On August 4th, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors issued an executive order mandating all County employees provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19, or face potential termination. L.A. County awarded a no-bid contract to Fulgent Genetics Corporation to provide testing/registration services.
Fulgent Genetics was also awarded a contract to provide COVID-19 testing for New York City public schools through the 2021 school year.
However, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has notified the LA County Board of Supervisors that LASD will not work with a China-linked genetics firm hired by the county to conduct Covid-19 testing and registration, after the FBI shared "very concerning information" about Fulgent Genetics Corporation - which was awarded a no-bid contract for the work.
"This letter is to inform you the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Department) will not participate in COVID-19 registering or testing with Fulgent Genetics Corporation (Fulgent), due to the fact the DNA data obtained is not guaranteed to be safe and secure from foreign governments and "will likely be shared with the Republic of China,"" wrote Sheriff Alex Villanueva in a Monday letter.
Villanueva writes that on Nov. 24 he was contacted by the FBI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Coordinator, who shared "very concerning information" about Fulgent.
"I was shocked to learn Fulgent had strong ties with BGl2, WuXi3, and Huawei Technology 4 , all of which are linked to the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) State Council and are under the control of the PRC." the letter continues. "I was even more shocked to learn Fulgent made no attempt to disguise the fact they will use the genetic information obtained in future studies."
Villanueva claimed DNA data obtained through tests are "not guaranteed to be safe and secure from foreign governments" and said FBI officials advised him at the briefing that genetic information the company collects is likely to be shared with the Chinese government. Fulgent Genetics, he alleged in the letter, has "strong ties" with Chinese technology and genomics companies, but he did not elaborate on what those ties are.
Villanueva then blasted officials over how Fulgent was hired in the first place, writing "I am deeply concerned as to the vetting process which either failed to discover this, or discovered it, but chose to ignore it. A simple internet search would have uncovered all of the above facts."
"Entering into a no-bid contract with Fulgent Genetics and allowing them to have the DNA data obtained from mandatory COVID-19 testing, for unknown purposes, has shattered all confidence my personnel have in this entire process under the County mandate. Many personnel have long suspected this information was being used in an unnecessary manner due to a rushed mandate that we now know will have long-term unintended consequences that will not be fully known for some time.
Villanueva also noted that the "FBI felt strongly enough regarding Fulgent being used to test County personnel that they held an emergency briefing to disclose their concerns."
Villanueva said the county's top attorney and chief executive also attended the recent FBI briefing at the agency's Los Angeles office. An FBI spokesperson declined to comment when asked to confirm what was discussed at the meeting.
Fulgent's chief commercial officer, Brandon Perthuis, dismissed the sheriff's allegations as untrue. In a statement Tuesday, Perthuis wrote that the U.S.-based company was founded and is led by American citizens. He said the company does not share personal data about people who are tested with the Chinese government and that the company does not use samples collected during tests to sequence people's unique DNA structure.
County employees are required to register their vaccination status with Fulgent, and those who are not vaccinated are required to submit to regular testing. Villanueva said the Sheriff's Department would use its own registration system and work with vetted testing companies that are not associated with Fulgent.
The founder Fulgent Genetics is billionaire Ming Hsieh, who was born in China but is now a naturalized American citizen.
Of note, China's ambitions to build the world's largest DNA database are no secret to anyone listening to CBS News (60 Minutes), or the Wall Street Journal ...
Fulgent Genetics was also awarded a contract to provide COVID-19 testing for New York City public schools through the 2021 school year.
However, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has notified the LA County Board of Supervisors that LASD will not work with a China-linked genetics firm hired by the county to conduct Covid-19 testing and registration, after the FBI shared "very concerning information" about Fulgent Genetics Corporation - which was awarded a no-bid contract for the work.
"This letter is to inform you the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Department) will not participate in COVID-19 registering or testing with Fulgent Genetics Corporation (Fulgent), due to the fact the DNA data obtained is not guaranteed to be safe and secure from foreign governments and "will likely be shared with the Republic of China,"" wrote Sheriff Alex Villanueva in a Monday letter.
Villanueva writes that on Nov. 24 he was contacted by the FBI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Coordinator, who shared "very concerning information" about Fulgent.
"I was shocked to learn Fulgent had strong ties with BGl2, WuXi3, and Huawei Technology 4 , all of which are linked to the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) State Council and are under the control of the PRC." the letter continues. "I was even more shocked to learn Fulgent made no attempt to disguise the fact they will use the genetic information obtained in future studies."
Villanueva claimed DNA data obtained through tests are "not guaranteed to be safe and secure from foreign governments" and said FBI officials advised him at the briefing that genetic information the company collects is likely to be shared with the Chinese government. Fulgent Genetics, he alleged in the letter, has "strong ties" with Chinese technology and genomics companies, but he did not elaborate on what those ties are.
Villanueva then blasted officials over how Fulgent was hired in the first place, writing "I am deeply concerned as to the vetting process which either failed to discover this, or discovered it, but chose to ignore it. A simple internet search would have uncovered all of the above facts."
"Entering into a no-bid contract with Fulgent Genetics and allowing them to have the DNA data obtained from mandatory COVID-19 testing, for unknown purposes, has shattered all confidence my personnel have in this entire process under the County mandate. Many personnel have long suspected this information was being used in an unnecessary manner due to a rushed mandate that we now know will have long-term unintended consequences that will not be fully known for some time.
Villanueva also noted that the "FBI felt strongly enough regarding Fulgent being used to test County personnel that they held an emergency briefing to disclose their concerns."
Villanueva said the county's top attorney and chief executive also attended the recent FBI briefing at the agency's Los Angeles office. An FBI spokesperson declined to comment when asked to confirm what was discussed at the meeting.
Fulgent's chief commercial officer, Brandon Perthuis, dismissed the sheriff's allegations as untrue. In a statement Tuesday, Perthuis wrote that the U.S.-based company was founded and is led by American citizens. He said the company does not share personal data about people who are tested with the Chinese government and that the company does not use samples collected during tests to sequence people's unique DNA structure.
County employees are required to register their vaccination status with Fulgent, and those who are not vaccinated are required to submit to regular testing. Villanueva said the Sheriff's Department would use its own registration system and work with vetted testing companies that are not associated with Fulgent.
The founder Fulgent Genetics is billionaire Ming Hsieh, who was born in China but is now a naturalized American citizen.
Of note, China's ambitions to build the world's largest DNA database are no secret to anyone listening to CBS News (60 Minutes), or the Wall Street Journal ...
On the heels of a court order in a recent federal court in Missouri that blocked implementation of a federal vaccine mandate that applies to health care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid in 10 states, a federal court in Louisiana on Tuesday granted an injunction that blocks implementation of the mandate nationwide.
The CMS Mandate requires over 10.3 million healthcare workers to be fully vaccinated with one of the COVID-19 vaccines in two months.The CMS mandate also requires that the medical providers and suppliers "track and securely document" the vaccination status of each staff member, including storing staff members' medical records showing proof of vaccination.
CMS indicated its mandate was "complementary to the OSHA ETS", which also requires mandatory vaccinations. CMS admittedly has not previously required any vaccinations.
President-Elect Biden initially did not think vaccines should be mandatory. On September 9, 2021, President Biden changed his mind announcing his intention to impose a national mandate. Both the OSHA Mandate and the CMS Mandate were imposed approximately two months later on November 5, 2021.
Plaintiff States argue in this new case that (1) the Government Defendants issued the CMS Mandate without following statutorily required processes (5 U.S.C. 553), (2) the CMS Mandate is beyond the authority of the Government Defendants, (3) the CMS Mandate is contrary to law, (4) the CMS Mandate is arbitrary and capricious in violation of 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), and (5) the CMS Mandate violates the Spending Clause, Tenth Amendment and Anti-Commandeering Doctrine.
The Court went on to address the Plaintiff States' five arguments in detail, after having noted that in BST Holdings, LLC v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, No. 21-60845 17 F.4th 604 (5th Cir. November 12, 2021), the Fifth Circuit addressed a request for a stay as to the OSHA vaccine mandate addressing almost identical issues.
In imposing the injunction the court noted that "this matter will ultimately be decided by a higher court than this one. However, it is important to preserve the status quo in this case. The liberty interests of the unvaccinated requires nothing less."
"In addressing the geographic scope of the preliminary injunction, due to the nationwide scope of the CMS Mandate, a nationwide injunction is necessary due to the need for uniformity. Although this Court considered limiting the injunction to the fourteen Plaintiff States, there are unvaccinated healthcare workers in other states who also need protection. Therefore, the scope of this injunction will be nationwide, except for the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, since these ten states are already under a preliminary injunction order dated November 29, 2021, out of the Eastern District of Missouri." ...
The CMS Mandate requires over 10.3 million healthcare workers to be fully vaccinated with one of the COVID-19 vaccines in two months.The CMS mandate also requires that the medical providers and suppliers "track and securely document" the vaccination status of each staff member, including storing staff members' medical records showing proof of vaccination.
CMS indicated its mandate was "complementary to the OSHA ETS", which also requires mandatory vaccinations. CMS admittedly has not previously required any vaccinations.
President-Elect Biden initially did not think vaccines should be mandatory. On September 9, 2021, President Biden changed his mind announcing his intention to impose a national mandate. Both the OSHA Mandate and the CMS Mandate were imposed approximately two months later on November 5, 2021.
Plaintiff States argue in this new case that (1) the Government Defendants issued the CMS Mandate without following statutorily required processes (5 U.S.C. 553), (2) the CMS Mandate is beyond the authority of the Government Defendants, (3) the CMS Mandate is contrary to law, (4) the CMS Mandate is arbitrary and capricious in violation of 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), and (5) the CMS Mandate violates the Spending Clause, Tenth Amendment and Anti-Commandeering Doctrine.
The Court went on to address the Plaintiff States' five arguments in detail, after having noted that in BST Holdings, LLC v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, No. 21-60845 17 F.4th 604 (5th Cir. November 12, 2021), the Fifth Circuit addressed a request for a stay as to the OSHA vaccine mandate addressing almost identical issues.
In imposing the injunction the court noted that "this matter will ultimately be decided by a higher court than this one. However, it is important to preserve the status quo in this case. The liberty interests of the unvaccinated requires nothing less."
"In addressing the geographic scope of the preliminary injunction, due to the nationwide scope of the CMS Mandate, a nationwide injunction is necessary due to the need for uniformity. Although this Court considered limiting the injunction to the fourteen Plaintiff States, there are unvaccinated healthcare workers in other states who also need protection. Therefore, the scope of this injunction will be nationwide, except for the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, since these ten states are already under a preliminary injunction order dated November 29, 2021, out of the Eastern District of Missouri." ...
This Monday, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a preliminary injunction on the mandate, which requires health-workers to be vaccinated by Jan. 4, 2022.
This case concerns the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ ("CMS") federal vaccine mandate on a wide range of healthcare facilities. Specifically, the mandate requires nearly every employee, volunteer, and third-party contractor working at fifteen categories of healthcare facilities to be vaccinated against COVID. and to have received at least a first dose of the vaccine prior to December 6, 2021
On November 10, Plaintiffs, the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Hampshire filed a Complaint challenging the mandate. They subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that this Court issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from imposing the mandate.
In granting the motion, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that Congress has not provided CMS the authority to enact the regulation at issue here. "[A]n agency literally has no power to act, let alone pre-empt the validly enacted legislation of a sovereign State, unless and until Congress confers power upon it."
The Court agrees Congress has authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services general authority to enact regulations for the "administration" of Medicare and Medicaid and the "health and safety" of recipients. But the nature and breadth of the CMS mandate requires clear authorization from Congress - and Congress has provided none. "It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken. But that has not happened.".
Even if CMS has the authority to implement the vaccine mandate the mandate is likely an unlawful promulgation of regulations. Both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Social Security Act ordinarily require notice and a comment period before a rule like this one takes effect. CMS concedes it did not follow these requirements but attempts to justify its omission under the "good cause" exception. 86 Fed. Reg. at 61,583. Here, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that CMS unlawfully bypassed the APA’s notice and comment requirements.
Use of the "good cause" exception is "limited to emergency situations" and is "necessarily fact-or context-dependent." Here, CMS’s delay in requiring mandatory vaccination undermines its contention that COVID is an emergency such that it has the "good cause" necessary to dispense with notice and comment requirements.
Finally, the court noted that "Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the CMS vaccine mandate is arbitrary or capricious." .... "In general, the overwhelming lack of evidence likely shows CMS had insufficient evidence to mandate vaccination on the wide range of facilities that it did." Another example, "CMS rejected daily or weekly testing - an option that even OSHA approved in its ETS - without citing any evidence for such a conclusion."
While the preliminary injunction applies only in the states that are Plaintiffs in this action, multiple news sources say White House is telling federal agencies they can hold off on suspending or firing federal workers for not complying with the vaccine mandate until after the holidays, according to a memo obtained by ABC News ...
This case concerns the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ ("CMS") federal vaccine mandate on a wide range of healthcare facilities. Specifically, the mandate requires nearly every employee, volunteer, and third-party contractor working at fifteen categories of healthcare facilities to be vaccinated against COVID. and to have received at least a first dose of the vaccine prior to December 6, 2021
On November 10, Plaintiffs, the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Hampshire filed a Complaint challenging the mandate. They subsequently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting that this Court issue a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from imposing the mandate.
In granting the motion, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that Congress has not provided CMS the authority to enact the regulation at issue here. "[A]n agency literally has no power to act, let alone pre-empt the validly enacted legislation of a sovereign State, unless and until Congress confers power upon it."
The Court agrees Congress has authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services general authority to enact regulations for the "administration" of Medicare and Medicaid and the "health and safety" of recipients. But the nature and breadth of the CMS mandate requires clear authorization from Congress - and Congress has provided none. "It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken. But that has not happened.".
Even if CMS has the authority to implement the vaccine mandate the mandate is likely an unlawful promulgation of regulations. Both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Social Security Act ordinarily require notice and a comment period before a rule like this one takes effect. CMS concedes it did not follow these requirements but attempts to justify its omission under the "good cause" exception. 86 Fed. Reg. at 61,583. Here, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their argument that CMS unlawfully bypassed the APA’s notice and comment requirements.
Use of the "good cause" exception is "limited to emergency situations" and is "necessarily fact-or context-dependent." Here, CMS’s delay in requiring mandatory vaccination undermines its contention that COVID is an emergency such that it has the "good cause" necessary to dispense with notice and comment requirements.
Finally, the court noted that "Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that the CMS vaccine mandate is arbitrary or capricious." .... "In general, the overwhelming lack of evidence likely shows CMS had insufficient evidence to mandate vaccination on the wide range of facilities that it did." Another example, "CMS rejected daily or weekly testing - an option that even OSHA approved in its ETS - without citing any evidence for such a conclusion."
While the preliminary injunction applies only in the states that are Plaintiffs in this action, multiple news sources say White House is telling federal agencies they can hold off on suspending or firing federal workers for not complying with the vaccine mandate until after the holidays, according to a memo obtained by ABC News ...
In a pair of rulings issued over Thanksgiving weekend, the Ninth Circuit blocked two vaccine mandates, one covering San Diego public school students, the other covering California prison guards.
A three-judge panel temporarily blocked a statewide vaccine mandate covering all California prison guards, which was set to go into effect in January.
The prison staff vaccine mandate arose out of a decades-long court case which placed medical care for California prisoners into the hands of a federal receiver, who made the decision to force prison employees to be vaccinated. The powerful prison guards union asked a federal judge to block the mandate, and Governor Gavin Newsom - who has largely been in favor of vaccine mandates - sided with the union in asking the judge to intervene. But the judge refused the request.
Finding California’s plan for curbing the spread of Covid-19 in state prisons woefully inadequate, a federal judge ordered the state to carry out a court-appointed receiver’s recommendation that all prison staff be vaccinated by January 12, 2022.
Under current rules, prison employees must get vaccinated or submit to regular COVID-19 testing. The Court order would however eliminate the testing alternative for everyone except those with religious or medical exemptions.
The Order was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal for the Northern District of California. Subsequently the Court of Appeal granted Appellants’ motion to stay the district court’s September 27, 2021 and October 27, 2021 orders pending appeal.
Courthouse news reported on the story, adding that "It’s certainly concerning," said Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law, of the two Ninth Circuit decisions. "The court certainly seems to undervalue the harm of the Covid 19 pandemic. We currently have several outbreaks in prisons. We have a new variant. And that doesn’t figure in? That should worry us."
Also, a three-judge panel temporarily blocked the San Diego Unified School District's student vaccine mandate, for as long as the district offers exceptions for pregnant students. The panel's 2-page order said a full explanation of their decision would be issued later.
The student vaccine mandate, which was set to go into effect Monday, offered a medical exemption but no religious exemption. That's because since 2016, California law does not allow students to apply for a personal belief exemption from vaccine mandates.
But the injunction may not last very long. On Monday afternoon, San Diego Unified filed a declaration with the court saying it had removed its pregnancy exemption - which, according to the district, no student had applied for - and asking the court to terminate its injunction ...
A three-judge panel temporarily blocked a statewide vaccine mandate covering all California prison guards, which was set to go into effect in January.
The prison staff vaccine mandate arose out of a decades-long court case which placed medical care for California prisoners into the hands of a federal receiver, who made the decision to force prison employees to be vaccinated. The powerful prison guards union asked a federal judge to block the mandate, and Governor Gavin Newsom - who has largely been in favor of vaccine mandates - sided with the union in asking the judge to intervene. But the judge refused the request.
Finding California’s plan for curbing the spread of Covid-19 in state prisons woefully inadequate, a federal judge ordered the state to carry out a court-appointed receiver’s recommendation that all prison staff be vaccinated by January 12, 2022.
Under current rules, prison employees must get vaccinated or submit to regular COVID-19 testing. The Court order would however eliminate the testing alternative for everyone except those with religious or medical exemptions.
The Order was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal for the Northern District of California. Subsequently the Court of Appeal granted Appellants’ motion to stay the district court’s September 27, 2021 and October 27, 2021 orders pending appeal.
Courthouse news reported on the story, adding that "It’s certainly concerning," said Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law, of the two Ninth Circuit decisions. "The court certainly seems to undervalue the harm of the Covid 19 pandemic. We currently have several outbreaks in prisons. We have a new variant. And that doesn’t figure in? That should worry us."
Also, a three-judge panel temporarily blocked the San Diego Unified School District's student vaccine mandate, for as long as the district offers exceptions for pregnant students. The panel's 2-page order said a full explanation of their decision would be issued later.
The student vaccine mandate, which was set to go into effect Monday, offered a medical exemption but no religious exemption. That's because since 2016, California law does not allow students to apply for a personal belief exemption from vaccine mandates.
But the injunction may not last very long. On Monday afternoon, San Diego Unified filed a declaration with the court saying it had removed its pregnancy exemption - which, according to the district, no student had applied for - and asking the court to terminate its injunction ...
Detroit's three big automakers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler parent Stellantis - announced that they are not yet mandating vaccines for thousands of their unionized workers.
The UAW has resisted suggestions it agree to vaccine mandates. Last September, UAW President Ray Curry told its members that until the various rules are finalized, the UAW’s bargaining position continues to be that vaccination is strongly encouraged, but a personal choice."
Biden has worked hard to win the autoworkers’ support, in part because UAW members are crucial to winning elections in Michigan and other Midwestern states. But the UAW’s reluctance to support vaccination mandates reflects a broader resistance among many unions to the Biden administration’s policies.
According to a statement given by the UAW Task Force, they aligned on a policy of voluntary and confidential disclosure of vaccination status for UAW members. Each company will provide additional communication to employees on how, where and when to report their vaccination status.
In addition to encouraging members to disclose their vaccination status, the Task Force continues to urge all members, coworkers, and their families to get vaccinated and get booster vaccinations against COVID-19, while understanding that there are personal reasons that may prevent some members from being vaccinated, such as health issues or religious beliefs.
After reviewing the status of CDC and OSHA guidelines, the Task Force also decided it is in the best interest of worker safety to continue masks in all worksites at this time.
While it is understood that masks can be uncomfortable, the spread of the Delta variant and recent data outlining the continued high rate of transmission in some geographic areas continue to be a serious health threat.
One of the best ways to fight this virus is by getting as many people as possible vaccinated. The more UAW members, coworkers and their families are vaccinated and have boosters, the quicker this deadly pandemic can be vanquished.
The Task Force will continue to closely monitor the COVID health status, and all legal and procedural changes to CDC and OSHA guidelines in order to ensure that everything possible is being done to keep families, members and employees safe.
According to a report by Reuters, Stellantis said it would require all of its 14,000 U.S. salaried non-union employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Jan. 5, as it prepares for a phased reopening of its U.S. offices next year. Nearly 80% of its salaried non-union U.S. workforce self-reported that they are fully vaccinated, Stellantis said.
Earlier this month, Ford said it would require most of its 32,000-strong U.S. salaried workforce to be vaccinated. The second largest U.S. automaker earlier this month said more than 84% of U.S. salaried employees already are vaccinated.
Ford said earlier it was still evaluating its policy for "manufacturing locations, parts depots and Ford Credit, including analyzing federal and collective bargaining requirements."
GM, Ford and Stellantis said last month they would mandate vaccines for all autoworkers in Canada ...
The UAW has resisted suggestions it agree to vaccine mandates. Last September, UAW President Ray Curry told its members that until the various rules are finalized, the UAW’s bargaining position continues to be that vaccination is strongly encouraged, but a personal choice."
Biden has worked hard to win the autoworkers’ support, in part because UAW members are crucial to winning elections in Michigan and other Midwestern states. But the UAW’s reluctance to support vaccination mandates reflects a broader resistance among many unions to the Biden administration’s policies.
According to a statement given by the UAW Task Force, they aligned on a policy of voluntary and confidential disclosure of vaccination status for UAW members. Each company will provide additional communication to employees on how, where and when to report their vaccination status.
In addition to encouraging members to disclose their vaccination status, the Task Force continues to urge all members, coworkers, and their families to get vaccinated and get booster vaccinations against COVID-19, while understanding that there are personal reasons that may prevent some members from being vaccinated, such as health issues or religious beliefs.
After reviewing the status of CDC and OSHA guidelines, the Task Force also decided it is in the best interest of worker safety to continue masks in all worksites at this time.
While it is understood that masks can be uncomfortable, the spread of the Delta variant and recent data outlining the continued high rate of transmission in some geographic areas continue to be a serious health threat.
One of the best ways to fight this virus is by getting as many people as possible vaccinated. The more UAW members, coworkers and their families are vaccinated and have boosters, the quicker this deadly pandemic can be vanquished.
The Task Force will continue to closely monitor the COVID health status, and all legal and procedural changes to CDC and OSHA guidelines in order to ensure that everything possible is being done to keep families, members and employees safe.
According to a report by Reuters, Stellantis said it would require all of its 14,000 U.S. salaried non-union employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Jan. 5, as it prepares for a phased reopening of its U.S. offices next year. Nearly 80% of its salaried non-union U.S. workforce self-reported that they are fully vaccinated, Stellantis said.
Earlier this month, Ford said it would require most of its 32,000-strong U.S. salaried workforce to be vaccinated. The second largest U.S. automaker earlier this month said more than 84% of U.S. salaried employees already are vaccinated.
Ford said earlier it was still evaluating its policy for "manufacturing locations, parts depots and Ford Credit, including analyzing federal and collective bargaining requirements."
GM, Ford and Stellantis said last month they would mandate vaccines for all autoworkers in Canada ...
Three classes of current and former nonexempt employees who have various jobs at Bank of America’s California branches - challenge Bank of America’s alleged failure to pay them for their off-the-clock work, provide meal-and-rest breaks, or reimburse expenses in violation of the California Labor Code, California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and California’s Private Attorney’s General Act (PAGA).
There were three separate cases, which were consolidated by the settlement order. One was filed on behalf of operations managers in California State Court in March 2019, which was then moved to federal court.
The lead plaintiff claimed BofA operations managers had to work five hours or more without meal and rest breaks, which is a violation of the California labor code. Often during breaks operations managers had to help bankers and tellers and answer customer inquiries without reimbursement. As well, employees were not paid for having to use their own cellphones for work issues.
The second case filed in 2018 on behalf of tellers, claims tellers had to fire up their computers and programs before clocking in and same went for winding down after clocking out. Both pre- and post-shift work totaled more than 30 minutes per day. And like Operations Managers, tellers also had to work through meal and rest breaks, but the bank made them record on their time sheets that they took breaks..
The third case was filed on behalf of personal bankers in March 2020 and accused BofA of the same labor violations, i.e., working off-the-clock and working through meal and rest breaks without reimbursement.
The parties settled the case following the recommendation by a mediator, and the court held a fairness hearing on October 28, 2021 and approved the settlement.
There are 20,190 class members (19,895 identified initially plus 295 omitted inadvertently because a job code was not included). They worked as tellers, personal bankers and operations managers.
The total non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount is $11,500,000, and the Net Settlement Amount recovered by the class is approximately $7,497,202.97 after the following deductions: (1) $86,250 in PAGA penalties; (2) $30,000 in enhancement payments to the named plaintiffs; (3) $84,000 for the claims administration’s expenses; (4) $3,450,000 in attorney’s fees; (5) $54,356.17 in litigation costs; and (6) employer payroll taxes of $298,190.86.
Multiple other class action lawsuits filed before 2010 claimed the bank failed to pay overtime and violated other wage and hour laws to non-exempt (hourly) employees working at retail banking centers and in certain call centers. The cases were consolidated in 2010 as In re: Bank of America Wage and Hour Employment Litigation in Kansas federal court and the bank settled for $73 million but denied the allegations ...
There were three separate cases, which were consolidated by the settlement order. One was filed on behalf of operations managers in California State Court in March 2019, which was then moved to federal court.
The lead plaintiff claimed BofA operations managers had to work five hours or more without meal and rest breaks, which is a violation of the California labor code. Often during breaks operations managers had to help bankers and tellers and answer customer inquiries without reimbursement. As well, employees were not paid for having to use their own cellphones for work issues.
The second case filed in 2018 on behalf of tellers, claims tellers had to fire up their computers and programs before clocking in and same went for winding down after clocking out. Both pre- and post-shift work totaled more than 30 minutes per day. And like Operations Managers, tellers also had to work through meal and rest breaks, but the bank made them record on their time sheets that they took breaks..
The third case was filed on behalf of personal bankers in March 2020 and accused BofA of the same labor violations, i.e., working off-the-clock and working through meal and rest breaks without reimbursement.
The parties settled the case following the recommendation by a mediator, and the court held a fairness hearing on October 28, 2021 and approved the settlement.
There are 20,190 class members (19,895 identified initially plus 295 omitted inadvertently because a job code was not included). They worked as tellers, personal bankers and operations managers.
The total non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount is $11,500,000, and the Net Settlement Amount recovered by the class is approximately $7,497,202.97 after the following deductions: (1) $86,250 in PAGA penalties; (2) $30,000 in enhancement payments to the named plaintiffs; (3) $84,000 for the claims administration’s expenses; (4) $3,450,000 in attorney’s fees; (5) $54,356.17 in litigation costs; and (6) employer payroll taxes of $298,190.86.
Multiple other class action lawsuits filed before 2010 claimed the bank failed to pay overtime and violated other wage and hour laws to non-exempt (hourly) employees working at retail banking centers and in certain call centers. The cases were consolidated in 2010 as In re: Bank of America Wage and Hour Employment Litigation in Kansas federal court and the bank settled for $73 million but denied the allegations ...
A big question in opiod litigation pertains to how far down the chain of distribution, from the drug manufacturer, the prescribing doctor, to the pharmacy that fills a prescription, can liability be established by plaintiffs seeking payment of the opiod litigation. A new jury verdict this week may help answer that question.
Bloomberglaw reports that a Cleveland jury concluded Walmart Inc., CVS Health Corp. and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. helped create a public-health crisis by failing to properly monitor opioid prescriptions, the drug industry’s latest loss in the expanding litigation over the painkillers.
The federal-court panel backed claims by northeast Ohio’s Trumbull and Lake Counties that the pharmacy chains failed to create legally mandated monitoring systems to detect illegitimate opioid prescriptions. The counties are seeking reimbursement for the costs of dealing with addictions and fatal overdoses. Similar suits are pending against drugmakers and distributors. A judge will hear arguments in May about the counties’ compensation claims.
The two Ohio municipalities want the pharmacy owners to pay a combined $2.4 billion to replenish depleted budgets for drug treatment, social services and police, with $1.3 billion for Trumbull and $1.1 billion for Lake, according to people familiar with their demands.
Walmart and other pharmacy operators argued the municipalities couldn’t prove they created a so-called "public nuisance" through lax prescription oversight when the scripts were written by licensed doctors. They also touted their systems designed to help pharmacists track patients’ visits, making it easier to spot red flags among prescriptions.
It’s the first jury verdict in the sprawling, four-year opioid litigation. Municipalities across the nation have accused opioid makers, distributors and sellers of downplaying the painkillers’ addiction risks and sacrificing patient safety for billions in profits. The jurors in Cleveland deliberated for more than five days before returning the unanimous verdict on Tuesday.
"The jury’s decision sounds a bell that should be heard by pharmacy companies around the country," Mark Lanier, the Ohio counties’ lead lawyer, said after the verdict was announced. "Laws regarding proper monitoring of prescription drugs are be taken seriously and not ignored or downplayed."
The companies all said they would appeal the verdict. "We look forward to the appeals court review of this case, including the misapplication of public nuisance law," Mike DeAngelis, a CVS spokesman, said in an emailed statement. "The facts and law do not support the verdict," Walgreen’s Fraser Engelman added.
"We will appeal this flawed verdict, which is a reflection of a trial that was engineered to favor the plaintiffs’ attorneys and was riddled with remarkable legal and factual mistakes," Randy Hargrove, a Walmart spokesman, said in an emailed statement ...
Bloomberglaw reports that a Cleveland jury concluded Walmart Inc., CVS Health Corp. and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. helped create a public-health crisis by failing to properly monitor opioid prescriptions, the drug industry’s latest loss in the expanding litigation over the painkillers.
The federal-court panel backed claims by northeast Ohio’s Trumbull and Lake Counties that the pharmacy chains failed to create legally mandated monitoring systems to detect illegitimate opioid prescriptions. The counties are seeking reimbursement for the costs of dealing with addictions and fatal overdoses. Similar suits are pending against drugmakers and distributors. A judge will hear arguments in May about the counties’ compensation claims.
The two Ohio municipalities want the pharmacy owners to pay a combined $2.4 billion to replenish depleted budgets for drug treatment, social services and police, with $1.3 billion for Trumbull and $1.1 billion for Lake, according to people familiar with their demands.
Walmart and other pharmacy operators argued the municipalities couldn’t prove they created a so-called "public nuisance" through lax prescription oversight when the scripts were written by licensed doctors. They also touted their systems designed to help pharmacists track patients’ visits, making it easier to spot red flags among prescriptions.
It’s the first jury verdict in the sprawling, four-year opioid litigation. Municipalities across the nation have accused opioid makers, distributors and sellers of downplaying the painkillers’ addiction risks and sacrificing patient safety for billions in profits. The jurors in Cleveland deliberated for more than five days before returning the unanimous verdict on Tuesday.
"The jury’s decision sounds a bell that should be heard by pharmacy companies around the country," Mark Lanier, the Ohio counties’ lead lawyer, said after the verdict was announced. "Laws regarding proper monitoring of prescription drugs are be taken seriously and not ignored or downplayed."
The companies all said they would appeal the verdict. "We look forward to the appeals court review of this case, including the misapplication of public nuisance law," Mike DeAngelis, a CVS spokesman, said in an emailed statement. "The facts and law do not support the verdict," Walgreen’s Fraser Engelman added.
"We will appeal this flawed verdict, which is a reflection of a trial that was engineered to favor the plaintiffs’ attorneys and was riddled with remarkable legal and factual mistakes," Randy Hargrove, a Walmart spokesman, said in an emailed statement ...
The Division of Workers’ Compensation has posted an order adopting regulations to update the evidence-based treatment guidelines of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS).
The updates, effective for medical treatment services rendered on or after November 23, 2021, incorporate by reference the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine’s (ACOEM’s) most recent treatment guidelines to the Clinical Topics section of the MTUS.
The ACOEM guidelines that are incorporated by reference into the MTUS are:
- - Low Back Disorders Guideline 268 pages, (ACOEM February 13, 2020)
The administrative order consists of the order and two addenda:
- - Addendum one shows the regulatory amendments directly related to the evidence-based update to the MTUS.
- - Addendum two contains a hyperlink to the ACOEM guideline adopted and incorporated into the MTUS by reference.
A few of the more notable recommendations of the new guideline which are illustrative of new approaches are:"
- - "Patients should be encouraged to return to work as soon as possible as evidence suggests this leads to the best outcomes. This process may be facilitated with temporary modified (or alternative) duty particularly if job demands exceed patient capabilities. Full-duty work is a reasonable option for patients with low physical job demands and/or the ability to control such demands (e.g., alternate their posture) as well as for those with less severe presentations"
- - "Among the modes of exercise, aerobic exercise has the best evidence of efficacy, whether for acute, subacute, or chronic LBP patients."
- - "Many invasive and noninvasive therapies are intended to cure or manage LBP, but no quality evidence exists that they accomplish this as successfully as therapies that focus on restoring functional ability without focusing on pain. In those cases, the traditional medical model of “curing” the patient does not work well. Instead, patients should be aware that returning to normal activities most often aids functional recovery.
- - "Patients should be encouraged to accept responsibility for managing their recovery rather than expecting the provider to provide an easy "cure." This process promotes the use of activity and function rather than pain as a guide, making the treatment goal of return to occupational and non- occupational activities more obvious."
Health care providers treating, evaluating (QME), or reviewing (UR or IMR) in the California workers’ compensation system may access the MTUS (ACOEM) Guidelines and MTUS Drug List at no cost by registering for an account ...
The updates, effective for medical treatment services rendered on or after November 23, 2021, incorporate by reference the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine’s (ACOEM’s) most recent treatment guidelines to the Clinical Topics section of the MTUS.
The ACOEM guidelines that are incorporated by reference into the MTUS are:
- - Low Back Disorders Guideline 268 pages, (ACOEM February 13, 2020)
The administrative order consists of the order and two addenda:
- - Addendum one shows the regulatory amendments directly related to the evidence-based update to the MTUS.
- - Addendum two contains a hyperlink to the ACOEM guideline adopted and incorporated into the MTUS by reference.
A few of the more notable recommendations of the new guideline which are illustrative of new approaches are:"
- - "Patients should be encouraged to return to work as soon as possible as evidence suggests this leads to the best outcomes. This process may be facilitated with temporary modified (or alternative) duty particularly if job demands exceed patient capabilities. Full-duty work is a reasonable option for patients with low physical job demands and/or the ability to control such demands (e.g., alternate their posture) as well as for those with less severe presentations"
- - "Among the modes of exercise, aerobic exercise has the best evidence of efficacy, whether for acute, subacute, or chronic LBP patients."
- - "Many invasive and noninvasive therapies are intended to cure or manage LBP, but no quality evidence exists that they accomplish this as successfully as therapies that focus on restoring functional ability without focusing on pain. In those cases, the traditional medical model of “curing” the patient does not work well. Instead, patients should be aware that returning to normal activities most often aids functional recovery.
- - "Patients should be encouraged to accept responsibility for managing their recovery rather than expecting the provider to provide an easy "cure." This process promotes the use of activity and function rather than pain as a guide, making the treatment goal of return to occupational and non- occupational activities more obvious."
Health care providers treating, evaluating (QME), or reviewing (UR or IMR) in the California workers’ compensation system may access the MTUS (ACOEM) Guidelines and MTUS Drug List at no cost by registering for an account ...
The outcome of several verdicts in litigation against the makers of the Roundup weed killer are of significance to worker's compensation administrators who might be involved in CT claims filed b.y agricultural workers. There may, or may not be opportunities for subrogation depending on the eventual trend.
The latest development this month involved an $86.7 million damages award for a Livermore couple stricken with cancer after years of spraying Roundup weed killer. This result will now be final, after the California Supreme Court refused to hear Monsanto’s appeal.
The decision effectively upholds a 2019 jury verdict that found Monsanto was aware of the risks associated with its product and negligently failed to warn consumers, and in so doing also acted with malice, oppression or fraud.
Courthouse news reports that both Alva and Alberta Pilliod were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma that they attributed to decades of using Roundup: Alva with systemic diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma in his bones in 2011; Alberta with diagnosed with an aggressive subset of that lymphoma in her brain in 2015.
In addition to $55 million in combined compensatory damages, the jury awarded each of the Pilliods $1 billion in punitive damages. During the course of the five-week trial back May 2019, Alberta testified that she never would have bought the popular herbicide if she had known that it was brought to market based on approval studies that were found to be invalid.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith ultimately slashed the award to a total of $86.7 million, and an appellate court affirmed it in an August order where Justice Marla Miller wrote that "Monsanto’s continuing to sell Roundup after learning that the original approval studies were invalid shows conscious disregard for public health and safety."
In other Roundup cases, two other Bay Area residents were awarded hefty damages by separate juries. In August 2018, a jury found Monsanto owed Dewayne Lee Johnson $289 million in damages - later reduced by a judge to $78 million - after finding Roundup caused his terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and a federal jury awarded Ed Hardeman $75 million in punitive damages for failing to warn him about the product’s hazards, which a a judge cut down to $20 million.
Bayer AG, which bought Monsanto for $63 billion in 2016, has since appealed the Hardeman case to U.S. Supreme Court.
However, the defendants recently secured a win in Los Angeles state court, where a jury found there wasn't enough evidence to prove Roundup was a substantial factor in causing the rare cancer that killed a young boy.
A federal judge in Georgia also found in Bayer's favor on a plaintiff's failure to warn claim, ruling that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act requires the company to follow instructions by the EPA not to sell Roundup with a cancer warning on its label. An appeal is pending before the Eleventh Circuit.
In June 2020, Bayer announced a $10 billion agreement to settle a bevy of claims related to Roundup users who have contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But this year, U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria refused to approve a $2 billion deal to resolve claims from Roundup users who have not developed cancer but may be diagnosed in the future.
Bayer has also vowed to remove glyphosate-based products from retail store shelves by 2023 to prevent future litigation, though the company has consistently said that it stands behind Roundup's safety ...
The latest development this month involved an $86.7 million damages award for a Livermore couple stricken with cancer after years of spraying Roundup weed killer. This result will now be final, after the California Supreme Court refused to hear Monsanto’s appeal.
The decision effectively upholds a 2019 jury verdict that found Monsanto was aware of the risks associated with its product and negligently failed to warn consumers, and in so doing also acted with malice, oppression or fraud.
Courthouse news reports that both Alva and Alberta Pilliod were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma that they attributed to decades of using Roundup: Alva with systemic diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma in his bones in 2011; Alberta with diagnosed with an aggressive subset of that lymphoma in her brain in 2015.
In addition to $55 million in combined compensatory damages, the jury awarded each of the Pilliods $1 billion in punitive damages. During the course of the five-week trial back May 2019, Alberta testified that she never would have bought the popular herbicide if she had known that it was brought to market based on approval studies that were found to be invalid.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith ultimately slashed the award to a total of $86.7 million, and an appellate court affirmed it in an August order where Justice Marla Miller wrote that "Monsanto’s continuing to sell Roundup after learning that the original approval studies were invalid shows conscious disregard for public health and safety."
In other Roundup cases, two other Bay Area residents were awarded hefty damages by separate juries. In August 2018, a jury found Monsanto owed Dewayne Lee Johnson $289 million in damages - later reduced by a judge to $78 million - after finding Roundup caused his terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and a federal jury awarded Ed Hardeman $75 million in punitive damages for failing to warn him about the product’s hazards, which a a judge cut down to $20 million.
Bayer AG, which bought Monsanto for $63 billion in 2016, has since appealed the Hardeman case to U.S. Supreme Court.
However, the defendants recently secured a win in Los Angeles state court, where a jury found there wasn't enough evidence to prove Roundup was a substantial factor in causing the rare cancer that killed a young boy.
A federal judge in Georgia also found in Bayer's favor on a plaintiff's failure to warn claim, ruling that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act requires the company to follow instructions by the EPA not to sell Roundup with a cancer warning on its label. An appeal is pending before the Eleventh Circuit.
In June 2020, Bayer announced a $10 billion agreement to settle a bevy of claims related to Roundup users who have contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But this year, U.S. District Judge Vincent Chhabria refused to approve a $2 billion deal to resolve claims from Roundup users who have not developed cancer but may be diagnosed in the future.
Bayer has also vowed to remove glyphosate-based products from retail store shelves by 2023 to prevent future litigation, though the company has consistently said that it stands behind Roundup's safety ...
The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office has charged Russell A. Robinson, a now-disbarred San Francisco-based attorney, with multiple felony counts for defrauding a client, two courts, and two insurance companies - all while illegally practicing law after he was suspended from doing so.
According to public documents, Mr. Robinson had been placed on involuntary inactive status by the California State Bar in June 2019, and was not authorized to practice law after that time. Nonetheless, according to witnesses and records obtained, Mr. Robinson continued to practice as an attorney. He also is alleged to have made false statements to induce a client to retain his services and even filed a lawsuit on the client’s behalf in a California Superior Court. As a part of that lawsuit, Mr. Robinson filed with the Court numerous false documents bearing the forged signatures of a licensed attorney and a legal assistant.
Other records show that Mr. Robinson also impersonated his client, the licensed attorney, and others in his communications with two different insurance companies, and he is alleged to have forged his client’s signature on documents he submitted to those insurance companies. These fraudulent communications and documents resulted in the insurance companies providing approximately $265,000 in settlement proceeds to Mr. Robinson for his client, most of which he allegedly embezzled.
In addition, other records show that Mr. Robinson also forged the signature of a legal assistant on twelve documents he filed with the Review Department of the State Bar Court, which recommended that he be disbarred. The California Supreme Court accepted that recommendation and disbarred Robinson in June 2021.
For his acts, Mr. Robinson has been charged with multiple felony counts, including Unauthorized Practice of Law in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6126(b); False Personation in violation of Penal Code section 529(a)(2); Identity Theft in violation of Penal Code section 530.5; Embezzlement in violation of Penal Code section 503; and Forgery in violation of Penal Code sections 470(a) and 470(c); and Filing a False Instrument in violation of Penal Code section 115(a).
"Our legal system depends on lawyers to be truthful and act with integrity," said the San Francisco District Attorney. "Breaching that trust hurts not only the individuals who have been defrauded, but damages the confidence the public places in the legal system. Those who practice law are not above it."
This case was investigated by SFDA Inspector Jonathan Collum, who was assisted by the State Bar of California, Office of Chief Trial Counsel. The SFDA’s investigation into Mr. Robinson’s conduct remains ongoing ...
According to public documents, Mr. Robinson had been placed on involuntary inactive status by the California State Bar in June 2019, and was not authorized to practice law after that time. Nonetheless, according to witnesses and records obtained, Mr. Robinson continued to practice as an attorney. He also is alleged to have made false statements to induce a client to retain his services and even filed a lawsuit on the client’s behalf in a California Superior Court. As a part of that lawsuit, Mr. Robinson filed with the Court numerous false documents bearing the forged signatures of a licensed attorney and a legal assistant.
Other records show that Mr. Robinson also impersonated his client, the licensed attorney, and others in his communications with two different insurance companies, and he is alleged to have forged his client’s signature on documents he submitted to those insurance companies. These fraudulent communications and documents resulted in the insurance companies providing approximately $265,000 in settlement proceeds to Mr. Robinson for his client, most of which he allegedly embezzled.
In addition, other records show that Mr. Robinson also forged the signature of a legal assistant on twelve documents he filed with the Review Department of the State Bar Court, which recommended that he be disbarred. The California Supreme Court accepted that recommendation and disbarred Robinson in June 2021.
For his acts, Mr. Robinson has been charged with multiple felony counts, including Unauthorized Practice of Law in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6126(b); False Personation in violation of Penal Code section 529(a)(2); Identity Theft in violation of Penal Code section 530.5; Embezzlement in violation of Penal Code section 503; and Forgery in violation of Penal Code sections 470(a) and 470(c); and Filing a False Instrument in violation of Penal Code section 115(a).
"Our legal system depends on lawyers to be truthful and act with integrity," said the San Francisco District Attorney. "Breaching that trust hurts not only the individuals who have been defrauded, but damages the confidence the public places in the legal system. Those who practice law are not above it."
This case was investigated by SFDA Inspector Jonathan Collum, who was assisted by the State Bar of California, Office of Chief Trial Counsel. The SFDA’s investigation into Mr. Robinson’s conduct remains ongoing ...
Mercury News reports that a former volunteer reserve captain for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department has been charged with defrauding the state workers’ compensation program of $17 million.
54 year old Simon Semaan, who lives in Los Angeles County, faces a maximum 16 years in state prison if convicted of seven felony counts of fraud and seven enhancements of committing a white collar crime of more than $500,000. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on $4 million bail. He was let go by the Sheriff’s Department this September
According to authorities, Semaan ran Pacwest Security Services, but did not have workers’ compensation insurance for his employees as required by law. He did have insurance with two different companies for a firm called PSSM Inc. The Costa Mesa company that provides licensed, unarmed security guards,
Semaan had been a sheriff’s reserve officer since 1993 and was a noted supporter of former Sheriff Michael S. Carona. Carona ultimately was found guilty of a federal charge of witness tampering and served 52 months in prison. Semaan, a Los Angeles resident, was let go by the Sheriff’s Department in September.
In 2008, he was appointed by then Gov. Arnold Schwarzegger to a state private security disciplinary review committee.
The alleged $17 million theft represents the largest insurance premium fraud case ever filed in Orange County and the second largest in California, authorities said.
"The Orange County District Attorney’s Office is committed to prosecuting these dishonest business owners as a way of protecting legitimate business owners who follow the law and play by the rules," said Kimberly Edds, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Todd Spitzer. "Everyone deserves a level playing field, and Orange County is continuing to ensure that no one is gaining an unfair advantage to undercut the competition."
An attorney for Semaan did not return Mercury News phone calls seeking comment.
The Sheriff’s Department declined to comment, other than to say he was no longer with the agency ...
54 year old Simon Semaan, who lives in Los Angeles County, faces a maximum 16 years in state prison if convicted of seven felony counts of fraud and seven enhancements of committing a white collar crime of more than $500,000. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on $4 million bail. He was let go by the Sheriff’s Department this September
According to authorities, Semaan ran Pacwest Security Services, but did not have workers’ compensation insurance for his employees as required by law. He did have insurance with two different companies for a firm called PSSM Inc. The Costa Mesa company that provides licensed, unarmed security guards,
Semaan had been a sheriff’s reserve officer since 1993 and was a noted supporter of former Sheriff Michael S. Carona. Carona ultimately was found guilty of a federal charge of witness tampering and served 52 months in prison. Semaan, a Los Angeles resident, was let go by the Sheriff’s Department in September.
In 2008, he was appointed by then Gov. Arnold Schwarzegger to a state private security disciplinary review committee.
The alleged $17 million theft represents the largest insurance premium fraud case ever filed in Orange County and the second largest in California, authorities said.
"The Orange County District Attorney’s Office is committed to prosecuting these dishonest business owners as a way of protecting legitimate business owners who follow the law and play by the rules," said Kimberly Edds, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Todd Spitzer. "Everyone deserves a level playing field, and Orange County is continuing to ensure that no one is gaining an unfair advantage to undercut the competition."
An attorney for Semaan did not return Mercury News phone calls seeking comment.
The Sheriff’s Department declined to comment, other than to say he was no longer with the agency ...
Physician Edmund Kemprud, 78, of Dublin, was found guilty of 14 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances patients. Medical Board records show that he was a 1973 graduate of the University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine. He has been licensed in California since 1974. He stipulated to the surrender of his license effective October 25, 2021, and is no longer licensed in California.
According to evidence presented at trial, Kemprud worked in several locations around the East Bay and Central Valley, including one location in a back room of a nail salon and medi-spa in Tracy.
Evidence at trial showed that Kemprud prescribed highly addictive, commonly abused prescription drugs, including Hydrocodone, Alprazolam, and Oxycodone - outside the usual course of professional practice and not for legitimate medical purpose.
He ignored indications that his patients were addicts or that they were diverting the drugs. Instead, he wrote more prescriptions for highly addictive and dangerous controlled substances, charging $79 a visit. He churned out prescriptions so quickly that he often spent less than five minutes with a patient and would see 30 patients in less than a day.
Several pharmacies were so troubled by Kemprud’s prescriptions that they instituted companywide policies to block his prescriptions.
Trial testimony of undercover officers established that on 14 occasions between Sept. 6, 2018, and March 13, 2019, Kemprud prescribed opioids without determining the patients’ medical and prescription histories, without conducting a proper medical examination, without confirming the legitimacy of the patients’ complaints, and without assessing the risk of aberrant drug behavior.
"This defendant displayed a blatant disregard for patient safety and the law," Acting U.S. Attorney Talbert said. "Although he knew his treatment of patients was unlawful, he continued to pump dangerous drugs into the community. It took the effort of agents, investigators, undercover officers, medical professionals who practiced with the defendant and pharmacists to bring an end to Kemprud’s illicit prescription writing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue our vigorous pursuit of those who fuel the opioid epidemic for their own personal benefit."
This case is the product of an investigation by the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse Drug Diversion Team, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Assistant U.S. Attorney Veronica M.A. Alegría and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert J. Artuz are prosecuting the case.
Kemprud is scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 14, 2022, by U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb. Kemprud faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison ...
According to evidence presented at trial, Kemprud worked in several locations around the East Bay and Central Valley, including one location in a back room of a nail salon and medi-spa in Tracy.
Evidence at trial showed that Kemprud prescribed highly addictive, commonly abused prescription drugs, including Hydrocodone, Alprazolam, and Oxycodone - outside the usual course of professional practice and not for legitimate medical purpose.
He ignored indications that his patients were addicts or that they were diverting the drugs. Instead, he wrote more prescriptions for highly addictive and dangerous controlled substances, charging $79 a visit. He churned out prescriptions so quickly that he often spent less than five minutes with a patient and would see 30 patients in less than a day.
Several pharmacies were so troubled by Kemprud’s prescriptions that they instituted companywide policies to block his prescriptions.
Trial testimony of undercover officers established that on 14 occasions between Sept. 6, 2018, and March 13, 2019, Kemprud prescribed opioids without determining the patients’ medical and prescription histories, without conducting a proper medical examination, without confirming the legitimacy of the patients’ complaints, and without assessing the risk of aberrant drug behavior.
"This defendant displayed a blatant disregard for patient safety and the law," Acting U.S. Attorney Talbert said. "Although he knew his treatment of patients was unlawful, he continued to pump dangerous drugs into the community. It took the effort of agents, investigators, undercover officers, medical professionals who practiced with the defendant and pharmacists to bring an end to Kemprud’s illicit prescription writing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue our vigorous pursuit of those who fuel the opioid epidemic for their own personal benefit."
This case is the product of an investigation by the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse Drug Diversion Team, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Assistant U.S. Attorney Veronica M.A. Alegría and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert J. Artuz are prosecuting the case.
Kemprud is scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 14, 2022, by U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb. Kemprud faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison ...
Three members of a San Fernando Valley family have been sentenced - two of them in absentia after they fled justice following their convictions at trial - to years in federal prison for scheming to fraudulently obtain more than $20 million in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) COVID-19 relief funds.
On Monday, United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson handed down prison sentences to the Encino residents:
- - Richard Ayvazyan, 43, who was ordered to serve 17 years;
- - Marietta Terabelian, 37, Richard Ayvazyan’s wife, who was sentenced to six years; and
- - Artur Ayvazyan, 41, Richard Ayvazyan’s brother, who was ordered to serve five years in federal prison.
At Monday’s sentencing hearing, Judge Wilson said he could not recall a fraud case conducted in such a "callous, intentional way without any regard for the law." Judge Wilson further described Richard Ayvazyan as "an endemic, cold-hearted fraudster with no regard for the law" and someone who "views fraud as an achievement."
The FBI is offering a reward of up to $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Richard Ayvazyan and Terabelian, who allegedly cut their tracking bracelets on August 29 and went on the run while awaiting sentencing in this case. Judge Wilson sentenced them in absentia, and they remain fugitives from justice.
At the end of an eight-day trial, a federal jury on June 25 found Richard Ayvazyan, Terabelian, and Artur Ayvazyan guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, 11 counts of wire fraud, eight counts of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Richard Ayvazyan and his brother were also convicted of aggravated identity theft.
On June 28, the jury further found that Richard Ayvazyan and Terabelian must forfeit bank accounts, jewelry, watches, gold coins, three residential properties and approximately $450,000 in cash.
Judge Wilson previously sentenced four defendants in this case:
- - Manuk Grigoryan, 28, of Sun Valley, was sentenced on October 25 to six years in prison;
- - Edvard Paronyan, 41, of Granada Hills, was sentenced on September 27 to 30 months in prison;
- - Vahe Dadyan, 42, of Glendale, was sentenced on October 18 to 12 months and one day in prison; and
- - Arman Hayrapetyan, 39, of Glendale, was ordered on October 18 to serve 10 months of probation.
Tamara Dadyan, 42, of Encino, is scheduled to be sentenced on December 6, but Judge Wilson has not yet ruled on a motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
The defendants used dozens of fake, stolen or synthetic identities - including names belonging to elderly or deceased people and foreign exchange students who briefly visited the United States years ago and never returned - to submit fraudulent applications for approximately 150 PPP and EIDL loans. In support of the fraudulent loan applications, the defendants also submitted false and fictitious documents to lenders and the Small Business Administration (SBA), including fake identity documents, tax documents and payroll records.
The defendants then used the fraudulently obtained funds as down payments on luxury homes in Tarzana, Glendale and Palm Desert. They also used the funds to buy gold coins, diamonds, jewelry, luxury watches, fine imported furnishings, designer handbags, clothing and a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. The conspirators sought to fraudulently obtain more than $20 million in COVID-19 relief funds.
The FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General investigated this matter.
...
On Monday, United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson handed down prison sentences to the Encino residents:
- - Richard Ayvazyan, 43, who was ordered to serve 17 years;
- - Marietta Terabelian, 37, Richard Ayvazyan’s wife, who was sentenced to six years; and
- - Artur Ayvazyan, 41, Richard Ayvazyan’s brother, who was ordered to serve five years in federal prison.
At Monday’s sentencing hearing, Judge Wilson said he could not recall a fraud case conducted in such a "callous, intentional way without any regard for the law." Judge Wilson further described Richard Ayvazyan as "an endemic, cold-hearted fraudster with no regard for the law" and someone who "views fraud as an achievement."
The FBI is offering a reward of up to $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Richard Ayvazyan and Terabelian, who allegedly cut their tracking bracelets on August 29 and went on the run while awaiting sentencing in this case. Judge Wilson sentenced them in absentia, and they remain fugitives from justice.
At the end of an eight-day trial, a federal jury on June 25 found Richard Ayvazyan, Terabelian, and Artur Ayvazyan guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, 11 counts of wire fraud, eight counts of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Richard Ayvazyan and his brother were also convicted of aggravated identity theft.
On June 28, the jury further found that Richard Ayvazyan and Terabelian must forfeit bank accounts, jewelry, watches, gold coins, three residential properties and approximately $450,000 in cash.
Judge Wilson previously sentenced four defendants in this case:
- - Manuk Grigoryan, 28, of Sun Valley, was sentenced on October 25 to six years in prison;
- - Edvard Paronyan, 41, of Granada Hills, was sentenced on September 27 to 30 months in prison;
- - Vahe Dadyan, 42, of Glendale, was sentenced on October 18 to 12 months and one day in prison; and
- - Arman Hayrapetyan, 39, of Glendale, was ordered on October 18 to serve 10 months of probation.
Tamara Dadyan, 42, of Encino, is scheduled to be sentenced on December 6, but Judge Wilson has not yet ruled on a motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
The defendants used dozens of fake, stolen or synthetic identities - including names belonging to elderly or deceased people and foreign exchange students who briefly visited the United States years ago and never returned - to submit fraudulent applications for approximately 150 PPP and EIDL loans. In support of the fraudulent loan applications, the defendants also submitted false and fictitious documents to lenders and the Small Business Administration (SBA), including fake identity documents, tax documents and payroll records.
The defendants then used the fraudulently obtained funds as down payments on luxury homes in Tarzana, Glendale and Palm Desert. They also used the funds to buy gold coins, diamonds, jewelry, luxury watches, fine imported furnishings, designer handbags, clothing and a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. The conspirators sought to fraudulently obtain more than $20 million in COVID-19 relief funds.
The FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General investigated this matter.
...
As the pandemic swept across the country, a record number of Americans died of drug overdoses in the 12-month period ending in April 2021, according to preliminary data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The more than 100,000 overdose deaths is nearly 30% higher than the 78,000 counted the year before - with much of the blame landing on the availability and potency of synthetic opioids such as Fentanyl - which is up to 50x more potent than heroin, according to Statista, which notes that the CDC has reported more than 60% of overdose deaths last year involved synthetic opioids.
The provisional drug overdose death count for the 12 month-ending period ending in March, 2021 for Los Angeles County, California is: 2132.
"These are numbers we have never seen before," said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who noted that most of the fatalities were among those aged 25 to 55.
"They leave behind friends, family and children, if they have children, so there are a lot of downstream consequences," said Volkow. "This is a major challenge to our society."
Responding to the staggering figure, the Biden administration on Wednesday said that it would expand access to medications such as naloxone, which can reverse an opioid overdose, according to the New York Times.
The President failed to mention China in his statement on Wednesday, the nation responsible for the immense amount of fentanyl killing Americans every day. Former President Trump frequently criticized China’s high level of exports of fentanyl or the substances used to make it, which are smuggled into the United States through Mexico.
Back in 2018, under pressure from President Trump, President Xi promised to make trading fentanyl a criminal act, punishable to the highest level: the death penalty. However, Xi failed to follow through on that promise, which President Trump routinely blasted him for. So far in 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration has seized enough fentanyl to kill every member of the United States population ...
The more than 100,000 overdose deaths is nearly 30% higher than the 78,000 counted the year before - with much of the blame landing on the availability and potency of synthetic opioids such as Fentanyl - which is up to 50x more potent than heroin, according to Statista, which notes that the CDC has reported more than 60% of overdose deaths last year involved synthetic opioids.
The provisional drug overdose death count for the 12 month-ending period ending in March, 2021 for Los Angeles County, California is: 2132.
"These are numbers we have never seen before," said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who noted that most of the fatalities were among those aged 25 to 55.
"They leave behind friends, family and children, if they have children, so there are a lot of downstream consequences," said Volkow. "This is a major challenge to our society."
Responding to the staggering figure, the Biden administration on Wednesday said that it would expand access to medications such as naloxone, which can reverse an opioid overdose, according to the New York Times.
The President failed to mention China in his statement on Wednesday, the nation responsible for the immense amount of fentanyl killing Americans every day. Former President Trump frequently criticized China’s high level of exports of fentanyl or the substances used to make it, which are smuggled into the United States through Mexico.
Back in 2018, under pressure from President Trump, President Xi promised to make trading fentanyl a criminal act, punishable to the highest level: the death penalty. However, Xi failed to follow through on that promise, which President Trump routinely blasted him for. So far in 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration has seized enough fentanyl to kill every member of the United States population ...
6th Circuit Court 'wins' lottery to hear lawsuits against Biden's vaccine rule
Under federal law, when multiple lawsuits involving "one or more common questions of fact" are filed in separate courts, the petitions are consolidated and heard by one court chosen at random. The procedure is often used to handle product liability and antitrust cases, when thousands of lawsuits may be consolidated and heard by a single court.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has won the lottery to hear legal challenges to the Biden administration's vaccine rule that affects some 84 million workers.
The Biden administration rule was formally issued on Nov. 5 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Lawsuits challenging the rule came in quick succession. Within 10 days, 34 lawsuits were filed, covering all 12 regional circuit courts and giving each of those courts one entry into the lottery.
A report by NPR claims the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, Ohio, is known to lean conservative, with most of its judges appointed by Republican presidents. Six were appointed by President Donald Trump and five were appointed by President George W. Bush, while a total of five were appointed by Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
It will now be up to the 6th Circuit to decide whether to lift the stay issued by the 5th Circuit. A three-judge panel temporarily blocked the OSHA rule one day after it took effect and reaffirmed that decision last Friday, calling the rule "a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers)."
While a majority of the lawsuits seek to overturn the OSHA rule, several labor unions went the other way. They sued saying the rule does not go far enough to protect workers from COVID-19. The rule does not apply to employers with fewer than 100 workers.
The union lawsuits were mostly filed in courts that either have a majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents or are evenly split.
But an article in Politico speculates that that the legal challenges are likely to end up in front of the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority seems ripe to limit the federal government’s ability to police workplaces in emergencies more broadly.
Some of the arguments made in the cases could "have serious implications on the constitutionality" of other OSHA rules and regulations, said Benjamin Noren, associate chair of the Labor and Employment group at the law firm Davidoff Hutcher & Citron ...
Under federal law, when multiple lawsuits involving "one or more common questions of fact" are filed in separate courts, the petitions are consolidated and heard by one court chosen at random. The procedure is often used to handle product liability and antitrust cases, when thousands of lawsuits may be consolidated and heard by a single court.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has won the lottery to hear legal challenges to the Biden administration's vaccine rule that affects some 84 million workers.
The Biden administration rule was formally issued on Nov. 5 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Lawsuits challenging the rule came in quick succession. Within 10 days, 34 lawsuits were filed, covering all 12 regional circuit courts and giving each of those courts one entry into the lottery.
A report by NPR claims the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, Ohio, is known to lean conservative, with most of its judges appointed by Republican presidents. Six were appointed by President Donald Trump and five were appointed by President George W. Bush, while a total of five were appointed by Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
It will now be up to the 6th Circuit to decide whether to lift the stay issued by the 5th Circuit. A three-judge panel temporarily blocked the OSHA rule one day after it took effect and reaffirmed that decision last Friday, calling the rule "a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers)."
While a majority of the lawsuits seek to overturn the OSHA rule, several labor unions went the other way. They sued saying the rule does not go far enough to protect workers from COVID-19. The rule does not apply to employers with fewer than 100 workers.
The union lawsuits were mostly filed in courts that either have a majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents or are evenly split.
But an article in Politico speculates that that the legal challenges are likely to end up in front of the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority seems ripe to limit the federal government’s ability to police workplaces in emergencies more broadly.
Some of the arguments made in the cases could "have serious implications on the constitutionality" of other OSHA rules and regulations, said Benjamin Noren, associate chair of the Labor and Employment group at the law firm Davidoff Hutcher & Citron ...
A patent has been issued for what the company calls "a first-of-its-kind data analytics technology" to detect falsified or exaggerated injury and workers’ compensation claims.
"This patent marks potentially a new era for the massive waste and fraud that has beset injury claims for years," says Joe Luciano, founder and CEO of AvaSci, the company responsible for the patented new technology. "Prior to the AvaSci patent, there was no simple court accepted test for false or exaggerated claims."
AvaSci, said they implemented their technology in Monmouth County, New Jersey. AvaSci’s technology helped the County greatly decrease the volume of claims filed as well as losses, and now has its sights on doing the same for counties and large enterprises across the country.
The AvaSci Injury Evaluation (AIE) tool combines biomechanical data from motion capture technology with a movement algorithm aiming to make injury detection a data-driven decision versus a subjective judgment. Utilizing the same technology used in films and video games to produce digital models and characters, the AIE captures 100 frames per second. The points of inflection are measured and inputted into a computer application, which then conducts a statistical analysis at the sub-millimeter level to detect whether a person’s movement is a genuine injury versus a feigning one.
The company claims that the benefits of the tool are:
- - The technology deters false or exaggerated disability claims when claimants are aware of its use.
- - Employers and insurers have a stronger defense in court.
- - The technology helps Improve claims management because better decisions can be made on what to settle and what to fight.
- - It can also help employee health by identifying and avoiding potential injuries.
"AvaSci’s ability to combine motion capture technology with data analytics capabilities allow us, for the first time, to level the playing field with injury claims," said William McGuane, Monmouth County Benefits Coordinator. "This is unlike any other technology out there and has the potential to completely change Workers’ Compensation. Monmouth County can undoubtedly attribute drastic cost savings to AvaSci and its Injury Evaluation technology."
Three years ago, Monmouth County implemented employee injury screens using AvaSci’s technology. The partnership later expanded to include pre-employment screens, allowing the data to help better manage claims and defend in court when needed.
Starting with a contract by a major golf equipment company to study how training could avoid golf injuries, Luciano’s initial implementation of AvaSci’s technology was geared toward fitness and golf professionals, and was deployed within medical and sports facilities worldwide. The AvaSci Injury Test later shifted toward a different challenge when Luciano saw the potential to use the technology to bring hard data and truth to workers’ compensation claims.
Luciano has worked on motion capture and its analytical applications for over 15 years. Before founding AvaSci, Luciano held various project management and IT positions for companies that include Mars Inc. and Novartis. Luciano has extensive experience in R&D within the healthcare industry and served as the Head of Research Technology and Corporate Systems while at Novartis ...
"This patent marks potentially a new era for the massive waste and fraud that has beset injury claims for years," says Joe Luciano, founder and CEO of AvaSci, the company responsible for the patented new technology. "Prior to the AvaSci patent, there was no simple court accepted test for false or exaggerated claims."
AvaSci, said they implemented their technology in Monmouth County, New Jersey. AvaSci’s technology helped the County greatly decrease the volume of claims filed as well as losses, and now has its sights on doing the same for counties and large enterprises across the country.
The AvaSci Injury Evaluation (AIE) tool combines biomechanical data from motion capture technology with a movement algorithm aiming to make injury detection a data-driven decision versus a subjective judgment. Utilizing the same technology used in films and video games to produce digital models and characters, the AIE captures 100 frames per second. The points of inflection are measured and inputted into a computer application, which then conducts a statistical analysis at the sub-millimeter level to detect whether a person’s movement is a genuine injury versus a feigning one.
The company claims that the benefits of the tool are:
- - The technology deters false or exaggerated disability claims when claimants are aware of its use.
- - Employers and insurers have a stronger defense in court.
- - The technology helps Improve claims management because better decisions can be made on what to settle and what to fight.
- - It can also help employee health by identifying and avoiding potential injuries.
"AvaSci’s ability to combine motion capture technology with data analytics capabilities allow us, for the first time, to level the playing field with injury claims," said William McGuane, Monmouth County Benefits Coordinator. "This is unlike any other technology out there and has the potential to completely change Workers’ Compensation. Monmouth County can undoubtedly attribute drastic cost savings to AvaSci and its Injury Evaluation technology."
Three years ago, Monmouth County implemented employee injury screens using AvaSci’s technology. The partnership later expanded to include pre-employment screens, allowing the data to help better manage claims and defend in court when needed.
Starting with a contract by a major golf equipment company to study how training could avoid golf injuries, Luciano’s initial implementation of AvaSci’s technology was geared toward fitness and golf professionals, and was deployed within medical and sports facilities worldwide. The AvaSci Injury Test later shifted toward a different challenge when Luciano saw the potential to use the technology to bring hard data and truth to workers’ compensation claims.
Luciano has worked on motion capture and its analytical applications for over 15 years. Before founding AvaSci, Luciano held various project management and IT positions for companies that include Mars Inc. and Novartis. Luciano has extensive experience in R&D within the healthcare industry and served as the Head of Research Technology and Corporate Systems while at Novartis ...
A week after 10 states sued the Biden administration over a vaccine mandate for health care workers in a federal court in the Eastern District of Missouri, Texas joined the fray by filing its own challenge in Amarillo federal court.
On November 5, 2021, nearly two months after President Biden announced his federal vaccine mandates, CMS published the CMS Vaccine Mandate. at 86 Fed. Reg. 61,555. The Texas 68 page civil complaint takes aim at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Interim Final Rule entitled "Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination."
The pleading claims that the new Rule "imposes an unprecedented federal vaccine mandate on nearly every full-time employee, part-time employee, student, intern, volunteer, and contractor working at a wide range of healthcare facilities receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding." The CMS Vaccine Mandate covers fifteen categories of Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers.
"By expanding its reach in this way, the mandate broadly sweeps in a diverse set of healthcare providers. These include, among others, rural health clinics, hospitals, long-term-care facilities, and home health agencies. Id. at 61,569 - 70. Demonstrating the far reach of the mandate, CMS reported that "Medicare-participating hospitals . . . include nearly all hospitals in the U.S.""
And that the "CMS Vaccine Mandate threatens millions of healthcare workers with termination if they choose not to be vaccinated."
"Critically, the CMS Vaccine Mandate also threatens to exacerbate an alarming shortage of healthcare workers, particularly in rural communities. The circumstances in Texas - which CMS did not fully consider because it skipped notice-and-comment rulemaking - foreshadow an impending disaster in the healthcare industry. By ignoring the facts on the ground and unreasonably dismissing concerns about workforce shortages, the CMS Vaccine Mandate jeopardizes the health of all Texans."
The allegation of a "healthcare worker crisis" is backed up by citations to numerous state and federal studies, many of which predate the pandemic.
"For many years, the healthcare industry in the United States has been experiencing severe workforce shortages. "In 2019, the Association of American Medical Colleges issued a report projecting supply and demand for physicians nationally from 2017 to 2032. Results from this report indicate that there will be an estimated shortage of between 46,900 and 121,900 physicians nationwide by 2032. This projected shortage includes 21,100 to 55,200 primary care physicians and 24,800 to 65,800 specialty care physicians." citing the Texas Physician Supply and Demand Projections, 2018-2032, HHSC (May 2020).
They cite as evidence an article published by the Associated Press reporting that when Houston Methodist imposed a vaccine mandate, more than 150 employees resigned or were fired.
Further the complaint states that "In the CMS Vaccine Mandate, an individual’s choice to get vaccinated is taken away, but no education regarding the vaccine’s benefits, risks, or side effects is required. CMS has seemingly decided that when healthcare staff have no choice in the matter, there is no reason to inform them of the potential consequences of the decision CMS has made for them. In promulgating the CMS Vaccine Mandate, CMS has traded the carrot for the stick."
The complaint goes on to argue a legal basis for relief. "This case illustrates why the police power over compulsory vaccination has always been the province of - and still properly belongs to the States. Vaccination requirements are matters that depend on local factors and conditions. Whatever might make sense in other States could be decidedly counterproductive and harmful in a large and diverse State such as Texas."
"Federalism allows States to tailor such matters in the best interests of their communities. The heavy hand of CMS’s nationwide mandate does not. CMS’s claim of expansive authority under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1302 and 1395hh to regulate conditions of employment in the name of "health and safety" is unprecedented."
As a result, Texas asks that "This Court should thus set aside the CMS Vaccine Mandate as unlawful agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, and an unconstitutional act by the federal government." ...
On November 5, 2021, nearly two months after President Biden announced his federal vaccine mandates, CMS published the CMS Vaccine Mandate. at 86 Fed. Reg. 61,555. The Texas 68 page civil complaint takes aim at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Interim Final Rule entitled "Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination."
The pleading claims that the new Rule "imposes an unprecedented federal vaccine mandate on nearly every full-time employee, part-time employee, student, intern, volunteer, and contractor working at a wide range of healthcare facilities receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding." The CMS Vaccine Mandate covers fifteen categories of Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers.
"By expanding its reach in this way, the mandate broadly sweeps in a diverse set of healthcare providers. These include, among others, rural health clinics, hospitals, long-term-care facilities, and home health agencies. Id. at 61,569 - 70. Demonstrating the far reach of the mandate, CMS reported that "Medicare-participating hospitals . . . include nearly all hospitals in the U.S.""
And that the "CMS Vaccine Mandate threatens millions of healthcare workers with termination if they choose not to be vaccinated."
"Critically, the CMS Vaccine Mandate also threatens to exacerbate an alarming shortage of healthcare workers, particularly in rural communities. The circumstances in Texas - which CMS did not fully consider because it skipped notice-and-comment rulemaking - foreshadow an impending disaster in the healthcare industry. By ignoring the facts on the ground and unreasonably dismissing concerns about workforce shortages, the CMS Vaccine Mandate jeopardizes the health of all Texans."
The allegation of a "healthcare worker crisis" is backed up by citations to numerous state and federal studies, many of which predate the pandemic.
"For many years, the healthcare industry in the United States has been experiencing severe workforce shortages. "In 2019, the Association of American Medical Colleges issued a report projecting supply and demand for physicians nationally from 2017 to 2032. Results from this report indicate that there will be an estimated shortage of between 46,900 and 121,900 physicians nationwide by 2032. This projected shortage includes 21,100 to 55,200 primary care physicians and 24,800 to 65,800 specialty care physicians." citing the Texas Physician Supply and Demand Projections, 2018-2032, HHSC (May 2020).
They cite as evidence an article published by the Associated Press reporting that when Houston Methodist imposed a vaccine mandate, more than 150 employees resigned or were fired.
Further the complaint states that "In the CMS Vaccine Mandate, an individual’s choice to get vaccinated is taken away, but no education regarding the vaccine’s benefits, risks, or side effects is required. CMS has seemingly decided that when healthcare staff have no choice in the matter, there is no reason to inform them of the potential consequences of the decision CMS has made for them. In promulgating the CMS Vaccine Mandate, CMS has traded the carrot for the stick."
The complaint goes on to argue a legal basis for relief. "This case illustrates why the police power over compulsory vaccination has always been the province of - and still properly belongs to the States. Vaccination requirements are matters that depend on local factors and conditions. Whatever might make sense in other States could be decidedly counterproductive and harmful in a large and diverse State such as Texas."
"Federalism allows States to tailor such matters in the best interests of their communities. The heavy hand of CMS’s nationwide mandate does not. CMS’s claim of expansive authority under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1302 and 1395hh to regulate conditions of employment in the name of "health and safety" is unprecedented."
As a result, Texas asks that "This Court should thus set aside the CMS Vaccine Mandate as unlawful agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, and an unconstitutional act by the federal government." ...
A class action lawsuit filed by 25,000 Disneyland cast members has been dismissed by Orange County Superior Court Judge William Claster, who ruled that the California theme park will not be required to raise its minimum wage in compliance with a measure passed by Anaheim voters in 2018.
Foxbusiness reports that the lawsuit, filed in 2019, accused Disney of failing to comply with "Measure L", which requires any private business who receives city subsidies to increase their minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2022. As part of the living wage ordinance, the minimum wage increased to $15 per hour in 2019 and was set to increase in $1 increments on an annual basis through 2022, plus subsequent cost-of-living increases.
The suit claims that Disney took a city subsidy when it allowed the city of Anaheim to take out a $550 million municipal bond to finance the construction of the Mickey & Friends parking garage. Disney, who operates and keeps all of the revenue associated with the garage, will own it once the municipal bond is repaid.
"All this was paid for with what Disney would have otherwise paid in taxes," the suit states. "Disney got a rebate of the best kind: it got its taxes back before it paid them."
While acknowledging that Disney receives a "significant benefit" from the city, Claster ruled that there is "no evidence that the finance agreement somehow lessens their tax obligation" and does not technically create a city subsidy.
"Whether the Disney defendants received a ‘public subsidy’ in a general sense is a different question from whether they received or have a right to receive a city subsidy as defined, i.e., a rebate of taxes (in the form of a refund, abatement, exemption, etc.)," Claster explained. "Had the Disney defendants raised construction funds privately, they would have had to make both tax payments and debt service payments. The bond issuance here was structured so that they received a portion of the proceeds of the bond issuance, but only have to make tax payments in return. Their taxes go into the City’s general fund, and money from the general fund ultimately services the debt (after a series of transactions)."
Randy Renick, the attorney representing Disneyland cast told Variety that the employees would appeal Claster's decision.
The ruling comes as negotiations between Disneyland and Teamsters Local 495, the union that represents Disney's attractions cast members, fell apart in late October. Attractions cast members, who are currently paid $15.50 per hour, are fighting for an increase to $17 per hour and said that Disney is "unwilling to provide an increase in wages over 3% ($0.46)."
"Working for the Mouse", a survey of 5,000 Disneyland cast members in 2018 by Occidental College and the Economic Roundtable, found that 11% of respondents reported experiencing homelessness in the previous two years, while 68% were food insecure and 73% said they did not earn enough for basic living expenses. Approximately 64% of respondents said at the time that Disneyland Resort's scheduling made it difficult to find a second job.
...
Foxbusiness reports that the lawsuit, filed in 2019, accused Disney of failing to comply with "Measure L", which requires any private business who receives city subsidies to increase their minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2022. As part of the living wage ordinance, the minimum wage increased to $15 per hour in 2019 and was set to increase in $1 increments on an annual basis through 2022, plus subsequent cost-of-living increases.
The suit claims that Disney took a city subsidy when it allowed the city of Anaheim to take out a $550 million municipal bond to finance the construction of the Mickey & Friends parking garage. Disney, who operates and keeps all of the revenue associated with the garage, will own it once the municipal bond is repaid.
"All this was paid for with what Disney would have otherwise paid in taxes," the suit states. "Disney got a rebate of the best kind: it got its taxes back before it paid them."
While acknowledging that Disney receives a "significant benefit" from the city, Claster ruled that there is "no evidence that the finance agreement somehow lessens their tax obligation" and does not technically create a city subsidy.
"Whether the Disney defendants received a ‘public subsidy’ in a general sense is a different question from whether they received or have a right to receive a city subsidy as defined, i.e., a rebate of taxes (in the form of a refund, abatement, exemption, etc.)," Claster explained. "Had the Disney defendants raised construction funds privately, they would have had to make both tax payments and debt service payments. The bond issuance here was structured so that they received a portion of the proceeds of the bond issuance, but only have to make tax payments in return. Their taxes go into the City’s general fund, and money from the general fund ultimately services the debt (after a series of transactions)."
Randy Renick, the attorney representing Disneyland cast told Variety that the employees would appeal Claster's decision.
The ruling comes as negotiations between Disneyland and Teamsters Local 495, the union that represents Disney's attractions cast members, fell apart in late October. Attractions cast members, who are currently paid $15.50 per hour, are fighting for an increase to $17 per hour and said that Disney is "unwilling to provide an increase in wages over 3% ($0.46)."
"Working for the Mouse", a survey of 5,000 Disneyland cast members in 2018 by Occidental College and the Economic Roundtable, found that 11% of respondents reported experiencing homelessness in the previous two years, while 68% were food insecure and 73% said they did not earn enough for basic living expenses. Approximately 64% of respondents said at the time that Disneyland Resort's scheduling made it difficult to find a second job.
...
Douglas Satre, 38, of Santa Rosa pleaded guilty to insurance fraud and paid more than $14,000 in restitution and additional fines to the California Department of Insurance.
Satre was sentenced to a year of probation, 30 days in jail, required to perform 40 hours of community service and complete a theft awareness class.
Satre allegedly slipped and fell in a bathroom while working for a telecom company in San Rafael. He then filed a workers’ compensation insurance claim and began receiving temporary total disability payments as well as treatment through multiple medical professionals across Napa and Marin Counties.
Marin County District Attorney’s Office filed charges against Satre after a Department of Insurance investigation revealed that Satre was collecting disability payments while also working for a new company despite telling medical professionals he was unable to work due to the severity of his injuries, even using a cane at his appointments.
In total, Satre collected disability payments and a paycheck from his new employer for more than six months.
"We were happy to see Mr. Satre take responsibility at an early stage of these proceedings and work diligently to repay the victim," said Marin County Deputy District Attorney Sean Kensinger.
"Unfortunately, when an employee commits workers’ compensation fraud, the impact of that fraud ripples beyond just their employer and can result in increased premium costs for employers throughout the state. For this reason, the identification, investigation and prosecution of workers' compensation fraud remains a priority for the Marin County District Attorney's Office."
...
Satre was sentenced to a year of probation, 30 days in jail, required to perform 40 hours of community service and complete a theft awareness class.
Satre allegedly slipped and fell in a bathroom while working for a telecom company in San Rafael. He then filed a workers’ compensation insurance claim and began receiving temporary total disability payments as well as treatment through multiple medical professionals across Napa and Marin Counties.
Marin County District Attorney’s Office filed charges against Satre after a Department of Insurance investigation revealed that Satre was collecting disability payments while also working for a new company despite telling medical professionals he was unable to work due to the severity of his injuries, even using a cane at his appointments.
In total, Satre collected disability payments and a paycheck from his new employer for more than six months.
"We were happy to see Mr. Satre take responsibility at an early stage of these proceedings and work diligently to repay the victim," said Marin County Deputy District Attorney Sean Kensinger.
"Unfortunately, when an employee commits workers’ compensation fraud, the impact of that fraud ripples beyond just their employer and can result in increased premium costs for employers throughout the state. For this reason, the identification, investigation and prosecution of workers' compensation fraud remains a priority for the Marin County District Attorney's Office."
...
A Santa Clarita Valley man was sentenced to 51 months in federal prison for scheming to fraudulently obtain approximately $1.8 million in COVID-19 relief guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) through the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
Hassan Kanyike, 30, of Santa Clarita, was sentenced by United States District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, who also ordered him to pay a $20,000 fine and $1,302,550 in restitution to the SBA and four victim lenders. Kanyike pleaded guilty on March 29 to one count of wire fraud.
From April 2020 to June 2020, Kanyike submitted six fraudulent PPP loan applications and two fraudulent EIDL applications. The applications sought funds to purportedly pay the salaries of employees whom he claimed worked for two of his businesses. Kanyike successfully obtained approximately $1 million through four PPP loans, and another $300,000 through two EIDL loans.
In support of the fraudulent PPP loan applications, Kanyike submitted fake federal tax filings and payroll reports for a used-car business, the Van Nuys-based Falcon Motors. For example, in one loan application, Kanyike falsely claimed the business had 26 employees and an average monthly payroll of $168,000, and he submitted a fabricated IRS tax form claiming Falcon Motors had paid $2,022,300 to employees in 2019.
In reality, Falcon Motors had no employees on payroll. Kanyike further admitted that he obtained additional Employer Identification Numbers from the IRS in April and May 2020 so he could apply for multiple loans for the same used-car business. Kanyike then used a substantial portion of the PPP loan proceeds for his own personal benefit.
Kanyike schemed to fraudulently obtain eight loans totaling approximately $1.8 million, of which six loans worth a total of $1,302,550 were approved.
At the time of his arrest in December 2020, Kanyike had transferred approximately $762,000 to Uganda, his country of citizenship, from one of the business accounts that had received the loan proceeds, in violation of the terms of the PPP and EIDL program.
Homeland Security Investigations and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration investigated the case.
Assistant United States Attorney Richard E. Robinson of the Major Frauds Section and Assistant Chief William Johnston of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section at the Department of Justice prosecuted this case.
...
Hassan Kanyike, 30, of Santa Clarita, was sentenced by United States District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, who also ordered him to pay a $20,000 fine and $1,302,550 in restitution to the SBA and four victim lenders. Kanyike pleaded guilty on March 29 to one count of wire fraud.
From April 2020 to June 2020, Kanyike submitted six fraudulent PPP loan applications and two fraudulent EIDL applications. The applications sought funds to purportedly pay the salaries of employees whom he claimed worked for two of his businesses. Kanyike successfully obtained approximately $1 million through four PPP loans, and another $300,000 through two EIDL loans.
In support of the fraudulent PPP loan applications, Kanyike submitted fake federal tax filings and payroll reports for a used-car business, the Van Nuys-based Falcon Motors. For example, in one loan application, Kanyike falsely claimed the business had 26 employees and an average monthly payroll of $168,000, and he submitted a fabricated IRS tax form claiming Falcon Motors had paid $2,022,300 to employees in 2019.
In reality, Falcon Motors had no employees on payroll. Kanyike further admitted that he obtained additional Employer Identification Numbers from the IRS in April and May 2020 so he could apply for multiple loans for the same used-car business. Kanyike then used a substantial portion of the PPP loan proceeds for his own personal benefit.
Kanyike schemed to fraudulently obtain eight loans totaling approximately $1.8 million, of which six loans worth a total of $1,302,550 were approved.
At the time of his arrest in December 2020, Kanyike had transferred approximately $762,000 to Uganda, his country of citizenship, from one of the business accounts that had received the loan proceeds, in violation of the terms of the PPP and EIDL program.
Homeland Security Investigations and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration investigated the case.
Assistant United States Attorney Richard E. Robinson of the Major Frauds Section and Assistant Chief William Johnston of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section at the Department of Justice prosecuted this case.
...
