California is relaxing its criteria for counties that want to reopen their economies faster than the state during the coronavirus pandemic, after local leaders complained that the original requirements were too difficult to meet.
Newsom said his administration estimated that all but five of California’s 58 counties would qualify for a variance from the statewide stay-at-home order through the new rules, though not all may choose to seek one. Newsom did not specify which five counties fell short, but he mentioned outbreaks at Tulare County nursing homes and a meatpacking plant in Kings County, as well as the overall increase in cases in Los Angeles County, as points of concern.
"The bottom line is people can go at their own pace, and we are empowering our local health directors and county officials who understand their local communities and conditions better than anyone," Newsom said during a news conference at Mustards Grill in Napa.
The number of ineligible counties is likely significantly higher, however. A San Francisco Chronicle analysis found at least six counties in the Bay Area alone that still do not meet thresholds previously set by the state for minimum daily testing and hiring employees to trace the spread of infections.
Under the new framework, counties must demonstrate that their hospitalization rates remain stable. Counties will have to show either that their number of coronavirus patients has not increased by more than 5% in the past week, or that they have not had more than 20 patients on a given day for at least two weeks.
Counties must also meet one of two other conditions: fewer than 25 cases per 100,000 residents for at least 14 days, or a rate of positive coronavirus tests that has dropped below 8%.
Qualifying counties could move ahead of the state by resuming dining-in restaurants, permitting shopping in retail stores and reopening schools, provided they implement safety protocols. Two dozen counties were already given permission last week, mainly in the sparsely populated far north or in the Sierra.
A bloc of six Bay Area counties has been moving slower than most parts of the state to ease its own restrictions, agreeing just this week to allow curbside pickup for retail stores, more than a week after Newsom made a similar adjustment to the state order.
All six counties fall short on at least two state targets to move to the next reopening phase. But along with announcing they would be resuming some curbside retail sales, the counties said Monday that they did not plan to further ease restrictions for at least two weeks.
Three North Bay counties that are not part of the group are seeking permission to go faster, despite not meeting the original state benchmarks for a variance. Napa and Solano counties filed requests with the state last week, while Sonoma County supervisors voted Monday to seek one. All three of the counties appear to meet the new criteria laid out by Newsom, or are very close ...
Newsom said his administration estimated that all but five of California’s 58 counties would qualify for a variance from the statewide stay-at-home order through the new rules, though not all may choose to seek one. Newsom did not specify which five counties fell short, but he mentioned outbreaks at Tulare County nursing homes and a meatpacking plant in Kings County, as well as the overall increase in cases in Los Angeles County, as points of concern.
"The bottom line is people can go at their own pace, and we are empowering our local health directors and county officials who understand their local communities and conditions better than anyone," Newsom said during a news conference at Mustards Grill in Napa.
The number of ineligible counties is likely significantly higher, however. A San Francisco Chronicle analysis found at least six counties in the Bay Area alone that still do not meet thresholds previously set by the state for minimum daily testing and hiring employees to trace the spread of infections.
Under the new framework, counties must demonstrate that their hospitalization rates remain stable. Counties will have to show either that their number of coronavirus patients has not increased by more than 5% in the past week, or that they have not had more than 20 patients on a given day for at least two weeks.
Counties must also meet one of two other conditions: fewer than 25 cases per 100,000 residents for at least 14 days, or a rate of positive coronavirus tests that has dropped below 8%.
Qualifying counties could move ahead of the state by resuming dining-in restaurants, permitting shopping in retail stores and reopening schools, provided they implement safety protocols. Two dozen counties were already given permission last week, mainly in the sparsely populated far north or in the Sierra.
A bloc of six Bay Area counties has been moving slower than most parts of the state to ease its own restrictions, agreeing just this week to allow curbside pickup for retail stores, more than a week after Newsom made a similar adjustment to the state order.
All six counties fall short on at least two state targets to move to the next reopening phase. But along with announcing they would be resuming some curbside retail sales, the counties said Monday that they did not plan to further ease restrictions for at least two weeks.
Three North Bay counties that are not part of the group are seeking permission to go faster, despite not meeting the original state benchmarks for a variance. Napa and Solano counties filed requests with the state last week, while Sonoma County supervisors voted Monday to seek one. All three of the counties appear to meet the new criteria laid out by Newsom, or are very close ...
Technology companies are developing their own contact tracing systems to help prevent coronavirus outbreaks in their offices as countries begin to ease lockdown measures and a return to the workplace is in the offing.
Silicon Valley company Juniper Networks Inc plans to equip its about 10,000 employees with work identification badge holders that have a Bluetooth chip that will help to record a worker’s movements and interactions in the office, company vice president Jeff Aaron said in an interview.
The system employs Wi-Fi routers and access points from Juniper Network’s unit Mist that will communicate with the Bluetooth chips on the badges. The data collected will help determine which employees need to be tested and isolate after a colleague tests positive for the new coronavirus.
All U.S. states have eased virus lockdowns, but work-from-home remains the norm in California’s tech industry. California has reported more than 86,000 coronavirus cases and 3,500 deaths, the lowest tallies in the United States relative to the state’s large population.
Mist, which is a small but fast-growing Wi-Fi equipment maker, is selling its new system to other businesses through its annual subscription of $150 per access point, and about 25 customers are testing it, Aaron said.
He said businesses that are typically reluctant to spend on replacing older technology have indicated that significant funding is available for contact tracing in the workplace.
"They are saying: If this is a reason for me to rip out my old Wi-Fi and put in a Wi-Fi plus BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) solution and support contact tracing use cases, I can definitely get budget for that," he said.
Aaron said customers could skip the Bluetooth component in its system, but still see when spaces such as conference rooms become overcrowded by tracking the number of Wi-Fi-connected devices.
Several software companies have announced tools during the pandemic to automate workplace contact tracing and help customers avoid disruptions.
Among others touting workplace tracking tools, Slovakia-based Symbiosy said its own software, along with sensors from technology partner Quuppa, helped identify about 40 people to test after an employee became infected last month.
"Manually, we would not even have been able to get that precision," said Tomas Melisko, head of real estate company HB Reavis’ Symbiosy unit. "And we would need to have sent twice that many people for testing" if solely analyzing building access logs ...
Silicon Valley company Juniper Networks Inc plans to equip its about 10,000 employees with work identification badge holders that have a Bluetooth chip that will help to record a worker’s movements and interactions in the office, company vice president Jeff Aaron said in an interview.
The system employs Wi-Fi routers and access points from Juniper Network’s unit Mist that will communicate with the Bluetooth chips on the badges. The data collected will help determine which employees need to be tested and isolate after a colleague tests positive for the new coronavirus.
All U.S. states have eased virus lockdowns, but work-from-home remains the norm in California’s tech industry. California has reported more than 86,000 coronavirus cases and 3,500 deaths, the lowest tallies in the United States relative to the state’s large population.
Mist, which is a small but fast-growing Wi-Fi equipment maker, is selling its new system to other businesses through its annual subscription of $150 per access point, and about 25 customers are testing it, Aaron said.
He said businesses that are typically reluctant to spend on replacing older technology have indicated that significant funding is available for contact tracing in the workplace.
"They are saying: If this is a reason for me to rip out my old Wi-Fi and put in a Wi-Fi plus BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) solution and support contact tracing use cases, I can definitely get budget for that," he said.
Aaron said customers could skip the Bluetooth component in its system, but still see when spaces such as conference rooms become overcrowded by tracking the number of Wi-Fi-connected devices.
Several software companies have announced tools during the pandemic to automate workplace contact tracing and help customers avoid disruptions.
Among others touting workplace tracking tools, Slovakia-based Symbiosy said its own software, along with sensors from technology partner Quuppa, helped identify about 40 people to test after an employee became infected last month.
"Manually, we would not even have been able to get that precision," said Tomas Melisko, head of real estate company HB Reavis’ Symbiosy unit. "And we would need to have sent twice that many people for testing" if solely analyzing building access logs ...
The Secret Service has detected a large-scale foreign attack on the U.S. unemployment system that is processing record numbers of jobless claims amid the pandemic, according to The New York Times.
In a Secret Service memo obtained by the Times, the agency described the attack as a well-organized Nigerian fraud ring that could lead to "potential losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars."
"We are actively running down every lead we are getting," Roy Dotson, a special agent who specializes in financial fraud at the Secret Service, said in an interview with investigators obtained by the Times.
The attackers are reportedly using previously obtained Social Security numbers and other personal information to claim unemployment benefits.
Since March, more than 36 million people have filed for unemployment amid shutdowns triggered by the coronavirus pandemic. The sudden increase in jobless claims has overwhelmed state unemployment systems.
The attack was first reported in Washington state, where people who did not file for unemployment reported receiving benefits they didn’t ask for.
The attack adds yet another obstacle as state governments work to send out unemployment benefits in a timely manner.
At Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., more than 400 out of roughly 2,500 employees have been targeted with fraudulent claims, the university’s spokesman told the Times.
"This is a gut punch," Suzi LeVine, the commissioner of the Washington State Employment Security Department, told the newspaper.
Though Washington state has been the primary victim of the attack, there is evidence that the fraud has occurred in Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Wyoming ...
In a Secret Service memo obtained by the Times, the agency described the attack as a well-organized Nigerian fraud ring that could lead to "potential losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars."
"We are actively running down every lead we are getting," Roy Dotson, a special agent who specializes in financial fraud at the Secret Service, said in an interview with investigators obtained by the Times.
The attackers are reportedly using previously obtained Social Security numbers and other personal information to claim unemployment benefits.
Since March, more than 36 million people have filed for unemployment amid shutdowns triggered by the coronavirus pandemic. The sudden increase in jobless claims has overwhelmed state unemployment systems.
The attack was first reported in Washington state, where people who did not file for unemployment reported receiving benefits they didn’t ask for.
The attack adds yet another obstacle as state governments work to send out unemployment benefits in a timely manner.
At Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., more than 400 out of roughly 2,500 employees have been targeted with fraudulent claims, the university’s spokesman told the Times.
"This is a gut punch," Suzi LeVine, the commissioner of the Washington State Employment Security Department, told the newspaper.
Though Washington state has been the primary victim of the attack, there is evidence that the fraud has occurred in Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Wyoming ...
Please join Bernadette M. O’Brien, Esq., SPHR, of Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, along with Senior Partner Amanda A. Manukian, Esq., for the latest on important topics for employers, human resources administrators, risk managers, and claims adjusters on COVID-19 regulatory requirements and issues.
A variety of topics will be discussed such as:
-- A review of Executive Order N-62-20 (Workers’ Compensation Presumption);
-- Workers’ compensation case scenarios;
-- DOL’s enforcement of paid sick leave laws;
-- Update: temperature screening of employees and CDC recently issued guidance;
-- Update: Are essential employees who are home due to a “fear of COVID-19” entitled to leave protections?;
-- Common questions;
-- And more to be announced!
Friday, May 22, 2020 from 10:00 am until 11:30 am (PST). Webinar is free. Please register online
Contact: Rebecca.zandovskis@floydskerenlaw.com for assistance.
Bernadette M. O’Brien is a Partner at Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP, and an SPHR/SHRM-SCP certified Human Resources Consultant.
Ms. O’Brien is author of the LexisNexis publication Labor and Employment in California: A Guide to Employment Laws, Regulations and Practices, co-author of California Leave Law: A Practical Guide for Employers, and co-author of California Unemployment Insurance and Disability Compensation Programs ...
A variety of topics will be discussed such as:
-- A review of Executive Order N-62-20 (Workers’ Compensation Presumption);
-- Workers’ compensation case scenarios;
-- DOL’s enforcement of paid sick leave laws;
-- Update: temperature screening of employees and CDC recently issued guidance;
-- Update: Are essential employees who are home due to a “fear of COVID-19” entitled to leave protections?;
-- Common questions;
-- And more to be announced!
Friday, May 22, 2020 from 10:00 am until 11:30 am (PST). Webinar is free. Please register online
Contact: Rebecca.zandovskis@floydskerenlaw.com for assistance.
Bernadette M. O’Brien is a Partner at Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP, and an SPHR/SHRM-SCP certified Human Resources Consultant.
Ms. O’Brien is author of the LexisNexis publication Labor and Employment in California: A Guide to Employment Laws, Regulations and Practices, co-author of California Leave Law: A Practical Guide for Employers, and co-author of California Unemployment Insurance and Disability Compensation Programs ...
A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) study on the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process used to resolve California workers’ comp medical disputes finds that the number of IMR determination letters, fueled by a sharp decline in prescription drug disputes, fell 11.3% from 2018 to 2019, with data from the first quarter of 2020 showing the decline is continuing.
The CWCI study examined data from more than one million IMR decision letters that were issued from 2014 through March 2020 in response to applications submitted to the state after a Utilization Review (UR) physician modified or denied a medical service requested for an injured worker. As in prior studies.
State lawmakers expected IMR volume would decline over time as providers became familiar with the treatment guidelines, but the number of IMR determination letters increased steadily over the first five years of the program -- the only exception being a modest 2.6% decline in 2017.
The 2019 tally, however, shows the IMR letter volume finally did drop sharply, falling to a five-year low of 163,899, down 11.3% from 2018, while the count from the first quarter of this year shows the decline is continuing, as the letter count from the first three months of 2020 fell 4.9 percent below the total from the corresponding period of 2019, dropping to a 5-year low of 38,981.
The year-to-year declines in letter volume were noted in all 8 regions of the state, with the biggest reduction in letter count noted in the Bay Area, which had about 6,200 fewer letters in 2019 than in 2018, a decline of more than 14%, though the rural, sparsely populated Northern Counties and Sierras showed the biggest percentage decline (26.3%).
As in prior years, a small number of physicians continued to drive much of the IMR activity in 2019, with the top 1% of requesting physicians (106 doctors) accounting for 41.2% of all disputed service requests determined by IMR in 2019; and the top 10 individual physicians alone accounting for 9.9% of the disputed requests.
IMR outcomes have shown little variation as IMR physicians in 2019 upheld 88.2% of UR doctors’ modifications or denials of services, compared to 88.6% in 2018, and 88.5% in the first quarter of 2020.
Uphold rates last year ranged from 74.9% for evaluation/management services to 92.7% for acupuncture; physical therapy; and durable medical equipment, prosthetics, and supplies.
The mix of services reviewed by IMR physicians in 2019 showed prescription drug requests continued to top the list, accounting for 41.1% of the IMRs (and 30.9% of those were for opioids), though that was down from 46.4% in 2018 and down from nearly half of all IMRs in 2015, prior to the adoption of new opioid and chronic pain guidelines in late 2017, and the implementation of the workers’ compensation prescription drug formulary in January 2018 ...
The CWCI study examined data from more than one million IMR decision letters that were issued from 2014 through March 2020 in response to applications submitted to the state after a Utilization Review (UR) physician modified or denied a medical service requested for an injured worker. As in prior studies.
State lawmakers expected IMR volume would decline over time as providers became familiar with the treatment guidelines, but the number of IMR determination letters increased steadily over the first five years of the program -- the only exception being a modest 2.6% decline in 2017.
The 2019 tally, however, shows the IMR letter volume finally did drop sharply, falling to a five-year low of 163,899, down 11.3% from 2018, while the count from the first quarter of this year shows the decline is continuing, as the letter count from the first three months of 2020 fell 4.9 percent below the total from the corresponding period of 2019, dropping to a 5-year low of 38,981.
The year-to-year declines in letter volume were noted in all 8 regions of the state, with the biggest reduction in letter count noted in the Bay Area, which had about 6,200 fewer letters in 2019 than in 2018, a decline of more than 14%, though the rural, sparsely populated Northern Counties and Sierras showed the biggest percentage decline (26.3%).
As in prior years, a small number of physicians continued to drive much of the IMR activity in 2019, with the top 1% of requesting physicians (106 doctors) accounting for 41.2% of all disputed service requests determined by IMR in 2019; and the top 10 individual physicians alone accounting for 9.9% of the disputed requests.
IMR outcomes have shown little variation as IMR physicians in 2019 upheld 88.2% of UR doctors’ modifications or denials of services, compared to 88.6% in 2018, and 88.5% in the first quarter of 2020.
Uphold rates last year ranged from 74.9% for evaluation/management services to 92.7% for acupuncture; physical therapy; and durable medical equipment, prosthetics, and supplies.
The mix of services reviewed by IMR physicians in 2019 showed prescription drug requests continued to top the list, accounting for 41.1% of the IMRs (and 30.9% of those were for opioids), though that was down from 46.4% in 2018 and down from nearly half of all IMRs in 2015, prior to the adoption of new opioid and chronic pain guidelines in late 2017, and the implementation of the workers’ compensation prescription drug formulary in January 2018 ...
The California State Bar Examination is administered twice a year, in July and in February. The February 2020 results were released this May.
The percentage of would-be lawyers who passed California’s February bar exam plummeted to a historic low with fewer than 3 in 10 test-takers posting a passing score, according to figures released by the State Bar. Just 26.8% of the 4,205 applicants who completed the test passed. That’s the lowest success rate recorded in California since at least 1951, the oldest figures provided by the Bar.
The mean scaled Multistate Bar Examination score on the February 2020 bar exam in California was 1357, down from 1370 last year. The national mean score was 1326, down from the previous year’s mean of 1328 and an all-time low.
This year’s dismal pass rate, recorded just two years after the February 2018 exam set a record low, will shine a spotlight yet again on the Bar’s efforts to revamp a controversial test that a majority of applicants regularly flunk. The Bar has completed four studies related to the exam, and trustees will consider possible next steps at a teleconference meeting.
The figures are striking, but the trend is nothing new: pass rates have generally declined in California and nationwide since 2008.
In 2017, the Supreme Court of California commissioned several studies to investigate the bar pass problem in an effort to determine, among other things, if the exam content should be changed or the cut score modified. Perhaps not surprisingly, they concluded that the content was appropriate and that the cut score should not be changed.
The report concluded that changes in credentials for entering law students - primarily LSAT and, to a lesser extent, undergraduate GPA-contributed to 20 to 50 percent of the decline in bar performance.
In a classic glass half-full/half-empty split, critics of law schools use this to claim that weaker students are primarily the explanation, and decry proposals to make it easier for them to pass; while defenders will no doubt insist that we need to focus on whatever accounts for the other 50 to 80 percent of the decline.
Interestingly, the study found little impact on bar pass rates based on which substantive courses law students take, or whether they participate in externships, clinics, or the like.
...
The percentage of would-be lawyers who passed California’s February bar exam plummeted to a historic low with fewer than 3 in 10 test-takers posting a passing score, according to figures released by the State Bar. Just 26.8% of the 4,205 applicants who completed the test passed. That’s the lowest success rate recorded in California since at least 1951, the oldest figures provided by the Bar.
The mean scaled Multistate Bar Examination score on the February 2020 bar exam in California was 1357, down from 1370 last year. The national mean score was 1326, down from the previous year’s mean of 1328 and an all-time low.
This year’s dismal pass rate, recorded just two years after the February 2018 exam set a record low, will shine a spotlight yet again on the Bar’s efforts to revamp a controversial test that a majority of applicants regularly flunk. The Bar has completed four studies related to the exam, and trustees will consider possible next steps at a teleconference meeting.
The figures are striking, but the trend is nothing new: pass rates have generally declined in California and nationwide since 2008.
In 2017, the Supreme Court of California commissioned several studies to investigate the bar pass problem in an effort to determine, among other things, if the exam content should be changed or the cut score modified. Perhaps not surprisingly, they concluded that the content was appropriate and that the cut score should not be changed.
The report concluded that changes in credentials for entering law students - primarily LSAT and, to a lesser extent, undergraduate GPA-contributed to 20 to 50 percent of the decline in bar performance.
In a classic glass half-full/half-empty split, critics of law schools use this to claim that weaker students are primarily the explanation, and decry proposals to make it easier for them to pass; while defenders will no doubt insist that we need to focus on whatever accounts for the other 50 to 80 percent of the decline.
Interestingly, the study found little impact on bar pass rates based on which substantive courses law students take, or whether they participate in externships, clinics, or the like.
...
United States Attorney David L. Anderson, Special Agent in Charge James K. Wahleithner of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Inspector General, Criminal Investigations Division ("VA OIG"), and Chief of Police Martin Sizemore of the Veterans Affairs Police Service, Palo Alto Health Care Division announced that a federal grand jury in San Jose indicted Dr. John Giacomini for Abusive Sexual Contact,
According to the indictment, Giacomini, 71, of Atherton, is alleged to have subjected the victim, a subordinate doctor under Giacomini’s supervision, to unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact in December of 2017 while both were on duty at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Palo Alto, Calif.
At the time, Giacomini was the Chief of the Palo Alto VA’s Cardiology Department. He had served in this position for over 30 years and also served on the medical faculty at Stanford University.
Since the alleged sexual battery happened on federal property, the VA OIG referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for federal prosecution. Giacomini no longer works at the Palo Alto VA Hospital or Stanford University.
Giacomini made his initial appearance by telephone on May 14, 2020. Giacomini is currently released on a $200,000 bond under the supervision of the United States Pretrial Services Office in San Jose. Giacomini’s next court appearance is scheduled for July 7, 2020, for a status conference before the Hon. Beth L. Freeman, United States District Judge.
If convicted, Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of two years of imprisonment, a fine of $250,000, restitution, supervised release, and a special assessment. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jeffrey Nedrow and Marissa Harris are prosecuting the case with the assistance of Jessica Leung and Susan Kreider. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the VA OIG and the Veterans Affairs Police Service ...
According to the indictment, Giacomini, 71, of Atherton, is alleged to have subjected the victim, a subordinate doctor under Giacomini’s supervision, to unwanted and nonconsensual sexual contact in December of 2017 while both were on duty at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Palo Alto, Calif.
At the time, Giacomini was the Chief of the Palo Alto VA’s Cardiology Department. He had served in this position for over 30 years and also served on the medical faculty at Stanford University.
Since the alleged sexual battery happened on federal property, the VA OIG referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for federal prosecution. Giacomini no longer works at the Palo Alto VA Hospital or Stanford University.
Giacomini made his initial appearance by telephone on May 14, 2020. Giacomini is currently released on a $200,000 bond under the supervision of the United States Pretrial Services Office in San Jose. Giacomini’s next court appearance is scheduled for July 7, 2020, for a status conference before the Hon. Beth L. Freeman, United States District Judge.
If convicted, Giacomini faces a maximum sentence of two years of imprisonment, a fine of $250,000, restitution, supervised release, and a special assessment. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jeffrey Nedrow and Marissa Harris are prosecuting the case with the assistance of Jessica Leung and Susan Kreider. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the VA OIG and the Veterans Affairs Police Service ...
The Governor Newsom’s March 19, 2020 Executive Order and the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency requires the California Division of Workers' Compensation to cancel the Annual DWC Educational Conference in Los Angeles until next year.
The conference, which had been originally scheduled for March 26-27 at the Marriott LAX Hotel, was rescheduled for June 22-23.
Instead, the conference will take place in March 2021 in both Oakland and Los Angeles.
Please save the following dates for the 28th Annual DWC Educational Conference: March 4-5, 2021 at the Oakland Marriott and March 25-26 at the Marriott LAX Hotel in Los Angeles.
Registration fees paid to attend or exhibit at the Los Angeles conference will be refunded in full by the International Workers' Compensation Foundation (IWCF) in the coming weeks.
...
The conference, which had been originally scheduled for March 26-27 at the Marriott LAX Hotel, was rescheduled for June 22-23.
Instead, the conference will take place in March 2021 in both Oakland and Los Angeles.
Please save the following dates for the 28th Annual DWC Educational Conference: March 4-5, 2021 at the Oakland Marriott and March 25-26 at the Marriott LAX Hotel in Los Angeles.
Registration fees paid to attend or exhibit at the Los Angeles conference will be refunded in full by the International Workers' Compensation Foundation (IWCF) in the coming weeks.
...
Early last month, a Rhode Island bank received an application for a $144,050 loan under the Paycheck Protection Program, the massive federal effort to assist small businesses hurt by the coronavirus crisis.
The application purported to be on behalf of the owners of Remington House, a restaurant on Post Road in Warwick, R.I. It listed 18 employees and an average monthly payroll of $46,000.
But when a bank official drove past the building, there were indications that the restaurant had been shut down before the pandemic. There were dumpsters on the property and notices ordering the stoppage of work were posted on the door and windows.
The once-popular restaurant had been closed since November 2018, according to federal prosecutors, who this week charged two men with conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
The case is the first criminal fraud prosecution in connection with the paycheck program. Industry officials warn that it will not be the last - not by a long shot. In fact, individuals who are working with banks to combat misconduct in the $660 billion program - including former California banking commissioner Walter Mix - estimate that fraud rates could be as high as 10% to 12%.
Those estimates, which are based on initial reviews of loan files at dozens of banks, are roughly consistent with what has happened after other disasters. In the aftermath of Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina, a government audit found that around 16% of applicants for federal disaster assistance used invalid information. If 10% of the PPP’s funding went to fraudsters, taxpayers would be defrauded by tens of billions of dollars.
Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowskil told The Wall Street Journal earlier this week that prosecutors are mounting a broad search for fraud, and that they will apply scrutiny to the conduct of banks, in addition to the actions of borrowers.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and SBA Administrator Jovita Carranza have pledged to review all PPP loans of $2 million or more.
Also in recent weeks, many banks have begun accepting applications from new small-business customers, which has left them more vulnerable to fraud.
Existing small-business customers are generally seen as safer, because bankers have already satisfied rules that require them to know those customers. Often, they have met the business owner face-to-face and shaken hands.
"The risk of fraud in the first round was probably not very significant because everybody was cherry-picking their customers," said Adam Jiwan, chairman and CEO of Spring Labs, a Los Angeles technology company that offers tools to ferret out fraud. "The likelihood of fraud in phase two is high, as banks move beyond their existing relationships."
The relatively late addition of online lenders to the program may have also increased the risk of fraud, since those companies are less likely than traditional banks to have a personal relationship with their customers. On the other hand, online lenders may have relatively sophisticated risk management procedures.
...
The application purported to be on behalf of the owners of Remington House, a restaurant on Post Road in Warwick, R.I. It listed 18 employees and an average monthly payroll of $46,000.
But when a bank official drove past the building, there were indications that the restaurant had been shut down before the pandemic. There were dumpsters on the property and notices ordering the stoppage of work were posted on the door and windows.
The once-popular restaurant had been closed since November 2018, according to federal prosecutors, who this week charged two men with conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
The case is the first criminal fraud prosecution in connection with the paycheck program. Industry officials warn that it will not be the last - not by a long shot. In fact, individuals who are working with banks to combat misconduct in the $660 billion program - including former California banking commissioner Walter Mix - estimate that fraud rates could be as high as 10% to 12%.
Those estimates, which are based on initial reviews of loan files at dozens of banks, are roughly consistent with what has happened after other disasters. In the aftermath of Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina, a government audit found that around 16% of applicants for federal disaster assistance used invalid information. If 10% of the PPP’s funding went to fraudsters, taxpayers would be defrauded by tens of billions of dollars.
Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowskil told The Wall Street Journal earlier this week that prosecutors are mounting a broad search for fraud, and that they will apply scrutiny to the conduct of banks, in addition to the actions of borrowers.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and SBA Administrator Jovita Carranza have pledged to review all PPP loans of $2 million or more.
Also in recent weeks, many banks have begun accepting applications from new small-business customers, which has left them more vulnerable to fraud.
Existing small-business customers are generally seen as safer, because bankers have already satisfied rules that require them to know those customers. Often, they have met the business owner face-to-face and shaken hands.
"The risk of fraud in the first round was probably not very significant because everybody was cherry-picking their customers," said Adam Jiwan, chairman and CEO of Spring Labs, a Los Angeles technology company that offers tools to ferret out fraud. "The likelihood of fraud in phase two is high, as banks move beyond their existing relationships."
The relatively late addition of online lenders to the program may have also increased the risk of fraud, since those companies are less likely than traditional banks to have a personal relationship with their customers. On the other hand, online lenders may have relatively sophisticated risk management procedures.
...
Diagnostic services provider LabCorp said it would make its COVID-19 tests available at workplaces, as employers across the United States look to bring people back to work safely.
The company said it would provide customized services for workplaces including temperature checks, COVID-19 test collection at offices, access to its at-home sample collection kit, antibody test, as well as flu vaccinations in the fall.
With millions of Americans out of work in a coronavirus-battered economy, a growing number of states are relaxing the restrictions put in place to slow the outbreak even as the number of infections continues to rise.
Public health experts have warned that rushing to relax the restrictions, without having vastly expanded testing and other precautions firmly in place would risk the resurgence of the virus.
LabCorp currently provides lab tests, antibody blood tests that can tell whether a person has ever been infected, as well as kits that allow people to mail in their own nasal swab samples, reducing risks of further transmission.
Earlier this week, the company expanded delivery of the at-home collection kits to all customers, after having limited availability to healthcare workers during the launch last month.
LabCorp said its "return to work" offerings would also include wellness services such as biometric screening ...
The company said it would provide customized services for workplaces including temperature checks, COVID-19 test collection at offices, access to its at-home sample collection kit, antibody test, as well as flu vaccinations in the fall.
With millions of Americans out of work in a coronavirus-battered economy, a growing number of states are relaxing the restrictions put in place to slow the outbreak even as the number of infections continues to rise.
Public health experts have warned that rushing to relax the restrictions, without having vastly expanded testing and other precautions firmly in place would risk the resurgence of the virus.
LabCorp currently provides lab tests, antibody blood tests that can tell whether a person has ever been infected, as well as kits that allow people to mail in their own nasal swab samples, reducing risks of further transmission.
Earlier this week, the company expanded delivery of the at-home collection kits to all customers, after having limited availability to healthcare workers during the launch last month.
LabCorp said its "return to work" offerings would also include wellness services such as biometric screening ...
Omnicare, Inc., a subsidiary of CVS Health and a provider of pharmacy services to long-term care facilities, has agreed to pay the United States a $15.3 million civil penalty to resolve allegations that it violated federal law by, among other things, allowing opioids and other controlled substances to be dispensed without a valid prescription, United States Attorney Nicola T. Hanna announced today.
The Cincinnati-based Omnicare operates "closed door" pharmacies - meaning they were not open to the public - that deliver controlled substances to nursing homes and other long-term care facilities (LTCFs).
Omnicare makes daily deliveries of prescription medications to residents of LTCFs, and it also pre-positions limited stockpiles of controlled substances at LTCFs in "emergency kits," which are to be dispensed to patients on an emergency basis. These emergency kits, which often include opioids and other controlled substances that are commonly abused and diverted, remain part of Omnicare’s inventory and must be tightly controlled and tracked. The controlled substances may be dispensed only pursuant to a valid prescription.
The United States alleged that Omnicare violated the federal Controlled Substances Act in its handling of emergency prescriptions, its controls over the emergency kits, and its processing of written prescriptions that lacked required elements such as the prescriber’s signature or DEA number.
The federal investigation found that Omnicare failed to control emergency kits by improperly permitting LTCFs to remove opioids and other controlled substances from emergency kits days before doctors provided a valid prescription. The investigation also revealed that Omnicare had repeated failures in its documentation and reporting of oral emergency prescriptions of Schedule II controlled substances.
As part of the settlement agreement announced today, Omnicare agreed to pay the $15.3 million civil penalty and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration that will require Omnicare to increase its auditing and monitoring of emergency kits placed at LTCFs.
"Omnicare dispensed powerful opioids without valid prescriptions and failed to inform federal authorities of significant losses of opioids and other drugs," United States Attorney Hanna stated. "With the opioid crisis still a very real concern, every entity that handles dangerous drugs will be held accountable to ensure powerful narcotics are properly dispensed and not diverted to the black market."
"Omnicare failed in its responsibility to ensure proper controls of medications used to treat some of the most vulnerable among us," said DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon. "DEA is committed to keeping our communities safe by holding companies like Omnicare accountable for such failures, while ensuring continuity of care and necessary access to emergency prescription drug supplies." ...
The Cincinnati-based Omnicare operates "closed door" pharmacies - meaning they were not open to the public - that deliver controlled substances to nursing homes and other long-term care facilities (LTCFs).
Omnicare makes daily deliveries of prescription medications to residents of LTCFs, and it also pre-positions limited stockpiles of controlled substances at LTCFs in "emergency kits," which are to be dispensed to patients on an emergency basis. These emergency kits, which often include opioids and other controlled substances that are commonly abused and diverted, remain part of Omnicare’s inventory and must be tightly controlled and tracked. The controlled substances may be dispensed only pursuant to a valid prescription.
The United States alleged that Omnicare violated the federal Controlled Substances Act in its handling of emergency prescriptions, its controls over the emergency kits, and its processing of written prescriptions that lacked required elements such as the prescriber’s signature or DEA number.
The federal investigation found that Omnicare failed to control emergency kits by improperly permitting LTCFs to remove opioids and other controlled substances from emergency kits days before doctors provided a valid prescription. The investigation also revealed that Omnicare had repeated failures in its documentation and reporting of oral emergency prescriptions of Schedule II controlled substances.
As part of the settlement agreement announced today, Omnicare agreed to pay the $15.3 million civil penalty and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration that will require Omnicare to increase its auditing and monitoring of emergency kits placed at LTCFs.
"Omnicare dispensed powerful opioids without valid prescriptions and failed to inform federal authorities of significant losses of opioids and other drugs," United States Attorney Hanna stated. "With the opioid crisis still a very real concern, every entity that handles dangerous drugs will be held accountable to ensure powerful narcotics are properly dispensed and not diverted to the black market."
"Omnicare failed in its responsibility to ensure proper controls of medications used to treat some of the most vulnerable among us," said DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon. "DEA is committed to keeping our communities safe by holding companies like Omnicare accountable for such failures, while ensuring continuity of care and necessary access to emergency prescription drug supplies." ...
The Division of Workers’ Compensation has posted an order dated May 7, 2020, adjusting the Physician and Non-Physician Practitioner Services section of the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS) to conform to additional Medicare fee schedule changes pursuant to Labor Code section 5307.1. The order includes technical updates and provisions to support expanded access to telehealth services.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued an Interim Final Rule to adopt additional temporary modifications to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule to improve access to medical care through telehealth during the public health emergency.
The Interim Final Rule adopts an expanded list of medical services ("Covered Telehealth Services for PHE for the COVID-19 pandemic effective March 1 2020-updated April 30 2020") that may be billed for telehealth using video and audio technology, and includes identification of services that could be provided through audio-only where medically appropriate. DWC has retroactively adopted the revised telehealth list for services rendered on or after March 1, 2020, and has also adopted a retroactive revision to the Place of Service Code, which may result in an increase in fees for telehealth services if the physician provides the service in a “non-facility” setting.
The CMS Interim Final Rule temporarily increases fees for three telephone evaluation and management codes (CPT codes 99441, 99442, 99443) retroactive to March 1, 2020 to provide parity between these codes and evaluation and management codes for services rendered in person or by audio/video telehealth. DWC has adopted the retroactive increases for these three codes, which will support the provision of medical care for injured workers and further the goal of maintaining social distancing.
The Administrative Director order also adopts the CMS revised 2020 Relative Value Unit file, "RVU20B (Updated 05/01/2020)," which replaces the initial quarter two RVU20B file. The revised file is substantially identical to the original file. The significant change for workers’ compensation services is the increase of the relative values for CPT codes 99441 through 99443 discussed above.
Workers’ compensation claims administrators should adjust payment systems in light of the retroactive changes, and set up a process to reevaluate claims for services rendered on or after March 1, 2020 that may have additional payment due so that the balance owing is remitted to the provider. If a provider believes that the revised fee schedule would result in an increased payment for services rendered, they may submit a corrected bill or request for second review as appropriate.
The order adopting the updated Physician and Non-Physician Practitioner fee schedule can be found on the DWC fee schedule web page ...
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued an Interim Final Rule to adopt additional temporary modifications to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule to improve access to medical care through telehealth during the public health emergency.
The Interim Final Rule adopts an expanded list of medical services ("Covered Telehealth Services for PHE for the COVID-19 pandemic effective March 1 2020-updated April 30 2020") that may be billed for telehealth using video and audio technology, and includes identification of services that could be provided through audio-only where medically appropriate. DWC has retroactively adopted the revised telehealth list for services rendered on or after March 1, 2020, and has also adopted a retroactive revision to the Place of Service Code, which may result in an increase in fees for telehealth services if the physician provides the service in a “non-facility” setting.
The CMS Interim Final Rule temporarily increases fees for three telephone evaluation and management codes (CPT codes 99441, 99442, 99443) retroactive to March 1, 2020 to provide parity between these codes and evaluation and management codes for services rendered in person or by audio/video telehealth. DWC has adopted the retroactive increases for these three codes, which will support the provision of medical care for injured workers and further the goal of maintaining social distancing.
The Administrative Director order also adopts the CMS revised 2020 Relative Value Unit file, "RVU20B (Updated 05/01/2020)," which replaces the initial quarter two RVU20B file. The revised file is substantially identical to the original file. The significant change for workers’ compensation services is the increase of the relative values for CPT codes 99441 through 99443 discussed above.
Workers’ compensation claims administrators should adjust payment systems in light of the retroactive changes, and set up a process to reevaluate claims for services rendered on or after March 1, 2020 that may have additional payment due so that the balance owing is remitted to the provider. If a provider believes that the revised fee schedule would result in an increased payment for services rendered, they may submit a corrected bill or request for second review as appropriate.
The order adopting the updated Physician and Non-Physician Practitioner fee schedule can be found on the DWC fee schedule web page ...
Angelique Diaz sustained injury to her bilateral upper extremities, psyche, and in the form of hypertension while working for the Southern California Gas Company.
On July 11, 2017, the UR physician denied a treatment request for an EMG, which was overturned by a MAXIMUS IMR Final Determination Letter dated September 12, 2017.
On October, 2, 2017, the UR physician denied a treatment request for Norco, which was overturned by a MAXIMUS IMR Final Determination Letter dated November 8, 2017.
On January 24, 2018, the UR. physician denied a treatment request for Norco and chiropractic treatment, which was overturned by a MAXIMUS IMR Final Determination Letter dated March 26, 2018.
On March 15, 2018, the UR physician denied a treatment request for bilateral upper extremity nerve conduction studies, which was overturned by a MAXIMUS IMR Final Determination Letter dated April 24, 2018.
Applicant's attorney filed a petition for LC5814 penalties for the four UR denials that IMR overturned. The issues went to trial and the WCJ found that the UR doctors had used inappropriate guidelines.
The WCJ found that there was no wrongdoing by the defendant employer/carrier and that the UR doctors are not agents of the defendant and are not parties. Thus, there is no LC5 814 penalty.
The applicant's petition for reconsideration was denied in the panel decision of Diaz v Southern California Gas Company.
Labor Code section 4610.1 provides as relevant herein: An employee shall not be entitled to an increase in compensation under Section 5814 for unreasonable delay in the provision of medical treatment for periods of time necessary to complete the utilization review process in compliance with Section 4610. (§ 4610.1 )
The WCAB panel agreed with the WCJ that, since applicant argues that she is entitled to penalties for delay that occurred while the utilization review was in the process of completion-i.e., while the UR physicians failed to properly address the requests of her treating physician-applicant is barred by section 4610.1 from recovering section 5814 penalties.
Accordingly, it concluded that the WCJ correctly determined that defendant is not liable for section 5 814 penalties based upon alleged delay occurring during the UR process ...
On July 11, 2017, the UR physician denied a treatment request for an EMG, which was overturned by a MAXIMUS IMR Final Determination Letter dated September 12, 2017.
On October, 2, 2017, the UR physician denied a treatment request for Norco, which was overturned by a MAXIMUS IMR Final Determination Letter dated November 8, 2017.
On January 24, 2018, the UR. physician denied a treatment request for Norco and chiropractic treatment, which was overturned by a MAXIMUS IMR Final Determination Letter dated March 26, 2018.
On March 15, 2018, the UR physician denied a treatment request for bilateral upper extremity nerve conduction studies, which was overturned by a MAXIMUS IMR Final Determination Letter dated April 24, 2018.
Applicant's attorney filed a petition for LC5814 penalties for the four UR denials that IMR overturned. The issues went to trial and the WCJ found that the UR doctors had used inappropriate guidelines.
The WCJ found that there was no wrongdoing by the defendant employer/carrier and that the UR doctors are not agents of the defendant and are not parties. Thus, there is no LC5 814 penalty.
The applicant's petition for reconsideration was denied in the panel decision of Diaz v Southern California Gas Company.
Labor Code section 4610.1 provides as relevant herein: An employee shall not be entitled to an increase in compensation under Section 5814 for unreasonable delay in the provision of medical treatment for periods of time necessary to complete the utilization review process in compliance with Section 4610. (§ 4610.1 )
The WCAB panel agreed with the WCJ that, since applicant argues that she is entitled to penalties for delay that occurred while the utilization review was in the process of completion-i.e., while the UR physicians failed to properly address the requests of her treating physician-applicant is barred by section 4610.1 from recovering section 5814 penalties.
Accordingly, it concluded that the WCJ correctly determined that defendant is not liable for section 5 814 penalties based upon alleged delay occurring during the UR process ...
Tesla CEO Elon Musk is restarting the company's California factory in defiance of local government efforts to contain the coronavirus. In a tweet Monday, Musk practically dared authorities to arrest him, writing that he would be on the assembly line and if anyone is taken into custody, it should be him.
State law allows a fine of up to $1,000 a day or up to 90 days in jail for operating in violation of health orders. The plant in Fremont, a city of more than 230,000 people south of San Francisco, had been closed since March 23.
KCRA reports that early Monday, the parking lot was nearly full at the massive factory, which employs 10,000 workers, and semis were driving off loaded with vehicles that may have been produced before the shutdown.
The restart defied orders from the Alameda County Public Health Department, which has deemed the factory a nonessential business that can’t open under virus restrictions. The department said Monday it warned the company was operating in violation of the county health order, and hoped Tesla will "comply without further enforcement measures" until the county approves a site-specific plan required by the state.
The department said it expects Tesla to submit such a plan by 5 p.m. Monday. "We look forward to reviewing Tesla’s plan and coming to agreement on protocol and a timeline to reopen safely," the statement read.
No agency appeared ready to enforce the order against Tesla. County Sheriff Sgt. Ray Kelly said any enforcement would come from Fremont police. Geneva Bosques, Fremont police spokeswoman, said officers would take action at the direction of the county health officer.
County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who represents Fremont, said he’s been working on the issue for weeks trying to find a way for Tesla to reopen in a way that satisfies the health officer. He said officials were moving toward allowing Tesla to restart May 18, but he suspects Musk wanted to restart stamping operations to make body parts needed to resume assembling electric vehicles.
Tesla planned to maintain worker safety, including the wearing of gloves and masks and social distancing. Haggerty said the company initially pushed back on checking employee temperatures before boarding a company bus to get to work. But Tesla relented, he said, and agreed to check workers.
"I’m seeing emails going back and forth between the plant and our public health department so I’m encouraged by that, and that’s what I mean by cooler heads," he said. "There's a lot of people whose lives depend on that plant opening safely."
The restart came two days after Tesla sued the county health department seeking to overturn its order, and Musk threatened to move Tesla’s manufacturing operations and headquarters from the state.
"Frankly, this is the final straw," Musk wrote in a now-deleted Saturday tweet. "Tesla will now move its HQ and future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately." ...
State law allows a fine of up to $1,000 a day or up to 90 days in jail for operating in violation of health orders. The plant in Fremont, a city of more than 230,000 people south of San Francisco, had been closed since March 23.
KCRA reports that early Monday, the parking lot was nearly full at the massive factory, which employs 10,000 workers, and semis were driving off loaded with vehicles that may have been produced before the shutdown.
The restart defied orders from the Alameda County Public Health Department, which has deemed the factory a nonessential business that can’t open under virus restrictions. The department said Monday it warned the company was operating in violation of the county health order, and hoped Tesla will "comply without further enforcement measures" until the county approves a site-specific plan required by the state.
The department said it expects Tesla to submit such a plan by 5 p.m. Monday. "We look forward to reviewing Tesla’s plan and coming to agreement on protocol and a timeline to reopen safely," the statement read.
No agency appeared ready to enforce the order against Tesla. County Sheriff Sgt. Ray Kelly said any enforcement would come from Fremont police. Geneva Bosques, Fremont police spokeswoman, said officers would take action at the direction of the county health officer.
County Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who represents Fremont, said he’s been working on the issue for weeks trying to find a way for Tesla to reopen in a way that satisfies the health officer. He said officials were moving toward allowing Tesla to restart May 18, but he suspects Musk wanted to restart stamping operations to make body parts needed to resume assembling electric vehicles.
Tesla planned to maintain worker safety, including the wearing of gloves and masks and social distancing. Haggerty said the company initially pushed back on checking employee temperatures before boarding a company bus to get to work. But Tesla relented, he said, and agreed to check workers.
"I’m seeing emails going back and forth between the plant and our public health department so I’m encouraged by that, and that’s what I mean by cooler heads," he said. "There's a lot of people whose lives depend on that plant opening safely."
The restart came two days after Tesla sued the county health department seeking to overturn its order, and Musk threatened to move Tesla’s manufacturing operations and headquarters from the state.
"Frankly, this is the final straw," Musk wrote in a now-deleted Saturday tweet. "Tesla will now move its HQ and future programs to Texas/Nevada immediately." ...
Some California businesses and others are taking legal action against Gov. Gavin Newsom over his announced plans to reopen California for business. He now faces a slew of lawsuits over his handling of the ongoing pandemic.
Tesla filed a lawsuit Saturday against Alameda County in an effort to invalidate orders that have prevented the automaker from reopening its factory in Fremont, California. The lawsuit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. and was filed in U.S. District Court for California’s Northern District. Elon Musk has now also threatened to move its headquarters and future programs to Texas or Nevada immediately.
Tesla had planned to bring back about 30% of its factory workers Friday as part of its reopening plan, defying Alameda County’s stay-at-home order.
A San Diego resident on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit against California Governor Gavin Newsom over his stay-home-orders and the closure of businesses. JD Bols, the man at the center of the lawsuit, said it is "a move aimed at freeing the people of California from home confinement, reopening the state’s $3.1 trillion economy, and putting Californians back to work immediately."
A federal judge last week said Gov. Newsom had the right to ban church assemblies to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Judge John Mendez ruled Tuesday that Newsom’s stay-at-home order did not violate the constitutional rights to free assembly and religion when the Cross Culture Christian Center in Lodi was ordered to cease holding services. The church held services until its landlord, under threat of misdemeanor from county health officials, changed the locks on the church doors.
A civil rights attorney in the Bay Area has filed half a dozen lawsuits claiming Newsom’s current orders are an infringement on human rights. "The governor is overreaching on a number of grounds," said civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon. "The governor has chosen to limit protests to zero in this state, which is outrageous and absurd."
Nail salons statewide are now planning to sue the governor after he claimed the origin of coronavirus in the state stemmed from the salons. "I think my brain stopped working and I was saying, what the hell?" explained Kelvin Pham, producer of the "Nailed It" documentary which explores the history of Vietnamese salons. "I never heard anything like that before."
Salon owners have said Newsom’s statement can be detrimental to its future business and are demanding the evidence behind his claim.
Meanwhile, the governor has also recently announced his plan to help illegal aliens with a $500 check at taxpayer's expense. The Center for American Liberty filed the emergency petition with the California Supreme Court last Wednesday on behalf of two plaintiffs, Ricardo Benitez and Jessica Martinez, both are candidates for a seat on the California State Assembly; The California Supreme Court ordered the governor to respond to the Center for American Liberty’s emergency Writ.
California’s stay-at-home order is has no set end date, but the Democrat governor said stage three of reopening could be just a month away ...
Tesla filed a lawsuit Saturday against Alameda County in an effort to invalidate orders that have prevented the automaker from reopening its factory in Fremont, California. The lawsuit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. and was filed in U.S. District Court for California’s Northern District. Elon Musk has now also threatened to move its headquarters and future programs to Texas or Nevada immediately.
Tesla had planned to bring back about 30% of its factory workers Friday as part of its reopening plan, defying Alameda County’s stay-at-home order.
A San Diego resident on Thursday filed a federal lawsuit against California Governor Gavin Newsom over his stay-home-orders and the closure of businesses. JD Bols, the man at the center of the lawsuit, said it is "a move aimed at freeing the people of California from home confinement, reopening the state’s $3.1 trillion economy, and putting Californians back to work immediately."
A federal judge last week said Gov. Newsom had the right to ban church assemblies to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Judge John Mendez ruled Tuesday that Newsom’s stay-at-home order did not violate the constitutional rights to free assembly and religion when the Cross Culture Christian Center in Lodi was ordered to cease holding services. The church held services until its landlord, under threat of misdemeanor from county health officials, changed the locks on the church doors.
A civil rights attorney in the Bay Area has filed half a dozen lawsuits claiming Newsom’s current orders are an infringement on human rights. "The governor is overreaching on a number of grounds," said civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon. "The governor has chosen to limit protests to zero in this state, which is outrageous and absurd."
Nail salons statewide are now planning to sue the governor after he claimed the origin of coronavirus in the state stemmed from the salons. "I think my brain stopped working and I was saying, what the hell?" explained Kelvin Pham, producer of the "Nailed It" documentary which explores the history of Vietnamese salons. "I never heard anything like that before."
Salon owners have said Newsom’s statement can be detrimental to its future business and are demanding the evidence behind his claim.
Meanwhile, the governor has also recently announced his plan to help illegal aliens with a $500 check at taxpayer's expense. The Center for American Liberty filed the emergency petition with the California Supreme Court last Wednesday on behalf of two plaintiffs, Ricardo Benitez and Jessica Martinez, both are candidates for a seat on the California State Assembly; The California Supreme Court ordered the governor to respond to the Center for American Liberty’s emergency Writ.
California’s stay-at-home order is has no set end date, but the Democrat governor said stage three of reopening could be just a month away ...
A scientific breakthrough has given a man in Ohio the chance to reclaim a major part of his life after a devastating injury.
Ian Burkhart suffered a severe spinal cord injury in 2010 while on vacation from Ohio University. He dove into a wave and struck an unseen sandbar that paralyzed him instantly. Since 2014, researchers at the nonprofit, Battelle, and the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center have been working on new technologies to help restore the use of Burkhart’s right arm.
In a new report, published in the journal Cell, the researchers have succeeded in connecting neural signals between Burkhart’s brain and arm. The breakthrough system is able to harness signals that are usually too small to perceive, enhances them, and sends them to the patient.
"We’re taking subperceptual touch events and boosting them into conscious perception," Battelle research scientist Patrick Ganzer said in a statement. "It was a big eureka moment when we first restored the participant’s sense of touch."
The brain-computer interface (BCI) system implants a small computer chip in the brain and places a series of electrodes on the patient’s skin. After the connection is made to Burkhart’s arm, wires route the movement signals from his brain straight to the muscles - avoiding the damage caused by the 28-year-old’s spinal injury.
Thanks to the BCI, researchers say Burkhart has enough control over his arm now to lift a cup, swipe a credit card, or even play video games like Guitar Hero. Ganzer says that patients who have suffered a "clinically complete" spinal cord injury still have a few remnants of nerve fiber that survive the injury. The BCI helps the body boost the signals from those remaining fibers and gets the to brain respond to them.
The Ohio researchers add that their system works very much like how a cell phone or video game controller lets the user know something is going on. Using "haptic feedback," a vibration or other force a machine produces to get a user’s attention, the BCI helps the touch signals coming from the patient’s skin to reach the brain as understandable haptic feedback.
The success with Ian Burkhart have also led to several improvements in the BCI system. The researchers say the 28-year-old has been able to detect an object by touch alone, without having to see it. He’s also been able to experience movement and the sense of touch at the same time and can sense how much pressure to apply to an object he’s holding - depending on if it’s light or heavy.
"It has been amazing to see the possibilities of sensory information coming from a device that was originally created to only allow me to control my hand in a one-way direction," Burkhart explained.
The scientists are now hoping to design a BCI that can be worn like a sleeve at home and can be easily taken on or off ...
Ian Burkhart suffered a severe spinal cord injury in 2010 while on vacation from Ohio University. He dove into a wave and struck an unseen sandbar that paralyzed him instantly. Since 2014, researchers at the nonprofit, Battelle, and the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center have been working on new technologies to help restore the use of Burkhart’s right arm.
In a new report, published in the journal Cell, the researchers have succeeded in connecting neural signals between Burkhart’s brain and arm. The breakthrough system is able to harness signals that are usually too small to perceive, enhances them, and sends them to the patient.
"We’re taking subperceptual touch events and boosting them into conscious perception," Battelle research scientist Patrick Ganzer said in a statement. "It was a big eureka moment when we first restored the participant’s sense of touch."
The brain-computer interface (BCI) system implants a small computer chip in the brain and places a series of electrodes on the patient’s skin. After the connection is made to Burkhart’s arm, wires route the movement signals from his brain straight to the muscles - avoiding the damage caused by the 28-year-old’s spinal injury.
Thanks to the BCI, researchers say Burkhart has enough control over his arm now to lift a cup, swipe a credit card, or even play video games like Guitar Hero. Ganzer says that patients who have suffered a "clinically complete" spinal cord injury still have a few remnants of nerve fiber that survive the injury. The BCI helps the body boost the signals from those remaining fibers and gets the to brain respond to them.
The Ohio researchers add that their system works very much like how a cell phone or video game controller lets the user know something is going on. Using "haptic feedback," a vibration or other force a machine produces to get a user’s attention, the BCI helps the touch signals coming from the patient’s skin to reach the brain as understandable haptic feedback.
The success with Ian Burkhart have also led to several improvements in the BCI system. The researchers say the 28-year-old has been able to detect an object by touch alone, without having to see it. He’s also been able to experience movement and the sense of touch at the same time and can sense how much pressure to apply to an object he’s holding - depending on if it’s light or heavy.
"It has been amazing to see the possibilities of sensory information coming from a device that was originally created to only allow me to control my hand in a one-way direction," Burkhart explained.
The scientists are now hoping to design a BCI that can be worn like a sleeve at home and can be easily taken on or off ...
As California prepares to enter Stage 2 of the gradual reopening of the state this Friday, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that workers who contract COVID-19 while on the job may be eligible to receive workers’ compensation. The Governor signed an executive order that creates a time-limited rebuttable presumption for accessing workers’ compensation benefits applicable to Californians who must work outside of their homes during the stay at home order.
"We are removing a burden for workers on the front lines, who risk their own health and safety to deliver critical services to our fellow Californians, so that they can access benefits, and be able to focus on their recovery," said Governor Newsom. "Workers’ compensation is a critical piece to reopening the state and it will help workers get the care they need to get healthy, and in turn, protect public health."
Those eligible will have the rebuttable presumption if they tested positive for COVID-19 or were diagnosed with COVID-19 and confirmed by a positive test within 14 days of performing a labor or service at a place of work after the stay at home order was issued on March 19, 2020. The presumption will stay in place for 60 days after issuance of the executive order.
The Governor also signed an executive order that waives penalties for property taxes paid after April 10 for taxpayers who demonstrate they have experienced financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic through May 6, 2021. This will apply to residential properties and small businesses. Additionally, the executive order will extend the deadline for certain businesses to file Business Personal Property Statements from tomorrow to May 31, 2020, to avoid penalties.
"The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the lives and livelihoods of many, and as we look toward opening our local communities and economies, we want to make sure that those that have been most impacted have the ability to get back on their feet," said Governor Newsom.
Since declaring a state of emergency due to COVID-19 on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom has taken several actions to benefit workers on the front lines, including paid sick leave benefits for food sector workers that are subject to a quarantine or isolation order; critical child support services for essential workers and vulnerable populations; additional weekly unemployment benefits; and needed assistance in the form of loans for small businesses and job opportunities in critical industries for workers that have been displaced by the pandemic ...
"We are removing a burden for workers on the front lines, who risk their own health and safety to deliver critical services to our fellow Californians, so that they can access benefits, and be able to focus on their recovery," said Governor Newsom. "Workers’ compensation is a critical piece to reopening the state and it will help workers get the care they need to get healthy, and in turn, protect public health."
Those eligible will have the rebuttable presumption if they tested positive for COVID-19 or were diagnosed with COVID-19 and confirmed by a positive test within 14 days of performing a labor or service at a place of work after the stay at home order was issued on March 19, 2020. The presumption will stay in place for 60 days after issuance of the executive order.
The Governor also signed an executive order that waives penalties for property taxes paid after April 10 for taxpayers who demonstrate they have experienced financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic through May 6, 2021. This will apply to residential properties and small businesses. Additionally, the executive order will extend the deadline for certain businesses to file Business Personal Property Statements from tomorrow to May 31, 2020, to avoid penalties.
"The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the lives and livelihoods of many, and as we look toward opening our local communities and economies, we want to make sure that those that have been most impacted have the ability to get back on their feet," said Governor Newsom.
Since declaring a state of emergency due to COVID-19 on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom has taken several actions to benefit workers on the front lines, including paid sick leave benefits for food sector workers that are subject to a quarantine or isolation order; critical child support services for essential workers and vulnerable populations; additional weekly unemployment benefits; and needed assistance in the form of loans for small businesses and job opportunities in critical industries for workers that have been displaced by the pandemic ...
The state of California is suing Uber and Lyft for classifying their drivers as contractors instead of employees. The lawsuit is the first major test of a new state law intended to give gig workers more labor protections, including access to employer-sponsored health insurance.
"Uber and Lyft both claim that their drivers aren't engaged in the company's core mission and therefore qualify for benefits," said Xavier Becerra, the state's attorney general, at a press conference on Tuesday. "If drivers in California contract the coronavirus or if they lose their job as a result, guess what? They're the ones that go missing. They're the ones that don't know what to do next. They're the ones who have to worry about how they'll pay their bills."
Becerra said the companies are also harming taxpayers by classifying drivers as contractors rather than employees. The companies do not pay "hundreds of millions of dollars in social safety net obligations," or state payroll taxes, he said.
The state is seeking penalties that it estimates could reach "hundreds of millions of dollars." It also wants the companies to pay restitution to hundreds of thousands of drivers in California.
The lawsuit escalates an ongoing battle over how companies in the so-called gig economy treat the workers who make their services possible. The coronavirus pandemic has put gig workers in the spotlight and exacerbated the precariousness of their jobs.
Classifying drivers as contractors saves Uber and Lyft a lot of money because they do not provide benefits like health coverage to contractors, or pay into state unemployment insurance systems. The companies say that business model benefits drivers by giving them the flexibility to work when they want.
Becerra was flanked at the press conference by prosecutors from Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, which have joined the lawsuit.
The California prosecutors contend that the companies are flouting the rules - specifically, Assembly Bill 5, a law passed last year that makes it harder for companies to say workers are not employees.
"Misclassification means cheating," said Mike Feuer, Los Angeles City Attorney, at the press conference.
The law represents a significant threat to the apps' business models, but Uber and Lyft have argued that it does not apply to them. Along with food delivery app DoorDash, the companies have pledged to spend $90 million on a ballot initiative seeking to overturn AB5.
On Tuesday, Uber said it would fight the lawsuit. "At a time when California's economy is in crisis with four million people out of work, we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to quickly start earning," the company said. "We will contest this action in court, while at the same time pushing to raise the standard of independent work for drivers in California, including with guaranteed minimum earnings and new benefits."
Lyft struck a less combative tone in a statement it released Tuesday. It said: "We are looking forward to working with the Attorney General and mayors across the state to bring all the benefits of California's innovation economy to as many workers as possible, especially during this time when the creation of good jobs with access to affordable healthcare and other benefits is more important than ever." ...
"Uber and Lyft both claim that their drivers aren't engaged in the company's core mission and therefore qualify for benefits," said Xavier Becerra, the state's attorney general, at a press conference on Tuesday. "If drivers in California contract the coronavirus or if they lose their job as a result, guess what? They're the ones that go missing. They're the ones that don't know what to do next. They're the ones who have to worry about how they'll pay their bills."
Becerra said the companies are also harming taxpayers by classifying drivers as contractors rather than employees. The companies do not pay "hundreds of millions of dollars in social safety net obligations," or state payroll taxes, he said.
The state is seeking penalties that it estimates could reach "hundreds of millions of dollars." It also wants the companies to pay restitution to hundreds of thousands of drivers in California.
The lawsuit escalates an ongoing battle over how companies in the so-called gig economy treat the workers who make their services possible. The coronavirus pandemic has put gig workers in the spotlight and exacerbated the precariousness of their jobs.
Classifying drivers as contractors saves Uber and Lyft a lot of money because they do not provide benefits like health coverage to contractors, or pay into state unemployment insurance systems. The companies say that business model benefits drivers by giving them the flexibility to work when they want.
Becerra was flanked at the press conference by prosecutors from Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, which have joined the lawsuit.
The California prosecutors contend that the companies are flouting the rules - specifically, Assembly Bill 5, a law passed last year that makes it harder for companies to say workers are not employees.
"Misclassification means cheating," said Mike Feuer, Los Angeles City Attorney, at the press conference.
The law represents a significant threat to the apps' business models, but Uber and Lyft have argued that it does not apply to them. Along with food delivery app DoorDash, the companies have pledged to spend $90 million on a ballot initiative seeking to overturn AB5.
On Tuesday, Uber said it would fight the lawsuit. "At a time when California's economy is in crisis with four million people out of work, we need to make it easier, not harder, for people to quickly start earning," the company said. "We will contest this action in court, while at the same time pushing to raise the standard of independent work for drivers in California, including with guaranteed minimum earnings and new benefits."
Lyft struck a less combative tone in a statement it released Tuesday. It said: "We are looking forward to working with the Attorney General and mayors across the state to bring all the benefits of California's innovation economy to as many workers as possible, especially during this time when the creation of good jobs with access to affordable healthcare and other benefits is more important than ever." ...
The Floyd Skeren COVID-19 free webinar set for tomorrow, May 8, start time has been changed from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm.
Please join Bernadette M. O’Brien, Esq., SPHR, of Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, along with Senior Partner Amanda A. Manukian, Esq., for the latest on important topics for employers, human resources administrators, risk managers, and claims adjusters on COVID-19 including:
-- Week of May 4, 2020-New COVID-19 developments in workers’ compensation and employment law impacting the workplace;
-- A closer look at:
--- DOL’s enforcement of paid sick leave laws
--- Sample FFCRA letter to eligible employee
--- Sample letter to workforce re employee with COVID
--- Update: temperature screening of employees
--- Update: Are essential employees who are home due to a “fear of COVID-19” entitled to leave protections?
-- A review of new workers’ compensation claim scenarios including a focus on a post-termination COVID-19 claim and defense strategies;
-- Updated common questions.
Friday, May 8, 2020 from 1:00 pm until 3:00 pm. Webinar is free. Please register online
Contact: Rebecca.zandovskis@floydskerenlaw.com for assistance.
Bernadette M. O’Brien is a Partner at Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP, and an SPHR/SHRM-SCP certified Human Resources Consultant.
Ms. O’Brien is author of the LexisNexis publication Labor and Employment in California: A Guide to Employment Laws, Regulations and Practices, co-author of California Leave Law: A Practical Guide for Employers, and co-author of California Unemployment Insurance and Disability Compensation Programs ...
Please join Bernadette M. O’Brien, Esq., SPHR, of Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, along with Senior Partner Amanda A. Manukian, Esq., for the latest on important topics for employers, human resources administrators, risk managers, and claims adjusters on COVID-19 including:
-- Week of May 4, 2020-New COVID-19 developments in workers’ compensation and employment law impacting the workplace;
-- A closer look at:
--- DOL’s enforcement of paid sick leave laws
--- Sample FFCRA letter to eligible employee
--- Sample letter to workforce re employee with COVID
--- Update: temperature screening of employees
--- Update: Are essential employees who are home due to a “fear of COVID-19” entitled to leave protections?
-- A review of new workers’ compensation claim scenarios including a focus on a post-termination COVID-19 claim and defense strategies;
-- Updated common questions.
Friday, May 8, 2020 from 1:00 pm until 3:00 pm. Webinar is free. Please register online
Contact: Rebecca.zandovskis@floydskerenlaw.com for assistance.
Bernadette M. O’Brien is a Partner at Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP, and an SPHR/SHRM-SCP certified Human Resources Consultant.
Ms. O’Brien is author of the LexisNexis publication Labor and Employment in California: A Guide to Employment Laws, Regulations and Practices, co-author of California Leave Law: A Practical Guide for Employers, and co-author of California Unemployment Insurance and Disability Compensation Programs ...
A federal judge on May 4 granted 3M, the maker of N95 masks, an injunction against a New Jersey-based company accused of using 3M’s trademarks and deliberately inflating the price of the face masks.
3M had filed legal action April 10 in federal court in New York City against Performance Supply LLC, alleging price gouging and deceptive trade practices in the sales of N95 respirators used in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a news release.
According to 3M, Performance Supply LLC offered to sell $45 million in N95 masks to New York City officials at prices 500-600% over 3M’s list price.
U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska ordered Performance Supply LLC to cease using 3M trademarks, stating in her order that the "defendant is trading off the widespread commercial recognition and goodwill of the 3M Marks and 3M Slogan in connection with offering to sell products that 3M is widely known for manufacturing and selling, namely, N95 respirators."
"Accordingly, it is no surprise that [Performance Supply LLC] confused New York City procurement officials into believing that [Performance Supply LLC] was an authorized vendor of 3M-brand N95 respirators," the judge added in her order.
The judge’s order marks the first win for 3M in a series of price-gouging lawsuits against companies in Florida, California, Indiana and Wisconsin and elsewhere. There are about ten such cases now pending across the country.
3M accused a company in a California federal lawsuit of infringing its 3M-branded N95 masks by reselling the protective equipment at drastically increased prices. 3M Co. claims Utah-based Rx2Live LLC tried to sell millions of the masks to Community Medical Centers Inc. in Fresno, California, at a "grossly inflated" price that was about four to five times greater than the list price, according to the complaint.
The company doesn’t claim Rx2Live was trying to sell counterfeit versions of 3M’s masks, but was instead falsely asserting that it was a distributor of 3M products - making CMC believe the mask prices were authorized by 3M, according to the lawsuit.
In three complaints filed in Florida and a fourth in Indiana, the industrial giant accused a series of small entities of falsely claiming to be affiliated with 3M in order to sell masks to desperate government agencies at jacked-up prices.
In one of the cases, 3M accused an Indiana company of falsely claiming to work directly with 3M and having a whopping 5 billion masks to sell at more than double their shelf price.
In one of the new cases, 3M accused a Georgia entity called 1 Ignite Capital LLC of using misleading language in an attempt to sell 10 million masks to Florida's Division of Emergency Management at more than four and a half times their actual price.
In another case, 3M accused a company called Zenger LLC and owner Zachary Puznak of even more egregious behavior. Puznak allegedly offered to sell as many as 5 billion N95 masks to the Indiana Economic Development Corporation by claiming to be in direct contact with "executives from 3M." When pressed for verification, he allegedly accused IEDC of "paranoid irrationality."
"3M does not - and will not - tolerate price gouging, fraud, deception, or other activities that unlawfully exploit the demand for critical 3M products during a pandemic," said Denise Rutherford, 3M’s senior vice president, corporate affairs, in a press release.
"3M will not stop here. We continue to work with federal and state law enforcement authorities, and around the world, to investigate and track down those who are illegally taking advantage of this situation for their own gain." ...
3M had filed legal action April 10 in federal court in New York City against Performance Supply LLC, alleging price gouging and deceptive trade practices in the sales of N95 respirators used in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a news release.
According to 3M, Performance Supply LLC offered to sell $45 million in N95 masks to New York City officials at prices 500-600% over 3M’s list price.
U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Preska ordered Performance Supply LLC to cease using 3M trademarks, stating in her order that the "defendant is trading off the widespread commercial recognition and goodwill of the 3M Marks and 3M Slogan in connection with offering to sell products that 3M is widely known for manufacturing and selling, namely, N95 respirators."
"Accordingly, it is no surprise that [Performance Supply LLC] confused New York City procurement officials into believing that [Performance Supply LLC] was an authorized vendor of 3M-brand N95 respirators," the judge added in her order.
The judge’s order marks the first win for 3M in a series of price-gouging lawsuits against companies in Florida, California, Indiana and Wisconsin and elsewhere. There are about ten such cases now pending across the country.
3M accused a company in a California federal lawsuit of infringing its 3M-branded N95 masks by reselling the protective equipment at drastically increased prices. 3M Co. claims Utah-based Rx2Live LLC tried to sell millions of the masks to Community Medical Centers Inc. in Fresno, California, at a "grossly inflated" price that was about four to five times greater than the list price, according to the complaint.
The company doesn’t claim Rx2Live was trying to sell counterfeit versions of 3M’s masks, but was instead falsely asserting that it was a distributor of 3M products - making CMC believe the mask prices were authorized by 3M, according to the lawsuit.
In three complaints filed in Florida and a fourth in Indiana, the industrial giant accused a series of small entities of falsely claiming to be affiliated with 3M in order to sell masks to desperate government agencies at jacked-up prices.
In one of the cases, 3M accused an Indiana company of falsely claiming to work directly with 3M and having a whopping 5 billion masks to sell at more than double their shelf price.
In one of the new cases, 3M accused a Georgia entity called 1 Ignite Capital LLC of using misleading language in an attempt to sell 10 million masks to Florida's Division of Emergency Management at more than four and a half times their actual price.
In another case, 3M accused a company called Zenger LLC and owner Zachary Puznak of even more egregious behavior. Puznak allegedly offered to sell as many as 5 billion N95 masks to the Indiana Economic Development Corporation by claiming to be in direct contact with "executives from 3M." When pressed for verification, he allegedly accused IEDC of "paranoid irrationality."
"3M does not - and will not - tolerate price gouging, fraud, deception, or other activities that unlawfully exploit the demand for critical 3M products during a pandemic," said Denise Rutherford, 3M’s senior vice president, corporate affairs, in a press release.
"3M will not stop here. We continue to work with federal and state law enforcement authorities, and around the world, to investigate and track down those who are illegally taking advantage of this situation for their own gain." ...
