Upon a unanimous vote of its members, the Appeals Board just issued this en banc decision.
On March 4, 2020, the State of California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, declared a state of emergency in response to the spread of the novel coronavirus (now known as COVID-19).3 As of the date of this decision, several counties in the State of California, within which district offices of the WCAB are located, have issued a shelter-in-place order in response to COVID-19.
In light of this state of emergency and pursuant to its authority per WCAB Rule 10370, the Appeals Board is temporarily suspending specific WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10370.) This suspension is applicable to all district offices in the State and applies to the following Rules:
-- 1)Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former §§ 10562, 10563, 10563.1, now §§ 10755, 10756, 10888 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020): Dismissal of an application or lien claim for failure to appear is suspended.
-- 2) Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former §§ 10860, 10865, 10866, now §§ 10961(a), 10962(c), 10990(f)(3)(E), 10995(c)(3) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020): Workers’ compensation judges (WCJs) and arbitrators shall have an unlimited extension of time within which to issue reports in response to petitions for reconsideration or removal.
-- 3) Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10408, now § 10500(b)(6) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020): Suspension of the requirement in the Compromise and Release agreements (DWC-CA forms 10214(c)- (e)) for signatures from two witnesses. Signatures on the forms from all parties may be electronic.
-- 4) Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10500, now § 10628 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020): Suspension of the requirement for service by the WCAB by mail. Service by the WCAB may be made electronically with or without parties’ consent.
On March 16, 2020, the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) issued Newsline Release No. 2020-18 providing in pertinent part that the DWC’s district offices are currently closed for filing from March 17 through April 3.6 (See Code Civ. Proc., § 12(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former §§ 10507, 10508, now §§ 10600, 10605 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); Pa’u v. Department of Forestry, et al. (2019) (ADJ9159725, ADJ7757931, ADJ9640668). In accordance with this, all filing deadlines are extended to the next day when the district offices reopen for filing ...
On March 4, 2020, the State of California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, declared a state of emergency in response to the spread of the novel coronavirus (now known as COVID-19).3 As of the date of this decision, several counties in the State of California, within which district offices of the WCAB are located, have issued a shelter-in-place order in response to COVID-19.
In light of this state of emergency and pursuant to its authority per WCAB Rule 10370, the Appeals Board is temporarily suspending specific WCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10370.) This suspension is applicable to all district offices in the State and applies to the following Rules:
-- 1)Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former §§ 10562, 10563, 10563.1, now §§ 10755, 10756, 10888 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020): Dismissal of an application or lien claim for failure to appear is suspended.
-- 2) Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former §§ 10860, 10865, 10866, now §§ 10961(a), 10962(c), 10990(f)(3)(E), 10995(c)(3) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020): Workers’ compensation judges (WCJs) and arbitrators shall have an unlimited extension of time within which to issue reports in response to petitions for reconsideration or removal.
-- 3) Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10408, now § 10500(b)(6) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020): Suspension of the requirement in the Compromise and Release agreements (DWC-CA forms 10214(c)- (e)) for signatures from two witnesses. Signatures on the forms from all parties may be electronic.
-- 4) Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former § 10500, now § 10628 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020): Suspension of the requirement for service by the WCAB by mail. Service by the WCAB may be made electronically with or without parties’ consent.
On March 16, 2020, the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) issued Newsline Release No. 2020-18 providing in pertinent part that the DWC’s district offices are currently closed for filing from March 17 through April 3.6 (See Code Civ. Proc., § 12(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former §§ 10507, 10508, now §§ 10600, 10605 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); Pa’u v. Department of Forestry, et al. (2019) (ADJ9159725, ADJ7757931, ADJ9640668). In accordance with this, all filing deadlines are extended to the next day when the district offices reopen for filing ...
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) gave employers the green light to take employees' temperatures to try and ward off the spread of the coronavirus in guidance updated March 18.
"Generally, measuring an employee's body temperature is a medical examination," the EEOC stated. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits medical examinations unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state and local health authorities have acknowledged community spread of COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus, and have issued related precautions, "employers may measure employees' body temperature. However, employers should be aware that some people with COVID-19 do not have a fever," the agency stated. And some people with a fever do not have COVID-19.
Jeff Nowak, an attorney with Littler in Chicago, added that if employers want to take workers' temperatures, they should pay employees sent home for high temperatures to limit any legal risk, if they can afford to do so.
Employers also should consider what they'd do if employees refuse to have their temperatures taken. Would employers send these workers home without pay?
The temperature reading should be kept confidential and the person administering the temperature check should be trained on the procedure, Nowak said. He expressed skepticism that a lawsuit would result from taking workers' temperatures.
Christine Walters, J.D., SHRM-SCP, an independent consultant with FiveL Co. in Westminster, Md., cautioned employers against using oral thermometers, which are more invasive than infrared digital thermometers.
Jonathan Segal, an attorney with Duane Morris in Philadelphia and New York City, said there may be an obligation to pay employees for time spent waiting to have their temperatures checked.
When an employee returns to work, under the ADA employers can require a doctor's note certifying his or her fitness for duty, the EEOC said.
The EEOC guidance also provided that:
-- An employer may take an applicant's temperature as part of a post-offer, pre-employment medical examination.
-- An employer may screen applicants for symptoms of COVID-19 after making a conditional job offer.
-- An employer may delay the start date of an applicant who has COVID-19 or symptoms associated with it.
-- An employer may withdraw a job offer when it needs the applicant to start immediately but the individual has COVID-19 or symptoms of it. Based on current CDC guidance, the individual cannot safely enter the workplace, and therefore the employer may withdraw the job offer, the EEOC explained ...
"Generally, measuring an employee's body temperature is a medical examination," the EEOC stated. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits medical examinations unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state and local health authorities have acknowledged community spread of COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus, and have issued related precautions, "employers may measure employees' body temperature. However, employers should be aware that some people with COVID-19 do not have a fever," the agency stated. And some people with a fever do not have COVID-19.
Jeff Nowak, an attorney with Littler in Chicago, added that if employers want to take workers' temperatures, they should pay employees sent home for high temperatures to limit any legal risk, if they can afford to do so.
Employers also should consider what they'd do if employees refuse to have their temperatures taken. Would employers send these workers home without pay?
The temperature reading should be kept confidential and the person administering the temperature check should be trained on the procedure, Nowak said. He expressed skepticism that a lawsuit would result from taking workers' temperatures.
Christine Walters, J.D., SHRM-SCP, an independent consultant with FiveL Co. in Westminster, Md., cautioned employers against using oral thermometers, which are more invasive than infrared digital thermometers.
Jonathan Segal, an attorney with Duane Morris in Philadelphia and New York City, said there may be an obligation to pay employees for time spent waiting to have their temperatures checked.
When an employee returns to work, under the ADA employers can require a doctor's note certifying his or her fitness for duty, the EEOC said.
The EEOC guidance also provided that:
-- An employer may take an applicant's temperature as part of a post-offer, pre-employment medical examination.
-- An employer may screen applicants for symptoms of COVID-19 after making a conditional job offer.
-- An employer may delay the start date of an applicant who has COVID-19 or symptoms associated with it.
-- An employer may withdraw a job offer when it needs the applicant to start immediately but the individual has COVID-19 or symptoms of it. Based on current CDC guidance, the individual cannot safely enter the workplace, and therefore the employer may withdraw the job offer, the EEOC explained ...
The Insurance Journal reports that workers’ compensation insurers in at least two states have decided that they will guarantee workers’ compensation benefits for health care workers and first responders.
Kentucky Employers Mutual Insurance Co. announced Friday that effective immediately it will pay wage-replacement benefits for any first responder or employee in the medical field who is quarantined because of direct exposure to a person diagnosed with COVID-19.
Ryan Worthern, communications director for KEMI, said the insurer’s staff decided to adopt the policy, but informed its board of directors and Gov. Andy Beshear of the decision.
KEMI’s announcement follows a decision March 5 by the Washington state Department of Labor and Industries to pay wage-loss and medical treatment expenses for any health care worker or first responder who is quarantined because of coronavirus exposure.
Washington operates a monopoly workers’ comp system, so that policy impacts every employee in the state who is covered by the state system.
L&I spokesman Tim Church said the department has already received several workers’ compensation claims due to coronavirus exposure, but he did not know if they were filed by medical or health care workers. Church said a quarantine normally would not be covered by workers’ comp unless the worker was made ill by workplace exposure.
Church said coronavirus claims by Washington workers outside of health care or emergency services will be decided on a case-by-case basis according to the state workers’ compensation statutes.
The National Council on Compensation Insurance, a rate advisory organization for most U.S. states, said last week that it remains to be seen whether other states will follow Washington state’s lead. NCCI said that many state workers’ comp statutes exclude "ordinary diseases of life" such as the common cold or flu.
However, NCCI said at least 10 states have issued mandates for coverage of coronavirus by health insurers. The directives vary, but include coverage for testing and visits to emergency rooms or urgent care facilities without deductibles or copays, NCCI said. "These measures, if expanded to more states, could have the impact of limiting claim activity in the WC market in those cases where only testing or quarantine are necessary," NCCI said.
Two insurance carriers gave notice of their stand toward the coming workers’ comp claims in notices last week: Texas Mutual Insurance Co. and SAIF, Oregon’s state-chartered workers’ comp insurer, both issued bulletins that said they will decide whether coronavirus exposure is compensable on a case-by-case basis.
Texas Mutual added this caveat: "However, the more widespread COVID-19 becomes, the more difficult it may be for the employee to show that it is work related rather than an ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed." ...
Kentucky Employers Mutual Insurance Co. announced Friday that effective immediately it will pay wage-replacement benefits for any first responder or employee in the medical field who is quarantined because of direct exposure to a person diagnosed with COVID-19.
Ryan Worthern, communications director for KEMI, said the insurer’s staff decided to adopt the policy, but informed its board of directors and Gov. Andy Beshear of the decision.
KEMI’s announcement follows a decision March 5 by the Washington state Department of Labor and Industries to pay wage-loss and medical treatment expenses for any health care worker or first responder who is quarantined because of coronavirus exposure.
Washington operates a monopoly workers’ comp system, so that policy impacts every employee in the state who is covered by the state system.
L&I spokesman Tim Church said the department has already received several workers’ compensation claims due to coronavirus exposure, but he did not know if they were filed by medical or health care workers. Church said a quarantine normally would not be covered by workers’ comp unless the worker was made ill by workplace exposure.
Church said coronavirus claims by Washington workers outside of health care or emergency services will be decided on a case-by-case basis according to the state workers’ compensation statutes.
The National Council on Compensation Insurance, a rate advisory organization for most U.S. states, said last week that it remains to be seen whether other states will follow Washington state’s lead. NCCI said that many state workers’ comp statutes exclude "ordinary diseases of life" such as the common cold or flu.
However, NCCI said at least 10 states have issued mandates for coverage of coronavirus by health insurers. The directives vary, but include coverage for testing and visits to emergency rooms or urgent care facilities without deductibles or copays, NCCI said. "These measures, if expanded to more states, could have the impact of limiting claim activity in the WC market in those cases where only testing or quarantine are necessary," NCCI said.
Two insurance carriers gave notice of their stand toward the coming workers’ comp claims in notices last week: Texas Mutual Insurance Co. and SAIF, Oregon’s state-chartered workers’ comp insurer, both issued bulletins that said they will decide whether coronavirus exposure is compensable on a case-by-case basis.
Texas Mutual added this caveat: "However, the more widespread COVID-19 becomes, the more difficult it may be for the employee to show that it is work related rather than an ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed." ...
The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) will temporarily close its San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco district offices to protect the health of the public and our staff and to comply with shelter-in-place orders.
The Division’s headquarters office, which includes the Medical Unit, Return-to-Work Supplement Program, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund and Legal Unit, will also close temporarily.
Staff will work remotely and are available by phone at 1-800-736-7401.
DWC is closely monitoring the situation and will update the public of any changes.
DWC and WCAB announced March 16 that they are limiting court appearances to protect the health and safety of our staff and the community, in accordance with numerous public health orders suggesting that public gatherings be limited ...
The Division’s headquarters office, which includes the Medical Unit, Return-to-Work Supplement Program, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund and Legal Unit, will also close temporarily.
Staff will work remotely and are available by phone at 1-800-736-7401.
DWC is closely monitoring the situation and will update the public of any changes.
DWC and WCAB announced March 16 that they are limiting court appearances to protect the health and safety of our staff and the community, in accordance with numerous public health orders suggesting that public gatherings be limited ...
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.
She has now scheduled a free, informative live-webinar covering important topics for employers, HR and Risk Managers on employment law aspects triggered by the COVID-19 virus. Her topics include:
-- What workplace laws may be triggered by COVID-19?
-- What leave may an employee entitled to who is ill, or who needs to care for a family member?
-- What leave may be required for parents with children home from school?
-- Can employers require a diagnosis from an employee if COVID-19 is suspected?
-- Can employers send employees who appear sick home from work?
-- If the workforce shuts down, must employees be paid, and what about benefits?
-- If the proposed federal paid sick leave law passes, what is required?
-- What should employers tell workers who are 65 and older?
-- Guidance on responding to employees who do not want to report to work.
-- Guidance on responding to employees who are concerned that a co-worker has COVID-19.
-- If an employee is out sick, can a release to return to work be required?
This webinar will take place on Friday, March 27, 2020 from 10:00 am until 12:00. If you would like to attend, please use this registration page.
Ms. O’Brien is the editor of Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin’s employment related websites: www.employmentlawweekly.com, www.worklawreport.com, and www.floydskerenhrtraining.com.
Ms. O’Brien represents employers in employment related disputes before the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the California Labor Commissioner, including claims related to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage and hour violations.
Ms. O’Brien also provides HR consultation to employers, human resource administrators, and risk managers on a myriad of HR topics including compliance with federal, state and local employment related laws; EEO compliance; AB 1825 Sexual Harassment training; managing leaves of absence pursuant to FMLA/CFRA, PDL and paid sick time; disability, accommodation and the interactive process; and performance, discipline and termination.
Ms. O’Brien also conducts management and employee training sessions throughout California on numerous workplace topics ...
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.
She has now scheduled a free, informative live-webinar covering important topics for employers, HR and Risk Managers on employment law aspects triggered by the COVID-19 virus. Her topics include:
-- What workplace laws may be triggered by COVID-19?
-- What leave may an employee entitled to who is ill, or who needs to care for a family member?
-- What leave may be required for parents with children home from school?
-- Can employers require a diagnosis from an employee if COVID-19 is suspected?
-- Can employers send employees who appear sick home from work?
-- If the workforce shuts down, must employees be paid, and what about benefits?
-- If the proposed federal paid sick leave law passes, what is required?
-- What should employers tell workers who are 65 and older?
-- Guidance on responding to employees who do not want to report to work.
-- Guidance on responding to employees who are concerned that a co-worker has COVID-19.
-- If an employee is out sick, can a release to return to work be required?
This webinar will take place on Friday, March 27, 2020 from 10:00 am until 12:00. If you would like to attend, please use this registration page.
Ms. O’Brien is the editor of Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin’s employment related websites: www.employmentlawweekly.com, www.worklawreport.com, and www.floydskerenhrtraining.com.
Ms. O’Brien represents employers in employment related disputes before the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the California Labor Commissioner, including claims related to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage and hour violations.
Ms. O’Brien also provides HR consultation to employers, human resource administrators, and risk managers on a myriad of HR topics including compliance with federal, state and local employment related laws; EEO compliance; AB 1825 Sexual Harassment training; managing leaves of absence pursuant to FMLA/CFRA, PDL and paid sick time; disability, accommodation and the interactive process; and performance, discipline and termination.
Ms. O’Brien also conducts management and employee training sessions throughout California on numerous workplace topics ...
46 year old Haichao Huang, of San Francisco, was sentenced to 12 months in prison for committing health care fraud and making false statements relating to health care matters. He pleaded guilty on December 6, 2019, to health care fraud and making false statement relating to health care matters.
Huang was a health care provider who offered acupuncture, physical therapy, massage, and other services to patients in and around San Francisco, Calif.
Huang knowingly and willfully executed a scheme to defraud healthcare benefit programs. Huang submitted and caused to be submitted false claims for reimbursement from health care benefit programs that he knew were not properly payable, including from programs provided through federal government and labor union healthcare plans. Huang included false and inaccurate billing codes that artificially inflated both the type of service the patient received and the time he spent with the patient.
The plea agreement gives examples. Huang submitted requests for reimbursement for acupuncture treatment when, in fact, the patient had received much shorter periods of treatment, no acupuncture treatment, or no care of any kind at all. Huang also submitted claims for services rendered on days when patients had not been seen by him at all - including days when Huang was not in California.
Further, after a patient reached the limit of acupuncture sessions allowed by the relevant insurance program or plan, Huang falsely and inaccurately billed for other types of treatments and services that were not provided, or billed under a patient’s family member’s health plan who never received treatment through his practice, in order to continue receiving improper reimbursements.
In addition to the prison term, Judge Illston ordered Huang to serve two years of supervised release to begin after his prison term has concluded and to pay restitution of $807,785.38 and a $10,000 fine.
Huang had been released on a $100,000 bond, which remains in place until he surrenders to begin serving his prison term on or before May 29, 2020 ...
Huang was a health care provider who offered acupuncture, physical therapy, massage, and other services to patients in and around San Francisco, Calif.
Huang knowingly and willfully executed a scheme to defraud healthcare benefit programs. Huang submitted and caused to be submitted false claims for reimbursement from health care benefit programs that he knew were not properly payable, including from programs provided through federal government and labor union healthcare plans. Huang included false and inaccurate billing codes that artificially inflated both the type of service the patient received and the time he spent with the patient.
The plea agreement gives examples. Huang submitted requests for reimbursement for acupuncture treatment when, in fact, the patient had received much shorter periods of treatment, no acupuncture treatment, or no care of any kind at all. Huang also submitted claims for services rendered on days when patients had not been seen by him at all - including days when Huang was not in California.
Further, after a patient reached the limit of acupuncture sessions allowed by the relevant insurance program or plan, Huang falsely and inaccurately billed for other types of treatments and services that were not provided, or billed under a patient’s family member’s health plan who never received treatment through his practice, in order to continue receiving improper reimbursements.
In addition to the prison term, Judge Illston ordered Huang to serve two years of supervised release to begin after his prison term has concluded and to pay restitution of $807,785.38 and a $10,000 fine.
Huang had been released on a $100,000 bond, which remains in place until he surrenders to begin serving his prison term on or before May 29, 2020 ...
The Division of Workers’ Compensation, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board just announced its committed to protecting the health and safety of our community and staff while performing its legislative and constitutional duties.
We are in communication with the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the Office of Emergency Services to ensure that we have the most up-to-date information available during this unprecedented COVID-19 crisis.
We are limiting court appearances to protect the health and safety of our staff and the community, in accordance with numerous public health orders suggesting that public gatherings be limited.
Scheduled Hearings
March 17 through March 20: DWC will only hear expedited hearings at the district offices. DWC will continue all other hearings and send parties notice of new hearing dates within the next five business days.
March 23 through April 3: DWC will continue to hear expedited hearings for parties that appear at the district offices. DWC will also hear status conferences, mandatory settlement conferences and priority conferences via CourtCall only. If all parties do not appear via CourtCall the case will be continued and notice will be given. All other hearings will be continued. No trials or lien conferences will be heard during this time.
Filings
March 17 through April 3: DWC’s district offices will be closed for filing purposes. Accordingly, all filing deadlines are extended to Monday, April 6 (see California Code of Civil Procedure Section 12(a); 8 California Code of Regulations Sections and ; and WCAB Significant Panel Decision Pa’u v. Department of Forestry, et al.: (2019) (ADJ 9159725, ADJ 7757931, ADJ 9640668).
DWC will not accept walk-through documents or walk-in filings until the district offices reopen for filing purposes.
Workers’ Compensation Judges will focus on reviewing settlement documents and ruling on petitions submitted by the parties during the closure. Parties may utilize the Electronic Adjudication Management System to file documents online. Parties may also mail settlement documents or petitions to the district office where the case is filed. Refer to the district office page for e-mail and other contact information.
These changes are based on the best information currently available and are subject to change without notice as circumstances change. Although we will endeavor to provide updates regarding hearings, filing or office closures, parties, attorneys and hearing representatives should also check the DWC and WCAB websites for updates ...
We are in communication with the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the Office of Emergency Services to ensure that we have the most up-to-date information available during this unprecedented COVID-19 crisis.
We are limiting court appearances to protect the health and safety of our staff and the community, in accordance with numerous public health orders suggesting that public gatherings be limited.
Scheduled Hearings
March 17 through March 20: DWC will only hear expedited hearings at the district offices. DWC will continue all other hearings and send parties notice of new hearing dates within the next five business days.
March 23 through April 3: DWC will continue to hear expedited hearings for parties that appear at the district offices. DWC will also hear status conferences, mandatory settlement conferences and priority conferences via CourtCall only. If all parties do not appear via CourtCall the case will be continued and notice will be given. All other hearings will be continued. No trials or lien conferences will be heard during this time.
Filings
March 17 through April 3: DWC’s district offices will be closed for filing purposes. Accordingly, all filing deadlines are extended to Monday, April 6 (see California Code of Civil Procedure Section 12(a); 8 California Code of Regulations Sections and ; and WCAB Significant Panel Decision Pa’u v. Department of Forestry, et al.: (2019) (ADJ 9159725, ADJ 7757931, ADJ 9640668).
DWC will not accept walk-through documents or walk-in filings until the district offices reopen for filing purposes.
Workers’ Compensation Judges will focus on reviewing settlement documents and ruling on petitions submitted by the parties during the closure. Parties may utilize the Electronic Adjudication Management System to file documents online. Parties may also mail settlement documents or petitions to the district office where the case is filed. Refer to the district office page for e-mail and other contact information.
These changes are based on the best information currently available and are subject to change without notice as circumstances change. Although we will endeavor to provide updates regarding hearings, filing or office closures, parties, attorneys and hearing representatives should also check the DWC and WCAB websites for updates ...
Policymakers and government leaders have taken a range of approaches to deal with the economic fallout from the coronavirus.
The U.S. Federal Reserve slashed rates back to near zero, restarted bond buying and launched other measures from its crisis-era toolkit, along with other central banks, to put the floor under a rapidly disintegrating global economy assailed by efforts to contain the coronavirus pandemic.
The Fed also encouraged banks to use the trillions of dollars in equity and liquid assets built up as capital buffers since the financial crisis to lend to business and households whose balance sheets and lives have been upended by the virus.
The central banks of the United States, the euro zone, Canada, Britain, Japan and Switzerland agreed on Sunday to offer three-month credit in U.S. dollars on a regular basis and at a rate cheaper than usual.
The U.S. Treasury Department will defer tax payments without interest or penalties for certain individuals and businesses negatively impacted, aiming to provide more than $200 billion of additional liquidity to the economy.
The Small Business Administration will also provide capital and liquidity to firms affected by the coronavirus.
Earlier, Trump signed a $8.3 billion emergency spending bill to combat the spread of the virus and develop vaccines for the highly contagious disease.
European Union leaders have so far failed to agree to radical measures to tackle the crisis. European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said on Thursday Brussels was working on responses including a “package to prop up the EU economy”.
Euro zone finance ministers, known as the Eurogroup, meet on Monday and signals before their meeting suggest that a large scale, coordinate fiscal boost is likely coming ...
The U.S. Federal Reserve slashed rates back to near zero, restarted bond buying and launched other measures from its crisis-era toolkit, along with other central banks, to put the floor under a rapidly disintegrating global economy assailed by efforts to contain the coronavirus pandemic.
The Fed also encouraged banks to use the trillions of dollars in equity and liquid assets built up as capital buffers since the financial crisis to lend to business and households whose balance sheets and lives have been upended by the virus.
The central banks of the United States, the euro zone, Canada, Britain, Japan and Switzerland agreed on Sunday to offer three-month credit in U.S. dollars on a regular basis and at a rate cheaper than usual.
The U.S. Treasury Department will defer tax payments without interest or penalties for certain individuals and businesses negatively impacted, aiming to provide more than $200 billion of additional liquidity to the economy.
The Small Business Administration will also provide capital and liquidity to firms affected by the coronavirus.
Earlier, Trump signed a $8.3 billion emergency spending bill to combat the spread of the virus and develop vaccines for the highly contagious disease.
European Union leaders have so far failed to agree to radical measures to tackle the crisis. European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said on Thursday Brussels was working on responses including a “package to prop up the EU economy”.
Euro zone finance ministers, known as the Eurogroup, meet on Monday and signals before their meeting suggest that a large scale, coordinate fiscal boost is likely coming ...
The Floyd Skeren employment law partner - Fisher Phillips - has assembled a cross-disciplinary taskforce of attorneys across the country to address the many employment-related issues facing employers in the wake of the COVID-19 coronavirus - especially now that the World Health Organization has declared the outbreak as a pandemic.
The COVID-19 Taskforce has created a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document, which has been continually updated since first published on March 3 and will continue to be updated as events warrant. It has been completely updated as of March 12 to address the many additional workplace law rights and responsibilities given the pandemic designation.
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor this rapidly developing situation and provide updates as appropriate, including updating this FAQ on as-needed basis. You can contact any member of the Taskforce with specific questions, and a full listing of the Taskforce members and their practice areas is at the end of this publication ...
The COVID-19 Taskforce has created a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document, which has been continually updated since first published on March 3 and will continue to be updated as events warrant. It has been completely updated as of March 12 to address the many additional workplace law rights and responsibilities given the pandemic designation.
- BACKGROUND
- WORKPLACE SAFETY ISSUES
- ISSUES FOR WORKFORCES THAT TRAVEL
- REMOTE WORK
- INTERNATIONAL WORKFORCES
- IMMIGRATION ISSUES
- HEALTHCARE/HIPAA ISSUES
- BENEFITS/GROUP HEALTH PLAN ADMINISTRATION
- WAGE AND HOUR ISSUES
- EMPLOYEE LEAVE/ADA
- DISCRIMINATION/HARASSMENT/EEO ISSUES
- LABOR RELATIONS
- WARN ACT/PLANT CLOSINGS
- WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
- EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
- FISHER PHILLIPS COVID-19 TASKFORCE MEMBERS
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor this rapidly developing situation and provide updates as appropriate, including updating this FAQ on as-needed basis. You can contact any member of the Taskforce with specific questions, and a full listing of the Taskforce members and their practice areas is at the end of this publication ...
In the war over legislating the gig economy, a bill introduced by California Senator Cathleen Galgiani last February in the Legislature - SB 1039 - known as "The Independent Worker Rights Act of 2020," could pave the way for creating a third class of worker.
On January 1, 2020, Assembly Bill 5 went into effect, codifying the decision of the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) applying the "ABC" test to classify workers as independent contractors or employees.
In enacting AB 5, the Legislature intended to rectify harm to misclassified workers who lose workplace benefits and protections when misclassified, including the guarantee of minimum wage, workers’ compensation, disability insurance and protection from discrimination.
Senator Galgiani wrote that the enactment of AB 5 has led to a reclassification of independent workers as employees, resulting in the loss of opportunities for these workers due to the cessation of businesses operating in California. This has resulted in fewer opportunities for independent workers desiring flexible working conditions in the current economy.
In fact, according to the Federal Reserve, there are currently more than 57,000,000 workers in the gig economy, with 85 percent of those workers pursuing work in the gig economy to supplement income or as a hobby or "just for fun," and only 16 percent pursuing work in the gig economy as their primary source of income.
She went on to write that as a result, it has become increasingly obvious that a binary system for classifying workers as either independent contractors or employees is outdated and inapposite of the current reality of the labor market and work opportunities presented in the gig economy and the desire of workers seeking flexible working conditions.
Currently, the Governor’s Future of Work Commission is examining the impact of technology on work, workers, employers, jobs, and society to develop a new social compact for California workers.
With executive action towards modernizing worker safety net protections, it is the intent of the proposed law to enhance the efficiency of the labor market by extending many of the legal benefits and protections found in employment relationships to independent workers.
The the purpose of the proposed law is to develop a modern policy framework that facilitates independent work for those who voluntarily choose it by creating a third classification of workers in order to offer basic rights and protections they deserve under the law relative to the work opportunities and circumstances of the work, including a minimum wage, occupational accident coverage if they are injured on the job, protection from discrimination, and paid medical leave where required by law.
A third class of worker could mean big changes for workers’ compensation. This bill is definitely one to watch ...
On January 1, 2020, Assembly Bill 5 went into effect, codifying the decision of the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) applying the "ABC" test to classify workers as independent contractors or employees.
In enacting AB 5, the Legislature intended to rectify harm to misclassified workers who lose workplace benefits and protections when misclassified, including the guarantee of minimum wage, workers’ compensation, disability insurance and protection from discrimination.
Senator Galgiani wrote that the enactment of AB 5 has led to a reclassification of independent workers as employees, resulting in the loss of opportunities for these workers due to the cessation of businesses operating in California. This has resulted in fewer opportunities for independent workers desiring flexible working conditions in the current economy.
In fact, according to the Federal Reserve, there are currently more than 57,000,000 workers in the gig economy, with 85 percent of those workers pursuing work in the gig economy to supplement income or as a hobby or "just for fun," and only 16 percent pursuing work in the gig economy as their primary source of income.
She went on to write that as a result, it has become increasingly obvious that a binary system for classifying workers as either independent contractors or employees is outdated and inapposite of the current reality of the labor market and work opportunities presented in the gig economy and the desire of workers seeking flexible working conditions.
Currently, the Governor’s Future of Work Commission is examining the impact of technology on work, workers, employers, jobs, and society to develop a new social compact for California workers.
With executive action towards modernizing worker safety net protections, it is the intent of the proposed law to enhance the efficiency of the labor market by extending many of the legal benefits and protections found in employment relationships to independent workers.
The the purpose of the proposed law is to develop a modern policy framework that facilitates independent work for those who voluntarily choose it by creating a third classification of workers in order to offer basic rights and protections they deserve under the law relative to the work opportunities and circumstances of the work, including a minimum wage, occupational accident coverage if they are injured on the job, protection from discrimination, and paid medical leave where required by law.
A third class of worker could mean big changes for workers’ compensation. This bill is definitely one to watch ...
The COVID-19 virus (coronavirus) is the latest in a series of infectious diseases that have emerged over the last 20 years. Since 2003, the world has seen the emergence of SARS, H1N1, Ebola, and Zika viruses.
While the overall impact of each disease has been well documented, you would be hard pressed to find meaningful information on how or even if the workers compensation system was affected.
The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) just reported on the potential implications of coronavirus for WC.
Is coronavirus compensable under WC? The answer to that question is "maybe." While WC laws provide compensation for "occupational diseases" that arise out of and in the course of employment, many state statutes exclude "ordinary diseases of life" (e.g., the common cold or flu).
There are occupational groups that arguably would have a higher probability for exposure such as healthcare workers. However, even in those cases, there may be uncertainty as to whether the disease is compensable. Would time away from work during recovery be considered "temporary disability" or is it just normal "sick time"? While these questions linger, at least one state has taken steps to address compensability for WC.
On March 5, the state of Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries announced that it changed its policy related to workers compensation coverage for healthcare workers and first responders. Under the clarified policy, Washington state will provide benefits to these workers during the time that they are quarantined after being exposed to coronavirus on the job. The coverage will pay for medical testing, treatment expenses if a worker becomes ill or injured, and provide indemnity payments for those who cannot work if they are sick or quarantined.
It remains to be seen if other states will take the same measures relative to WC.
However, for general health insurance, at least 10 states have issued mandates for coverage of coronavirus. The mandates vary by state, but they include coverage for testing and visits to emergency rooms or urgent care facilities either in-network or out-of-network without deductibles or copays. These measures, if expanded to more states, could have the impact of limiting claim activity in the WC market in those cases where only testing or quarantine are necessary. Economic Impact
With a focus on worker safety, employers have begun to implement a number of policies related to coronavirus. These include limiting nonessential travel, maximizing telecommuting options, and being flexible on sick leave policies to encourage employees to stay home when they are ill. Some companies have also cancelled large in-person industry conferences.
As a result of these measures, it is reasonable to expect that certain sectors of the economy could begin to see impacts in the near future. The travel and hospitality sectors have been the hardest hit so far. But, over time, other industries could also be impacted depending on how general consumer attitudes and behaviors evolve.
This could have a negative impact on employment levels and the general economy, including the possibility of a recession. This creates some uncertainty about future payroll levels and overall claim frequency for WC, as both have been impacted by previous economic downturns ...
While the overall impact of each disease has been well documented, you would be hard pressed to find meaningful information on how or even if the workers compensation system was affected.
The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) just reported on the potential implications of coronavirus for WC.
Is coronavirus compensable under WC? The answer to that question is "maybe." While WC laws provide compensation for "occupational diseases" that arise out of and in the course of employment, many state statutes exclude "ordinary diseases of life" (e.g., the common cold or flu).
There are occupational groups that arguably would have a higher probability for exposure such as healthcare workers. However, even in those cases, there may be uncertainty as to whether the disease is compensable. Would time away from work during recovery be considered "temporary disability" or is it just normal "sick time"? While these questions linger, at least one state has taken steps to address compensability for WC.
On March 5, the state of Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries announced that it changed its policy related to workers compensation coverage for healthcare workers and first responders. Under the clarified policy, Washington state will provide benefits to these workers during the time that they are quarantined after being exposed to coronavirus on the job. The coverage will pay for medical testing, treatment expenses if a worker becomes ill or injured, and provide indemnity payments for those who cannot work if they are sick or quarantined.
It remains to be seen if other states will take the same measures relative to WC.
However, for general health insurance, at least 10 states have issued mandates for coverage of coronavirus. The mandates vary by state, but they include coverage for testing and visits to emergency rooms or urgent care facilities either in-network or out-of-network without deductibles or copays. These measures, if expanded to more states, could have the impact of limiting claim activity in the WC market in those cases where only testing or quarantine are necessary. Economic Impact
With a focus on worker safety, employers have begun to implement a number of policies related to coronavirus. These include limiting nonessential travel, maximizing telecommuting options, and being flexible on sick leave policies to encourage employees to stay home when they are ill. Some companies have also cancelled large in-person industry conferences.
As a result of these measures, it is reasonable to expect that certain sectors of the economy could begin to see impacts in the near future. The travel and hospitality sectors have been the hardest hit so far. But, over time, other industries could also be impacted depending on how general consumer attitudes and behaviors evolve.
This could have a negative impact on employment levels and the general economy, including the possibility of a recession. This creates some uncertainty about future payroll levels and overall claim frequency for WC, as both have been impacted by previous economic downturns ...
Zurich has found a new ally in the fight against increasing claims costs.
The insurer is now working with Carpe Data, a Santa Barbara, California-based company whose innovative use of alternative and emerging data provides Zurich with improved claims processing efficiency and a major advantage in fighting fraud.
Carpe Data’s innovative claims monitoring solution "ClaimsX" gives Zurich the power to leverage publicly available web data for real-time assessment and automated decision making, from first notice of loss to settlement.
Through ClaimsX’s highly predictive online content, Zurich proactively audits injury claimants and identifies cases where the claimant's profile is at odds with the claim presented. This not only stops fraud in its tracks, but also allows legitimate claims to be paid faster.
After a successful pilot in 2019, Zurich UK is now implementing the solution at scale in 2020. "Carpe Data is the latest addition to Zurich’s ongoing innovation programs focused on transforming the future of insurance," said Zurich Head of Claims Fraud, Scott Clayton.
"[Carpe Data] supports Zurich’s ongoing efforts to improve the claimant experience by expediting low-risk claims, and by providing new insights to help our people make informed, accurate, and timely decisions."
"Data and technology play an integral role in catalysing change across the insurance industry, and Zurich recognizes that," said Carpe Data COO and co-founder Geoff Andrews.
"We’re excited to join forces with such a globally-minded and forward-thinking partner to streamline claims and bolster their fraud prevention efforts."
Carpe Data harnesses the power of emerging and alternative data for insurance carriers around the globe with powerful, proven AI. Through access to continuous monitoring and predictive scoring, insurers gain deeper insight into risks in real-time and significantly enhance many aspects of the insurance life cycle including underwriting, claims, and book assessment.
...
The insurer is now working with Carpe Data, a Santa Barbara, California-based company whose innovative use of alternative and emerging data provides Zurich with improved claims processing efficiency and a major advantage in fighting fraud.
Carpe Data’s innovative claims monitoring solution "ClaimsX" gives Zurich the power to leverage publicly available web data for real-time assessment and automated decision making, from first notice of loss to settlement.
Through ClaimsX’s highly predictive online content, Zurich proactively audits injury claimants and identifies cases where the claimant's profile is at odds with the claim presented. This not only stops fraud in its tracks, but also allows legitimate claims to be paid faster.
After a successful pilot in 2019, Zurich UK is now implementing the solution at scale in 2020. "Carpe Data is the latest addition to Zurich’s ongoing innovation programs focused on transforming the future of insurance," said Zurich Head of Claims Fraud, Scott Clayton.
"[Carpe Data] supports Zurich’s ongoing efforts to improve the claimant experience by expediting low-risk claims, and by providing new insights to help our people make informed, accurate, and timely decisions."
"Data and technology play an integral role in catalysing change across the insurance industry, and Zurich recognizes that," said Carpe Data COO and co-founder Geoff Andrews.
"We’re excited to join forces with such a globally-minded and forward-thinking partner to streamline claims and bolster their fraud prevention efforts."
Carpe Data harnesses the power of emerging and alternative data for insurance carriers around the globe with powerful, proven AI. Through access to continuous monitoring and predictive scoring, insurers gain deeper insight into risks in real-time and significantly enhance many aspects of the insurance life cycle including underwriting, claims, and book assessment.
...
California Governor Gavin Newsom announced the following appointments that are relevant to the workers' compensation industry:
Katrina S. Hagen, 47, of Sacramento, has been appointed director of the California Department of Industrial Relations. Hagen has served as chief deputy director at the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration since 2017. She was deputy director of operations at the California Department of Human Resources from 2015 to 2017 and chief of human resources at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System from 2011 to 2015.
Hagen was adjunct faculty at the University of San Francisco from 2000 to 2011, deputy director at California Correctional Healthcare Services from 2006 to 2011 and assistant deputy director at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from 2002 to 2006.
She earned a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of San Francisco. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $195,708. Hagen is a Democrat.
Doris Ng, 53, of Berkeley, has been appointed general counsel at the Department of Industrial Relations. Ng has served as staff counsel at the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement since 2014. She was supervising attorney at Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach from 2011 to 2013, staff attorney at the Bay Area Legal Aid from 2008 to 2011 and supervising clinical attorney for the women’s employment rights clinic at the Golden Gate University School of Law from 2003 to 2007. Ng was staff attorney at Equal Rights Advocates from 1998 to 2003, associate attorney at Rosen, Bien and Asaro from 1996 to 1998 and a Ruth Chance law fellow at Equal Rights Advocates from 1993 to 1994.
She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $170,772. Ng is a Democrat.
Judith Freyman, 69, of Rocklin, has been reappointed to the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, where she was served since 2012. Freyman was director and vice president of the western occupational safety and health group at Mercer ORC OSH Consulting from 2001 to 2012. She held several positions at ConAgra Refrigerated Foods from 1980 to 2001, including assistant general counsel and director of OSH and environmental affairs.
Freyman earned a Juris Doctor degree in employment law from Loyola University Chicago School of Law. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $138,874. Freyman is registered without party preference ...
Katrina S. Hagen, 47, of Sacramento, has been appointed director of the California Department of Industrial Relations. Hagen has served as chief deputy director at the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration since 2017. She was deputy director of operations at the California Department of Human Resources from 2015 to 2017 and chief of human resources at the California Public Employees’ Retirement System from 2011 to 2015.
Hagen was adjunct faculty at the University of San Francisco from 2000 to 2011, deputy director at California Correctional Healthcare Services from 2006 to 2011 and assistant deputy director at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from 2002 to 2006.
She earned a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of San Francisco. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $195,708. Hagen is a Democrat.
Doris Ng, 53, of Berkeley, has been appointed general counsel at the Department of Industrial Relations. Ng has served as staff counsel at the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement since 2014. She was supervising attorney at Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach from 2011 to 2013, staff attorney at the Bay Area Legal Aid from 2008 to 2011 and supervising clinical attorney for the women’s employment rights clinic at the Golden Gate University School of Law from 2003 to 2007. Ng was staff attorney at Equal Rights Advocates from 1998 to 2003, associate attorney at Rosen, Bien and Asaro from 1996 to 1998 and a Ruth Chance law fellow at Equal Rights Advocates from 1993 to 1994.
She earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $170,772. Ng is a Democrat.
Judith Freyman, 69, of Rocklin, has been reappointed to the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, where she was served since 2012. Freyman was director and vice president of the western occupational safety and health group at Mercer ORC OSH Consulting from 2001 to 2012. She held several positions at ConAgra Refrigerated Foods from 1980 to 2001, including assistant general counsel and director of OSH and environmental affairs.
Freyman earned a Juris Doctor degree in employment law from Loyola University Chicago School of Law. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $138,874. Freyman is registered without party preference ...
The California Labor Commissioner’s Office has cited the owners of Genwa Korean BBQ, an upscale restaurant with two locations in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, $2.1 million for multiple wage theft and labor law violations affecting 325 servers, dishwashers and cooks.
"Requiring restaurant workers to leave and return to work without proper split shift premiums is wage theft," said Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower. "This wage theft tactic and other labor law violations undermine workers and provide an unfair advantage over law-abiding restaurant employers."
The Labor Commissioner’s investigation began in August 2018 after workers contacted Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance and Bet Tzedek to report wage theft at both Genwa Korean BBQ locations. A payroll audit determined that full-time staff at both restaurants were deprived of wages by being forced to go off the clock for one hour up to three times a day during their 11-hour workday. None of the workers were provided proper rest or meal breaks as required by law. Nearly half of the workers were not paid the required minimum hourly wage, while more than half were shorted on overtime pay and not provided proper itemized wage statements. Servers were also forced to attend quarterly meetings without pay, even on their scheduled days off.
The Labor Commissioner’s Office on January 31 issued citations ordering J.B.K. Wilshire Corporation and Genwa, Inc. and corporate officers Jay and Jin Kwon pay a total of $1,428,759 in unpaid wages, overtime, split shift premiums, missed meal periods and rest breaks, liquidated damages and waiting time penalties for the affected employees. Both corporate entities and the officers were also fined $633,800 in civil penalties for the violations. The employers have appealed the citations.
"In cases where corporations commit wage theft, corporate officers can also be held personally liable for wages owed to their employees," Labor Commissioner García-Brower added.
Jay B. Kwon is president of J.B.K. Wilshire Corp., and his wife Jin W. Kwon is president of Genwa, Inc. All entities and individuals are jointly and severally liable for the full citation amounts due.
Enforcement investigations typically include a payroll audit of the previous three years to determine minimum wage, overtime and other labor law violations, and calculate payments owed and penalties due.
When workers are paid less than minimum wage, they are entitled to liquidated damages that equal the amount of underpaid minimum wages plus interest. Waiting time penalties are imposed when the employer intentionally fails to pay all wages due to the employee at the time of separation. This penalty is calculated by taking the employee’s daily rate of pay and multiplying it by the number of days the employee was not paid, up to a maximum of 30 days.
Civil penalties collected are transferred to the state’s General Fund as required by law.
...
"Requiring restaurant workers to leave and return to work without proper split shift premiums is wage theft," said Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower. "This wage theft tactic and other labor law violations undermine workers and provide an unfair advantage over law-abiding restaurant employers."
The Labor Commissioner’s investigation began in August 2018 after workers contacted Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance and Bet Tzedek to report wage theft at both Genwa Korean BBQ locations. A payroll audit determined that full-time staff at both restaurants were deprived of wages by being forced to go off the clock for one hour up to three times a day during their 11-hour workday. None of the workers were provided proper rest or meal breaks as required by law. Nearly half of the workers were not paid the required minimum hourly wage, while more than half were shorted on overtime pay and not provided proper itemized wage statements. Servers were also forced to attend quarterly meetings without pay, even on their scheduled days off.
The Labor Commissioner’s Office on January 31 issued citations ordering J.B.K. Wilshire Corporation and Genwa, Inc. and corporate officers Jay and Jin Kwon pay a total of $1,428,759 in unpaid wages, overtime, split shift premiums, missed meal periods and rest breaks, liquidated damages and waiting time penalties for the affected employees. Both corporate entities and the officers were also fined $633,800 in civil penalties for the violations. The employers have appealed the citations.
"In cases where corporations commit wage theft, corporate officers can also be held personally liable for wages owed to their employees," Labor Commissioner García-Brower added.
Jay B. Kwon is president of J.B.K. Wilshire Corp., and his wife Jin W. Kwon is president of Genwa, Inc. All entities and individuals are jointly and severally liable for the full citation amounts due.
Enforcement investigations typically include a payroll audit of the previous three years to determine minimum wage, overtime and other labor law violations, and calculate payments owed and penalties due.
When workers are paid less than minimum wage, they are entitled to liquidated damages that equal the amount of underpaid minimum wages plus interest. Waiting time penalties are imposed when the employer intentionally fails to pay all wages due to the employee at the time of separation. This penalty is calculated by taking the employee’s daily rate of pay and multiplying it by the number of days the employee was not paid, up to a maximum of 30 days.
Civil penalties collected are transferred to the state’s General Fund as required by law.
...
Cal/OSHA’s regulations require protection for workers exposed to airborne infectious diseases such as COVID-19, first identified in Wuhan City, China in December 2019.
This interim guidance provides employers and workers in health care settings with vital information for preventing exposure to the virus. Employers and employees should review their own health and safety procedures as well as the recommendations and standards detailed below, to ensure workers are protected from COVID-19.
Cal/OSHA requires employers covered by the Aerosol Transmissible Diseases (ATD) Standard (California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 5199) to protect employees from airborne infectious diseases such as COVID-19 and pathogens transmitted by aerosols. The ATD Standard applies to:
1. Hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, clinics, medical offices, outpatient medical facilities, home health care, long-term health care facilities, hospices, medical outreach services, medical transport and emergency medical services
2. Certain laboratories, public health services and police services that are reasonably anticipated to expose employees to an aerosol transmissible disease.
3. Correctional facilities, homeless shelters, and drug treatment programs.
4. Any other locations when Cal/OSHA informs employers in writing that they must comply with the ATD Standard.
Cal/OSHA recommends employers not covered by the ATD Standard follow recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers to Plan and Respond to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), February 2020.
Although the scope of the ATD Standard is limited to certain employers, there are other Cal/OSHA regulations that apply to all employers. These may be applicable to protect employees from exposure to the coronavirus where there is a significant risk in the workplace.
All employers must have an IIPP (title 8 section 3203) to protect employees from workplace hazards. Employers are required to determine if COVID-19 infection is a hazard in their workplace. If it is a workplace hazard, then employers must:
-- Implement measures to prevent or reduce infection hazards, such as implementing the CDC recommended actions listed above
-- Provide training to employees on their COVID-19 infection prevention methods
Regardless of COVID-19 risk, all employers must provide washing facilities that have an adequate supply of suitable cleansing agents, water and single-use towels or blowers.
Title 8 section 3380 Personal Protective Devices requires employers to conduct a hazard assessment to determine if hazards are present in the workplace that necessitate the use of PPE. If an employer identifies COVID-19 as a workplace hazard, they must select and provide exposed employees with properly fitting PPE that will effectively protect employees ...
This interim guidance provides employers and workers in health care settings with vital information for preventing exposure to the virus. Employers and employees should review their own health and safety procedures as well as the recommendations and standards detailed below, to ensure workers are protected from COVID-19.
Cal/OSHA requires employers covered by the Aerosol Transmissible Diseases (ATD) Standard (California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 5199) to protect employees from airborne infectious diseases such as COVID-19 and pathogens transmitted by aerosols. The ATD Standard applies to:
1. Hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, clinics, medical offices, outpatient medical facilities, home health care, long-term health care facilities, hospices, medical outreach services, medical transport and emergency medical services
2. Certain laboratories, public health services and police services that are reasonably anticipated to expose employees to an aerosol transmissible disease.
3. Correctional facilities, homeless shelters, and drug treatment programs.
4. Any other locations when Cal/OSHA informs employers in writing that they must comply with the ATD Standard.
Cal/OSHA recommends employers not covered by the ATD Standard follow recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers to Plan and Respond to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), February 2020.
Although the scope of the ATD Standard is limited to certain employers, there are other Cal/OSHA regulations that apply to all employers. These may be applicable to protect employees from exposure to the coronavirus where there is a significant risk in the workplace.
All employers must have an IIPP (title 8 section 3203) to protect employees from workplace hazards. Employers are required to determine if COVID-19 infection is a hazard in their workplace. If it is a workplace hazard, then employers must:
-- Implement measures to prevent or reduce infection hazards, such as implementing the CDC recommended actions listed above
-- Provide training to employees on their COVID-19 infection prevention methods
Regardless of COVID-19 risk, all employers must provide washing facilities that have an adequate supply of suitable cleansing agents, water and single-use towels or blowers.
Title 8 section 3380 Personal Protective Devices requires employers to conduct a hazard assessment to determine if hazards are present in the workplace that necessitate the use of PPE. If an employer identifies COVID-19 as a workplace hazard, they must select and provide exposed employees with properly fitting PPE that will effectively protect employees ...
The Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office announced the conviction of a retired Foster Farms employee for workers’ compensation insurance fraud.
Gurmail Singh was employed in the processing facility for the company and reported an on the job injury in November of 2014. Singh filed a workers’ compensation claim and as a result, received medical treatment and workers’ compensation benefits.
He retired from Foster Farms in June of 2015 and continued to receive benefits.
During a subsequent investigation, it was alleged Singh presented false statements and material misrepresentations during his deposition and at a medical appointment. Singh misrepresented facts as it related to his physical abilities and limitations associated with his injury and prior medical history.
On February 28, 2020, Singh pleaded no contest to Insurance Fraud, in violation of Insurance Code section 1871.4(a)(2), in that he unlawfully and knowingly made a false and fraudulent material statement in support of obtaining workers’ compensation insurance benefits.
He was convicted and sentenced to three years probation and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $3,200 to Foster Farms for reimbursement of investigation costs.
This case was a joint investigation with Foster Farms’ Special Investigation Unit and the Amador County District Attorney’s Workers’ Compensation Fraud Unit.
The Fraud Unit investigates insurance fraud cases in Stanislaus County through a grant provided by the California Department of Insurance ...
Gurmail Singh was employed in the processing facility for the company and reported an on the job injury in November of 2014. Singh filed a workers’ compensation claim and as a result, received medical treatment and workers’ compensation benefits.
He retired from Foster Farms in June of 2015 and continued to receive benefits.
During a subsequent investigation, it was alleged Singh presented false statements and material misrepresentations during his deposition and at a medical appointment. Singh misrepresented facts as it related to his physical abilities and limitations associated with his injury and prior medical history.
On February 28, 2020, Singh pleaded no contest to Insurance Fraud, in violation of Insurance Code section 1871.4(a)(2), in that he unlawfully and knowingly made a false and fraudulent material statement in support of obtaining workers’ compensation insurance benefits.
He was convicted and sentenced to three years probation and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $3,200 to Foster Farms for reimbursement of investigation costs.
This case was a joint investigation with Foster Farms’ Special Investigation Unit and the Amador County District Attorney’s Workers’ Compensation Fraud Unit.
The Fraud Unit investigates insurance fraud cases in Stanislaus County through a grant provided by the California Department of Insurance ...
SpineFrontier is a medical technology company that designs, develops and markets both implants and instruments for spine surgery based on the Less Exposure Surgery (LES®). Since its founding in 2006, the company says it has launched 35 new products.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office is suing SpineFrontier and an associated consulting firm, Impartial Medical Experts (IME), as well as executives of both companies alleging they paid $8 million in kickbacks to induce surgeons to use the device company’s products.
Prosecutors also announced they had settled civil health care fraud claims against five physicians, each of whom admitted to seeking and obtaining kickbacks from SpineFrontier, via IME, for consulting work They did not perform.
Each physician also admitted that SpineFrontier, CEO Kingsley Chin, or CFO Aditya Humad specifically instructed them to bill "consulting" hours to SpineFrontier for each surgery in which they used a SpineFrontier device, regardless of whether they spent any time actually consulting.
The government alleges that SpineFrontier and IME paid more than $8 million in kickbacks to surgeons, which generated more than $100 million in revenue, with the vast majority of SpineFrontier's total domestic sales revenues coming from kickback-tainted surgeries.
Each of the five settling surgeons cooperated with the government’s investigation into the defendants, according to prosecutors, who said they took that cooperation into account in these settlements.
In connection with the filing of its complaint, the government intervened in two private whistleblower lawsuits that had been filed under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act. The cases are United States ex rel. Birchall v. SpineFrontier, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-12877 and United States ex rel. Miller & Bennett v. SpineFrontier, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-12908.
And SpineFrontier FDA compliance problems date back many years. One started when Patricia Katz, a new accountant with SpineFrontier, Inc., enrolled in two compliance classes. By the time this story ends, Katz is fired and suing her former employer under the whistleblower protection law.
Katz says she learned that the company’s lot tracking and tracing procedures violated federal safety regulations for medical devices. When reviewing usage forms, Katz said she immediately noticed that the lot numbers associated with SpineFrontier’s medical devices were rarely, if ever, recorded.
Katz sent an anonymous email to the FDA to determine whether or not SpineFrontier was in fact required to record lot numbers.
When she received confirmation from the FDA that what she had learned in compliance training was correct and that what she had been told by SpineFrontier officials was wrong, she forwarded her correspondence with an FDA agent to three company officials.
She alleges that the company, in spite of positive job performance reviews, fired her for that behavior ...
The U.S. Attorney’s Office is suing SpineFrontier and an associated consulting firm, Impartial Medical Experts (IME), as well as executives of both companies alleging they paid $8 million in kickbacks to induce surgeons to use the device company’s products.
Prosecutors also announced they had settled civil health care fraud claims against five physicians, each of whom admitted to seeking and obtaining kickbacks from SpineFrontier, via IME, for consulting work They did not perform.
Each physician also admitted that SpineFrontier, CEO Kingsley Chin, or CFO Aditya Humad specifically instructed them to bill "consulting" hours to SpineFrontier for each surgery in which they used a SpineFrontier device, regardless of whether they spent any time actually consulting.
The government alleges that SpineFrontier and IME paid more than $8 million in kickbacks to surgeons, which generated more than $100 million in revenue, with the vast majority of SpineFrontier's total domestic sales revenues coming from kickback-tainted surgeries.
Each of the five settling surgeons cooperated with the government’s investigation into the defendants, according to prosecutors, who said they took that cooperation into account in these settlements.
In connection with the filing of its complaint, the government intervened in two private whistleblower lawsuits that had been filed under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act. The cases are United States ex rel. Birchall v. SpineFrontier, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-12877 and United States ex rel. Miller & Bennett v. SpineFrontier, Inc. et al., No. 15-cv-12908.
And SpineFrontier FDA compliance problems date back many years. One started when Patricia Katz, a new accountant with SpineFrontier, Inc., enrolled in two compliance classes. By the time this story ends, Katz is fired and suing her former employer under the whistleblower protection law.
Katz says she learned that the company’s lot tracking and tracing procedures violated federal safety regulations for medical devices. When reviewing usage forms, Katz said she immediately noticed that the lot numbers associated with SpineFrontier’s medical devices were rarely, if ever, recorded.
Katz sent an anonymous email to the FDA to determine whether or not SpineFrontier was in fact required to record lot numbers.
When she received confirmation from the FDA that what she had learned in compliance training was correct and that what she had been told by SpineFrontier officials was wrong, she forwarded her correspondence with an FDA agent to three company officials.
She alleges that the company, in spite of positive job performance reviews, fired her for that behavior ...
According to a new Coventry whitepaper, engaging a pharmacy nurse as soon as potential risks are identified is the most proactive approach to patient education and safety.
Pharmacy nurses are specially trained case managers who focus on at-risk claims due to emerging and complex pharmacy utilization, and communicate with prescribing physicians, injured workers, and claims handlers to positively impact drug utilization.
By using a wider lens to manage all aspects of the claim, these nurses:
-- Ensure patient engagement, safety, and education.
-- Confirm pharmacy utilization is medically appropriate and supports a timely recovery.
-- Enable timely medical stability and return-to-work.
-- Consult with case managers when complex pharmacy issues are identified on open claims.
-- Provide consultation to claims handlers on pharmacy questions and issues.
-- Review monthly pharmacy trend reports.
-- Collaborate with clinical pharmacists on alternative medications.
-- Utilize drug utilization assessment (DUA) to assist in provider discussions.
A pharmacy nurse can work quickly to identify concerning medications to reduce the likelihood of addiction. During early narcotic intervention, pharmacy nurses can call the prescriber to discuss alternative treatment plans to influence future prescribing habits and decrease narcotic utilization.
From first opioid utilization through discontinuation, a pharmacy nurse can support patients at each step of therapy, advocating for the safe and effective discontinuation of opioids for injured workers.
For employers dealing with existing claims, pharmacy nurses can also step in and make significant impacts on older claims with sizeable pharmacy utilization. The nurse reviews the pharmacy history and collaborates with the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), provider, and injured worker to identify opportunities to reduce overall drug utilization while improving patient safety ...
Pharmacy nurses are specially trained case managers who focus on at-risk claims due to emerging and complex pharmacy utilization, and communicate with prescribing physicians, injured workers, and claims handlers to positively impact drug utilization.
By using a wider lens to manage all aspects of the claim, these nurses:
-- Ensure patient engagement, safety, and education.
-- Confirm pharmacy utilization is medically appropriate and supports a timely recovery.
-- Enable timely medical stability and return-to-work.
-- Consult with case managers when complex pharmacy issues are identified on open claims.
-- Provide consultation to claims handlers on pharmacy questions and issues.
-- Review monthly pharmacy trend reports.
-- Collaborate with clinical pharmacists on alternative medications.
-- Utilize drug utilization assessment (DUA) to assist in provider discussions.
A pharmacy nurse can work quickly to identify concerning medications to reduce the likelihood of addiction. During early narcotic intervention, pharmacy nurses can call the prescriber to discuss alternative treatment plans to influence future prescribing habits and decrease narcotic utilization.
From first opioid utilization through discontinuation, a pharmacy nurse can support patients at each step of therapy, advocating for the safe and effective discontinuation of opioids for injured workers.
For employers dealing with existing claims, pharmacy nurses can also step in and make significant impacts on older claims with sizeable pharmacy utilization. The nurse reviews the pharmacy history and collaborates with the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), provider, and injured worker to identify opportunities to reduce overall drug utilization while improving patient safety ...
Anna Vishnevsky, 52, of Valley Village, the former owner of a Studio City medical clinic was sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for causing more than $11.5 million in bills to be submitted to health care benefit programs for unnecessary - and sometimes nonexistent - sleep studies, primarily for employees of United Parcel Service, Inc., and Costco Wholesale Corp.
She was also ordered her to pay $2,747,071 in restitution.
Vishnevsky, who owned Atlas Diagnostic Services, Inc., pleaded guilty in November 2018 to one count of health care fraud.
From March 2014 until June 2016, Vishnevsky participated in a scheme to defraud health care benefit plans. Vishnevsky and others working at her direction recruited patients to participate in sleep study testing at Atlas by offering them cash. She also offered them additional cash if they brought in other sleep study participants, including their co-workers and relatives.
Vishnevsky recruited patients, knowing that no doctor had prescribed sleep study testing for them and regardless of whether the testing was medically necessary or appropriate. Vishnevsky did not score or interpret the data from the testing or send it to anyone who could score or interpret it, which is necessary for diagnosis and treatment.
She submitted insurance claims for sleep study testing performed on the recruited patients, listing physicians that had never treated the patients. She also billed not only for the one night of sleep study testing that the patients had purportedly undergone - regardless of medical necessity - but also for an additional, consecutive night of sleep study testing that was never performed.
In total, Vishnevsky submitted more than $11.5 million in fraudulent insurance claims to health care benefit plans. She received approximately $3 million on those claims, of which $2,747,071 is still outstanding.
A co-defendant, Eddie Hernandez, 46, of Torrance, pleaded guilty in November 2018 to one count of health care fraud and is serving a 30-month federal prison sentence in this case. Hernandez was a UPS driver who helped Vishnevsky recruit people to participate in the fraudulent sleep studies ...
She was also ordered her to pay $2,747,071 in restitution.
Vishnevsky, who owned Atlas Diagnostic Services, Inc., pleaded guilty in November 2018 to one count of health care fraud.
From March 2014 until June 2016, Vishnevsky participated in a scheme to defraud health care benefit plans. Vishnevsky and others working at her direction recruited patients to participate in sleep study testing at Atlas by offering them cash. She also offered them additional cash if they brought in other sleep study participants, including their co-workers and relatives.
Vishnevsky recruited patients, knowing that no doctor had prescribed sleep study testing for them and regardless of whether the testing was medically necessary or appropriate. Vishnevsky did not score or interpret the data from the testing or send it to anyone who could score or interpret it, which is necessary for diagnosis and treatment.
She submitted insurance claims for sleep study testing performed on the recruited patients, listing physicians that had never treated the patients. She also billed not only for the one night of sleep study testing that the patients had purportedly undergone - regardless of medical necessity - but also for an additional, consecutive night of sleep study testing that was never performed.
In total, Vishnevsky submitted more than $11.5 million in fraudulent insurance claims to health care benefit plans. She received approximately $3 million on those claims, of which $2,747,071 is still outstanding.
A co-defendant, Eddie Hernandez, 46, of Torrance, pleaded guilty in November 2018 to one count of health care fraud and is serving a 30-month federal prison sentence in this case. Hernandez was a UPS driver who helped Vishnevsky recruit people to participate in the fraudulent sleep studies ...
If the coronavirus continues to spread worldwide, insurers are likely to confront liability claims that span the spectrum of their insurance product lines. This issue was explored in part 3 of an article on this topic published in the National Law Review.
Workers’ compensation policies generally extend insurance benefits to employees for injuries "arising out of or in the course of employment." Workers’ compensation actions concerning the language often address whether the claimed injury is truly work-related, focusing on such factors related to the loss as its nature, the injured employee’s activity, the time and the location. Consequently, employees and employers whose work is related to coronavirus should maintain detailed records identifying potential exposures.
General Liability Insurance may also be subject to increased claims. Businesses, particularly those that open their doors to the general public, may find themselves targets of claims that their negligence led to the exposure and infection of clients:
-- Exposure resulting in bodily injury or property damage
-- Negligence related to visitors to businesses or locations such as offices, daycare centers, retail shops, hotels and places of worship
-- Product liability related to air filtration and recirculation, particularly in situations involving airplanes and hospitals
-- Personal injury involving occurrences such as wrongful eviction or imprisonment
-- Constitutional claims involving the quarantine or restriction of infected or exposed persons
-- Negligence or other liability suits against a company or organization that fails to implement a pandemic contingency plan.
Errors & Omissions (E&O) Insurance may also see the effects. There is an adage that the most likely place to get sick is in a hospital. Medical care and managed care providers purchase errors and omissions (E&O) insurance that provides coverage for bodily injury arising out of their providing or failing to provide medical care. While such policies generally preclude coverage for bodily injury to employees during the course of their employment (i.e., an employee being exposed to an infectious or contagious disease), such policies may respond to claims that a health care professional acted or failed to act in a manner that led to a patient (non-employee) contracting a coronavirus bodily injury.
And even Directors & Officers (D&O) Insurance may become involved. The coronavirus has roiled stock markets worldwide, resulting in ups and downs depending on whether the market perceives that the crisis is being managed appropriately and whether global supply chains will be impacted. Ultimately, how a company responds to the coronavirus may subject its directors and officers to the scrutiny of the company’s shareholders. Shareholder suits have become commonplace when market valuations are purported to have unreasonably dipped. In response to a coronavirus-based loss in value, shareholders may argue that the directors and officers committed acts or omissions responsible for the loss in valuation and, in turn, the loss befalling the individual shareholder ...
Workers’ compensation policies generally extend insurance benefits to employees for injuries "arising out of or in the course of employment." Workers’ compensation actions concerning the language often address whether the claimed injury is truly work-related, focusing on such factors related to the loss as its nature, the injured employee’s activity, the time and the location. Consequently, employees and employers whose work is related to coronavirus should maintain detailed records identifying potential exposures.
General Liability Insurance may also be subject to increased claims. Businesses, particularly those that open their doors to the general public, may find themselves targets of claims that their negligence led to the exposure and infection of clients:
-- Exposure resulting in bodily injury or property damage
-- Negligence related to visitors to businesses or locations such as offices, daycare centers, retail shops, hotels and places of worship
-- Product liability related to air filtration and recirculation, particularly in situations involving airplanes and hospitals
-- Personal injury involving occurrences such as wrongful eviction or imprisonment
-- Constitutional claims involving the quarantine or restriction of infected or exposed persons
-- Negligence or other liability suits against a company or organization that fails to implement a pandemic contingency plan.
Errors & Omissions (E&O) Insurance may also see the effects. There is an adage that the most likely place to get sick is in a hospital. Medical care and managed care providers purchase errors and omissions (E&O) insurance that provides coverage for bodily injury arising out of their providing or failing to provide medical care. While such policies generally preclude coverage for bodily injury to employees during the course of their employment (i.e., an employee being exposed to an infectious or contagious disease), such policies may respond to claims that a health care professional acted or failed to act in a manner that led to a patient (non-employee) contracting a coronavirus bodily injury.
And even Directors & Officers (D&O) Insurance may become involved. The coronavirus has roiled stock markets worldwide, resulting in ups and downs depending on whether the market perceives that the crisis is being managed appropriately and whether global supply chains will be impacted. Ultimately, how a company responds to the coronavirus may subject its directors and officers to the scrutiny of the company’s shareholders. Shareholder suits have become commonplace when market valuations are purported to have unreasonably dipped. In response to a coronavirus-based loss in value, shareholders may argue that the directors and officers committed acts or omissions responsible for the loss in valuation and, in turn, the loss befalling the individual shareholder ...
