A new FlashReport from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) finds that in most states, dermatological agents and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have become more important than other drug groups as a share of total prescription payments. The 28 states in the study include California.
"This study finds that prescription payments are decreasing in a majority of state workers’ compensation systems, but prescription payments continue to vary widely," said John Ruser, president and CEO of WCRI. "This study breaks prescription drugs into groups (dermatological agents, NSAIDs, opioids, compounds, etc.) so you can see where workers’ compensation prescribing dollars are being spent and whether spending for those groups of drugs is going up or down."
The following is an abbreviated list of the study’s other findings:
- - Dermatological agents: Per-claim payments varied widely, from $7 per claim in Iowa to $181 per claim in Illinois and $190 per claim in Louisiana in 2020Q1. Physician dispensing accounted for the majority of payments for the drug group in 12 of the 28 study states. Between 2017Q1 and 2020Q1, payment shares increased by more than 10 percentage points in 5 states (Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Virginia) and physician dispensing contributed to the rapid growth.
- - NSAIDS: Payment shares for this drug group changed little in many states, but per-claim payments varied widely in 2020Q1, from $21-$22 per claim in Delaware and Massachusetts to $126 per claim in Louisiana.
- - Anticonvulsants: Both payment share and per-claim payment for this group decreased in many states over the study period. The decrease happened mostly between 2019Q2 and 2019Q3, when generic formulations of Lyrica® became available.
- - Opioids: The substantial decline for opioids during the study period continues the declines seen in previous periods. The per-claim payments for opioids decreased by 56 percent in the typical state, and the rate of reduction ranged from 40 percent in Louisiana to 81 percent in California.
In the dermatological category, prescriptions for diclofenac sodium gel accounted for the majority of the prescriptions in the median state, Vennela Thumula, policy analyst for WCRI said, and lidocaine was also commonly prescribed.
While about 56% of the workers prescribed topical diclofenac had documented diagnoses of soft tissue injuries of joints - for which the drug is approved - about 40% of workers were using it for treatment not recommended, often for shoulder and back pain, she said.
Another cost driver in dermatologicals is private-label topicals, which are independently manufactured and not recommended by evidence-based guidelines and also have a much higher price tag compared to comparable products” approved by the Official Disability Guidelines Workers’ Compensation Drug Formulary, also known as ODG, Ms. Thumula said.
Among claims with topicals, private-label topicals are rarely dispensed in half of the study states, but at least a third of the claims have private-label topicals in Louisiana, New Mexico, Maryland, Illinois and South Carolina, and it’s even higher in Delaware,” she said ...
"This study finds that prescription payments are decreasing in a majority of state workers’ compensation systems, but prescription payments continue to vary widely," said John Ruser, president and CEO of WCRI. "This study breaks prescription drugs into groups (dermatological agents, NSAIDs, opioids, compounds, etc.) so you can see where workers’ compensation prescribing dollars are being spent and whether spending for those groups of drugs is going up or down."
The following is an abbreviated list of the study’s other findings:
- - Dermatological agents: Per-claim payments varied widely, from $7 per claim in Iowa to $181 per claim in Illinois and $190 per claim in Louisiana in 2020Q1. Physician dispensing accounted for the majority of payments for the drug group in 12 of the 28 study states. Between 2017Q1 and 2020Q1, payment shares increased by more than 10 percentage points in 5 states (Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Virginia) and physician dispensing contributed to the rapid growth.
- - NSAIDS: Payment shares for this drug group changed little in many states, but per-claim payments varied widely in 2020Q1, from $21-$22 per claim in Delaware and Massachusetts to $126 per claim in Louisiana.
- - Anticonvulsants: Both payment share and per-claim payment for this group decreased in many states over the study period. The decrease happened mostly between 2019Q2 and 2019Q3, when generic formulations of Lyrica® became available.
- - Opioids: The substantial decline for opioids during the study period continues the declines seen in previous periods. The per-claim payments for opioids decreased by 56 percent in the typical state, and the rate of reduction ranged from 40 percent in Louisiana to 81 percent in California.
In the dermatological category, prescriptions for diclofenac sodium gel accounted for the majority of the prescriptions in the median state, Vennela Thumula, policy analyst for WCRI said, and lidocaine was also commonly prescribed.
While about 56% of the workers prescribed topical diclofenac had documented diagnoses of soft tissue injuries of joints - for which the drug is approved - about 40% of workers were using it for treatment not recommended, often for shoulder and back pain, she said.
Another cost driver in dermatologicals is private-label topicals, which are independently manufactured and not recommended by evidence-based guidelines and also have a much higher price tag compared to comparable products” approved by the Official Disability Guidelines Workers’ Compensation Drug Formulary, also known as ODG, Ms. Thumula said.
Among claims with topicals, private-label topicals are rarely dispensed in half of the study states, but at least a third of the claims have private-label topicals in Louisiana, New Mexico, Maryland, Illinois and South Carolina, and it’s even higher in Delaware,” she said ...
On May 19, 2021, the eve of a vote by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board to adopt proposed substantial changes to the existing Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS), Eric Berg, Deputy Chief of Cal/OSHA, asked that the Standards Board not vote the next day, on May 20, 2021, to adopt Cal/OSHA’s proposed ETS revisions.
Berg asked that the Standards Board allow Cal/OSHA to present a new proposal at a future meeting with a targeted effective date of June 15, 2021, for its new proposal.
May 13, 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its guidance to allow fully-vaccinated individuals to forego masks in some situations.
Cal/OSHA also explained that four days after the CDC’s announcement, on May 17, 2021, the California Health & Human Services Agency secretary had expressed that California intended to implement the CDC’s masking guidance on June 15, 2021. This is the same date that Governor Newsom announced as the state’s goal for reopening California’s economy fully.
However, labor officials and worker advocates are pushing back against adoption of the loosened masking guidance for fully vaccinated individuals.
Cal/OSHA had published the draft ETS proposal on May 7, 2021. Labor law lawyers say that these new developments appear to be the reason that Cal/OSHA asked that the Standards Board not adopt the draft ETS proposal on May 20, 2021. Given the recent CDC guidance and California’s impending reopening, Cal/OSHA appears to be reconsidering the proposal it wishes to present to the Standards Board.
For now, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) recommends that while we wait for new proposed revisions to Cal/OSHA's ETS, it is important to remember that California employers are still under the current safety standard - which makes no accommodation for fully vaccinated employees when it comes to masking.
The only loosened restriction that California employers may currently follow is the updated guidance easing quarantine restrictions for fully vaccinated asymptomatic employees in non-healthcare workplaces ...
Berg asked that the Standards Board allow Cal/OSHA to present a new proposal at a future meeting with a targeted effective date of June 15, 2021, for its new proposal.
May 13, 2021, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its guidance to allow fully-vaccinated individuals to forego masks in some situations.
Cal/OSHA also explained that four days after the CDC’s announcement, on May 17, 2021, the California Health & Human Services Agency secretary had expressed that California intended to implement the CDC’s masking guidance on June 15, 2021. This is the same date that Governor Newsom announced as the state’s goal for reopening California’s economy fully.
However, labor officials and worker advocates are pushing back against adoption of the loosened masking guidance for fully vaccinated individuals.
Cal/OSHA had published the draft ETS proposal on May 7, 2021. Labor law lawyers say that these new developments appear to be the reason that Cal/OSHA asked that the Standards Board not adopt the draft ETS proposal on May 20, 2021. Given the recent CDC guidance and California’s impending reopening, Cal/OSHA appears to be reconsidering the proposal it wishes to present to the Standards Board.
For now, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) recommends that while we wait for new proposed revisions to Cal/OSHA's ETS, it is important to remember that California employers are still under the current safety standard - which makes no accommodation for fully vaccinated employees when it comes to masking.
The only loosened restriction that California employers may currently follow is the updated guidance easing quarantine restrictions for fully vaccinated asymptomatic employees in non-healthcare workplaces ...
Cal/OSHA has cited Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. in Livingston (Foster Farms) and four staffing agencies for not protecting workers from COVID-19.
Cal/OSHA opened its inspection after receiving notification that an employee had died from COVID-19 complications, and subsequently determined that Foster Farms and one of its staffing agencies did not timely report the COVID-19 fatality as required.
Cal/OSHA also opened a separate inspection at the facility’s distribution center. Foster Farms utilized employees from the following staffing agencies that were also cited for COVID-19 violations.
- - Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. - (Poultry Plant) - $103,100.
- - Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. - (Distribution Center) - $78,400.
- - Human Bees, Inc., DBA Human Bees - (Staffing) - $41,000.
- - Marcos Renteria Ag Services, Inc. - (Staffing) - $36,000.
- - Intermountain Employment Services, DBA Ascend - (Staffing) - $18,000.
- - Staffing Solutions Inc. DBA Balance - (Staffing) - $16,200.
Cal/OSHA cited Foster Farms $103,100, for five serious, one repeat regulatory, and two regulatory violations at its Livingston plant; and $78,400 for three serious, one repeat regulatory, and two regulatory violations at the distribution center.
Regulatory violations were issued in both Foster Farms inspections and to Human Bees, Inc. for their failure to timely report work-related fatalities. Additionally, Cal/OSHA issued serious violations related to their Injury and Illness Prevention Programs many of which stemmed from failing to properly communicate, assess, correct, and train on COVID-19 workplace hazards.
The third serious violation at the plant was cited for a blocked eyewash station.
A full list of employers cited for COVID-19 violations is posted on Cal/OSHA’s website ...
Cal/OSHA opened its inspection after receiving notification that an employee had died from COVID-19 complications, and subsequently determined that Foster Farms and one of its staffing agencies did not timely report the COVID-19 fatality as required.
Cal/OSHA also opened a separate inspection at the facility’s distribution center. Foster Farms utilized employees from the following staffing agencies that were also cited for COVID-19 violations.
- - Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. - (Poultry Plant) - $103,100.
- - Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. - (Distribution Center) - $78,400.
- - Human Bees, Inc., DBA Human Bees - (Staffing) - $41,000.
- - Marcos Renteria Ag Services, Inc. - (Staffing) - $36,000.
- - Intermountain Employment Services, DBA Ascend - (Staffing) - $18,000.
- - Staffing Solutions Inc. DBA Balance - (Staffing) - $16,200.
Cal/OSHA cited Foster Farms $103,100, for five serious, one repeat regulatory, and two regulatory violations at its Livingston plant; and $78,400 for three serious, one repeat regulatory, and two regulatory violations at the distribution center.
Regulatory violations were issued in both Foster Farms inspections and to Human Bees, Inc. for their failure to timely report work-related fatalities. Additionally, Cal/OSHA issued serious violations related to their Injury and Illness Prevention Programs many of which stemmed from failing to properly communicate, assess, correct, and train on COVID-19 workplace hazards.
The third serious violation at the plant was cited for a blocked eyewash station.
A full list of employers cited for COVID-19 violations is posted on Cal/OSHA’s website ...
Charles Hart worked for Town Los Gatos as an engineering inspector.
On August 19, 2003, while inspecting a construction site, Hart slipped, fell onto a pile of rebar, and injured his lower back. Town accepted liability for the claim. Hart was off work for eight days - from August 20 until August 27, 2003 - and returned to work on full duty. Hart was off work again for 30 days in 2004 - from July 10 until August 8, 2004 - and returned to work on full duty. Hart continued to work for Town until he retired on December 11, 2009, at age 68.
The case went to trial before a WCJ in 2017. Since Hart’s date of injury and the last day for which TD benefits had been paid were both before January 1, 2005, the WCJ held that Hart’s PD was to be rated under the 1997 permanent disability rating schedule, which is not based on the Guides and relies on a different system to rate work related impairments.
Hart’s vocational rehabilitation expert opined that Hart was unable to obtain and sustainably retain competitive gainful employment and that he was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation services.
The WCJ found the injury caused 100 percent PD and awarded Hart total PD payments of $602 per week for life. Since he was injured after January 1, 2003 and was awarded 100 percent PD, the WCJ found that Hart was entitled to annual COLA’s on his total PD benefits, permanent and stationary in May 2011, his first COLA was due on January 1, 2012 and every January 1 thereafter.
The WCJ cited Duncan v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1009 (Duncan) in support of his COLA award which was, overruled in by the California Supreme Court in Baker Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011), 52 Cal.4th 434 at page 437. eight years before the WCJ made his award.
Town petitioned for reconsideration, and argued that the WCJ erred in ordering the COLA to start on January 1, 2012 and that the correct start date for the COLA was January 1, 2017 (the January 1st after Hart’s TD benefits ended and he became entitled to receive total PD benefits). Reconsideration of this issue was denied with the WCAB failing to discuss the effect of Baker overruling Duncan.
The Court of Appeal Reversed in the unpublished case of Town of Los Gatos v W.C.A.B.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the "WCAB’s decision regarding the start date for the section 4659 COLA’s was clearly erroneous." Based on the plain language of section 4659(c), the Supreme Court held that to "receive the benefit of a COLA on any given January 1, a worker who has sustained an industrial injury must meet two conditions.
First, he or she must have been injured ‘on or after January 1, 2003 . . . .’ " (Baker, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 443, quoting § 4659(c).) Hart meets that condition since he was injured on August 19, 2003. Second, the injured worker "must ‘become entitled to receive a life pension or total permanent disability indemnity . . .’ " (Baker, at p. 443.)
"Town argues that the WCAB erred by failing to follow binding Supreme Court precedent in Baker. We agree. Indeed, as noted, rather than cite Baker in his opinion on decision in 2020, the WCJ relied on Duncan, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th 1009, which was superseded by a grant of review in 2010 and overruled in Baker in 2011. Even after that error was briefed by Town in its petition for reconsideration, the WCJ (and the WCAB) continued to ignore Baker. " ...
On August 19, 2003, while inspecting a construction site, Hart slipped, fell onto a pile of rebar, and injured his lower back. Town accepted liability for the claim. Hart was off work for eight days - from August 20 until August 27, 2003 - and returned to work on full duty. Hart was off work again for 30 days in 2004 - from July 10 until August 8, 2004 - and returned to work on full duty. Hart continued to work for Town until he retired on December 11, 2009, at age 68.
The case went to trial before a WCJ in 2017. Since Hart’s date of injury and the last day for which TD benefits had been paid were both before January 1, 2005, the WCJ held that Hart’s PD was to be rated under the 1997 permanent disability rating schedule, which is not based on the Guides and relies on a different system to rate work related impairments.
Hart’s vocational rehabilitation expert opined that Hart was unable to obtain and sustainably retain competitive gainful employment and that he was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation services.
The WCJ found the injury caused 100 percent PD and awarded Hart total PD payments of $602 per week for life. Since he was injured after January 1, 2003 and was awarded 100 percent PD, the WCJ found that Hart was entitled to annual COLA’s on his total PD benefits, permanent and stationary in May 2011, his first COLA was due on January 1, 2012 and every January 1 thereafter.
The WCJ cited Duncan v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1009 (Duncan) in support of his COLA award which was, overruled in by the California Supreme Court in Baker Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2011), 52 Cal.4th 434 at page 437. eight years before the WCJ made his award.
Town petitioned for reconsideration, and argued that the WCJ erred in ordering the COLA to start on January 1, 2012 and that the correct start date for the COLA was January 1, 2017 (the January 1st after Hart’s TD benefits ended and he became entitled to receive total PD benefits). Reconsideration of this issue was denied with the WCAB failing to discuss the effect of Baker overruling Duncan.
The Court of Appeal Reversed in the unpublished case of Town of Los Gatos v W.C.A.B.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the "WCAB’s decision regarding the start date for the section 4659 COLA’s was clearly erroneous." Based on the plain language of section 4659(c), the Supreme Court held that to "receive the benefit of a COLA on any given January 1, a worker who has sustained an industrial injury must meet two conditions.
First, he or she must have been injured ‘on or after January 1, 2003 . . . .’ " (Baker, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 443, quoting § 4659(c).) Hart meets that condition since he was injured on August 19, 2003. Second, the injured worker "must ‘become entitled to receive a life pension or total permanent disability indemnity . . .’ " (Baker, at p. 443.)
"Town argues that the WCAB erred by failing to follow binding Supreme Court precedent in Baker. We agree. Indeed, as noted, rather than cite Baker in his opinion on decision in 2020, the WCJ relied on Duncan, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th 1009, which was superseded by a grant of review in 2010 and overruled in Baker in 2011. Even after that error was briefed by Town in its petition for reconsideration, the WCJ (and the WCAB) continued to ignore Baker. " ...
An orthopedic surgeon was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for accepting nearly $623,000 in bribes and kickbacks in exchange for referring his patients to receive spinal surgeries at a corrupt Long Beach hospital.
Dr. Jeffrey David Gross, 55, who resides in Dana Point and Las Vegas, was sentenced by United States District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who also ordered him to forfeit $622,936. Gross pleaded guilty in August 2020 to one felony count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail and wire fraud.
The kickback scheme centered on Pacific Hospital in Long Beach, which specialized in surgeries, especially spinal and orthopedic procedures. The owner of Pacific Hospital, Michael D. Drobot, conspired with doctors, chiropractors and marketers to pay kickbacks in return for the referral of thousands of patients to Pacific Hospital for spinal surgeries and other medical services paid for primarily through the California workers’ compensation system.
During its final five years, the scheme resulted in the submission of more than $500 million in fraudulent medical bills. To date, 15 defendants have been convicted for participating in the kickback scheme.
From 2008 to 2013, Gross, a licensed neurosurgeon who operated Oasis Medical Providers Inc. in Laguna Niguel, agreed with Drobot to participate in a scheme to defraud patients of their right to honest services by accepting bribes and kickbacks that were paid to induce Gross to refer patients to Pacific Hospital for spinal surgeries and other medical services.
In February 2008, Gross agreed with Drobot to sublease Oasis’s medical office space to a Pacific Hospital-affiliated company, Pacific Specialty Physician Management Inc. (PSPM), in return for monthly payments of $15,000. In November 2008, Gross entered into an option contract with PSPM in which Oasis was paid $15,000 per month to purchase the accounts receivable and all other tangible assets of Oasis.
For both the sublease and option agreements, Gross knew and understood that one purpose of the agreements was to induce him to bring certain spinal surgery patients to Pacific Hospital, though that information wasn’t specified on the lease agreement, nor did Gross disclose that information to his patients.
PSPM paid Oasis $145,000 under the sublease agreement and $105,000 under the option agreement.
In April 2009, Gross entered into an outsourced collections agreement with Pacific Hospital that called for him to assist with collections on some of the spinal surgery cases that he performed at that hospital in exchange for 15 percent of any amounts the hospital collected in relation to those surgeries. This agreement, later amended, called for Gross to be paid 10 percent of the collected amount on other outpatient surgeries. During surgeries, if Gross used hardware from International Implants (I2), a Drobot-formed hardware distribution company, he was advanced $5,000 regardless of subsequent collections. Once again, Gross did not disclose this information to his patients. Pacific Hospital paid Oasis $372,936 under this agreement.
In total, between April 2008 and May 2013, Drobot paid Gross $622,936 pursuant to these agreements. During the same period, Gross referred dozens of patients to Pacific Hospital for spinal surgeries based in part on payments made to him under those agreements ...
Dr. Jeffrey David Gross, 55, who resides in Dana Point and Las Vegas, was sentenced by United States District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who also ordered him to forfeit $622,936. Gross pleaded guilty in August 2020 to one felony count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail and wire fraud.
The kickback scheme centered on Pacific Hospital in Long Beach, which specialized in surgeries, especially spinal and orthopedic procedures. The owner of Pacific Hospital, Michael D. Drobot, conspired with doctors, chiropractors and marketers to pay kickbacks in return for the referral of thousands of patients to Pacific Hospital for spinal surgeries and other medical services paid for primarily through the California workers’ compensation system.
During its final five years, the scheme resulted in the submission of more than $500 million in fraudulent medical bills. To date, 15 defendants have been convicted for participating in the kickback scheme.
From 2008 to 2013, Gross, a licensed neurosurgeon who operated Oasis Medical Providers Inc. in Laguna Niguel, agreed with Drobot to participate in a scheme to defraud patients of their right to honest services by accepting bribes and kickbacks that were paid to induce Gross to refer patients to Pacific Hospital for spinal surgeries and other medical services.
In February 2008, Gross agreed with Drobot to sublease Oasis’s medical office space to a Pacific Hospital-affiliated company, Pacific Specialty Physician Management Inc. (PSPM), in return for monthly payments of $15,000. In November 2008, Gross entered into an option contract with PSPM in which Oasis was paid $15,000 per month to purchase the accounts receivable and all other tangible assets of Oasis.
For both the sublease and option agreements, Gross knew and understood that one purpose of the agreements was to induce him to bring certain spinal surgery patients to Pacific Hospital, though that information wasn’t specified on the lease agreement, nor did Gross disclose that information to his patients.
PSPM paid Oasis $145,000 under the sublease agreement and $105,000 under the option agreement.
In April 2009, Gross entered into an outsourced collections agreement with Pacific Hospital that called for him to assist with collections on some of the spinal surgery cases that he performed at that hospital in exchange for 15 percent of any amounts the hospital collected in relation to those surgeries. This agreement, later amended, called for Gross to be paid 10 percent of the collected amount on other outpatient surgeries. During surgeries, if Gross used hardware from International Implants (I2), a Drobot-formed hardware distribution company, he was advanced $5,000 regardless of subsequent collections. Once again, Gross did not disclose this information to his patients. Pacific Hospital paid Oasis $372,936 under this agreement.
In total, between April 2008 and May 2013, Drobot paid Gross $622,936 pursuant to these agreements. During the same period, Gross referred dozens of patients to Pacific Hospital for spinal surgeries based in part on payments made to him under those agreements ...
Christopher Renfro filed suit against numerous defendants primarily for injuries he allegedly sustained after being exposed to agricultural chemicals while employed as a truck driver.
He sued his former employer, Young’s Commercial Transfer, Inc. (YCT), as well as a host of other defendants who were involved in the application of the chemicals. These other defendants are Lakeland Aviation, Inc.; Erik J. Hansen; H&G Farms, Inc.; J.G. Boswell Co.; J.G. Boswell Tomato Co-Kings; and J.G. Boswell Tomato Co-Kern.
He contended that during his employment, YCT on multiple occasions sent him to pick up loads of tomatoes in an area where the Applicators were applying agricultural chemicals to fields via an airplane. YCT allegedly should have known of the Applicators’ crop-dusting activities. Renfro claimed his exposure to the chemicals caused multiple injuries, including injuries to his nervous system and internal organs, vision impairment, and memory loss.
YCT was represented by one law firm, and the Applicators were represented collectively by another firm. In addition to the personal injury-related claims, Renfro alleged various labor and employment-related causes of action.
The trial court granted YCT’s demurrer to Renfro’s third amended complaint, Renfro was allowed leave to amend only as to his non-personal injury causes of action. Renfro failed to file a fourth amended complaint within the time allowed. motions were brought by ex parte application. The court entered judgments of dismissal for the defendants, and Renfro appeals from both judgments.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal in the unpublished case of Renfro v. J.G. Boswell Co.
A plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified by the trial court after a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend subjects the action to dismissal "in the court’s discretion under section 581, subdivision (f)(2)."
Rule 3.1320(g) affords a plaintiff 10 days’ leave to amend their complaint following a ruling on a demurrer unless otherwise ordered. Section 1013, subdivision (c), provides, as relevant here, that service by Express Mail is deemed complete at the time the notice is deposited for pick up and extends any period of notice by two court days. As such, Renfro had 10 days plus two court days from April 10 - the date the order was deposited in the mail for delivery via Express Mail - to file his fourth amended complaint. The deadline was therefore April 24.
Rule 3.1320(h) authorizes a section 581, subdivision (f)(2), motion to be made by ex parte application ...
He sued his former employer, Young’s Commercial Transfer, Inc. (YCT), as well as a host of other defendants who were involved in the application of the chemicals. These other defendants are Lakeland Aviation, Inc.; Erik J. Hansen; H&G Farms, Inc.; J.G. Boswell Co.; J.G. Boswell Tomato Co-Kings; and J.G. Boswell Tomato Co-Kern.
He contended that during his employment, YCT on multiple occasions sent him to pick up loads of tomatoes in an area where the Applicators were applying agricultural chemicals to fields via an airplane. YCT allegedly should have known of the Applicators’ crop-dusting activities. Renfro claimed his exposure to the chemicals caused multiple injuries, including injuries to his nervous system and internal organs, vision impairment, and memory loss.
YCT was represented by one law firm, and the Applicators were represented collectively by another firm. In addition to the personal injury-related claims, Renfro alleged various labor and employment-related causes of action.
The trial court granted YCT’s demurrer to Renfro’s third amended complaint, Renfro was allowed leave to amend only as to his non-personal injury causes of action. Renfro failed to file a fourth amended complaint within the time allowed. motions were brought by ex parte application. The court entered judgments of dismissal for the defendants, and Renfro appeals from both judgments.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal in the unpublished case of Renfro v. J.G. Boswell Co.
A plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified by the trial court after a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend subjects the action to dismissal "in the court’s discretion under section 581, subdivision (f)(2)."
Rule 3.1320(g) affords a plaintiff 10 days’ leave to amend their complaint following a ruling on a demurrer unless otherwise ordered. Section 1013, subdivision (c), provides, as relevant here, that service by Express Mail is deemed complete at the time the notice is deposited for pick up and extends any period of notice by two court days. As such, Renfro had 10 days plus two court days from April 10 - the date the order was deposited in the mail for delivery via Express Mail - to file his fourth amended complaint. The deadline was therefore April 24.
Rule 3.1320(h) authorizes a section 581, subdivision (f)(2), motion to be made by ex parte application ...
State Compensation Insurance Fund announced that construction has begun on an extensive sustainability and solar energy program that includes solar, electric vehicle charging stations and energy storage at seven locations throughout California.
Designed and constructed by ENGIE North America, through its affiliate ENGIE Services U.S. Inc., and JLL, State Fund will install 9.8 MW of solar, 2 MW/4.3 MWh of energy storage and 150 Level II and DC charging stations, offsetting nearly 230,000 metric tons of green-house-gas emissions over a 20-year period and saving nearly $65,000,000 in energy costs over the life of the project.
"Breaking ground on this project is a huge step forward in our drive to reduce our use of fossil fuels, limit the load we place on local and statewide electrical grids, and improve air quality throughout California," said Andreas Acker, Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer at State Fund. "Increasing our efforts and investments around sustainability initiatives will bring a number of benefits to our customers, employees, and California as a whole."
The State Fund construction sites are located in Vacaville, Pleasanton, Redding, Fresno, Bakersfield, Sacramento and Riverside. The portfolio of solar projects is projected to produce 311 GWh over 20 years, enough to power more than 26,500 homes, and provide a reduction in CO2 emissions equivalent to taking 47,000 gas vehicles off the road.
"In addition to supporting State Fund’s greater environmental strategy, the construction helps the California economy during this critical time for recovery after the pandemic," said Courtney Jenkins, General Manager and Vice President for Cities & Communities at ENGIE North America. "State Fund is truly a partner that aligns with ENGIE’s mission to help our customers decarbonize and optimize energy use."
State Fund’s EV charging stations will be available to its employees and used by the company’s fleet vehicles. State Fund’s fleet currently includes eight battery electric vehicles, three of which are new long-range BEVs that allow employees to travel between State Fund locations while lowering their reliance on fossil fuels.
"JLL is proud to play an active role in initiatives that support adoption of renewable and sustainable energy like State Fund’s, a trend whose adoption is quickly accelerating," said Kyle Goehring, Executive Vice President, JLL Clean Energy Solutions. "As a global company, we have an inherent responsibility to drive sustainability and corporate social responsibility efforts. We embrace technology to meet the needs of today and opportunities of tomorrow." ...
Designed and constructed by ENGIE North America, through its affiliate ENGIE Services U.S. Inc., and JLL, State Fund will install 9.8 MW of solar, 2 MW/4.3 MWh of energy storage and 150 Level II and DC charging stations, offsetting nearly 230,000 metric tons of green-house-gas emissions over a 20-year period and saving nearly $65,000,000 in energy costs over the life of the project.
"Breaking ground on this project is a huge step forward in our drive to reduce our use of fossil fuels, limit the load we place on local and statewide electrical grids, and improve air quality throughout California," said Andreas Acker, Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer at State Fund. "Increasing our efforts and investments around sustainability initiatives will bring a number of benefits to our customers, employees, and California as a whole."
The State Fund construction sites are located in Vacaville, Pleasanton, Redding, Fresno, Bakersfield, Sacramento and Riverside. The portfolio of solar projects is projected to produce 311 GWh over 20 years, enough to power more than 26,500 homes, and provide a reduction in CO2 emissions equivalent to taking 47,000 gas vehicles off the road.
"In addition to supporting State Fund’s greater environmental strategy, the construction helps the California economy during this critical time for recovery after the pandemic," said Courtney Jenkins, General Manager and Vice President for Cities & Communities at ENGIE North America. "State Fund is truly a partner that aligns with ENGIE’s mission to help our customers decarbonize and optimize energy use."
State Fund’s EV charging stations will be available to its employees and used by the company’s fleet vehicles. State Fund’s fleet currently includes eight battery electric vehicles, three of which are new long-range BEVs that allow employees to travel between State Fund locations while lowering their reliance on fossil fuels.
"JLL is proud to play an active role in initiatives that support adoption of renewable and sustainable energy like State Fund’s, a trend whose adoption is quickly accelerating," said Kyle Goehring, Executive Vice President, JLL Clean Energy Solutions. "As a global company, we have an inherent responsibility to drive sustainability and corporate social responsibility efforts. We embrace technology to meet the needs of today and opportunities of tomorrow." ...
A series of proposals under consideration by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors aim to rein in workplace abuses that disproportionately impact immigrant workers in many of the same industries identified during the pandemic as essential.
According to the report in Voice of San Diego, elected officials directed county staff in March to come up with an ordinance that requires subcontractors on development projects approved by the county to publicly disclose more information, including proof that they have workers’ compensation insurance.
In May, Chairman Nathan Fletcher also recommended the creation of a new Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement to "correct patterns we see over and over again" in workplaces.
Labor leaders and workers told Voice of San Diego they’ve seen or experienced exploitation that includes not being paid for all the hours they worked and not being allowed to take days off when sick or injured.
The task of documenting such abuses has typically fallen on advocacy groups and unions, not law enforcement. With both proposals, though, the county is signaling that it’s taking workplace violations more seriously and trying to serve as a bridge between prosecutors and workers who often feel they can’t come forward because it might get them fired or even deported.
The construction industry relies heavily on unauthorized immigrants as workers, said Kimberley Robidoux, a local attorney who works on immigration employment matters with companies.
In other industries, like agriculture, there have even been documented abuses of workers with visas, which led the U.S. Government Accountability Office to call for increased protections of foreign workers.
A janitorial company, Prizm Janitorial Services, has also come under fire locally for wage theft - and it did so while under city contract.
A 2016 audit of Prizm found the city had paid Prizm roughly $600,000 for janitorial services, inewsource reported, but its payroll records showed it only paid its workers about $200,000.
The company, according to the audit, required workers to get their own business licenses, so they could be classified as independent contractors. The audit also found the company paid some employees in cash with handmade receipts for which it couldn’t provide stubs. Employees weren’t given sick leave or paid overtime.
In addition to the efforts at the county to make contracting more transparent, there’s also an effort in the Legislature to punish employers who intentionally steal from their workers. A bill written by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez would make employers criminally liable for wage theft totaling $950 during a consecutive 12-month period. The California Chamber of Commerce, a statewide business group, was initially against the bill, but dropped its opposition last month at a hearing.
One notable study in 2008 surveyed more than 4,000 workers in the three biggest labor markets: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. It found that the core protections many Americans take for granted - including access to workers’ compensation when injured - barely exist in retail, restaurants, home health care and construction, to name a few ...
According to the report in Voice of San Diego, elected officials directed county staff in March to come up with an ordinance that requires subcontractors on development projects approved by the county to publicly disclose more information, including proof that they have workers’ compensation insurance.
In May, Chairman Nathan Fletcher also recommended the creation of a new Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement to "correct patterns we see over and over again" in workplaces.
Labor leaders and workers told Voice of San Diego they’ve seen or experienced exploitation that includes not being paid for all the hours they worked and not being allowed to take days off when sick or injured.
The task of documenting such abuses has typically fallen on advocacy groups and unions, not law enforcement. With both proposals, though, the county is signaling that it’s taking workplace violations more seriously and trying to serve as a bridge between prosecutors and workers who often feel they can’t come forward because it might get them fired or even deported.
The construction industry relies heavily on unauthorized immigrants as workers, said Kimberley Robidoux, a local attorney who works on immigration employment matters with companies.
In other industries, like agriculture, there have even been documented abuses of workers with visas, which led the U.S. Government Accountability Office to call for increased protections of foreign workers.
A janitorial company, Prizm Janitorial Services, has also come under fire locally for wage theft - and it did so while under city contract.
A 2016 audit of Prizm found the city had paid Prizm roughly $600,000 for janitorial services, inewsource reported, but its payroll records showed it only paid its workers about $200,000.
The company, according to the audit, required workers to get their own business licenses, so they could be classified as independent contractors. The audit also found the company paid some employees in cash with handmade receipts for which it couldn’t provide stubs. Employees weren’t given sick leave or paid overtime.
In addition to the efforts at the county to make contracting more transparent, there’s also an effort in the Legislature to punish employers who intentionally steal from their workers. A bill written by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez would make employers criminally liable for wage theft totaling $950 during a consecutive 12-month period. The California Chamber of Commerce, a statewide business group, was initially against the bill, but dropped its opposition last month at a hearing.
One notable study in 2008 surveyed more than 4,000 workers in the three biggest labor markets: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. It found that the core protections many Americans take for granted - including access to workers’ compensation when injured - barely exist in retail, restaurants, home health care and construction, to name a few ...
The Workers Compensation Research Institute released an updated version of its study that helps compare prices paid for medical professional services across 36 states and monitor price changes from 2008 to 2020, which includes the beginning months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
"The study shows how prices paid for these services compare across states, how the prices have changed, and whether price growth is part of a broader phenomenon or unique to a state. The study also discusses the price comparison results and price trends in relation to the principal policy mechanism for regulating prices - fee schedules," said Ramona Tanabe, WCRI’s executive vice president and counsel.
The study, WCRI Medical Price Index for Workers’ Compensation, 13th Edition (MPI-WC), focuses on professional services (evaluation and management, physical medicine, surgery, major and minor radiology, neurological testing, pain management injections, and emergency care) billed by physicians, physical therapists, and chiropractors. The following are among the study’s findings:
- - Prices paid for a similar set of professional services varied significantly across states, ranging from 29 percent below the 36-state median in Florida to 167 percent above the 36-state median in Wisconsin in 2020.
- - States with no fee schedules for professional services had higher prices paid compared with states with fee schedules - 44 to 179 percent higher than the median of the study states with fee schedules in 2020.
- - Most states with no fee schedules experienced faster growth in prices paid for professional services compared with states with fee schedules—the median growth rate among the non-fee schedule states was 37 percent from 2008 to 2020, compared with the median growth rate of 9 percent among the fee schedule states.
- - Eight study states (Arizona, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia) had substantial changes (i.e., an increase or a decrease of 10 percent or more) in overall prices paid following major fee schedule changes during the study period.
This edition covers 36 states that represent 88 percent of the workers’ compensation benefits paid in the United States. These states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The authors of this study are Dr. Rebecca Yang and Dr. Olesya Fomenko. To download a FREE copy of this report, visit WCRI’s website ...
"The study shows how prices paid for these services compare across states, how the prices have changed, and whether price growth is part of a broader phenomenon or unique to a state. The study also discusses the price comparison results and price trends in relation to the principal policy mechanism for regulating prices - fee schedules," said Ramona Tanabe, WCRI’s executive vice president and counsel.
The study, WCRI Medical Price Index for Workers’ Compensation, 13th Edition (MPI-WC), focuses on professional services (evaluation and management, physical medicine, surgery, major and minor radiology, neurological testing, pain management injections, and emergency care) billed by physicians, physical therapists, and chiropractors. The following are among the study’s findings:
- - Prices paid for a similar set of professional services varied significantly across states, ranging from 29 percent below the 36-state median in Florida to 167 percent above the 36-state median in Wisconsin in 2020.
- - States with no fee schedules for professional services had higher prices paid compared with states with fee schedules - 44 to 179 percent higher than the median of the study states with fee schedules in 2020.
- - Most states with no fee schedules experienced faster growth in prices paid for professional services compared with states with fee schedules—the median growth rate among the non-fee schedule states was 37 percent from 2008 to 2020, compared with the median growth rate of 9 percent among the fee schedule states.
- - Eight study states (Arizona, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia) had substantial changes (i.e., an increase or a decrease of 10 percent or more) in overall prices paid following major fee schedule changes during the study period.
This edition covers 36 states that represent 88 percent of the workers’ compensation benefits paid in the United States. These states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The authors of this study are Dr. Rebecca Yang and Dr. Olesya Fomenko. To download a FREE copy of this report, visit WCRI’s website ...
A review of information by Business Insurance predicts that the new medical-legal fee Schedule changes could increase costs by as much as $270M.
The modifications to the medical-legal fee schedule are predicted to increase fees for such reviews by 22%, according to the WCIRB.
Modifications to E&M services reimbursements, which account for about 15.9% of overall medical costs in the California workers comp system, including self-insureds, could have an estimated system impact of $170 million, WCIRB analysts said. The change to medical-legal review reimbursements, which comprise about 6.5% of overall medical costs, could have an estimated $100 million system impact.
While the E&M system increases stem mainly from changes in procedure codes, about 11% of the potential price increase in medical-legal reviews comes from a record review reimbursement overhaul that has many defense attorneys concerned.
The prior schedule, which had been in place since 2006, had paid QMEs an hourly fee. The new schedule, introduced by the California Division of Workers Compensation in February, will pay QMEs a flat fee of $2,015 for a comprehensive case review plus an additional $3 per page for any records in excess of 200 pages.
Often medical records contain duplicative and irrelevant material which applicant and defense attorneys may not necessarily exclude from the materials sent to the evaluator, thus driving up the costs. Additionally, both sides may send the QME the same records which are included in the page count.
"Taking all of this together, this is not particularly good news for the California workers compensation system, and it’s coming just as the small businesses and the economy overall are trying to recover from COVID," said Robert Hartwig, clinical associate professor and director of the Risk and Uncertainty Management Center at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.
...
The modifications to the medical-legal fee schedule are predicted to increase fees for such reviews by 22%, according to the WCIRB.
Modifications to E&M services reimbursements, which account for about 15.9% of overall medical costs in the California workers comp system, including self-insureds, could have an estimated system impact of $170 million, WCIRB analysts said. The change to medical-legal review reimbursements, which comprise about 6.5% of overall medical costs, could have an estimated $100 million system impact.
While the E&M system increases stem mainly from changes in procedure codes, about 11% of the potential price increase in medical-legal reviews comes from a record review reimbursement overhaul that has many defense attorneys concerned.
The prior schedule, which had been in place since 2006, had paid QMEs an hourly fee. The new schedule, introduced by the California Division of Workers Compensation in February, will pay QMEs a flat fee of $2,015 for a comprehensive case review plus an additional $3 per page for any records in excess of 200 pages.
Often medical records contain duplicative and irrelevant material which applicant and defense attorneys may not necessarily exclude from the materials sent to the evaluator, thus driving up the costs. Additionally, both sides may send the QME the same records which are included in the page count.
"Taking all of this together, this is not particularly good news for the California workers compensation system, and it’s coming just as the small businesses and the economy overall are trying to recover from COVID," said Robert Hartwig, clinical associate professor and director of the Risk and Uncertainty Management Center at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.
...
The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB) has released its Quarterly Experience Report, an update on California statewide insurer experience valued as of December 31, 2020.
Highlights of the report include:
- - California written premium for 2020 is 13 percent below that for 2019 and is the lowest since 2012.
- - The average charged rate for 2020 is 9 percent below that for 2019 and 40 percent below the peak in 2014.
- - Excluding COVID-19 claims, the projected combined ratio for 2020 is 96% which is more comparable to the 2019 ratio.
- - Indemnity claim frequency for Accident Year 2020, excluding COVID-19 claims, is almost 6 percent below 2019.
- - Indemnity claims had been settling quicker through 2019, largely driven by the reforms of SB 863 and SB 1160.
- - Projected indemnity severity for 2020 excluding COVID-19 claims is 9% higher than 2019. This estimate is preliminary as it is primarily based on temporary disability (TD) benefits paid on 2020 claims.
- - Medical severities have been relatively flat since 2016.
- - Average Medical Cost Containment Program (MCCP) costs have generally declined in the last several years as average medical costs have moderated.
- - Medical service costs per claim decreased by 26% from 2012 through 2019, driven by decreases in the number of transactions per claim.
- - Overall medical service costs per claim in the first half of 2020 are flat. However, costs per claim increased modestly in early 2020 but declined after the onset of the pandemic.
- - Pharmaceutical costs per claim decreased by 84% from 2012 through 2019.
- - Projected total statewide ultimate losses for 2004 through 2020 evaluations are below the amounts reported by insurers.
The full report is available in the Research section of the WCIRB website ...
Highlights of the report include:
- - California written premium for 2020 is 13 percent below that for 2019 and is the lowest since 2012.
- - The average charged rate for 2020 is 9 percent below that for 2019 and 40 percent below the peak in 2014.
- - Excluding COVID-19 claims, the projected combined ratio for 2020 is 96% which is more comparable to the 2019 ratio.
- - Indemnity claim frequency for Accident Year 2020, excluding COVID-19 claims, is almost 6 percent below 2019.
- - Indemnity claims had been settling quicker through 2019, largely driven by the reforms of SB 863 and SB 1160.
- - Projected indemnity severity for 2020 excluding COVID-19 claims is 9% higher than 2019. This estimate is preliminary as it is primarily based on temporary disability (TD) benefits paid on 2020 claims.
- - Medical severities have been relatively flat since 2016.
- - Average Medical Cost Containment Program (MCCP) costs have generally declined in the last several years as average medical costs have moderated.
- - Medical service costs per claim decreased by 26% from 2012 through 2019, driven by decreases in the number of transactions per claim.
- - Overall medical service costs per claim in the first half of 2020 are flat. However, costs per claim increased modestly in early 2020 but declined after the onset of the pandemic.
- - Pharmaceutical costs per claim decreased by 84% from 2012 through 2019.
- - Projected total statewide ultimate losses for 2004 through 2020 evaluations are below the amounts reported by insurers.
The full report is available in the Research section of the WCIRB website ...
29 year old Hakob Kojoyan, who lived in Northridge, was sentenced to 33 months in prison and ordered to forfeit his Palm Springs house for participating in a scheme involving the unlicensed wholesale distribution of prescription drugs.
Kojoyan admitted that he engaged in a scheme to distribute illegally obtained prescription drugs to unsuspecting purchasers. In his plea agreement, Kojoyan stated that he and his associates used a Pennsylvania company, Mainspring Distribution LLC, to pose as legitimate prescription drug wholesalers.
They then obtained prescription drugs from unlicensed, black market sources in California. They sold the drugs through Mainspring to unknowing wholesale customers, falsely representing that the drugs were legitimately sourced from licensed suppliers.
Kojoyan and his co-defendants avoided dealing in generic drugs and instead specialized in expensive name-brand prescription drugs used to treat HIV, such as Atripla. Kojoyan himself also supplied prescription drugs for such resale, though he had no license to do so.
Congress mandated prescription drug wholesalers provide their customers with detailed information about the drugs they sell, including a transaction history tracing the drugs back to their licensed manufacturer. The government asserted Kojoyan and his co-conspirators knew about these federal regulations designed to protect vulnerable patients, and they worked diligently to evade them.
They stole the identity of a licensed prescription drug company supplier in California and prepared paperwork falsely suggesting their drugs came from that supplier. The government described how they further mimicked the appearance of a legitimate supply chain by opening bank accounts in names misleadingly similar to the licensed supplier and routing the proceeds of their fraudulent sales through the accounts.
The government further asserted that bank accounts under the control of Kojoyan received approximately $2.2 million from Mainspring-associated accounts, much of which was laundered and distributed to co-conspirators. Kojoyan’s earnings were invested into a house in Palm Springs, which the Court ordered forfeited to the government.
This case is being prosecuted by the Corporate Fraud Strike Force of the United States Attorney’s Office. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ...
Kojoyan admitted that he engaged in a scheme to distribute illegally obtained prescription drugs to unsuspecting purchasers. In his plea agreement, Kojoyan stated that he and his associates used a Pennsylvania company, Mainspring Distribution LLC, to pose as legitimate prescription drug wholesalers.
They then obtained prescription drugs from unlicensed, black market sources in California. They sold the drugs through Mainspring to unknowing wholesale customers, falsely representing that the drugs were legitimately sourced from licensed suppliers.
Kojoyan and his co-defendants avoided dealing in generic drugs and instead specialized in expensive name-brand prescription drugs used to treat HIV, such as Atripla. Kojoyan himself also supplied prescription drugs for such resale, though he had no license to do so.
Congress mandated prescription drug wholesalers provide their customers with detailed information about the drugs they sell, including a transaction history tracing the drugs back to their licensed manufacturer. The government asserted Kojoyan and his co-conspirators knew about these federal regulations designed to protect vulnerable patients, and they worked diligently to evade them.
They stole the identity of a licensed prescription drug company supplier in California and prepared paperwork falsely suggesting their drugs came from that supplier. The government described how they further mimicked the appearance of a legitimate supply chain by opening bank accounts in names misleadingly similar to the licensed supplier and routing the proceeds of their fraudulent sales through the accounts.
The government further asserted that bank accounts under the control of Kojoyan received approximately $2.2 million from Mainspring-associated accounts, much of which was laundered and distributed to co-conspirators. Kojoyan’s earnings were invested into a house in Palm Springs, which the Court ordered forfeited to the government.
This case is being prosecuted by the Corporate Fraud Strike Force of the United States Attorney’s Office. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ...
Alabama is now the 37th state to legalize medical marijuana, after Gov. Kay Ivey signed the bill Monday.
The bill, Senate Bill 46, sets up a system to regulate medical marijuana from the cultivation of the plants, to processing and testing the products, to selling them in dispensaries.
Under the legislation, patients would have to be diagnosed with one of about 20 conditions, including autism, cancer, HIV/AIDS, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and intractable pain, among others.
The bill also prohibits raw cannabis, smoking, vaping and candy or baked good products. Patients would instead be allowed to purchase capsules, lozenges, oils, suppositories and topical patches.
Doctors will be able to recommend medical cannabis for patients who will receive medical cannabis cards to buy tablets, capsules, gel cubes and other forms of medical cannabis products.
State Senator Melson, an anesthesiologist and medical researcher, first offered the bill in 2019. That led to establishment of an 18 member Medical Cannabis Study Commission that held public hearings and recommended the legislation.
Based on the presentations and discussions, the Study Commission found that, although some medical study results are inconclusive and some results are mixed, there is strong scientific evidence that both hemp and marijuana contain compounds that provide significant relief for symptoms of certain specified medical conditions.
There was some dissent on the commission. Twelve of the 18 members voted in favor of recommending medical marijuana. Three voted against it and three abstained.
Officials have said it will be more than a year before medical marijuana products are available in Alabama. It will be a fully intrastate system. The new law creates the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, which will issue licenses to cultivators, processors, transporters, testing laboratories, and dispensaries.
The Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries will regulate the cultivators.
The bill says the commission must set up the rules to implement the program and allow people to begin applying for licenses by Sept. 1, 2022 ...
The bill, Senate Bill 46, sets up a system to regulate medical marijuana from the cultivation of the plants, to processing and testing the products, to selling them in dispensaries.
Under the legislation, patients would have to be diagnosed with one of about 20 conditions, including autism, cancer, HIV/AIDS, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and intractable pain, among others.
The bill also prohibits raw cannabis, smoking, vaping and candy or baked good products. Patients would instead be allowed to purchase capsules, lozenges, oils, suppositories and topical patches.
Doctors will be able to recommend medical cannabis for patients who will receive medical cannabis cards to buy tablets, capsules, gel cubes and other forms of medical cannabis products.
State Senator Melson, an anesthesiologist and medical researcher, first offered the bill in 2019. That led to establishment of an 18 member Medical Cannabis Study Commission that held public hearings and recommended the legislation.
Based on the presentations and discussions, the Study Commission found that, although some medical study results are inconclusive and some results are mixed, there is strong scientific evidence that both hemp and marijuana contain compounds that provide significant relief for symptoms of certain specified medical conditions.
There was some dissent on the commission. Twelve of the 18 members voted in favor of recommending medical marijuana. Three voted against it and three abstained.
Officials have said it will be more than a year before medical marijuana products are available in Alabama. It will be a fully intrastate system. The new law creates the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, which will issue licenses to cultivators, processors, transporters, testing laboratories, and dispensaries.
The Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries will regulate the cultivators.
The bill says the commission must set up the rules to implement the program and allow people to begin applying for licenses by Sept. 1, 2022 ...
Many California agricultural workers have been exposed to a pesticide known as Roundup, and some of them may develop cancers. These cancer cases can then become continuous trauma claims under workers' compensation law.
Thousands of Roundup tort cases are pending in civil courts in several states. A favorable outcome will likely support subrogation in the decades ahead for these claims.
Monsanto Company manufactures Roundup, a pesticide with the active ingredient glyphosate. Since 2015, thousands of cancer victims have sued Monsanto in state and federal court, alleging that Roundup caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This appeal arises out of the first bellwether trial for the federal cases consolidated in a multidistrict litigation.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman, awarding him $5,267,634.10 in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages. The district court reduced the jury’s punitive damages award to $20 million.
Monsanto appealed, arguing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") preempts Hardeman’s failure-to-warn claims; the district court made a series of evidentiary and jury instruction errors; the district court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law; and the punitive damages award violates California law and the Due Process Clause.
Hardeman cross-appeals, arguing the jury’s $75 million punitive damages award was constitutional.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in the published case of Edwin Hardeman v Monsanto Company.
The 74 page opinion held that:
(1) Hardeman’s state failure-to-warn claims are not preempted by FIFRA;
(2) the district court ultimately applied the correct standard from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and did not abuse its discretion in admitting Hardeman’s expert testimony;
(3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic and three regulatory rejections of that classification but excluding evidence from other regulatory bodies;
(4) the district court’s jury instruction on causation, though erroneous, was harmless;
(5) Monsanto was properly denied judgment as a matter of law because evidence shows the carcinogenic risk of glyphosate was knowable at the time of Hardeman’s exposure; and
(6) evidence supports a punitive damages award, punitive damages were properly reduced, and the reduced award - while close to the outer limits - is constitutional.
This is the second loss on appeal for Bayer AG, which acquired the agrochemical company in a multibillion-dollar merger in 2018.
In July 2020, a California appellate court upheld a jury’s verdict that Roundup caused another Bay Area man’s cancer and awarding him $289 million.
A third jury verdict is still on appeal in California’s First Appellate District.
However, other trial courts disagreed, such as in the case of Carson v. Monsanto Co., which is pending in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike other cases alleging Roundup caused plaintiffs to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Carson’s lawsuit alleges Roundup caused his malignant fibrous histiocytoma. FIFRA preemption was the pivotal issue in the case.
If the 11th Circuit affirms the preemption, it will create a circuit split, which opens the door for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.
If the company wins preemption and wins at the Supreme Court, the victories could adversely effect the many thousands of cases still pending ...
Thousands of Roundup tort cases are pending in civil courts in several states. A favorable outcome will likely support subrogation in the decades ahead for these claims.
Monsanto Company manufactures Roundup, a pesticide with the active ingredient glyphosate. Since 2015, thousands of cancer victims have sued Monsanto in state and federal court, alleging that Roundup caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This appeal arises out of the first bellwether trial for the federal cases consolidated in a multidistrict litigation.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Edwin Hardeman, awarding him $5,267,634.10 in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages. The district court reduced the jury’s punitive damages award to $20 million.
Monsanto appealed, arguing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") preempts Hardeman’s failure-to-warn claims; the district court made a series of evidentiary and jury instruction errors; the district court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law; and the punitive damages award violates California law and the Due Process Clause.
Hardeman cross-appeals, arguing the jury’s $75 million punitive damages award was constitutional.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in the published case of Edwin Hardeman v Monsanto Company.
The 74 page opinion held that:
(1) Hardeman’s state failure-to-warn claims are not preempted by FIFRA;
(2) the district court ultimately applied the correct standard from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and did not abuse its discretion in admitting Hardeman’s expert testimony;
(3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic and three regulatory rejections of that classification but excluding evidence from other regulatory bodies;
(4) the district court’s jury instruction on causation, though erroneous, was harmless;
(5) Monsanto was properly denied judgment as a matter of law because evidence shows the carcinogenic risk of glyphosate was knowable at the time of Hardeman’s exposure; and
(6) evidence supports a punitive damages award, punitive damages were properly reduced, and the reduced award - while close to the outer limits - is constitutional.
This is the second loss on appeal for Bayer AG, which acquired the agrochemical company in a multibillion-dollar merger in 2018.
In July 2020, a California appellate court upheld a jury’s verdict that Roundup caused another Bay Area man’s cancer and awarding him $289 million.
A third jury verdict is still on appeal in California’s First Appellate District.
However, other trial courts disagreed, such as in the case of Carson v. Monsanto Co., which is pending in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike other cases alleging Roundup caused plaintiffs to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Carson’s lawsuit alleges Roundup caused his malignant fibrous histiocytoma. FIFRA preemption was the pivotal issue in the case.
If the 11th Circuit affirms the preemption, it will create a circuit split, which opens the door for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.
If the company wins preemption and wins at the Supreme Court, the victories could adversely effect the many thousands of cases still pending ...
Two Sacramento-area businessmen have been charged in connection with a $3.8 million workers' compensation fraud scheme, according to the California Department of Insurance.
Ryan Black, 45, formerly of Fair Oaks, and Curtis Davis, 53, of Penryn, were both charged with three felony counts of workers’ compensation fraud after allegedly underreporting payroll and employees by more than $30 million to illegally save on workers’ compensation insurance premiums, resulting in an approximate loss of $3,840,956 to three insurance companies.
Black and Davis were owners of Apex Industry Solutions Inc. (Apex), a flooring installation company located in Sacramento.
In October 2017, Apex’s insurance carrier at the time discovered that two individuals working for Apex were performing floor installations without a license and were receiving 1099 forms as independent contractors instead of W-2 forms as employees. However, Black identified the two workers, along with two additional workers, as employees of Apex.
The California Department of Insurance launched an investigation after receiving a report of suspected fraud from Apex’s insurance carrier in April 2018. The investigation revealed Black had a large number of flooring installation employees, and had reported minimal to no flooring installation payroll to the carrier.
The investigation also found Black and Davis conspired to underreport payroll to two additional insurance companies who had been their previous carriers. Over the span of five years, from 2013 through 2018, the underreported payroll totaled approximately $30 million, which resulted in an approximate loss of $3,840,956 to three insurance companies.
Black was arraigned on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 and Davis was arraigned on May 5, 2021. This case is being prosecuted by the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office ...
Ryan Black, 45, formerly of Fair Oaks, and Curtis Davis, 53, of Penryn, were both charged with three felony counts of workers’ compensation fraud after allegedly underreporting payroll and employees by more than $30 million to illegally save on workers’ compensation insurance premiums, resulting in an approximate loss of $3,840,956 to three insurance companies.
Black and Davis were owners of Apex Industry Solutions Inc. (Apex), a flooring installation company located in Sacramento.
In October 2017, Apex’s insurance carrier at the time discovered that two individuals working for Apex were performing floor installations without a license and were receiving 1099 forms as independent contractors instead of W-2 forms as employees. However, Black identified the two workers, along with two additional workers, as employees of Apex.
The California Department of Insurance launched an investigation after receiving a report of suspected fraud from Apex’s insurance carrier in April 2018. The investigation revealed Black had a large number of flooring installation employees, and had reported minimal to no flooring installation payroll to the carrier.
The investigation also found Black and Davis conspired to underreport payroll to two additional insurance companies who had been their previous carriers. Over the span of five years, from 2013 through 2018, the underreported payroll totaled approximately $30 million, which resulted in an approximate loss of $3,840,956 to three insurance companies.
Black was arraigned on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 and Davis was arraigned on May 5, 2021. This case is being prosecuted by the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office ...
The CDC posted an update suggesting that fully vaccinated people no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance in any setting, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance
The CDC update also indicates that that fully vaccinated people can refrain from testing following a known exposure unless they are residents or employees of a correctional or detention facility or a homeless shelter
Gov. Gavin Newsom suggested in a TV interview Tuesday that California will do away with its mask mandate in favor of "recommendations" around June 15, the state’s target date for ending COVID-19 restrictions on businesses.
In a video clip posted to Twitter, Fox 11 Los Angeles anchor Elex Michaelson asked the governor: "Are we looking at masks after June 15?" Newsom’s response: "No. Only in those settings that are indoor. Only in those massively large settings, where people - from around the world, not just around the country - are convening, and where people are mixing in real dense spaces. He later is said to have walked back this position.
However, a report in Business Insurance says that employers are frustrated and confused by conflicting instructions from other sources.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines that lean on U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance still call for indoor mask-wearing, and OSHA is getting ready to release a national emergency temporary standard that experts say could echo the guidelines already in place and come with fines for noncomplying employers.
Another issue is employees who don’t understand why the rules remain when they have been vaccinated, said Erik Eisenmann, Milwaukee-based partner and chair of the labor and employment group at Husch Blackwell LLP, who noted that questions around worker safety protocols and vaccinations are among the most common.
"Those employees protesting (masks) are only going to get louder," he adds.
Todd B. Logsdon, Louisville, Kentucky-based partner and co-chair of the workplace safety practice group at Fisher & Phillips LLP, said the issue has led to frustration, especially for employers that operate in multiple states.
"Some states have completely lifted all restrictions and other states still have a fair amount of their restrictions in place," he said, adding that the conflicting messages are leading to morale issues among employees.
Eric Conn, Washington-based founding partner of Conn Maciel Carey LLP, said employers have reported that "the single greatest compliance challenge they have faced during this pandemic has been trying to comply with the impossible patchwork of competing and contradicting mandates from local and state health departments, governors’ executive orders, state (occupational safety and health) plan emergency temporary standards, and so on." ...
The CDC update also indicates that that fully vaccinated people can refrain from testing following a known exposure unless they are residents or employees of a correctional or detention facility or a homeless shelter
Gov. Gavin Newsom suggested in a TV interview Tuesday that California will do away with its mask mandate in favor of "recommendations" around June 15, the state’s target date for ending COVID-19 restrictions on businesses.
In a video clip posted to Twitter, Fox 11 Los Angeles anchor Elex Michaelson asked the governor: "Are we looking at masks after June 15?" Newsom’s response: "No. Only in those settings that are indoor. Only in those massively large settings, where people - from around the world, not just around the country - are convening, and where people are mixing in real dense spaces. He later is said to have walked back this position.
However, a report in Business Insurance says that employers are frustrated and confused by conflicting instructions from other sources.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines that lean on U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance still call for indoor mask-wearing, and OSHA is getting ready to release a national emergency temporary standard that experts say could echo the guidelines already in place and come with fines for noncomplying employers.
Another issue is employees who don’t understand why the rules remain when they have been vaccinated, said Erik Eisenmann, Milwaukee-based partner and chair of the labor and employment group at Husch Blackwell LLP, who noted that questions around worker safety protocols and vaccinations are among the most common.
"Those employees protesting (masks) are only going to get louder," he adds.
Todd B. Logsdon, Louisville, Kentucky-based partner and co-chair of the workplace safety practice group at Fisher & Phillips LLP, said the issue has led to frustration, especially for employers that operate in multiple states.
"Some states have completely lifted all restrictions and other states still have a fair amount of their restrictions in place," he said, adding that the conflicting messages are leading to morale issues among employees.
Eric Conn, Washington-based founding partner of Conn Maciel Carey LLP, said employers have reported that "the single greatest compliance challenge they have faced during this pandemic has been trying to comply with the impossible patchwork of competing and contradicting mandates from local and state health departments, governors’ executive orders, state (occupational safety and health) plan emergency temporary standards, and so on." ...
A proposed new law in California, Senate Bill 335, seeks to compress the time for investigating a reported occupational injury or illness from 90 days to 45 days while increasing the employer’s liability for medical treatment benefits during the investigation period from $10,000 to $17,000.
Regarding penalties,S B 335 proposes a return to pre-reform penalties that allowed non-discretionary, uncapped, and compounded penalties. Under these old rules, penalty amounts were tied to the entire amount of a particular benefit that had been paid out. In mature cases with large medical treatment and/or indemnity costs, 10 percent of the specie of benefit could reach tens of thousands of dollars for a single penalty.
The CWCI just prepared and published a comprehensive analysis of this proposed law. It concluded that it is unlikely that claims adjusters can unilaterally expedite the investigation process without unintended consequences.
Claims investigation is a complex process requiring documentation from multiple sources, few of which are within the control of the claims adjuster.
Claims adjusters can only begin an investigation upon notification of a claimed injury from an injured worker, their employer, or attorney. The number of days between the date of injury and the employer's notification can be influenced by several factors, including the type of injury or illness, employee's occupation, when and where the injury occurred, and whether or not there were witnesses.
One of the more significant confounding factors that can delay timely reporting is California's relatively unique high rate of cumulative trauma claims, which are estimated to account for up to one out of every six indemnity claims..
The analysis of the data by CWCI authors shows that at 90 days following employer notification, more than 97 percent of all reported claims have a compensability decision, but at 45 days, only 85.2 percent of all claims have been accepted or rejected, a relative difference of 13 percent.
The analysis also shows that at 45 days, 63 percent of claims that are ultimately denied remain under investigation. Among the claims that are ultimately denied, 54 percent receive medical treatment within the 90-day investigation period, while 28 percent receive medical treatment within the first 45 days of the investigation.
Following the employer’s notification of an injury, the average cost of medical treatment reached $735 at 45 days and $1,372 at 90 days. In 1.4 percent of these claims the $10,000 limit is met or exceeded during the 90-day investigation period, while in 0.6 percent of the claims the $10,000 limit is met or exceeded within 45 days.
For claims that are ultimately denied, medical treatment during the 90-day investigation period averaged $734, with only 1.0 percent of the denied claims involving medical treatment costs greater than $6,500, and 0.5 percent of the denied claims reaching or exceeding the $10,000 limit.
Decreasing the investigation period to 45 days would actually reduce access to medical treatment and would likely increase the number of provisional denials ...
Regarding penalties,S B 335 proposes a return to pre-reform penalties that allowed non-discretionary, uncapped, and compounded penalties. Under these old rules, penalty amounts were tied to the entire amount of a particular benefit that had been paid out. In mature cases with large medical treatment and/or indemnity costs, 10 percent of the specie of benefit could reach tens of thousands of dollars for a single penalty.
The CWCI just prepared and published a comprehensive analysis of this proposed law. It concluded that it is unlikely that claims adjusters can unilaterally expedite the investigation process without unintended consequences.
Claims investigation is a complex process requiring documentation from multiple sources, few of which are within the control of the claims adjuster.
Claims adjusters can only begin an investigation upon notification of a claimed injury from an injured worker, their employer, or attorney. The number of days between the date of injury and the employer's notification can be influenced by several factors, including the type of injury or illness, employee's occupation, when and where the injury occurred, and whether or not there were witnesses.
One of the more significant confounding factors that can delay timely reporting is California's relatively unique high rate of cumulative trauma claims, which are estimated to account for up to one out of every six indemnity claims..
The analysis of the data by CWCI authors shows that at 90 days following employer notification, more than 97 percent of all reported claims have a compensability decision, but at 45 days, only 85.2 percent of all claims have been accepted or rejected, a relative difference of 13 percent.
The analysis also shows that at 45 days, 63 percent of claims that are ultimately denied remain under investigation. Among the claims that are ultimately denied, 54 percent receive medical treatment within the 90-day investigation period, while 28 percent receive medical treatment within the first 45 days of the investigation.
Following the employer’s notification of an injury, the average cost of medical treatment reached $735 at 45 days and $1,372 at 90 days. In 1.4 percent of these claims the $10,000 limit is met or exceeded during the 90-day investigation period, while in 0.6 percent of the claims the $10,000 limit is met or exceeded within 45 days.
For claims that are ultimately denied, medical treatment during the 90-day investigation period averaged $734, with only 1.0 percent of the denied claims involving medical treatment costs greater than $6,500, and 0.5 percent of the denied claims reaching or exceeding the $10,000 limit.
Decreasing the investigation period to 45 days would actually reduce access to medical treatment and would likely increase the number of provisional denials ...
The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California has released its September 1, 2021 Experience Modification Estimator for insurers, agents and brokers to help policyholders understand how payroll and claims experience will affect the computation of their September 1, 2021 and later experience modification (X-Mod).
To use the WCIRB September 1, 2021 Experience Modification Estimator, free of charge, click on the following link: September 1, 2021 Experience Modification Estimator.
By entering policyholder-specific payroll, classification and claims information into the Estimator, users can obtain an estimated X-Mod using approved September 1, 2021 California Workers’ Compensation Experience Rating Plan -1995 values (including expected loss rates, D-Ratios and primary thresholds that vary by employer size).
The Estimator’s spreadsheet format makes it easy for users to view and simply copy and paste data into the application and then view, print or save detailed estimated X-Mod information based on that data.
The September 1, 2021 Estimator was updated with the approved experience rating values after the Insurance Commissioner issued a Decision on the WCIRB’s September 1, 2021 Regulatory Filing and is available in the Learning Center of wcirb.com.
The Estimator is for informational purposes only, and results are approximations based on the information entered. The Estimator does not produce WCIRB-published X-Mods. For more information and helpful tips on how to use the Estimator, go to the WCIRB Experience Modification Estimators page ...
To use the WCIRB September 1, 2021 Experience Modification Estimator, free of charge, click on the following link: September 1, 2021 Experience Modification Estimator.
By entering policyholder-specific payroll, classification and claims information into the Estimator, users can obtain an estimated X-Mod using approved September 1, 2021 California Workers’ Compensation Experience Rating Plan -1995 values (including expected loss rates, D-Ratios and primary thresholds that vary by employer size).
The Estimator’s spreadsheet format makes it easy for users to view and simply copy and paste data into the application and then view, print or save detailed estimated X-Mod information based on that data.
The September 1, 2021 Estimator was updated with the approved experience rating values after the Insurance Commissioner issued a Decision on the WCIRB’s September 1, 2021 Regulatory Filing and is available in the Learning Center of wcirb.com.
The Estimator is for informational purposes only, and results are approximations based on the information entered. The Estimator does not produce WCIRB-published X-Mods. For more information and helpful tips on how to use the Estimator, go to the WCIRB Experience Modification Estimators page ...
Cornerstone Care Inc. operates as Cornerstone Homes at three south Orange County locations in Laguna Hills. The assisted living facilities provide comprehensive services, short- and long-term care, hospice care and other services.
A U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation found Cornerstone Care violated the Fair Labor Standards Act as follows:
- - Charged workers for meals that they failed to provide.
- - Made payroll deductions for lodging but provided none. Instead, workers slept in facilities’ kitchens and living rooms.
- - Failed to pay workers for time spent in mandatory trainings on their days off.
- - Failed to record or pay for time employees worked during interrupted breaks.
The employer’s actions led to FLSA overtime violations, and to the department’s recovery of $158,854 in back wages for 13 employees.
"These essential workers deserve to be paid all the wages they have legally earned," said Wage and Hour Division District Director Eric Murray in Phoenix.
"The U.S. Department of Labor is committed to preventing employers from short-changing workers or making illegal payroll deductions, and gaining an unfair competitive advantage over those employers who play by the rules. We invite employers to call us with questions and speak confidentially to a trained professional about their compliance responsibilities."
For more information about the FLSA and other laws enforced by the division, contact its toll-free helpline at 866-4US-WAGE (487-9243). Learn more about the Wage and Hour Division, including a search tool to use if you think you may be owed back wages collected by the division ...
A U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation found Cornerstone Care violated the Fair Labor Standards Act as follows:
- - Charged workers for meals that they failed to provide.
- - Made payroll deductions for lodging but provided none. Instead, workers slept in facilities’ kitchens and living rooms.
- - Failed to pay workers for time spent in mandatory trainings on their days off.
- - Failed to record or pay for time employees worked during interrupted breaks.
The employer’s actions led to FLSA overtime violations, and to the department’s recovery of $158,854 in back wages for 13 employees.
"These essential workers deserve to be paid all the wages they have legally earned," said Wage and Hour Division District Director Eric Murray in Phoenix.
"The U.S. Department of Labor is committed to preventing employers from short-changing workers or making illegal payroll deductions, and gaining an unfair competitive advantage over those employers who play by the rules. We invite employers to call us with questions and speak confidentially to a trained professional about their compliance responsibilities."
For more information about the FLSA and other laws enforced by the division, contact its toll-free helpline at 866-4US-WAGE (487-9243). Learn more about the Wage and Hour Division, including a search tool to use if you think you may be owed back wages collected by the division ...
The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) revealed in-depth data on the performance of the US workers compensation system in 2020. Because of job losses and shrinking payrolls during the pandemic recession, net written premium dropped 10% to $42 billion in 2020. However, private insurers posted a profitable calendar year combined ratio of 87, the fourth straight year with a combined ratio below 90 for workers compensation insurance.
"The pandemic was the moment to rise to the challenge, and the workers compensation system did so with integrity," said Bill Donnell, President and CEO of NCCI. "Our workers compensation system is fulfilling its noble mission to help injured workers."
NCCI Chief Actuary Donna Glenn said, "The pandemic has been devastating for families, healthcare workers, and the economy. The workers compensation system has been strong and resilient. While net written premium dropped significantly during the recession, other financial metrics remain favorable, at or near historic highs. We have seen fewer COVID-19 claims than originally anticipated."
Here are other key details included in NCCI's State of the Line Report on workers compensation insurance:
- - Combined Ratio - The calendar year combined ratio is 87, while the reported accident year combined ratio is 100.
- - Reserves - The reserve position for private insurers remains strong, growing to a redundancy of $14 billion as of Year-End 2020.
- - COVID-19 Claims - Workers hurt by COVID-19 made more than 45,000 claims in 2020 with more than 95% of those claims costing less than $10,000. Carriers reported $260 million in total COVID-19 incurred losses in 2020.
- - Workers Hurt by COVID-19 - Hardest hit were workers in nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare settings along with first responders, which all together account for 75% of the claims.
- - COVID-19 Severity - To date, the costliest 1% of COVID-19 claims account for 60% of COVID-19 loss dollars.
- - Claim Frequency - Excluding COVID-19 claims, claim frequency decreased 7% in 2020, continuing the long-term lost-time claim frequency decline.
- - Claim Severity - While indemnity claim severity is expected to increase 3% in 2020, the average cost of the medical portion of a lost-time claim is expected to change between plus or minus 2%.
The complete workers compensation State of the Line Report and State of the Line Guide are available at ncci.com.
Glenn and other NCCI experts noted a series of issues on the organization's watchlist, including the uncertainty of how workers with long-haul symptoms will fare and how quickly the recovery will drive an increase in payrolls and workers compensation premiums ...
"The pandemic was the moment to rise to the challenge, and the workers compensation system did so with integrity," said Bill Donnell, President and CEO of NCCI. "Our workers compensation system is fulfilling its noble mission to help injured workers."
NCCI Chief Actuary Donna Glenn said, "The pandemic has been devastating for families, healthcare workers, and the economy. The workers compensation system has been strong and resilient. While net written premium dropped significantly during the recession, other financial metrics remain favorable, at or near historic highs. We have seen fewer COVID-19 claims than originally anticipated."
Here are other key details included in NCCI's State of the Line Report on workers compensation insurance:
- - Combined Ratio - The calendar year combined ratio is 87, while the reported accident year combined ratio is 100.
- - Reserves - The reserve position for private insurers remains strong, growing to a redundancy of $14 billion as of Year-End 2020.
- - COVID-19 Claims - Workers hurt by COVID-19 made more than 45,000 claims in 2020 with more than 95% of those claims costing less than $10,000. Carriers reported $260 million in total COVID-19 incurred losses in 2020.
- - Workers Hurt by COVID-19 - Hardest hit were workers in nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare settings along with first responders, which all together account for 75% of the claims.
- - COVID-19 Severity - To date, the costliest 1% of COVID-19 claims account for 60% of COVID-19 loss dollars.
- - Claim Frequency - Excluding COVID-19 claims, claim frequency decreased 7% in 2020, continuing the long-term lost-time claim frequency decline.
- - Claim Severity - While indemnity claim severity is expected to increase 3% in 2020, the average cost of the medical portion of a lost-time claim is expected to change between plus or minus 2%.
The complete workers compensation State of the Line Report and State of the Line Guide are available at ncci.com.
Glenn and other NCCI experts noted a series of issues on the organization's watchlist, including the uncertainty of how workers with long-haul symptoms will fare and how quickly the recovery will drive an increase in payrolls and workers compensation premiums ...
