or grandparents’ medicine cabinets, can be just as deadly as opioids, especially when taken in combination with other drugs or alcohol. And it’s much harder to kick the habit.
Nationwide, prescription drug abuse among adolescents has dropped dramatically in the last 15 years, according to survey results published in December by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Last year’s results indicate that about 4 percent of high school seniors misused prescription painkillers, a sharp decline from 2004, when nearly 1 in 10 teens misused opioids.
In fact, an increasing percentage of high school kids - at least 26 percent of seniors in 2014, up from 5 percent in 1976 - are abstaining from all substances, including alcohol, marijuana and tobacco, according to an historical analysis of the survey data published in July.
Even so, addiction practitioners say they’re seeing a surge in the number of young patients who are hooked on Xanax. Many take high daily doses of the drug, sometimes in deadly combination with opioids and alcohol.
"Adolescent benzo use has skyrocketed" said Sharon Levy, director of adolescent addiction treatment at Boston Children’s Hospital and lead author of the adolescent drug use study "and more kids are being admitted to hospitals for benzo withdrawal because the seizures are so dangerous." At the same time, she said, far fewer kids are seeking treatment for prescription opioid addiction.
Marc Fishman, an addiction psychiatrist and professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said benzos are quickly overtaking opioids as the primary prescription drug of abuse among the adolescent patients he sees at Mountain Manor Treatment Centers in Baltimore and other Maryland locations. And many of them are extreme, high-dose users, he said.
Like opioids prescribed for pain, benzodiazepines prescribed for anxiety eventually stop working, forcing users to take higher and higher doses to get the same effect. Kids who can’t get the pills at home buy them on the dark web or concoct designer versions of benzos in their bathtubs, he said.
But no medicines exist to blunt the withdrawal symptoms and cravings associated with benzodiazepine addiction. Instead, patients typically enter residential treatment where a specialist gradually tapers them off the medication. If stopped too quickly, benzodiazepine withdrawal can result in seizures and even death.
The burgeoning abuse of Xanax and other benzodiazepines among high school kids and young adults over the last several years primarily stems from the fact that there are more of the pills out there, Levy argued.
As more adults are prescribed Xanax, Valium, Ativan and other benzodiazepines to calm their nerves and promote sleep, "we’re creating these vast reservoirs for kids to find," she said.
The other problem, she said, is that adolescents think the benzos are safe because their parents use them. Many kids say they don’t take the pills to get high; they take them to feel normal, Levy said. “Some patients even ask me to just prescribe Xanax for them so they don’t have to buy it illegally. They think it’s good for them."
"That one idea - that something is safe or beneficial or medical - has launched many an epidemic in the past," Levy said. "So, my colleagues and I are watching this with trepidation."
...
A recent study published in the JAMA Open claims that about one in eight essential medicines in low- and middle-income countries may be fake or contain dangerous mixes of ingredients that put patients’ lives at risk.
Researchers examined data from more 350 previous studies that tested more 400,000 drug samples in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, roughly 14 percent of medicines were counterfeit, expired or otherwise low quality and unlikely to be as safe or effective as patients might expect.
And the lead study author Sachiko Ozawa of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said that while the study didn’t examine high-income countries, drug quality concerns are by no means limited to less affluent nations.
Much of the research to date on counterfeit or otherwise unsafe medicines has focused on Africa, and about half of the studies in the current analysis were done there. Almost one in five medications tested in Africa were fake or otherwise potentially unsafe, researchers report in JAMA Network Open.
Another third of the studies were done in Asia, where about 14 percent of medicines tested were found to be counterfeit or otherwise unsafe.
Antibiotics and antimalarials were the most tested drugs in the analysis. Overall, about 19 percent of antimalarials and 12 percent of antibiotics were falsified or otherwise unsafe.
While fake or improperly made medicines undoubtedly harm patients, the current analysis couldn’t tell how many people suffered serious side effects or died as a result of falsified drugs.
But researchers did try to assess the economic impact of counterfeit or improperly made medicines and found the annual cost might run anywhere from $10 billion to $200 billion.
"Even in high-income countries, purchasing cheaper medicines from illegitimate sources online could result in obtaining substandard or falsified medicines," Ozawa said. "Verify the source before you buy medications, and make policymakers aware of the problem so they can work to improve the global supply chain of medicines."‘’
The report "provides important validation of what is largely already known," Tim Mackey of the Global Health Policy Institute in La Jolla, California, writes in an accompanying editorial. "It is important to note that although the study is comprehensive, its narrow scope means it only provides a snapshot of the entire problem, as it is limited to studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries and to those medicines classified as essential by the World Health Organization." ...
Researchers examined data from more 350 previous studies that tested more 400,000 drug samples in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, roughly 14 percent of medicines were counterfeit, expired or otherwise low quality and unlikely to be as safe or effective as patients might expect.
And the lead study author Sachiko Ozawa of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said that while the study didn’t examine high-income countries, drug quality concerns are by no means limited to less affluent nations.
Much of the research to date on counterfeit or otherwise unsafe medicines has focused on Africa, and about half of the studies in the current analysis were done there. Almost one in five medications tested in Africa were fake or otherwise potentially unsafe, researchers report in JAMA Network Open.
Another third of the studies were done in Asia, where about 14 percent of medicines tested were found to be counterfeit or otherwise unsafe.
Antibiotics and antimalarials were the most tested drugs in the analysis. Overall, about 19 percent of antimalarials and 12 percent of antibiotics were falsified or otherwise unsafe.
While fake or improperly made medicines undoubtedly harm patients, the current analysis couldn’t tell how many people suffered serious side effects or died as a result of falsified drugs.
But researchers did try to assess the economic impact of counterfeit or improperly made medicines and found the annual cost might run anywhere from $10 billion to $200 billion.
"Even in high-income countries, purchasing cheaper medicines from illegitimate sources online could result in obtaining substandard or falsified medicines," Ozawa said. "Verify the source before you buy medications, and make policymakers aware of the problem so they can work to improve the global supply chain of medicines."‘’
The report "provides important validation of what is largely already known," Tim Mackey of the Global Health Policy Institute in La Jolla, California, writes in an accompanying editorial. "It is important to note that although the study is comprehensive, its narrow scope means it only provides a snapshot of the entire problem, as it is limited to studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries and to those medicines classified as essential by the World Health Organization." ...
The Division of Workers’ Compensation has posted the 2017 ethics advisory committee's annual report. The workers' compensation ethics advisory committee is a state committee independent from the DWC, that is charged with reviewing and monitoring complaints of misconduct filed against workers' compensation administrative law judges.
As civil servants, workers’ compensation administrative law judges (WCALJs or judges) are not subject to review by the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the agency responsible for investigating misconduct complaints against supreme, superior, and appellate court judges. Instead, it is the EAC that monitors and reviews complaints of judicial misconduct filed against WCALJs.
Of the 34 complaints reviewed by the EAC, misconduct was found in five of them. Many of the complaints involved allegations of rude, abrasive or other inappropriate conduct by judges in courtrooms, mostly toward attorneys, at at times toward claimants.
For example, in one case, an applicant claimed the WCJ showed racial prejudice because "as soon as the judge saw complainant’s spouse, before asking any other questions, the judge asked, 'Do we need an interpreter?' Complainant’s spouse felt insulted by being regarded as a non-English-speaking person based solely upon the spouse’s appearance and perceived race."
The same claimant had further problems during trial. " At several points during the trial, the judge stopped the proceedings and requested to go off the record. Complainant complained that, with arms flailing, the judge used a loud voice directed at complainant and complainant’s attorney."
In this case, the EAC identified violations of Canons 2A, 3B(7) and 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Ethics and recommended to the CJ that appropriate action be taken.
In another illustrative case an applicant’s attorney, complained that the judge was prejudiced against the attorney’s firm. The judge would scold the applicant’s attorney in front of the applicant and the defense. The judge’s diatribes concerned what the judge thought the applicant’s firm had done incorrectly in the past. Similar examples were given in other specific litigated cases before the same judge.
In this case, the committee also identified violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics and recommended to the CJ that appropriate action be taken.
Many of the complaints found no ethical violations. Typically, they were based upon complaints about the merits of the claim, asserting the WCJ made the wrong decision. 29 cases were reviewed where no violation was found ...
As civil servants, workers’ compensation administrative law judges (WCALJs or judges) are not subject to review by the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the agency responsible for investigating misconduct complaints against supreme, superior, and appellate court judges. Instead, it is the EAC that monitors and reviews complaints of judicial misconduct filed against WCALJs.
Of the 34 complaints reviewed by the EAC, misconduct was found in five of them. Many of the complaints involved allegations of rude, abrasive or other inappropriate conduct by judges in courtrooms, mostly toward attorneys, at at times toward claimants.
For example, in one case, an applicant claimed the WCJ showed racial prejudice because "as soon as the judge saw complainant’s spouse, before asking any other questions, the judge asked, 'Do we need an interpreter?' Complainant’s spouse felt insulted by being regarded as a non-English-speaking person based solely upon the spouse’s appearance and perceived race."
The same claimant had further problems during trial. " At several points during the trial, the judge stopped the proceedings and requested to go off the record. Complainant complained that, with arms flailing, the judge used a loud voice directed at complainant and complainant’s attorney."
In this case, the EAC identified violations of Canons 2A, 3B(7) and 3B(8) of the Code of Judicial Ethics and recommended to the CJ that appropriate action be taken.
In another illustrative case an applicant’s attorney, complained that the judge was prejudiced against the attorney’s firm. The judge would scold the applicant’s attorney in front of the applicant and the defense. The judge’s diatribes concerned what the judge thought the applicant’s firm had done incorrectly in the past. Similar examples were given in other specific litigated cases before the same judge.
In this case, the committee also identified violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics and recommended to the CJ that appropriate action be taken.
Many of the complaints found no ethical violations. Typically, they were based upon complaints about the merits of the claim, asserting the WCJ made the wrong decision. 29 cases were reviewed where no violation was found ...
Verity Health System of California Inc, a non-profit operator of six California hospitals filed voluntary petitions for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California - Los Angeles Division.
Verity has secured debtor-in-possession financing of up to $185 million. This additional liquidity will enable continued operations without interruption to high-quality patient care, employees and suppliers throughout the Chapter 11 process.. The health system employed more than 6,000 people as of 2017.
The health system’s bankruptcy filing follows a series of deals that left it saddled with more than $1 billion in pension liabilities and bond debt. Verity, which serves low-income communities in Los Angeles and San Jose, secured a $185 million loan to help it stay operational through the bankruptcy.
Verity Chief Executive Officer Richard Adcock told Reuters he expected the operator to remain in bankruptcy protection from creditors for a couple years as it restructures and works with potential buyers.
"We’ve had over 100 parties formally reach out to us," he said of the sale process, which Verity started in July. He said potential suitors include large national operators, and could include deals for individual facilities.
He emphasized the bankruptcy would allow the operator to maintain patient care while restructuring.
Its hospitals are St. Francis Medical Center and St. Vincent Medical Center in southern California, and O’Connor Hospital, St. Louise Regional Hospital, Seton Medical Center and Seton Medical Center Coastside in northern California. The non-profit also runs a physician network and medical foundation that encompasses urgent care centers and doctors’ offices.
Verity has been losing close to $175 million per year on a cash flow basis, Adcock said.
U.S. hospitals are suffering from costs that are rising faster than revenue and the industry is on an unsustainable path, credit rating agency Moody’s said in a report this week.
Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, Province of the West, a religious organization, originally owned Verity. In 2015, the Daughters selected hedge fund BlueMountain Capital Management LLC to recapitalize the system with an investment of about $250 million ...
Verity has secured debtor-in-possession financing of up to $185 million. This additional liquidity will enable continued operations without interruption to high-quality patient care, employees and suppliers throughout the Chapter 11 process.. The health system employed more than 6,000 people as of 2017.
The health system’s bankruptcy filing follows a series of deals that left it saddled with more than $1 billion in pension liabilities and bond debt. Verity, which serves low-income communities in Los Angeles and San Jose, secured a $185 million loan to help it stay operational through the bankruptcy.
Verity Chief Executive Officer Richard Adcock told Reuters he expected the operator to remain in bankruptcy protection from creditors for a couple years as it restructures and works with potential buyers.
"We’ve had over 100 parties formally reach out to us," he said of the sale process, which Verity started in July. He said potential suitors include large national operators, and could include deals for individual facilities.
He emphasized the bankruptcy would allow the operator to maintain patient care while restructuring.
Its hospitals are St. Francis Medical Center and St. Vincent Medical Center in southern California, and O’Connor Hospital, St. Louise Regional Hospital, Seton Medical Center and Seton Medical Center Coastside in northern California. The non-profit also runs a physician network and medical foundation that encompasses urgent care centers and doctors’ offices.
Verity has been losing close to $175 million per year on a cash flow basis, Adcock said.
U.S. hospitals are suffering from costs that are rising faster than revenue and the industry is on an unsustainable path, credit rating agency Moody’s said in a report this week.
Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, Province of the West, a religious organization, originally owned Verity. In 2015, the Daughters selected hedge fund BlueMountain Capital Management LLC to recapitalize the system with an investment of about $250 million ...
This summer, Atlas General Insurance Services, LLC, added an exclusive new workers’ compensation insurance program with Accredited Surety & Casualty Company, Inc., a Florida-headquartered insurance company.
Accredited recently expanded its insurance offerings to include workers’ compensation and selected Atlas as its exclusive program administrator nationwide.
California is the first state where the program is available, and Atlas is actively working with Accredited to expand this program nationwide.
And now, Atlas announced its new workers' compensation program for the cannabis industry in California.
This exclusive program with Accredited Surety and Casualty Co. can accommodate work comp risks involved in all aspects of the cannabis industry - including growers, extractors, analytical labs, medicine manufacturers, food & beverage products manufacturing, packaging, warehousing & distribution, transportation and dispensaries.
According to Bill Trzos, CEO of Atlas, "Atlas has been studying the cannabis industry well before it became legalized in California," said Trzos "through our research we recognized the opportunity to be proactive in entering the cannabis market and are excited to be one of a few work comp platforms in the state."
While the program is only available in California now, Atlas will be opening this program in other states that have legalized cannabis.
Atlas heard the call to action from Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones last year and responded by developing a comprehensive workers' compensation program to serve the industry.
"Cannabis businesses should have insurance coverage available to them just like any other California business," said Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. "As Insurance Commissioner, my mission is insurance protection for all Californians, which includes insurance for California's legalized cannabis businesses and its workers.
This new program from Atlas is a crucial step in the right direction for this evolving industry. I encourage more insurance companies to offer cannabis business insurance products with the department to meet the needs of this emerging market."
...
Accredited recently expanded its insurance offerings to include workers’ compensation and selected Atlas as its exclusive program administrator nationwide.
California is the first state where the program is available, and Atlas is actively working with Accredited to expand this program nationwide.
And now, Atlas announced its new workers' compensation program for the cannabis industry in California.
This exclusive program with Accredited Surety and Casualty Co. can accommodate work comp risks involved in all aspects of the cannabis industry - including growers, extractors, analytical labs, medicine manufacturers, food & beverage products manufacturing, packaging, warehousing & distribution, transportation and dispensaries.
According to Bill Trzos, CEO of Atlas, "Atlas has been studying the cannabis industry well before it became legalized in California," said Trzos "through our research we recognized the opportunity to be proactive in entering the cannabis market and are excited to be one of a few work comp platforms in the state."
While the program is only available in California now, Atlas will be opening this program in other states that have legalized cannabis.
Atlas heard the call to action from Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones last year and responded by developing a comprehensive workers' compensation program to serve the industry.
"Cannabis businesses should have insurance coverage available to them just like any other California business," said Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. "As Insurance Commissioner, my mission is insurance protection for all Californians, which includes insurance for California's legalized cannabis businesses and its workers.
This new program from Atlas is a crucial step in the right direction for this evolving industry. I encourage more insurance companies to offer cannabis business insurance products with the department to meet the needs of this emerging market."
...
Brian Scott Krasnoff, 64, of Castaic and Lori Michelle Russum, 52, of Valencia were arrested and charged with more than 30 felony counts which include conspiracy to commit grand theft, grand theft, forgery, and failure to secure payment of compensation.
Krasnoff worked as a subcontractor for maintenance companies throughout the country for over a decade. He was the owner and operator of Commercial Window Cleaning Co., and allegedly conspired with Russum who owned a typing company to create false certificates of insurance.
Krasnoff submitted the false certificates to these maintenance companies to secure jobs in Southern California where he performed maintenance services. These businesses believed Krasnoff was insured when in actuality he was not, and paid more than half a million dollars for his services.
The California Department of Insurance says that in the process of hiring a professional to work on your home or property it's not enough to see an insurance certificate, you should always call the insurance company and confirm the policy is active," Jones added. "Taking this extra step should ensure your assets are protected and you are not liable in the event of an accident or injury." ...
Krasnoff worked as a subcontractor for maintenance companies throughout the country for over a decade. He was the owner and operator of Commercial Window Cleaning Co., and allegedly conspired with Russum who owned a typing company to create false certificates of insurance.
Krasnoff submitted the false certificates to these maintenance companies to secure jobs in Southern California where he performed maintenance services. These businesses believed Krasnoff was insured when in actuality he was not, and paid more than half a million dollars for his services.
The California Department of Insurance says that in the process of hiring a professional to work on your home or property it's not enough to see an insurance certificate, you should always call the insurance company and confirm the policy is active," Jones added. "Taking this extra step should ensure your assets are protected and you are not liable in the event of an accident or injury." ...
In 2003, defendants Jose Luis Alvarez, and Kim Marugg, (at the time known as Kim Alvarez) pled guilty to charges they had defrauded the State Compensation Insurance Fund. At the time, Alvarez and Marugg were husband and wife and operated Alverez Construction Company. Some of the workers were paid in cash by an intermediary and as a result SCIF was not paid workers' compensation premium.
Marugg later claimed that, although she "was not guilty of the charges and . . . insistent on moving forward to trial," she nonetheless pled guilty in December 2003 because the plea agreement "sounded like a sound financial decision."
Marugg and Alvarez separated in February 2003; and began dissolution of marriage proceedings in 2004. She then married the prosecutor in her criminal case after she and the prosecutor began a personal relationship on some undisclosed date. The prosecutor died in October 2013, while they were still married.
Marugg testified she had "since learned" that, at time she pled guilty in 2003, her criminal defense counsel was colluding with Jose Luis Alvarez's family law attorney. and her criminal conviction had an adverse effect on her community property rights.
In January 2007, Marugg started her court battled and filed what she calls a "Petition for Expungement" of the conviction, seeking relief under Penal Code sections 1203.4 and 1203.4a which was taken off calendar and not resolved.
In November 2009, Marugg discovered another woman who previously had been prosecuted by the same deputy district attorney, and with whom the prosecutor later engaged in a romantic relationship. This other woman's story was "almost identical" to Marugg's.
This woman complained to the district attorney's office, and at some point during the August - October 2010 time period, the office commenced an internal affairs investigation of the prosecutor. During the investigation, Marugg learned that the prosecutor had engaged in "personal" and "romantic" relationships with other defendants he had prosecuted, as well as one of the principal witnesses, the SCIF investigator, whom the prosecutor had presented to the grand jury in May 2002 in his effort to indict Defendants.
After the investigation, in May 2011, the superior court ruled in favor of this other woman, finding in her case "that there have been substantial irregularities in the prosecution of this case, of which the court was unaware until this petition, that undermine the lawfulness of defendant's conviction."
In September 2011, at Marugg's request, the prosecuting deputy district attorney (who, by this time, was Marugg's husband) provided Marugg with a declaration that she submitted to the State Bar of California as part of a complaint she filed against the defense attorney who represented her at the time she pled guilty and was sentenced in 2003. In part, the prosecutor testified that, as early as 2002, he knew that "[Marugg] was not the guilty party."
A year later, in September 2012, Marugg wrote a letter to the district attorney, asking that the People stipulate to allow Marugg to withdraw her plea. The People declined Marugg's request in an October 2012 letter.
After gaining information in 2015 regarding what Marugg considered to be criminal behavior of one of the SCIF investigators who testified before the grand jury in May 2002, Marugg requested and obtained copies of all of the state's records from its investigation into the activities of Alvarez Construction that led to the grand jury evidence, the indictment, and the convictions. She received the initial documents in July 2015 and retained a forensic accounting firm in November 2015.
In 2016, Marugg filed petitions for writs of error coram nobis and section 1473.7 motions to vacate her convictions. Much of Marugg's January 2017 testimony attempts to impeach evidence presented to the grand jury in May 2002. Marugg denied portions of witnesses' grand jury testimony, presented evidence that she contended contradicted grand jury evidence, and identified facts that she believed discredited grand jury witnesses.
Based on what she found, Marugg testified that her criminal defense attorney "completely failed to identify and present evidence that exonerated [her] as well as failed to challenge by way of motions false evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury and challenge the prosecutor's failure to present exonerating evidence to the Grand Jury."
The trial court denied the requested relief. The Court of Appeal gave her a second chance in the unpublished case of People v Marugg.
The major problem for Marugg was her failure to raise her concerns earlier, and/or to exercise due diligence on time. Much of what she argues in 2017 was know much earlier, and should have been known with a due diligence investigation, both prerequisites to granting her relief.
Nonetheless, the trial court procedurally failed to hold a hearing as statutorily requiredand timely requested by Marugg before ruling on Marugg's section 1473.7 motion. The case was remanded for that purpose ...
Marugg later claimed that, although she "was not guilty of the charges and . . . insistent on moving forward to trial," she nonetheless pled guilty in December 2003 because the plea agreement "sounded like a sound financial decision."
Marugg and Alvarez separated in February 2003; and began dissolution of marriage proceedings in 2004. She then married the prosecutor in her criminal case after she and the prosecutor began a personal relationship on some undisclosed date. The prosecutor died in October 2013, while they were still married.
Marugg testified she had "since learned" that, at time she pled guilty in 2003, her criminal defense counsel was colluding with Jose Luis Alvarez's family law attorney. and her criminal conviction had an adverse effect on her community property rights.
In January 2007, Marugg started her court battled and filed what she calls a "Petition for Expungement" of the conviction, seeking relief under Penal Code sections 1203.4 and 1203.4a which was taken off calendar and not resolved.
In November 2009, Marugg discovered another woman who previously had been prosecuted by the same deputy district attorney, and with whom the prosecutor later engaged in a romantic relationship. This other woman's story was "almost identical" to Marugg's.
This woman complained to the district attorney's office, and at some point during the August - October 2010 time period, the office commenced an internal affairs investigation of the prosecutor. During the investigation, Marugg learned that the prosecutor had engaged in "personal" and "romantic" relationships with other defendants he had prosecuted, as well as one of the principal witnesses, the SCIF investigator, whom the prosecutor had presented to the grand jury in May 2002 in his effort to indict Defendants.
After the investigation, in May 2011, the superior court ruled in favor of this other woman, finding in her case "that there have been substantial irregularities in the prosecution of this case, of which the court was unaware until this petition, that undermine the lawfulness of defendant's conviction."
In September 2011, at Marugg's request, the prosecuting deputy district attorney (who, by this time, was Marugg's husband) provided Marugg with a declaration that she submitted to the State Bar of California as part of a complaint she filed against the defense attorney who represented her at the time she pled guilty and was sentenced in 2003. In part, the prosecutor testified that, as early as 2002, he knew that "[Marugg] was not the guilty party."
A year later, in September 2012, Marugg wrote a letter to the district attorney, asking that the People stipulate to allow Marugg to withdraw her plea. The People declined Marugg's request in an October 2012 letter.
After gaining information in 2015 regarding what Marugg considered to be criminal behavior of one of the SCIF investigators who testified before the grand jury in May 2002, Marugg requested and obtained copies of all of the state's records from its investigation into the activities of Alvarez Construction that led to the grand jury evidence, the indictment, and the convictions. She received the initial documents in July 2015 and retained a forensic accounting firm in November 2015.
In 2016, Marugg filed petitions for writs of error coram nobis and section 1473.7 motions to vacate her convictions. Much of Marugg's January 2017 testimony attempts to impeach evidence presented to the grand jury in May 2002. Marugg denied portions of witnesses' grand jury testimony, presented evidence that she contended contradicted grand jury evidence, and identified facts that she believed discredited grand jury witnesses.
Based on what she found, Marugg testified that her criminal defense attorney "completely failed to identify and present evidence that exonerated [her] as well as failed to challenge by way of motions false evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury and challenge the prosecutor's failure to present exonerating evidence to the Grand Jury."
The trial court denied the requested relief. The Court of Appeal gave her a second chance in the unpublished case of People v Marugg.
The major problem for Marugg was her failure to raise her concerns earlier, and/or to exercise due diligence on time. Much of what she argues in 2017 was know much earlier, and should have been known with a due diligence investigation, both prerequisites to granting her relief.
Nonetheless, the trial court procedurally failed to hold a hearing as statutorily requiredand timely requested by Marugg before ruling on Marugg's section 1473.7 motion. The case was remanded for that purpose ...
Vilasini Ganesh M.D. a Saratoga family practitioner was just sentenced to 63 months in prison for health care fraud and making false statements related to a health care benefits program.
Ganesh, and her husband orthopedic surgeon Gregory Belcher M.D., were convicted of the charges on December 15, 2017, after an eight-week trial.
The evidence at trial demonstrated Ganesh submitted a series of false medical claims related to the family medical practice she owned, Campbell Medical Group in Saratoga.
For example, Ganesh submitted claims for days when a patient had not been seen by the provider and claims for patients who had been seen by a physician provider who no longer was affiliated with her practice.
Additionally, Ganesh billed insurers with claims that certain patients were seen twelve to fifteen times in a single month.
On July 13, 2017, a federal grand jury indicted Ganesh and Belcher, charging them with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, multiple counts health care fraud, and making a false statement relating to health care matters.
The jury convicted Belcher of one count of health care fraud and convicted Ganesh of five counts of health care fraud and five counts of making false statements. The jury acquitted defendants of the remaining counts.
During Ganesh’s sentencing hearing, Judge Koh stated that Ganesh obstructed justice by misrepresenting her understanding of the legal system, the amount of money she was paid by insurers, and whether she understood that it was improper to "upcharge" when submitting claims to insurers.
In addition to the prison term, Ganesh was sentenced to a 3-year term of supervised release and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $344,916.20. Ganesh will begin serving the prison sentence on November 1, 2018.
On April 4, 2018, Judge Koh sentenced Belcher to a year and a day in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release ...
Ganesh, and her husband orthopedic surgeon Gregory Belcher M.D., were convicted of the charges on December 15, 2017, after an eight-week trial.
The evidence at trial demonstrated Ganesh submitted a series of false medical claims related to the family medical practice she owned, Campbell Medical Group in Saratoga.
For example, Ganesh submitted claims for days when a patient had not been seen by the provider and claims for patients who had been seen by a physician provider who no longer was affiliated with her practice.
Additionally, Ganesh billed insurers with claims that certain patients were seen twelve to fifteen times in a single month.
On July 13, 2017, a federal grand jury indicted Ganesh and Belcher, charging them with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, multiple counts health care fraud, and making a false statement relating to health care matters.
The jury convicted Belcher of one count of health care fraud and convicted Ganesh of five counts of health care fraud and five counts of making false statements. The jury acquitted defendants of the remaining counts.
During Ganesh’s sentencing hearing, Judge Koh stated that Ganesh obstructed justice by misrepresenting her understanding of the legal system, the amount of money she was paid by insurers, and whether she understood that it was improper to "upcharge" when submitting claims to insurers.
In addition to the prison term, Ganesh was sentenced to a 3-year term of supervised release and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $344,916.20. Ganesh will begin serving the prison sentence on November 1, 2018.
On April 4, 2018, Judge Koh sentenced Belcher to a year and a day in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release ...
Compounded medications are custom-made medications that traditionally were formulated by pharmacies for specific patients. By 2012, the practice had mushroomed, with some pharmacies selling thousands of doses of regularly used mixtures for physicians to keep for future use.
Now utilization and costs associated with compound medications fell significantly for both managed and unmanaged claims in 2017. This welcome news is attributable to payers continuing to leverage processes that identify whether a compound is necessary and only allowing those prescriptions that appear to provide medical benefit. In addition, most states have either been considering or have already implemented formularies in part to short-circuit exorbitant compound use.
Coventry reports that managed compound costs have steadily declined for three consecutive years and fell by more than half between 2016 and 2017.
The decreases were notable in California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Each of these states saw the percentage of all claims using compounds drop by more than half for the last two years.
Unmanaged compound costs have likewise posted sharp declines. Spending has now reached the lowest level in seven years.
The same large states that logged decreases in managed compound costs also registered sizable drops in unmanaged compound costs. Eight of the top 10 states experienced at least 40% reductions in the number of injured workers using compounds. These states were Arizona, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
More payers, prescribers and injured workers have begun to question the need for a compound over a commercially available formulation. The workers’ compensation industry has for several years highlighted the limited clinical appropriateness of compounds, their high cost and the continued instances of civil and criminal investigations into compounding.
And the Food and Drug Administration is poised to limit large scale compounding.
In 2012 there was a fungal meningitis outbreak caused by tainted steroids made by a compounding pharmacy. That prompted Congress in 2013 to pass a law aimed at bringing more compounding pharmacies, traditionally overseen by states, under FDA oversight. The law, the Drug Quality and Security Act, created a category of "outsourcing facilities" that could register with the FDA and sell products in bulk while following federal manufacturing standards.
Under this new law, the FDA on Monday proposed excluding three substances from a list of ingredients that could be used to manufacture compounded medications in bulk for use by hospitals and doctors’ offices. The action was the first time the regulator has moved to exclude any substance from a list of ingredients that may be used to produce in bulk compounded medications that do not need to go through the agency’s safety approval process ...
Now utilization and costs associated with compound medications fell significantly for both managed and unmanaged claims in 2017. This welcome news is attributable to payers continuing to leverage processes that identify whether a compound is necessary and only allowing those prescriptions that appear to provide medical benefit. In addition, most states have either been considering or have already implemented formularies in part to short-circuit exorbitant compound use.
Coventry reports that managed compound costs have steadily declined for three consecutive years and fell by more than half between 2016 and 2017.
The decreases were notable in California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Each of these states saw the percentage of all claims using compounds drop by more than half for the last two years.
Unmanaged compound costs have likewise posted sharp declines. Spending has now reached the lowest level in seven years.
The same large states that logged decreases in managed compound costs also registered sizable drops in unmanaged compound costs. Eight of the top 10 states experienced at least 40% reductions in the number of injured workers using compounds. These states were Arizona, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
More payers, prescribers and injured workers have begun to question the need for a compound over a commercially available formulation. The workers’ compensation industry has for several years highlighted the limited clinical appropriateness of compounds, their high cost and the continued instances of civil and criminal investigations into compounding.
And the Food and Drug Administration is poised to limit large scale compounding.
In 2012 there was a fungal meningitis outbreak caused by tainted steroids made by a compounding pharmacy. That prompted Congress in 2013 to pass a law aimed at bringing more compounding pharmacies, traditionally overseen by states, under FDA oversight. The law, the Drug Quality and Security Act, created a category of "outsourcing facilities" that could register with the FDA and sell products in bulk while following federal manufacturing standards.
Under this new law, the FDA on Monday proposed excluding three substances from a list of ingredients that could be used to manufacture compounded medications in bulk for use by hospitals and doctors’ offices. The action was the first time the regulator has moved to exclude any substance from a list of ingredients that may be used to produce in bulk compounded medications that do not need to go through the agency’s safety approval process ...
For numerous years, a slightly varied version of essentially the same proposed legislation regarding Workers’ Compensation Medicare Set-Asides continues to be re-introduced in Congress. This year the MSA Bill was again introduced in the Senate. It is titled "Medicare Secondary Payer and Workers’ Compensation Settlement Agreements Act of 2018." The Bill has generally failed to gain traction and support year after year.
The MSA Bill seeks to formally legislate guidelines around the WCMSA process. Currently, the MSA and CMS review process have never been formalized in statute or legislation. All CMS guidance around protection of Medicare’s interest has been issued via administrative guidance (i.e., the WCMSA Reference Guide, CMS memoranda, etc.).
While the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) does clearly indicate that Medicare should not pay where a beneficiary has received primary payment and MSAs in settlements with Medicare beneficiaries have become a de facto Best Practice in the industry, the MSP and its corresponding regulations have never explicitly addressed the MSA and CMS approval process.
Essentially, the MSA Bill would provide formal regulatory teeth to the WCMSA approval process that never previously existed. As such, the industry has been hesitant to provide CMS extra teeth into its currently voluntary MSA review program.
When the MSA Bill was initially formulated close to ten years ago, the industry was experiencing many difficulties with CMS’ current contractor regarding inconsistencies in approvals, high/unreasonable Part D allocations in the WCMSA, and long turnaround times.
However, the current and last contractor have become more consistent in their review policies, and turnaround times are reasonable. With all necessary documentation, CMS reviews WCMSAs within 3-4 weeks. As such, there is not currently a strong desire for WCMSA reform.
That’s not to say that the CMS review process is without flaw. Overallocation of prescription drugs, particularly opioids, continues to be an issue that such over-use potentially could cause long-term health issues for the beneficiary. Further, outside of a limited Re-Review/Amended Review process, no appeal process providing full due process in our court system exists; a CMS determination is final.
Changes from the last version of the MSA Bill include: Removal of the threshold for settlements under $25k where the plan wouldn’t be considered primary (the Bill now seems to indicate there is no threshold to make a plan primary) and removal of all the Qualified MSA language (this was proposed in the prior Bill to make an MSA considered final and adequate without CMS review).
The MSA Bill provides that the MSA shall include payment for "items and services" covered by the workers’ compensation law or plan. "Items and services" are technically not prescription drugs as defined under the MSP. Does this MSA Bill seek to exclude Part D prescription drugs from the MSA? That is not clear, and this point is ambiguous in the text proposed.
Overall, the MSA Bill is vague and missing out on a number of components more pressing and needed in WCMSA Reform ...
The MSA Bill seeks to formally legislate guidelines around the WCMSA process. Currently, the MSA and CMS review process have never been formalized in statute or legislation. All CMS guidance around protection of Medicare’s interest has been issued via administrative guidance (i.e., the WCMSA Reference Guide, CMS memoranda, etc.).
While the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSP) does clearly indicate that Medicare should not pay where a beneficiary has received primary payment and MSAs in settlements with Medicare beneficiaries have become a de facto Best Practice in the industry, the MSP and its corresponding regulations have never explicitly addressed the MSA and CMS approval process.
Essentially, the MSA Bill would provide formal regulatory teeth to the WCMSA approval process that never previously existed. As such, the industry has been hesitant to provide CMS extra teeth into its currently voluntary MSA review program.
When the MSA Bill was initially formulated close to ten years ago, the industry was experiencing many difficulties with CMS’ current contractor regarding inconsistencies in approvals, high/unreasonable Part D allocations in the WCMSA, and long turnaround times.
However, the current and last contractor have become more consistent in their review policies, and turnaround times are reasonable. With all necessary documentation, CMS reviews WCMSAs within 3-4 weeks. As such, there is not currently a strong desire for WCMSA reform.
That’s not to say that the CMS review process is without flaw. Overallocation of prescription drugs, particularly opioids, continues to be an issue that such over-use potentially could cause long-term health issues for the beneficiary. Further, outside of a limited Re-Review/Amended Review process, no appeal process providing full due process in our court system exists; a CMS determination is final.
Changes from the last version of the MSA Bill include: Removal of the threshold for settlements under $25k where the plan wouldn’t be considered primary (the Bill now seems to indicate there is no threshold to make a plan primary) and removal of all the Qualified MSA language (this was proposed in the prior Bill to make an MSA considered final and adequate without CMS review).
The MSA Bill provides that the MSA shall include payment for "items and services" covered by the workers’ compensation law or plan. "Items and services" are technically not prescription drugs as defined under the MSP. Does this MSA Bill seek to exclude Part D prescription drugs from the MSA? That is not clear, and this point is ambiguous in the text proposed.
Overall, the MSA Bill is vague and missing out on a number of components more pressing and needed in WCMSA Reform ...
Doctors who are cutting back on prescribing opioids increasingly are opting for gabapentin, believed to be a safer, non-narcotic drug. The anticonvulsant is available in generic form and sold under the brand names Neurotonin and Gralise, among others. However, recreational use and abuse of the prescription drug is on the rise, and the increase has raised concern among officials in several states.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved gabapentinoids for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (gabapentin and pregabalin), fibromyalgia (pregabalin), and neuropathic pain associated with diabetes or spinal cord injuries (pregabalin).
Past marketing practices also help explain the growing use of gabapentinoids for various types of pain. The manufacturer (Parke-Davis, a subsidiary of Warner-Lambert, which was later acquired by Pfizer) engaged in an extensive marketing campaign to increase off-label prescribing of Neurontin for pain.
On the street gabapentin pills, known as "johnnys" or "gabbies," which often sell for less than a dollar each, enhance the euphoric effects of heroin and when taken alone in high doses can produce a marijuana-like high.
Gabapentin is currently not a controlled substance in the United States, so federal authorities do not consider it a drug with a high potential for abuse. But recent data indicate that the drug promoted as an alternative to opioids is one to watch as gabapentin-related complications and overdose deaths are increasing.
Gabapentin is now one of the most popular prescription drugs in the United States, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. It was the 10th-most-prescribed medication in 2016. Its more expensive cousin, pregabalin, sold as Lyrica and also made by Pfizer, was the eighth best-selling.
Some states have taken note of the increase in use and are pursuing stricter measures for access to the drug.
Gabapentin was the No. 1 drug dispensed in Ohio in December 2016, according to the Ohio Board of Pharmacy. In that same year, the medication was dispensed at a greater rate than any other controlled substance. This information promoted the Ohio Substance Abuse Monitoring Network to issue an alert about the illicit use of gabapentin across the state.
Kentucky designated gabapentin as a Schedule 5 controlled substance in July 2017. The regulation requires authorized practitioners to be properly licensed and registered with the DEA before they can dispense the medication.
West Virginia is also tracking gabapentin abuse and may introduce legislation in January 2018 that would aim to classify it as a controlled substance in the state. Gabapentin has market value on the streets and it is being abused according to the definition of a scheduled drug, Dr. Brad Henry, president of the West Virginia State Medical Association, told the newspaper.
According to the Charleston Gazette-Mail, "In a recent month, West Virginia pharmacies filled prescriptions for 5.8 million gabapentin tablets - more than the combined number of doses of two popular painkillers, hydrocodone, and oxycodone."
Ohio also has been monitoring gabapentin prescriptions for more than a year.
People who have abused gabapentin and now find themselves addicted to the drug are advised to avoid going cold turkey. Instead, a professional addiction recovery treatment program is well advised ...
The Food and Drug Administration has approved gabapentinoids for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (gabapentin and pregabalin), fibromyalgia (pregabalin), and neuropathic pain associated with diabetes or spinal cord injuries (pregabalin).
Past marketing practices also help explain the growing use of gabapentinoids for various types of pain. The manufacturer (Parke-Davis, a subsidiary of Warner-Lambert, which was later acquired by Pfizer) engaged in an extensive marketing campaign to increase off-label prescribing of Neurontin for pain.
On the street gabapentin pills, known as "johnnys" or "gabbies," which often sell for less than a dollar each, enhance the euphoric effects of heroin and when taken alone in high doses can produce a marijuana-like high.
Gabapentin is currently not a controlled substance in the United States, so federal authorities do not consider it a drug with a high potential for abuse. But recent data indicate that the drug promoted as an alternative to opioids is one to watch as gabapentin-related complications and overdose deaths are increasing.
Gabapentin is now one of the most popular prescription drugs in the United States, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. It was the 10th-most-prescribed medication in 2016. Its more expensive cousin, pregabalin, sold as Lyrica and also made by Pfizer, was the eighth best-selling.
Some states have taken note of the increase in use and are pursuing stricter measures for access to the drug.
Gabapentin was the No. 1 drug dispensed in Ohio in December 2016, according to the Ohio Board of Pharmacy. In that same year, the medication was dispensed at a greater rate than any other controlled substance. This information promoted the Ohio Substance Abuse Monitoring Network to issue an alert about the illicit use of gabapentin across the state.
Kentucky designated gabapentin as a Schedule 5 controlled substance in July 2017. The regulation requires authorized practitioners to be properly licensed and registered with the DEA before they can dispense the medication.
West Virginia is also tracking gabapentin abuse and may introduce legislation in January 2018 that would aim to classify it as a controlled substance in the state. Gabapentin has market value on the streets and it is being abused according to the definition of a scheduled drug, Dr. Brad Henry, president of the West Virginia State Medical Association, told the newspaper.
According to the Charleston Gazette-Mail, "In a recent month, West Virginia pharmacies filled prescriptions for 5.8 million gabapentin tablets - more than the combined number of doses of two popular painkillers, hydrocodone, and oxycodone."
Ohio also has been monitoring gabapentin prescriptions for more than a year.
People who have abused gabapentin and now find themselves addicted to the drug are advised to avoid going cold turkey. Instead, a professional addiction recovery treatment program is well advised ...
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has been nominated to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court left by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Judge Kavanuagh's nomination must be confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate. Senate Republicans hold a narrow majority (51-49) and, therefore, need every vote to push through the confirmation.
While Justice Kennedy has the reputation of being the High Court's "swing vote," particularly with regard to social concerns, his employment decisions have been, for the most part, pro-employer.
This term alone, Justice Kennedy joined the decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, which held that government workers who choose not to join unions may not be forced to help pay for collective bargaining, because it violates their free speech rights.
Kennedy also agreed with the Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis decision upholding the enforceability of arbitration agreements containing class and collective action waivers of wage and hour disputes.
And, in 2011, Justice Kennedy sided with the majority of the court in Walmart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, a decision that narrowed the definition of the commonality requirement of class actions.
Judge Kavanaugh's decisions have similarly favored-employers. Thus, his confirmation is expected to maintain the Court's current pro-employer leanings.
In Midwest Division-MMC, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board (2017), the D.C. Circuit refused to enforce a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision sustaining the right of union employees to have a representative present during noncompulsory job performance peer-reviews.
In a separate concurrence, Judge Kavanaugh emphasized that members have no right to representation in peer reviews because such reviews are neither investigatory nor likely to result in discipline. Judge Kavanaugh also stated that the confidentiality of the peer-review process was of essential importance.
Judge Kavanaugh's decisions in discrimination cases under Title VII, however, have been somewhat mixed.
For instance, in Adeyemi v. District of Columbia (2008), Judge Kavanaugh dismissed the plaintiff's claim that he was not hired because he was blind, in violation of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Judge Kavanaugh explained that the central inquiry in a discrimination case is whether the employer's stated nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision is false. Where the plaintiff fails to demonstrate the falsehood of the stated reason, the employment decision must stand.
However, Judge Kavanaugh's concurrence in Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae (2013) can be read as advocating for a lower burden to be placed on plaintiffs in asserting hostile workplace claims.
In Ayissi-Etoh, the plaintiff alleged he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment when his manager called him a repugnant racial slur. In concurring with the majority decision dismissing the plaintiff's claim,
Judge Kavanaugh, nevertheless, contended that in some cases the utterance of a single racial slur, "might well have been sufficient to establish a hostile work environment."
...
While Justice Kennedy has the reputation of being the High Court's "swing vote," particularly with regard to social concerns, his employment decisions have been, for the most part, pro-employer.
This term alone, Justice Kennedy joined the decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, which held that government workers who choose not to join unions may not be forced to help pay for collective bargaining, because it violates their free speech rights.
Kennedy also agreed with the Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis decision upholding the enforceability of arbitration agreements containing class and collective action waivers of wage and hour disputes.
And, in 2011, Justice Kennedy sided with the majority of the court in Walmart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, a decision that narrowed the definition of the commonality requirement of class actions.
Judge Kavanaugh's decisions have similarly favored-employers. Thus, his confirmation is expected to maintain the Court's current pro-employer leanings.
In Midwest Division-MMC, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board (2017), the D.C. Circuit refused to enforce a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision sustaining the right of union employees to have a representative present during noncompulsory job performance peer-reviews.
In a separate concurrence, Judge Kavanaugh emphasized that members have no right to representation in peer reviews because such reviews are neither investigatory nor likely to result in discipline. Judge Kavanaugh also stated that the confidentiality of the peer-review process was of essential importance.
Judge Kavanaugh's decisions in discrimination cases under Title VII, however, have been somewhat mixed.
For instance, in Adeyemi v. District of Columbia (2008), Judge Kavanaugh dismissed the plaintiff's claim that he was not hired because he was blind, in violation of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Judge Kavanaugh explained that the central inquiry in a discrimination case is whether the employer's stated nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision is false. Where the plaintiff fails to demonstrate the falsehood of the stated reason, the employment decision must stand.
However, Judge Kavanaugh's concurrence in Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae (2013) can be read as advocating for a lower burden to be placed on plaintiffs in asserting hostile workplace claims.
In Ayissi-Etoh, the plaintiff alleged he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment when his manager called him a repugnant racial slur. In concurring with the majority decision dismissing the plaintiff's claim,
Judge Kavanaugh, nevertheless, contended that in some cases the utterance of a single racial slur, "might well have been sufficient to establish a hostile work environment."
...
Orange County prosecutors charged three defendants with defrauding a workers’ compensation insurance company by misrepresenting uninsured injured workers as employees of a different company.
They are also charged with failing to report wages, withhold payroll taxes, and pay employment taxes for wages earned to California Employment Development Department (EDD).
The three defendants are Veronica G. Lake, 47, of Mission Viejo, Luis Enrique Perez, 49, of Yorba Linda and Scott Wesley Smith, 36, who lives in Orange.
In 2013, Luis Perez owned and operated several temporary employee staffing companies including BaronHR, LLC.
Lake worked for Perez as his Controller, while Smith worked as the Director of Safety.
In September 2013, Smith formed Titan Personnel, Inc. and acted as its CEO, CFO, Secretary and sole Director.
Despite losing its workers’ compensation insurance on July 1, 2013, Perez is accused of unlawfully continuing to operate BaronHR and contract with outside companies to provide temporary employees.
Between December 2013 and September 2014, the defendants are accused of conspiring to fraudulently report 47 injured employees of BaronHR as employees of Titan to American International Group, Inc. (AIG) to avoid liability for its employees who were injured at work, and to hide BaronHR’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation insurance as mandated by law.
As a result, AIG became liable for approximately $393,000 worth of expenses for claims of individuals not covered by their insurance policy.
The defendants are further accused of conspiring to commit tax fraud by failing to report, withhold, and pay employment and personal income tax for 36 BaronHR employees, including individuals they attempted to report to AIG as Titan Personnel employees, to the EDD ...
They are also charged with failing to report wages, withhold payroll taxes, and pay employment taxes for wages earned to California Employment Development Department (EDD).
The three defendants are Veronica G. Lake, 47, of Mission Viejo, Luis Enrique Perez, 49, of Yorba Linda and Scott Wesley Smith, 36, who lives in Orange.
In 2013, Luis Perez owned and operated several temporary employee staffing companies including BaronHR, LLC.
Lake worked for Perez as his Controller, while Smith worked as the Director of Safety.
In September 2013, Smith formed Titan Personnel, Inc. and acted as its CEO, CFO, Secretary and sole Director.
Despite losing its workers’ compensation insurance on July 1, 2013, Perez is accused of unlawfully continuing to operate BaronHR and contract with outside companies to provide temporary employees.
Between December 2013 and September 2014, the defendants are accused of conspiring to fraudulently report 47 injured employees of BaronHR as employees of Titan to American International Group, Inc. (AIG) to avoid liability for its employees who were injured at work, and to hide BaronHR’s failure to obtain workers’ compensation insurance as mandated by law.
As a result, AIG became liable for approximately $393,000 worth of expenses for claims of individuals not covered by their insurance policy.
The defendants are further accused of conspiring to commit tax fraud by failing to report, withhold, and pay employment and personal income tax for 36 BaronHR employees, including individuals they attempted to report to AIG as Titan Personnel employees, to the EDD ...
A federal jury convicted a Lancaster doctor of conspiracy for his role in a Medicare kickback scheme involving a Los Angeles-area home health agency.
Dr. Kanagasabai Kanakeswaran, 65, was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to pay and/or receive kickbacks for Medicare referrals and four counts of receiving kickbacks for Medicare referrals. The jury rendered its verdicts following a six-day trial.
Kanakeswaran owned and operated a medical clinic located at 1601 West Avenue J , Suite 202, in Lancaster California.
According to evidence presented at trial, from 2008 to 2016, Kanakeswaran and others engaged in a conspiracy to refer Medicare patients to Star Home Health Resources (Star), a home health agency located in La Verne, in exchange for illegal kickback payments.
Kanakeswaran received kickback payments in cash, as well as through checks payable to a company Kanakeswaran owned, Digital Perfection Corporation. According to the grand jury indictment, he would be paid between $100 and $700 per patient that he referred to Star.
As a result of the conspiracy, the owners and operators of Star submitted claims to Medicare based on the Medicare beneficiaries that Kanakeswaran referred to Star, and Medicare paid approximately $4.1 million based on those claims, the evidence showed.
Kanakeswaran is scheduled to be sentenced by United States District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez on January 7. At that time, Kanakeswaran will face a statutory maximum penalty of 25 years in federal prison.
The Medical Board of California records reflect that he is currently still licensed to practice medicine, and there are no disciplinary actions pending against him. He is reported to be a graduate of the University of Colombo Faculty of Medicine, and was admitted to practice in 1979.
This case was investigated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Alexander F. Porter of the Major Frauds Section and DOJ Trial Attorney Claire Yan of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section are prosecuting the case ...
Dr. Kanagasabai Kanakeswaran, 65, was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to pay and/or receive kickbacks for Medicare referrals and four counts of receiving kickbacks for Medicare referrals. The jury rendered its verdicts following a six-day trial.
Kanakeswaran owned and operated a medical clinic located at 1601 West Avenue J , Suite 202, in Lancaster California.
According to evidence presented at trial, from 2008 to 2016, Kanakeswaran and others engaged in a conspiracy to refer Medicare patients to Star Home Health Resources (Star), a home health agency located in La Verne, in exchange for illegal kickback payments.
Kanakeswaran received kickback payments in cash, as well as through checks payable to a company Kanakeswaran owned, Digital Perfection Corporation. According to the grand jury indictment, he would be paid between $100 and $700 per patient that he referred to Star.
As a result of the conspiracy, the owners and operators of Star submitted claims to Medicare based on the Medicare beneficiaries that Kanakeswaran referred to Star, and Medicare paid approximately $4.1 million based on those claims, the evidence showed.
Kanakeswaran is scheduled to be sentenced by United States District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez on January 7. At that time, Kanakeswaran will face a statutory maximum penalty of 25 years in federal prison.
The Medical Board of California records reflect that he is currently still licensed to practice medicine, and there are no disciplinary actions pending against him. He is reported to be a graduate of the University of Colombo Faculty of Medicine, and was admitted to practice in 1979.
This case was investigated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Alexander F. Porter of the Major Frauds Section and DOJ Trial Attorney Claire Yan of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section are prosecuting the case ...
Two years ago the Court of Appeal opened the Pandora's box of potential litigation against utilization review physicians in a published decision. The California Supreme Court agreed to review the case, and just reversed the Court of Appeal in Kirk King v Comppartners, Inc..
Kirk King suffered anxiety and depression due to chronic back pain resulting from the back injury at work in 2008. In 2011, he was prescribed an anti-anxiety medication known as Klonopin to be provided through Workers’ Compensation. The request for this medication was sent to Utilization Review.
Naresh Sharma, M.D, an anesthesiologist who conducted the utilization review determined the drug was unnecessary and decertified it. As a result, Kirk was required to immediately cease taking the Klonopin. Typically, a person withdraws from Klonopin gradually by slowly reducing the dosage. Due to the sudden cessation of Klonopin, King suffered four seizures, resulting in additional physical injuries.
In September 2013 another request for Klonopin was made by the PTP. Ali, a psychiatrist, conducted a second utilization review and also determined Klonopin was medically unnecessary. Neither Sharma nor Ali examined Kirk in-person, and neither warned Kirk of the dangers of an abrupt withdrawal from Klonopin. Sharma and Ali were employees of CompPartners a Workers’ Compensation utilization review company.
King then sued CompPartners, Inc. and Sharma for (1) professional negligence; (2) negligence; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Kirk’s wife, Sara King, sued for loss of consortium. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal sustained the demurrer but reversed the denial of leave to amend.
The Court of Appeal decision concluded that the trial court "should have granted the Kings leave to amend because it is possible... that, when more details are provided they could support a conclusion that, under the circumstances, the scope of Sharma’s duty included some form of warning Kirk of or protecting Kirk from the risk of seizures."
However, the California Supreme Court viewed the case differently. It concluded that the workers’ compensation law provides the exclusive remedy for the employee’s injuries and thus preempts the employee’s tort claims.
The Supreme Court said it is by now well established that the exclusivity provisions preempt not only those causes of action premised on a compensable workplace injury, but also those causes of action premised on injuries collateral to or derivative of’ such an injury. Such collateral or derivative injuries include injuries stemming from conduct occurring in the workers’ compensation claims process.
In performing their statutory functions, utilization reviewers, much like independent claims administrators, effectively stand in the shoes of employers. Thus, the Court concluded that "the exclusive remedy for the Kings’ injuries lies within the workers’ compensation system." ...
Kirk King suffered anxiety and depression due to chronic back pain resulting from the back injury at work in 2008. In 2011, he was prescribed an anti-anxiety medication known as Klonopin to be provided through Workers’ Compensation. The request for this medication was sent to Utilization Review.
Naresh Sharma, M.D, an anesthesiologist who conducted the utilization review determined the drug was unnecessary and decertified it. As a result, Kirk was required to immediately cease taking the Klonopin. Typically, a person withdraws from Klonopin gradually by slowly reducing the dosage. Due to the sudden cessation of Klonopin, King suffered four seizures, resulting in additional physical injuries.
In September 2013 another request for Klonopin was made by the PTP. Ali, a psychiatrist, conducted a second utilization review and also determined Klonopin was medically unnecessary. Neither Sharma nor Ali examined Kirk in-person, and neither warned Kirk of the dangers of an abrupt withdrawal from Klonopin. Sharma and Ali were employees of CompPartners a Workers’ Compensation utilization review company.
King then sued CompPartners, Inc. and Sharma for (1) professional negligence; (2) negligence; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Kirk’s wife, Sara King, sued for loss of consortium. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal sustained the demurrer but reversed the denial of leave to amend.
The Court of Appeal decision concluded that the trial court "should have granted the Kings leave to amend because it is possible... that, when more details are provided they could support a conclusion that, under the circumstances, the scope of Sharma’s duty included some form of warning Kirk of or protecting Kirk from the risk of seizures."
However, the California Supreme Court viewed the case differently. It concluded that the workers’ compensation law provides the exclusive remedy for the employee’s injuries and thus preempts the employee’s tort claims.
The Supreme Court said it is by now well established that the exclusivity provisions preempt not only those causes of action premised on a compensable workplace injury, but also those causes of action premised on injuries collateral to or derivative of’ such an injury. Such collateral or derivative injuries include injuries stemming from conduct occurring in the workers’ compensation claims process.
In performing their statutory functions, utilization reviewers, much like independent claims administrators, effectively stand in the shoes of employers. Thus, the Court concluded that "the exclusive remedy for the Kings’ injuries lies within the workers’ compensation system." ...
Facebook's artificial intelligence lab is working with New York University's medical school to make MRI exams 10 times faster, which, if successful, would allow radiologists to complete a test in minutes.
Doctors use MRI to get a closer look at organs, tissues and bones without exposing patients to harmful radiation. The image quality makes them especially helpful in spotting soft tissue damage, too. The problem is, tests can take as long as an hour.
Anyone with even a hint of claustrophobia can struggle to remain perfectly still in the tube-like machine that long. Tying up a machine for that long also drives up costs by limiting the number of exams a hospital can perform each day.
Computer scientists at Facebook think they can use machine learning to make things a lot faster. To that end, NYU is providing an anonymous dataset of 10,000 MRI exams, a trove that will include as many as three million images of knees, brains and livers.
Researchers will use the data to train an algorithm, using a method called deep learning, to recognize the arrangement of bones, muscles, ligaments, and other things that make up the human body. Building this knowledge into the software that powers an MRI machine will allow the AI to create a portion of the image, saving time.
"You could be in and out in five minutes. It would be a real game-changer." Daniel Sodickson, vice chair for research in radiology at NYU School of Medicine, told CNNMoney.
The challenge lies in figuring out how to do that without missing an important detail, such as a tiny tear in a ligament. Still, researchers remain optimistic. Preliminary findings released last year by NYU radiologists showed artificial intelligence could be used to reconstruct MRI data.
Making the tests faster would allow radiologists to perform a wider variety of tests, Sodickson said. It's akin to increasing the shutter speed of a camera, so the turbocharged tests could be used to, say, track the beating of a heart, he said.
Facebook started talking to NYU about the project last year because its AI team wanted to work on something with real-world benefits even as it performs basic research, said Larry Zitnick of the company's Artificial Intelligence Research group. It plans to open-source any findings in the hope that sharing the data will encourage others to expand upon its work.
...
Doctors use MRI to get a closer look at organs, tissues and bones without exposing patients to harmful radiation. The image quality makes them especially helpful in spotting soft tissue damage, too. The problem is, tests can take as long as an hour.
Anyone with even a hint of claustrophobia can struggle to remain perfectly still in the tube-like machine that long. Tying up a machine for that long also drives up costs by limiting the number of exams a hospital can perform each day.
Computer scientists at Facebook think they can use machine learning to make things a lot faster. To that end, NYU is providing an anonymous dataset of 10,000 MRI exams, a trove that will include as many as three million images of knees, brains and livers.
Researchers will use the data to train an algorithm, using a method called deep learning, to recognize the arrangement of bones, muscles, ligaments, and other things that make up the human body. Building this knowledge into the software that powers an MRI machine will allow the AI to create a portion of the image, saving time.
"You could be in and out in five minutes. It would be a real game-changer." Daniel Sodickson, vice chair for research in radiology at NYU School of Medicine, told CNNMoney.
The challenge lies in figuring out how to do that without missing an important detail, such as a tiny tear in a ligament. Still, researchers remain optimistic. Preliminary findings released last year by NYU radiologists showed artificial intelligence could be used to reconstruct MRI data.
Making the tests faster would allow radiologists to perform a wider variety of tests, Sodickson said. It's akin to increasing the shutter speed of a camera, so the turbocharged tests could be used to, say, track the beating of a heart, he said.
Facebook started talking to NYU about the project last year because its AI team wanted to work on something with real-world benefits even as it performs basic research, said Larry Zitnick of the company's Artificial Intelligence Research group. It plans to open-source any findings in the hope that sharing the data will encourage others to expand upon its work.
...
The battle over high prescription drug prices, unsurprisingly, involves ample amounts of finger-pointing.
Drug manufacturers point to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the powerful middlemen who administer drug coverage for insurers.
The drugmakers argue that the industry practice of providing rebates to large PBMs forces them to raise list prices, and provides PBMs with a perverse incentive to favor pricier drugs in their formularies.
They also charge that the PBMs pocket too much of the rebates to pad their profits, leaving consumers to pay higher prices.
Drugmakers say they are under pressure to provide rebates to the few PBMs that dominate the market, which include CVS, Express Scripts and UnitedHealth’s Optum, and that those payers do not pass on enough of those savings to patients - a contention the PBMs dispute.
The drugmakers say the rebates force them to raise the price of their therapies over time to preserve their business.
PBMs counter that the drug makers are responsible for their high prices, and that there’s no correlation between rebates and rising prices. They say their purpose is to drive down prices for their clients, and they can point to research that shows that most of the money spent on pharmaceuticals in the U.S. goes to the drug makers.
The Trump administration has targeted PBMs and rebates as a key part of its blueprint to lower drug costs. "We’re very much eliminating the middlemen," President Trump said in announcing the blueprint back in May.
And the Department of Health and Human Services last month proposed regulations to crack down on rebates.
While the PBM industry has challenged that regulatory move, arguing that eliminating rebates would have to be done via congressional legislation, in an interview with Reuters on Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former executive at drugmaker Eli Lilly, said that eliminating rebates was within his agency’s power.
"The question of rebates may very well be fundamental to the issue of how you reverse these constant incentives to higher list prices (for medicines)," Azar told Reuters. But, Yasmeen Abutaleb writes, "He did not say when such new regulations, which are being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, might take effect." ...
Drug manufacturers point to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the powerful middlemen who administer drug coverage for insurers.
The drugmakers argue that the industry practice of providing rebates to large PBMs forces them to raise list prices, and provides PBMs with a perverse incentive to favor pricier drugs in their formularies.
They also charge that the PBMs pocket too much of the rebates to pad their profits, leaving consumers to pay higher prices.
Drugmakers say they are under pressure to provide rebates to the few PBMs that dominate the market, which include CVS, Express Scripts and UnitedHealth’s Optum, and that those payers do not pass on enough of those savings to patients - a contention the PBMs dispute.
The drugmakers say the rebates force them to raise the price of their therapies over time to preserve their business.
PBMs counter that the drug makers are responsible for their high prices, and that there’s no correlation between rebates and rising prices. They say their purpose is to drive down prices for their clients, and they can point to research that shows that most of the money spent on pharmaceuticals in the U.S. goes to the drug makers.
The Trump administration has targeted PBMs and rebates as a key part of its blueprint to lower drug costs. "We’re very much eliminating the middlemen," President Trump said in announcing the blueprint back in May.
And the Department of Health and Human Services last month proposed regulations to crack down on rebates.
While the PBM industry has challenged that regulatory move, arguing that eliminating rebates would have to be done via congressional legislation, in an interview with Reuters on Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former executive at drugmaker Eli Lilly, said that eliminating rebates was within his agency’s power.
"The question of rebates may very well be fundamental to the issue of how you reverse these constant incentives to higher list prices (for medicines)," Azar told Reuters. But, Yasmeen Abutaleb writes, "He did not say when such new regulations, which are being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, might take effect." ...
Brittany Maunakea, 29, of Manteca, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for conspiracy to commit mail fraud for her role in a scheme to defraud the State of California by filing false unemployment insurance claims.
Maunakea was also ordered to pay $139,071 in restitution.
Maunakea is the first of five defendants charged in the scheme to be sentenced. Co-defendant Sergio Reyna has also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and is set to be sentenced on September 6, 2018.
The charges against co-defendants Pamela Emanuel, Gregory Lee, and Russell White III remain pending.
According to court documents, beginning in February 2015, Maunakea entered a scheme to defraud the State of California by filing false unemployment insurance claims with the California Employment Development Department (EDD), using the stolen identities of over 250 California workers.
Maunakea participated in the scheme by receiving and facilitating EDD documents at her home and using debit cards issued in the names of identity-theft victims to withdraw the fraudulently obtained benefits.In total, the conspirators filed at least 269 false claims seeking over $2.5 million in fraudulent benefits. EDD’s actual overpayment was $898,899.
"Ms. Maunakea’s crime victimized citizens whose stolen identities were used in furtherance of her personal enrichment. The Office of Inspector General will continue to make it a priority to work with our law enforcement and state workforce agency partners to protect the integrity of the Unemployment Insurance program and to seek justice on behalf of the victims of these identity theft schemes," said Abel Salinas, Special Agent-in-Charge, Los Angeles Region, U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General.
This case is the product of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the California Employment Development Department, Investigations Division. Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Schuller Hitchcock is prosecuting the case.
...
Maunakea was also ordered to pay $139,071 in restitution.
Maunakea is the first of five defendants charged in the scheme to be sentenced. Co-defendant Sergio Reyna has also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and is set to be sentenced on September 6, 2018.
The charges against co-defendants Pamela Emanuel, Gregory Lee, and Russell White III remain pending.
According to court documents, beginning in February 2015, Maunakea entered a scheme to defraud the State of California by filing false unemployment insurance claims with the California Employment Development Department (EDD), using the stolen identities of over 250 California workers.
Maunakea participated in the scheme by receiving and facilitating EDD documents at her home and using debit cards issued in the names of identity-theft victims to withdraw the fraudulently obtained benefits.In total, the conspirators filed at least 269 false claims seeking over $2.5 million in fraudulent benefits. EDD’s actual overpayment was $898,899.
"Ms. Maunakea’s crime victimized citizens whose stolen identities were used in furtherance of her personal enrichment. The Office of Inspector General will continue to make it a priority to work with our law enforcement and state workforce agency partners to protect the integrity of the Unemployment Insurance program and to seek justice on behalf of the victims of these identity theft schemes," said Abel Salinas, Special Agent-in-Charge, Los Angeles Region, U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General.
This case is the product of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the California Employment Development Department, Investigations Division. Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Schuller Hitchcock is prosecuting the case.
...
WCAB panel decisions are more frequently approving total disability awards based upon vocational rehabilitation experts. The trend seems to be an erosion of reliance upon the AMA Guides as was the intent of SB 899 when it passed in 2004.
In this new illustrative panel decision, Craig Hanus sustained injuries to his left shoulder, neck, low back and neurological system on November 15, 2014 while employed as a heavy equipment mechanic by URS / AECOM Corporation
Subsequently, in 2015, Hanus obtained a job at Northrup Grumman as a painter. He only lasted six hours before his "body shut down" as it had done when he tried to return to work for his prior employer.
Hanus testified at trial that when he stopped working for Northrup Grumman, he had pain in his hands, arms, shoulders, back, legs, headaches, and "shooting pain in his ears" that would sometimes go to his eyes and affect his eyesight. He currently has pain "everywhere," has balance problems, and uses a cane to prevent falling. Following left shoulder surgery, he cannot raise his left arm above shoulder level (the court observed his left hand shaking when he lifted it that far) and cannot grip or grasp things in his left hand.
Applicant was seen by a vocational evaluator, Roderick Stoneburner, in October 2017. Mr. Stoneburner's evaluation and found that he was untrainable and I 00% disabled
After trial WCJ found that Hanus sustained 100% permanent disability, without apportionment, as a result of his admitted November 15, 2014 industrial injury to his left shoulder, neck, low back and neurological system while employed as a heavy equipment mechanic by URS/ AECOM Corporation. The petition for reconsideration by the employer was denied in the panel decision of Hanus v URS/AECOM Corporation.
Defendant contested the WCJ's finding that applicant is permanently totally disabled, an contended that applicant cannot rebut the 2013 permanent disability rating schedule using methods approved for rebutting the 2005 rating schedule. Defendant further argues that the vocational evidence does not rebut the rating schedule, since the vocational expert used impermissible factors, failed to consider the apportionment determination of the orthopedic Qualified Medical Evaluator and made unsubstantiated assertions that applicant was incapable of sedentary work.
In response the WCAB concluded that "To the extent the WCJ's finding that applicant is permanently totally disabled is based upon applicant's work restrictions, as the WCJ discusses in the last paragraph of page 5 of his Report, we note that the rating of permanent disability is not determined by measuring work restrictions, but rather, by reference to the rating of the whole person impairment under the appropriate sections of the AMA Guides."
"Here, we find the descriptions of the extent of applicant's impairments which are caused by his industrial injury in the medical reports of Dr. Doty, Dr. Patrick and Dr. Germanovich, as referenced and considered by the vocational expert, Mr. Stoneburner, support the WCJ's finding that·applicant is permanently totally disabled." ...
In this new illustrative panel decision, Craig Hanus sustained injuries to his left shoulder, neck, low back and neurological system on November 15, 2014 while employed as a heavy equipment mechanic by URS / AECOM Corporation
Subsequently, in 2015, Hanus obtained a job at Northrup Grumman as a painter. He only lasted six hours before his "body shut down" as it had done when he tried to return to work for his prior employer.
Hanus testified at trial that when he stopped working for Northrup Grumman, he had pain in his hands, arms, shoulders, back, legs, headaches, and "shooting pain in his ears" that would sometimes go to his eyes and affect his eyesight. He currently has pain "everywhere," has balance problems, and uses a cane to prevent falling. Following left shoulder surgery, he cannot raise his left arm above shoulder level (the court observed his left hand shaking when he lifted it that far) and cannot grip or grasp things in his left hand.
Applicant was seen by a vocational evaluator, Roderick Stoneburner, in October 2017. Mr. Stoneburner's evaluation and found that he was untrainable and I 00% disabled
After trial WCJ found that Hanus sustained 100% permanent disability, without apportionment, as a result of his admitted November 15, 2014 industrial injury to his left shoulder, neck, low back and neurological system while employed as a heavy equipment mechanic by URS/ AECOM Corporation. The petition for reconsideration by the employer was denied in the panel decision of Hanus v URS/AECOM Corporation.
Defendant contested the WCJ's finding that applicant is permanently totally disabled, an contended that applicant cannot rebut the 2013 permanent disability rating schedule using methods approved for rebutting the 2005 rating schedule. Defendant further argues that the vocational evidence does not rebut the rating schedule, since the vocational expert used impermissible factors, failed to consider the apportionment determination of the orthopedic Qualified Medical Evaluator and made unsubstantiated assertions that applicant was incapable of sedentary work.
In response the WCAB concluded that "To the extent the WCJ's finding that applicant is permanently totally disabled is based upon applicant's work restrictions, as the WCJ discusses in the last paragraph of page 5 of his Report, we note that the rating of permanent disability is not determined by measuring work restrictions, but rather, by reference to the rating of the whole person impairment under the appropriate sections of the AMA Guides."
"Here, we find the descriptions of the extent of applicant's impairments which are caused by his industrial injury in the medical reports of Dr. Doty, Dr. Patrick and Dr. Germanovich, as referenced and considered by the vocational expert, Mr. Stoneburner, support the WCJ's finding that·applicant is permanently totally disabled." ...
The Fresno Bee reports that the Medical Board of California has accused a Fresno orthopedic surgeon of practicing medicine on a suspended license.
In an amended accusation filed July 20, the board said it suspended the license of Dr. John P.S. Janda on June 1, 2017, but he continued to see patients in his medical office, including issuing prescriptions and performing examinations.
Janda met with a medical board probation inspector on June 27, 2017, and acknowledged that his medical license was suspended. But according to the accusation, Janda examined a patient’s back and knee in his office on August 2017, and reviewed blood test results with another patient he saw on Sept. 1, 2017.
The board said Janda back-dated prescriptions "so that the prescriptions appeared to have been issued prior to the date of his suspension." And the doctor "told his patients to say, if asked, that they were at his office only to get their medical records," the board said. Latest news by email
According to the June 2017 interim suspension order, Janda, then 65, had a history of three syncopal events (brief loss of consciousness) Feb. 21 and Sept. 5, 2013 and Nov. 20, 2014 - all occurring while he was performing surgery. The board said Janda last performed orthopedic surgery on Nov. 20, 2014.
In a prior action against Janda, the medical board revoked his medical license on Oct. 16, 2015, for gross negligence and repeated negligent acts in his care of two patients. But the revocation was stayed and he was placed on three years of probation with numerous conditions.
The board now is petitioning to remove Janda’s probation, saying he has failed to timely complete a clinical training program and he has failed to complete a "comprehensive fitness for duty neuropsychological evaluation" by a Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program doctor.
Revoking Janda’s probation would result in his license being revoked.
Janda could not be reached for comment about the amended accusation and petition to revoke his probation. He has not had a hearing or been found guilty of any charges. The accusation does not name an attorney as a representative of the doctor, but a Sacramento lawyer represented Janda in prior actions before the board. The lawyer did not return messages left at his law office ...
In an amended accusation filed July 20, the board said it suspended the license of Dr. John P.S. Janda on June 1, 2017, but he continued to see patients in his medical office, including issuing prescriptions and performing examinations.
Janda met with a medical board probation inspector on June 27, 2017, and acknowledged that his medical license was suspended. But according to the accusation, Janda examined a patient’s back and knee in his office on August 2017, and reviewed blood test results with another patient he saw on Sept. 1, 2017.
The board said Janda back-dated prescriptions "so that the prescriptions appeared to have been issued prior to the date of his suspension." And the doctor "told his patients to say, if asked, that they were at his office only to get their medical records," the board said. Latest news by email
According to the June 2017 interim suspension order, Janda, then 65, had a history of three syncopal events (brief loss of consciousness) Feb. 21 and Sept. 5, 2013 and Nov. 20, 2014 - all occurring while he was performing surgery. The board said Janda last performed orthopedic surgery on Nov. 20, 2014.
In a prior action against Janda, the medical board revoked his medical license on Oct. 16, 2015, for gross negligence and repeated negligent acts in his care of two patients. But the revocation was stayed and he was placed on three years of probation with numerous conditions.
The board now is petitioning to remove Janda’s probation, saying he has failed to timely complete a clinical training program and he has failed to complete a "comprehensive fitness for duty neuropsychological evaluation" by a Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program doctor.
Revoking Janda’s probation would result in his license being revoked.
Janda could not be reached for comment about the amended accusation and petition to revoke his probation. He has not had a hearing or been found guilty of any charges. The accusation does not name an attorney as a representative of the doctor, but a Sacramento lawyer represented Janda in prior actions before the board. The lawyer did not return messages left at his law office ...
