An Oxnard, California, political action committee and a Florida provider of canvassing services went before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to argue that AB5, a California law that qualifies "doorknockers" and signature gatherers as employees rather than independent contractors violates their free speech rights. Mobilize the Message and Starr Coalition for Moving Oxnard Forward filed a civil complain in federal court in Los Angeles last June. They alleged that Assembly Bill 5 violates the First Amendment right of free speech. AB 5 codifies the so-called "ABC Test" articulated in the 2018 Supreme Court Dynamex decision. The test consists of a three-pronged inquiry that determines whether a worker is classified as an employee or an independent contractor for certain purposes. The plaintiffs argue that AB 5 favors commercial speech over political speech because it exempts certain commercial workers from being classified as employees, while classifying signature gatherers and doorknockers for political campaigns as employees. The Court denied a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 09, 2021. In denying the bid for a preliminary injunction, Judge Phillips said they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their lawsuit. The distinction between how the law treats a cosmetics salesperson and a campaign signature gatherers was based on the worker’s occupation.. "Plaintiffs’ argument that the content of what a worker says will determine whether an AB 5 exemption applies in this context lacks merit," Phillips said. "The more sensible interpretation is that the distinctions hinge on the worker’s industry regardless of speech." The judge was also unconvinced by the harm claimed by Mobilized the Message of not being able to operate in California because of the state law, noting the company waited almost two years after the law was passed to sue. Plaintiffs appealed the denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 10, 2021. They say in the commentary on their website that "the passage of AB 5, which effectively bars campaigns from hiring canvassers as independent contractors, has forced the plaintiffs to cease their longstanding practice of hiring contractors to collect signatures for ballot petitions and engage California voters in discussion. The costs of hiring canvassers as employees, as required by California’s new law, makes them unaffordable to many campaigns." "The state has provided exemptions, however, allowing the hiring of independent contractors for virtually identical work in newspaper delivery and direct sales. The only distinguishing feature between these workers and those hired by the plaintiffs is the content of the speech they are paid to promote. Content-based regulations of speech are presumptively unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Moreover, the government cannot give preferential treatment to commercial speech over political or campaign speech." Oral argument was heard on the appeal on February 2nd in San Francisco. According to the report by Courthouse News, U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Donald Trump appointee, expressed some sympathy with Mobilize the Message. Whereas the newspaper industry and the direct sales lobby may have been successful in getting exemptions from the California Legislature for their workers, it was unlikely that advocates of direct democracy would have been able to get such an exemption because, according to the judge, they are the biggest enemy of the Legislature. "There's no way they're going to get an exemption," VanDyke said. U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz, a Barack Obama appointee, expressed skepticism that the distinction between commercial door-to-door salespeople and political canvassers under the law had to do with the nature of their speech. "It seems to me that it's not about the content of your speech," Hurwitz said to Mobilize the Message's attorney Alan Gura. "It's about the way you conduct your business." Mobilize the Message said it hires doorknockers and signature gatherers on an independent contractor basis and doesn't pay hourly wages. Rather, doorknockers get paid for reaching milestones, according to the company. They can set their own hours, breaks and schedules, as long as they work during the times of day when people are most likely at home. U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen, sitting by designation from the District of Minnesota, rounded out the panel. The judges did not indicate how or when they would rule ...

NBC Los Angeles reported that State officials announced Monday the indoor mask wearing requirement for vaccinated people will expire at the end of the day Feb. 15. Gov. Gavin Newsom said the move is the result of a 65% drop in the infection rate since the peak of the winter surge caused by the Omicron variant of COVID-19, as well as a stabilization in hospitalization numbers. But "unvaccinated people will still need to wear masks indoors." The mask-wearing requirement will also remain in effect for everyone in select indoor locations, such as public transit centers, airports, schools, emergency shelters, health care facilities, correctional facilities, homeless shelters and long-term care and senior-care facilities. However, in Los Angeles County, mask requirements will remain in effect for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people in indoor settings, as well as at large outdoor mega-events, such as Sunday’s Super Bowl at SoFi Stadium. Last week, LA county Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer unveiled metrics for a possible relaxing of the county’s masking orders, saying the mandate will be dropped at outdoor "mega-events" and outdoors at schools and child-care centers if COVID-positive hospitalizations in the county fall below 2,500 for seven consecutive days. As of Monday, there were 2,773 COVID-positive patients in county hospitals. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health is defending its mask-wearing order, which is being criticized after Gov. Gavin Newsom and the mayors of L.A. and San Francisco were photographed without face coverings at Sunday’s NFL playoff game at SoFi Stadium. Ferrer affirmed that requirement the Thursday before the championship, during a public health briefing. "There is a masking requirement even though it’s outdoors unless actively eating and drinking," she said. Representatives for Garcetti and Newsom said they removed their masks briefly to pose for the photos, but wore them the rest of the the game, the Los Angeles Times reported. Sen. Melissa Menendez of California's 28th District took to Twitter, saying of the photos, "Toddlers are being forced to wear masks all day long in school. Maybe one day they’ll be governor or the mayor of LA and they won’t have the follow the rules they impose on others." Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco posted screenshots of the tweeted photos to his Facebook page. There, he called for an end to mask mandates and said "If there hasn’t been enough reminders, here is another as to why I won’t enforce mandates on residents of Riverside County." During cutaways of the action on the field, it was clear the mask requirement inside the stadium was not being enforced ...

A former Rancho Mirage resident pleaded guilty to federal charges related to a scheme that fraudulently billed insurance companies tens of millions of dollars for cosmetic surgeries by falsely claiming the procedures were "medically necessary." Linda Morrow, 69, who has been in federal custody since July 2019, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, admitting that she helped her husband run the fraudulent billing scheme out of The Morrow Institute (TMI) in Rancho Mirage. Morrow also pleaded guilty to one count of contempt of court for fleeing the United States in 2017 after a federal grand jury indicted her for the health care fraud scheme. Morrow, and her husband, fled to Israel, which deported her in 2019 after U.S. authorities tracked her down and Israeli authorities determined she had entered that nation on a fraudulent Mexican passport. Morrow also admitted in court that she fled the United States to avoid prosecution and failed to appear in court as ordered. In addition to helping move $4 million from domestic bank accounts to accounts in Israel, Morrow used a fraudulent Mexican passport to enter Israel and a fraudulent Guatemalan passport while living there. Morrow also admitted that while she was living as a fugitive, she applied for Israeli citizenship using a fraudulent identity. Morrow pleaded guilty to the two felony offenses before United States District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who scheduled a sentencing hearing for July 1. At that time, Morrow will face a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison. Morrow’s husband, 77-year-old Dr. David M. Morrow, was extradited by Israel two years ago and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence. David Morrow pleaded guilty in 2016 and was free on bond awaiting sentencing when the couple fled. Judge Staton imposed the 20-year sentence while the Morrows were living as fugitives, finding that the intended loss from the scheme was more than $44 million. Linda Morrow, who was the "executive director" of TMI in Rancho Mirage, admitted in court that she participated in a scheme to defraud health insurance companies by submitting bills for procedures performed at the Morrow Medical Surgery Center that were billed as "medically necessary" - but in fact were cosmetic procedures such as "tummy tucks," "nose jobs," breast augmentations and vaginal rejuvenations. Morrow admitted that the scheme attempted to bilk insurance companies out of between $25 million and $65 million. The victim insurance companies included Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Cigna Health Insurance. The scheme also defrauded Staples, Inc. and a self-insured group of public entities that included school districts. To pursue payment for some of the fraudulent surgeries when they were not paid, TMI filed claims of $10,931,237 against the Desert Sands Unified School District; $4,199,862 against the Palm Springs Unified School District; $1,341,519 against the City of Palm Springs; and $256,782 against the California Highway Patrol, according to court documents. In April 2011, shortly after the FBI and California Department of Insurance executed a search warrant in the investigation, Morrow went to a former employee’s house to confront her on whether she had cooperated with law enforcement, according to the plea agreement. To defraud the insurance companies into believing that the patients had undergone medically necessary procedures, the Morrows convinced patients to sign "testimonial" letters or declarations that had false statements, according to court documents. In her plea agreement, Morrow admitted that she coached employee patients to draft falsified testimonial letters and declarations. The FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation and the California Department of Insurance conducted the investigation into the Morrows and TMI. The FBI’s Legal Attachés in Jerusalem, Mexico City, and Guatemala; the Israeli National Police; the United States Marshals Service; the United States Border Patrol’s Northern Border Coordination Center; and the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs provided considerable assistance in tracking down and capturing the Morrows ...

A former California Employment Development Department (EDD) employee was sentenced today to 63 months in federal prison for causing nearly 200 fraudulent COVID-related unemployment relief claims to be filed in other people’s names, resulting in nearly $4.3 million in ill-gotten gains. Gabriela Llerenas, a.k.a. "Maria G. Sandoval," 44, of Perris, was sentenced by United States District Judge John W. Holcomb, who also ordered her to pay $4,298,093 in restitution. Llerenas took advantage of the expanded eligibility for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits made possible by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act passed by Congress and signed into law in March 2020. The CARES Act provided additional UI benefits to qualified individuals and helped provide UI benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic to people who did not otherwise qualify, including business owners, self-employed workers, independent contractors, and those with a limited work history. From April to October 2020, Llerenas filed and caused the filing with EDD of fraudulent unemployment insurance benefits that falsely asserted the named claimants were self-employed independent contractors - often identifying them as cake decorators or event attendants - who were negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Llerenas obtained some of the names, Social Security numbers and other identifying information she used to submit the fraudulent claims through her prior work as a tax preparer. Llerenas also falsely stated on some of the applications that the claimants were residents of California entitled to unemployment insurance benefits administered by EDD when in fact they lived elsewhere. On some applications, she inflated the amounts of income she reported for the claimant to maximize the benefit amount. She also filed a dozen or more fraudulent EDD claims in a day. As a result of the fraudulent unemployment benefits applications that Llerenas filed and caused to be filed, EDD authorized Bank of America to mail debit cards in the names of the claimants to addresses she provided, including her residence, her husband’s business location, her mother’s apartment and the addresses of friends and other family members. Llerenas charged the named claimants a fee for filling the applications, which was often paid out of the fraudulently obtained benefits. In at least one case, she told the named claimant that she was still employed at EDD and could control the distribution of the unemployment insurance benefits, and then demanded an additional payment for “releasing” the benefits. In total, 197 debit cards were fraudulently issued because of this scheme. Judge Holcomb found that the resulting losses to EDD and the United States Treasury that Llerenas caused totaled $4,298,093. As part of the investigation, $621,124 in cash was seized from Llerenas and has been forfeited. Llerenas previously worked at EDD as a disability insurance program representative. She resigned in March 2002 after admitting to fraudulently authorizing and paying disability benefits administered by EDD. She was sentenced to 37 months in federal prison in connection with that scheme ...

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that over 90% of eligible California cities and counties have signed on to a historic $26 billion settlement with the nation’s three major pharmaceutical distributors - Cardinal, McKesson, and AmerisourceBergen - and Johnson & Johnson over the companies’ role in creating and fueling the nationwide opioid crisis. Attorney General Bonta, along with the attorneys general of North Carolina, Tennessee, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas, led negotiations of the up to $26 billion settlement. In California, over 400 cities and counties - representing 97% of the state’s population - have signed on to the settlement. When finalized, the settlement will resolve the claims of both states and local governments across the country, including the nearly 4,000 that have filed lawsuits in federal and state courts. The settlement also requires significant industry changes that will help prevent this type of crisis from ever happening again. The settlement comes as a result of investigations by state attorneys general into whether the three distributors fulfilled their legal duty to refuse to ship opioids to pharmacies that submitted suspicious drug orders and whether Johnson & Johnson misled patients and doctors about the addictive nature of opioid drugs. Cardinal, McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, and Johnson & Johnson will have until February 25, 2022, to decide whether to move forward with the settlement. If all parties move forward, the first payments will be made by the distributors in April, and Johnson & Johnson in July. In addition to the settlement, Attorney General Bonta continues to fight to hold Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family accountable for their contribution to the ongoing opioid crisis. In December, a district court reversed a New York bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the company’s bankruptcy reorganization plan. Today’s deal also comes on the heels of a previously announced $573 million opioid settlement with McKinsey & Company, which will bring over $59 million to California for opioid abatement. And Reuters reports that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and three of the nation’s largest drug wholesalers and distributors have agreed to pay $589 million in settlement after hundreds of native tribes accused the companies of fueling the opioid crisis in their communities. The three pharmaceutical distributors - Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen Corp., and McKesson Corp.- will pay more than $439 million in settlement over seven years. The Janssen-owned Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay $150 million over two years. This follows a 2019 lawsuit in which the drug distributors agreed to pay $75 million to resolve similar claims made by Cherokee Nation, one of the largest Cherokee tribes recognized by the federal government. A 2016 report released by the National Congress of American Indians found that American Indians suffered the highest rate (8.4 overdose deaths per 100,000 people) of opioid overdoses, followed by whites (7.9 overdose deaths per 100,000 people). All 574 federally recognized tribes will be able to receive money from the settlements even if they had not filed the lawsuits, according to Tara Sutton, an attorney for the tribes, in a Feb. 1 statement to The Wall Street Journal ...

On January 25, Governor Newsom, along with Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, announced that they "reached an agreement on a framework" to ensure California employees have continued access to supplemental COVID-19 paid sick leave through September 30, 2022. According to the JD Supra story, Employers should be aware of the following key features of the new COVID PSL agreement: - - The law will apply to employers with 26 or more employees. This is similar to the 2021 COVID PSL law. - - Full-time employees will be entitled to 40 hours of paid leave due to COVID-19, and an additional 40 hours of paid leave upon showing proof that they (or their family member) has tested positive for the COVID-19 virus. Under the 2021 COVID PSL, full time-employees were entitled to up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave. The framework agreement provides that employers will have to pay for the test(s), but it is unclear whether this covers tests for the employee only, or includes testing for their family members. - - The leave will be retroactive to any time off beginning January 1, 2022. This retroactivity is similar to the 2021 COVID PSL law. - - The leave program will expire on September 30, 2022. This is similar to the 2021 COVID PSL law. While details are still being worked out, the Department of Finance has stated that the law will likely mirror the 2021 leave program. Accordingly, employees will likely receive a maximum of $511 per day, or $5,110 total. The framework deal reached does not currently include any offsetting tax credits for employers to provide COVID PSL. California employers should be aware that the state will likely reinstate COVID-19 paid sick leave similar in many ways to the 2021 COVID PSL law. However, employers should be aware that legislation to implement the framework deal is not yet in place, and should keep current on the law that is (likely to be) implemented. Employers should consider adding addenda to their current policy documents, and should notify human resources professionals to stay abreast of this ongoing development ...

A new panel decision of Perez v Comprehensive Blood and Cancer Center -(ADJ 11965696)- the WCAB was required to discuss an analysis of the correct "date of injury" in a continuous trauma case, as well as the correct period for "imposition of liability" upon the industrial carriers. In this case the carrier (unsuccessfully) attempted to raise several theories that would shift liability to a period either before or after the last date of employment ending July 3, 2012. Mericela Perez was thirty-five years old and employed as a Radiology Technician at Bakersfield, California by Comprehensive Blood and Cancer Center, during the period ending on July 3, 2012. It was found that she sustained injury in the form of an intracranial meningioma. The Opinion on Decision indicates that the WCJ believed the date of injury to be to be January 16, 2020, the date of the first report from David Baum, M.D., the internal medicine panel qualified medical examiner (PQME). The panel pointed out that the date of injury for cumulative trauma claims "is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment." (Lab. Code,1 § 5412.) In turn, liability for a cumulative injury is determined under section 5500.5, which states that liability "shall be limited to those employers who employed the employee during a period . . . [of one year] immediately preceding either the date of injury, as determined pursuant to Section 5412, or the last date on which the employee was employed in an occupation exposing him or her to the hazards of the occupational disease or cumulative injury, whichever occurs first. Although the period of liability for cumulative trauma claims is limited to the last year of injurious exposure, the actual date of injury under section 5412 may be different than applicant’s last date of work. "Pursuant to section 5412, the date of a cumulative injury is the date the employee first suffers a 'disability' and has reason to know the disability is work related." (Western Growers Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Austin) (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 227, 238 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 323].) This is the date that sets the benefit rates, and timing and availability of benefits. Disability has been defined as "an impairment of bodily functions which results in the impairment of earnings capacity." (J.T. Thorp v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 327, 336 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 224].) Disability can be either temporary or permanent. (Chavira v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 253 Cal.App.3d 463, 474 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 631].) Whether there is temporary or permanent disability indicating the date of cumulative injury is a question of fact, which must be supported by substantial evidence. (Austin, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at 233-235.) Here the applicant filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim seeking benefits for industrial injury on February 22, 2019. Her date of knowledge is no later than the date of the application which was filed. However, Dr. Baum stated that: "The carcinogenic potential of ionizing radiation is additive. The exposure at the podiatrist’s office, I believe, initiated the process which eventuated the meningioma 15 years later - hastened by 6 years of more intense exposure as an assistant radiation therapist at CBCC." Therefore, the last year of injurious occupational exposure ending on July 3, 2012 predates the section 5412 date of injury. "While defendant attempts to raise several alternative theories that would shift liability to a period either before or after the year ending July 3, 2012," and the panel said that they "cites to no evidence in the record in support" of this assertion." ...

In California and seven other states, and Washington, D.C., some hourly workers, by law, have to be compensated if they report to work only to have their shift cut short. But some hourly workers may not be receiving this pay, and if they are not, it’s often on the employees to call attention to the law, according to a University of California, Davis, study. "Shift cuts undermine the well-being of workers and their families," said Savannah Hunter, doctoral student in sociology and co-author of a new article published in the journal Social Forces. "The law may not be enforced consistently. We really need better support of labor in this country, generally." Ryan Finnigan, associate professor of sociology, and the lead author, said: "Places like San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia and Oregon recently implemented similar policies to improve the predictability and regularity of workers’ schedules. But we found that the enforcement process for these kinds of policies really needs to improve for them to be effective." Finnigan is also a faculty affiliate with the UC Davis Center for Poverty and Inequality Research. In a nationwide survey of over 1,000 hourly workers, only 4% knew they were covered by such a law, and only 17% of supervisors responding said they were aware of laws in their jurisdictions, Hunter said. In an informational session in California that Finnigan attended, he found that there was minimal information on the state’s reporting pay policy. The six-hour session, which is voluntary for employers, focused heavily on rest and meal breaks, and payment following employee terminations, researchers said. The survey researchers used, distributed in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., asked questions about job characteristics, work schedules, experiences with cut shifts and wage theft, and awareness of local pay and minimum wage policies. The survey was conducted in 2019. "Reporting pay" policies require employers to pay workers for some portion, or even all, of their shift if they report to work but the employer ends their shift much earlier than scheduled. Besides California, other states that have the laws are Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island. Laws vary among jurisdictions, but most policies require that the employee be paid their normal wage or minimum wage for some or all of the shifts cut short by employers, said Hunter. The survey showed that 37% of employees had experienced shift cuts in recent months, and that only a quarter of them reported usually or always receiving compensation for a cut shift. Few people are aware of the law, researchers found, even though they are generally aware of minimum wage and other labor regulations. Hunter said that in California, for example, the policy may be mentioned in a posted document in a break room, but it’s in small print and several pages in. Cut shifts can substantially reduce hourly workers’ total earnings and increase earnings instability. For example, retail workers experiencing one six-hour shift cut relative to their average 30-hour work week lose 20% of their weekly earnings, the article states. Last-minute shift changes are most common among retail and food service workers ...

Late last year, Mitchell, Genex and Coventry announced the creation of their new parent brand, Enlyte. This combination under the new Enlyte brand creates an organization in the Property & Casualty industry with technology innovation, clinical services and network solutions. And Enlyte just released it's new report on 2022 predictions for the workers’ compensation sector. As we enter 2022 still mired in the COVID-19 pandemic, the workers’ compensation industry faces another challenging year, with payers continuing to cope with staffing shortages, evolving regulatory changes and more. The Report is broken down into the following topics. - - Staffing shortages throughout the country will affect a wide range of employers; insurance carriers and other claim organizations are facing this challenge as well. To reduce the risk associated with high turnover rates and onboarding new employees who have less industry experience than their predecessors, we anticipate the insurance industry will turn to technology, especially automation, to help fill some of the gaps. - - The Mental Health Conversation Will Continue. Studies have shown the likelihood of injured employees being treated for depression are 45% greater than non-injured counterparts. And getting hurt on the job can increase the risk of mental hardship. "Having access to behavioral health specialists in workers’ compensation is no longer a 'nice to have' it's a 'must have'." - - Automation, Claims Staff Efficiency Will Be at the Forefront. As workers’ compensation payers continue to navigate challenges they are facing due to COVID-19, Enlyte anticipates many companies will focus on boosting claim staff efficiency through automation, outsourcing, technology and other tools in 2022. - - The Pandemic Will Continue to Strain Hospitals, Providers. Shortages, combined with burnout among clinicians worn down by nearly two years of operating in full-time triage mode, limit the ability of some hospitals to offer the best care possible. Already, some non-urgent surgeries and other essential services are being postponed to accommodate COVID-19 patients. - - Federal Regulatory and Legislative Changes Will Trickle Down to Workers’ Compensation. This year, the federal government will undertake major discussions on health-related topics including telemedicine and marijuana, that could have significant effects for the workers’ compensation industry. - - The Regulatory Landscape Will Continue to Shift. In addition to the major initiatives happening at the federal level, there are a few other top-of-mind issue for 2022. While COVID-19-related regulatory changes, such as presumptions and vaccine mandates, will continue to take precedence, many state legislatures are playing catchup on the initiatives they had on the docket ahead of the pandemic. - - Drug Price Transparency Will Be a Focus; Opioid and Addiction Concerns Will Continue. High-impact and specialty pharmaceuticals, drug-price transparency and regulation/price pressure, as well as continuing concerns around opioids and addiction, are just a few issues that will impact workers’ comp this year. Details and embellishment of these topics can be obtained by reading the full Report on the Enlyte website ...

Predictive modeling by Scripps Health shows that the current surge of COVID-19 hospitalizations should wind down by early March, with a slow decrease in patient volumes driven by the Omicron variant of the virus over the coming weeks, the San Diego health system said Monday. While that certainly is good news for the San Diego region, health system officials said staffing demands at Scripps facilities will remain high as hospitals stay busy with cases unrelated to COVID and as other patients reschedule procedures that were deferred during the ongoing pandemic surge. "We are finally seeing some light at the end of the tunnel for the Omicron surge, but this pandemic likely isn’t ending," said Scripps President and CEO Chris Van Gorder Scripps data experts have been using sophisticated and complex computer modeling of the virus in San Diego County since April 2020 to better plan for the use of staffing and critical resources, such as intensive care beds, medical/surgical beds and personal protective equipment. The accuracy level of the modeling, which is updated at least once a week, has been extremely high, running in the low to mid-90% range during all three of the major COVID surges — the Alpha variant in the winter of 2020, the Delta variant in the summer of 2021 and the current Omicron variant which arrived this winter. And the Los Angeles Times reports that the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department have rebounded after a massive surge in coronavirus cases in recent weeks, with the number of officers out sick or quarantining dropping from 1,333 last week to just 362 this week. LAPD Chief Michel Moore provided the new figures to the civilian Police Commission on Tuesday morning, saying the recovery is a welcome shift ahead of major deployments planned for the upcoming Super Bowl. At the peak of the Omicron variant surge last month, the LAPD saw more than 600 new cases in a single week and more than 1,000 over a two-week period. Those numbers have decreased significantly, with 290 new coronavirus cases in the past week, Moore said. Of those, 132 were among vaccinated officers. Vaccinated individuals have experienced less severe symptoms than unvaccinated people, for the most part. The Rams face the Cincinnati Bengals in Super Bowl LVI on Feb. 13 at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. Moore said he hopes people come out to celebrate the historic game - in L.A. with the hometown team playing - and that the LAPD is prepared to help them do so safely and responsibly ...

California’s push to create the country’s first single-payer health care system dissolved quietly late Monday as the bill’s progressive author nixed a scheduled vote due to a presumed lack of support in the heavily Democratic state Assembly. According to the report in Courthouse News, Assemblyman Ash Kalra acknowledged he was unable to wrangle enough votes before a key legislative deadline, citing "substantial misinformation" from a group of well-funded opponents. Nonetheless, Kalra claimed there’s still a viable path to universal health care in the nation’s most populous state, even though he couldn't secure a majority vote in a chamber dominated by members of his own party. "Despite heavy opposition and substantial misinformation from those that stand to profit from our current health care system, we were able to ignite a realistic and achievable path toward single-payer and bring Assembly Bill 1400 to the floor of the Assembly," Kalra said in a statement. "However, it became clear that we did not have the votes necessary for passage and I decided the best course of action is to not put AB 1400 for a vote today." Though voters rejected a universal health care initiative in 1994 and lawmakers most recently snubbed the idea in 2017 due to a lack of funding, the single-payer vision has leapt back into the Golden State’s political agenda. Coined the "Guaranteed Health Care for All Act," AB 1400 proposed a single-payer program to be administered and overseen by a new state agency known as CalCare. Kalra, D-San Jose, reintroduced the bill this month and two committees quickly signed off, setting up a presumed showdown on the Assembly floor. Supporters, including the California Nurses Association and cities like San Jose, Sacramento and Long Beach, jumped behind the effort. In support letters, newspaper editorials and committee testimonies, the proponents said the switch to universal health care would trim existing administrative costs, coalesce the state’s buying power and reduce labor union strikes that often stem from disputes over health care benefits. As was the case with recent single-payer attempts, the daunting price tag likely derailed the latest version. According to the most recent estimates, adopting single-payer could cost between $314 and $391 billion annually. Further, if the federal government signs off and contributes to California’s transformation, the state will have to come up with at least $158 billion to launch AB 1400. To help fund the transition, supporters proposed raising taxes on businesses and residents through an accompanying ballot measure. They said the tax hikes paled in comparison to the over $400 billion Californians currently spend on health care and that single-payer would save the state money in the long run. But a coalition of critics consisting of hospital groups, insurers and the GOP lined up to fight the idea of government-run health care, casting it as the "largest tax increase in state history." Adding to the intrigue was whether Governor Gavin Newsom would get behind the single-payer push or the corresponding tax hike during an election year. Pundits predict several tight congressional races and expect California to factor heavily into who takes control of the House in 2023. Newsom, who promised to pursue a single-payer system on the campaign trail in 2018, declined to endorse AB 1400 at this early stage in the legislative process. Instead, the former San Francisco mayor has introduced drastically cheaper plans to extend subsidized health coverage to all residents regardless of immigration status. By abandoning Monday’s vote, Kalra freed Assembly Democrats - and Governor Gavin Newsom - from having to take a formal position on the polarizing topic in an election year ...

Ohio-based pharmaceutical distributor, Cardinal Health, Inc., has entered into a settlement agreement to pay $13,125,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by paying "upfront discounts" to its physician practice customers, in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Cardinal Health, Inc. is an American multinational health care services company, and the 14th highest revenue generating company in the United States. The company specializes in the distribution of pharmaceuticals and medical products, serving more than 100,000 locations. The company also manufactures medical and surgical products, including gloves, surgical apparel, and fluid management products. It provides medical products to over 75 percent of hospitals in the United States. The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits pharmaceutical distributors from offering or paying any compensation to induce physicians to purchase drugs for use on Medicare patients. When a pharmaceutical distributor sells drugs to a physician practice for administration in an outpatient setting, the distributor may legally offer commercially available discounts to its customers under certain circumstances permitted by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG). HHS-OIG has advised that upfront discount arrangements present significant kickback concerns unless they are tied to specific purchases and that distributors maintain appropriate controls to ensure that discounts are clawed back if the purchaser ultimately does not purchase enough product to earn the discount. According to facts that the company has acknowledged in the settlement agreement, Cardinal Health, Inc. failed to meet these requirements because the upfront discounts it provided to its customers were not attributable to identifiable sales or were purported rebates which Cardinal Health’s customers had not actually earned. The United States contends that it has certain civil claims against Cardinal Health arising from Cardinal Health's upfront payments, often characterized as upfront discounts, upfront rebates, or transition rebates, including payments to various Physician Practices.between 2013 through January 15, 2022. Specifically, the United States contends that Cardinal Health paid the Physician Practices in advance of the Physician Practices' purchase of pharmaceuticals from Cardinal Health, and that these payments either were not attributable to identifiable sales of pharmaceutical products or were purported rebates that the customers had not actually earned. The United States contends that the purpose of these upfront payments was to induce the Physician Practices to purchase pharmaceuticals paid for by federal health care programs from Cardinal Health, instead of from Cardinal Health's competitors, in violation of the AKS. Cardinal Health has entered into separate settlement agreements with the "Medicaid Participating States" in settlement of the conduct released in those separate Medicaid State Settlement Agreements. "Cardinal Health recruited new customers by offering and paying cash bonuses in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act. Kickback schemes, such as this one, have the potential to pervert clinical decision-making and are detrimental to our federal health care system and taxpayers," said United States Attorney Rachael S. Rollins. "We commend Cardinal Health for resolving this matter cooperatively." "Cardinal Health thought it hit upon a surefire moneymaker by paying kickbacks to doctors, which cost health benefit programs millions of dollars in potentially fraudulent claims," said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Division. The False Claims Act settlements resolve allegations originally brought in lawsuits filed by whistleblowers under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private parties to bring suit on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. In connection with today’s announced settlement, the whistleblowers will receive approximately $2.6 million of the recovery ...

The CEO of several Southern California-based medical imaging companies was sentenced today to 60 months in federal prison for running a scheme that submitted more than $250 million in fraudulent claims through the California Workers’ Compensation System for medical services procured through bribes and kickbacks to physicians and others. 40 year old Sam Sarkis Solakyan, who lives in Glendale, was sentenced and also ordered him to pay $27,937,175 in restitution to the victim insurers. She also banned him from working in the health care and workers compensation industries for his three-year term of supervised release once he completes his prison sentence. During an eight-day trial that concluded on July 2, a jury found Solakyan guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud and health care fraud, and 11 counts of honest services mail fraud. Federal prosecutors had sought more than 15 years in prison for Solakyan. "Despite overwhelming evidence of his criminality and the myriad fraudulent and unnecessary services that he generated, defendant refused to accept such responsibility and instead proceeded to trial, where he obstructed justice by testifying falsely time and again," lawyers for the Justice Department said in their sentencing memorandum. "[Solakyan] paid some $9 million in kickbacks in order to generate over $250 million in fraudulent medical billings, the vast majority of which were for MRIs [magnetic resource images] that were.....totally medically unnecessary," prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memorandum. "[Solakyan] devised, and through his kickbacks fueled, a cross-referral scheme that incentivized [co-conspirators] to herd patients to physicians who overprescribed ancillary services in exchange for cash and other economic benefits." In their sentencing request, his lawyers had asked for a prison term of no more than six months. They said that Solakyan had come with his family to California as refugees from Armenia when he was a boy and had become the main provider for his family by the time he was 17. His lawyers also cited Solakyan's trauma for sexual abuse as a child, his mental health issues, marital problems and his drug addiction in their request for leniency. Solakyan was the CEO of several medical-imaging companies, including the Glendale-based Vital Imaging Inc., and San Diego MRI Institute. Solakyan operated diagnostic imaging facilities throughout California, including the Bay Area, Los Angeles and Orange counties, and San Diego. From no later than mid-2013 to November 2016, Solakyan conspired with physicians and others to perpetrate a scheme in which physicians were paid bribes and kickbacks in exchange for the referral of workers’ compensation patients. The compensation offered to the corrupt doctors consisted of either cash or referrals of new patients in what is known as a "cross-referral" scheme. The conspirators obscured the true nature of their financial relationships to conceal the bribes and kickbacks, including by entering into various sham agreements such as contracts for "marketing," "administrative services," and "scheduling," when in fact the money Solakyan paid amounted to volume-based, per- magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan bribes and kickbacks to induce physicians to refer and continue referring patients to Solakyan’s companies. Solakyan’s recruiters required physicians to refer a minimum number of patients to receive "cross-referrals," and those referrals stopped if the physicians failed to meet the minimum quota. Solakyan paid more than $8.6 million in kickbacks disguised largely as sham "scheduling" fees in exchange for MRI referrals, payments which were concealed from patients and health insurers. In total, Solakyan submitted and caused to be submitted more than $250 million in claims for medical services procured through the payment of bribes and kickbacks ...

California's troubled unemployment benefits department will soon have its third director in the past two years. Gov Newsom announced the appointment of Employment Development Department Chief Deputy Director of External Affairs, Legislation and Policy Nancy Farias as Director of EDD, filling the role held by outgoing Director Rita Saenz since 2020. Director Saenz will continue to serve the Administration by resuming her role as a Commissioner on the California Commission on Aging. Farias has served as Chief Deputy Director of External Affairs, Legislation and Policy at the California Employment Development Department since 2020. Farias was Director of Government Relations at SEIU Local 1000 from 2017 to 2020. She was Deputy Chief of Staff in the Office of Senator Henry Stern from 2016 to 2017 and District Director at the Office of Assemblymember Mike Gatto from 2015 to 2016. Saenz was appointed by Newsom back in 2020 to help turn the department around. This after it was dealing with a record number of unemployment claims as well as fraud claims. Since the pandemic EDD has been dealing with fraud, long wait times and frozen accounts, among other issues. Saenz, who led the California Department of Social Services in the early 2000s and is a former executive with Xerox Corp., came out of retirement to lead the department in 2021 as it was plagued by fraud and a backlog of payments. Since then, the agency has received 26.4 million claims and paid $180 billion in benefits. But about $20 billion of those payments went to scammers who posed as prison inmates and, in one instance, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein to fool state officials into sending them checks. The department recently uncovered another fraud scheme as scammers were posing as doctors to trick state officials into issuing them disability checks. As director, Saenz sought to implement 21 recommendations from the California state auditor. The department has implemented five of those recommendations so far, while the rest are in various stages of implementation. In a memo announcing her resignation, Saenz said she had only planned to stay with the department for a short time. Also Jeffrey T. Killip of Olympia, WA, has been appointed Chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health at the California Department of Industrial Relations. Killip has served as Acting Deputy Assistant Director of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health at the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries since 2021. He served in several positions at the Division from 2012 to 2017, including Industrial Hygiene and Laboratory Manager for Technical Services and Rules Manager. He was a Policy Health Analyst at the Washington State Healthcare Authority in 2010 and a Public Health Law Consultant at the Northwest Center for Public Health Practice at the University of Washington from 2009 to 2012 ...

Wei Wen Wu, 54, and Feng Wen Lam, 49, both of Arcadia, are charged with 43 felony counts of insurance fraud, grand theft, and conspiracy after allegedly under reporting nearly $4.5 million in employee payroll. The scheme fraudulently reduced their company’s workers’ compensation insurance premium resulting in a loss of approximately $1.7 million in unpaid insurance premiums. A parallel investigation by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) uncovered significant wage theft from employees at the couple’s chicken processing business in El Monte. Lam is the owner of Golden Food Inc. (GFI), a chicken processing business employing butchers and meatpackers located in El Monte, which receives chicken carcasses and breaks them down into boxes of chicken parts for sale. Lam’s husband, Wu, operated the business. The Department of Insurance launched an investigation after receiving a referral from State Compensation Insurance Fund, who suspected the business of fraud after comparing the payroll reported during annual audits with the payroll reported to the Employment Development Department. After obtaining search warrants for GFI, the Department was able to obtain the true payroll records from the company’s computer and found fake tax reporting forms. The investigation revealed between 2015 and 2021, GFI under reported its payroll to its workers’ compensation insurance carriers by $4,489,390, resulting in a loss of $1,681,138 in unpaid insurance premiums to four insurance companies, including State Fund. In addition to the Department of Insurance investigation, the California Department of Industrial Relations investigation found employees were forced to clock out for breaks and continue to work, they were not paid overtime for work in excess of 40 weekly hours, and their pay stubs were falsified. Also, it revealed Wu routinely deducted work hours from employees and falsely counted that pay as bonus. An audit by DIR found that Lam and Wu failed to pay at minimum $437,542 in labor to their 34 employees based on the minimum legal market value. Additional victims of wage theft are encouraged to contact the California Labor Commissioner Office's Criminal Investigator Eduardo Martinez at 818-901-5305 or the Labor Commissioner's Office's Public Information Line at 1-833-526-4636 or dlse2@dir.ca.gov. Wu and Lam are scheduled to appear in court on March 29, 2022, in Department 30 of Foltz Criminal Justice Center. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office’s Healthcare Fraud Division is prosecuting this case ...

The Employment Development Department announced earlier this month that they had halted payments on 345,000 disability claims associated with 27,000 suspicious doctors. According to it's January 26 update press release, EDD continues to confirm that most of the suspect disability insurance medical provider accounts it flagged as suspicious were fraud attempts. The few providers that were not fraud - but instead victims of identity theft - are completing verification along with their patients to then resume certifying claims. To date, EDD has confirmed that approximately 98 percent of the 27,000 medical provider accounts it initially flagged as suspicious were likely fraudulent. Specifically, 485 providers have verified their identity at this point and the rest did not. As EDD separates out the suspected fraudulent accounts it is then verifying the claimants who were suspended when their medical provider’s information was compromised. These claimants received notices this week to verify their identity with ID.me as quickly as possible to help in resuming payments. In addition, other claimants have received different notices with other verification requirements specific to their claim. To avoid tipping off fraudsters, further details about the various verification procedures will not be released. But according to a story in the Sacramento Bee most of the 1.4 million people asked last year to prove they properly received federally-funded unemployment benefits have not responded to the state’s request and could eventually face penalties and repayments. The state first sought the information in November. In some cases, it said, it could seek a potential repayment of all benefits received. It talked about penalties. The EDD said it would add a 30% penalty "if we determine that you intentionally gave false information or withheld information to receive benefits." So far, about 280,000 people have responded. Of those, about 90% were found eligible for the benefits. The others will see further reminders about the importance of the federal requirement. They’re being given time to appeal and submit further documentation. If they don’t respond to that notice, they could be deemed ineligible for the benefits they were paid. They would have the chance to appeal, but could have to pay back what they’ve received if they don’t qualify for a waiver. Those who were not notified have already provided proof of employment or were not subject to the requirement ...

The presumptions for compensability of a COVID related workers' compensation claim is predicated on a positive test for the presence of the virus. However, according to the California Attorney General, there are now "fake" testing sites surfacing in California. "Throughout California, fake testing sites are sprouting up to exploit families and individuals seeking COVID tests. It is important to recognize the signs of sham testing sites to protect both your money and personal information," said Attorney General Bonta. "I urge Californians to do their part to avoid fake testing sites by utilizing state resources, including the California Department of Public Health’s website, to find a verified COVID-19 testing site." It would seem prudent that the investigation of claims should not dig deeper to insure that the test offered by the claimant was not from one of the "fake" sites, and indeed is an authentic test result. California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued this warning to Californians, so they become beware of fake COVID-19 testing locations and websites. The alert claims that with an increased demand for COVID-19 testing due to the recent spike in cases, scammers are exploiting vulnerable individuals looking to determine whether they have the COVID-19 virus. These unverified sites pose as legitimate companies and healthcare clinics offering COVID-19 testing. However, after receiving payment for a COVID-19 test, these fake testing sites oftentimes fail to provide their patients with their test results. These sites may also ask for a patient’s personal identifiable information with the intention of committing fraud. The alert shared tips on how to avoid testing site scams, as well as how to search and locate legitimate, verified testing sites. - People should only get tested at verified COVID-19 testing sites or through medical groups: To find a testing site that is verified to perform COVID-19 testing, use the California Department of Public Health’s test site search tool. - Someone may also search for local testing sites through your county’s local public health department. You can find your county’s public health department website at COVID19.CA.GOV’s Hotlines and Local Info web page. - Also check with local medical groups to see if they offer testing services within their facility. Should someone choose to use an unaffiliated testing site, be wary of the following: - - If a provider insists on documenting nationality or immigration status; - - If a provider does not offer a notice of privacy practices, or cannot explain how it will use and share personal data; or - - If a provider insists on accessing a passport or driver’s license when they have other documents that show insurance status. Identify and avoid "lookalike" websites: Fake testing sites may require a person to sign up online. Beware of fake websites that purposely look identical to those belonging to well-known, trusted organizations and state agencies. Before entering personal information into an online form, always make sure that the website is secure and does not display misspellings or unfamiliar names in the URL. Be cautious of unsolicited calls regarding testing sites: A legitimate company or health clinic will not call, text, or email anyone without permission. If someone receives an unsolicited message from an individual, they should not provide the caller or sender with any personal information until having confirmed it is coming from a legitimate source. If someone feels pressured to provide personal information, just hang up. Any of these red flags or tips would be good questions to ask a claimant for purposes of establishing the validity of any COVID test result ...

The Division of Workers’ Compensation has issued a Notice of Public Hearing to amend the Copy Service Fee Schedule. The Zoom public hearing is scheduled for Friday, February 25, 2022 at 10 a.m. A previous public hearing was held on August 30, 2021. The proposed updates to the regulations include: - - An increase of the flat rate for copy services from $180 to $230 (a slight increase from the first proposal of $225) for records up to 500 pages, and includes all associated services such as pagination, witness fees for delivery of records, and subpoena preparation. - - A new provision providing that claims administrators are not liable for payment for duplicative records sent to the Independent Medical Review Organization. The proposed amendments to the Copy Service Fee Schedule are exempt from the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. DWC is required to have a 30-day public comment period, hold a public hearing, respond to all the comments received during the public comment period, and publish the order adopting the regulations online. Members of the public may review and comment on the proposal until February 25, 2022. Members of the public may attend the public meeting: on Friday, February 25, 2022 between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., or until conclusion of business. Participants can join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: using this Zoom URL: https://dir-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/86980035677 If you wish to speak at the public hearing, please submit your notice of intent to speak to DWCRules@dir.ca.gov by 5:00 p.m. Thursday, February 24, 2022 indicating Request to Speak in the subject line and provide your name, organization and phone number and your intent to speak at the Copy Service Fee Schedule public hearing. If you submit written comments by 5:00 p.m. Thursday, February 24, 2022, you can note your intent to speak with written comments. Advance notice of your intent to speak will help DWC’s record-keeping and you will not need to spell your name for the record. Speakers that do not provide advance notice will have the opportunity to register to speak at 10:05 on the day of the hearing ...

Alec Baldwin’s attorneys argued in a demurrer filed on Monday that the Worker's Compensation exclusive remedy protects him from a lawsuit stemming from the "Rust" shooting last October. The filing comes in response to a civil suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by Mamie Mitchell, the film’s script supervisor, against Baldwin and other producers and crew members on Nov. 17. Mitchell is represented by Gloria Allred. The "Rust" production had a liability policy with Chubb with a $6 million limit. Mitchell was standing just a few feet away from Baldwin when he fired the gun and was the first to call 911. She alleges that she suffered pain and ringing in her ears as well as emotional injuries. Apparently her lawyers plead the case as an "assault" by the defendants, hoping to construe Baldwin's behavior as an intentional tort which may be actionable despite the exclusive remedy. However the defendants challenge her claim that it was an intentional tort, and that she has any legal right to any monetary recovery They say "the law is clear that she does not. As Plaintiff obviously recognizes, having cited the New Mexico Supreme Court case Delgado v. Phelps Dodge as the basis for each of the three causes of action in her Complaint, Plaintiff cannot bring a workplace injury claim before this Court based on alleged negligence because Defendants are generally immune from such claims under New Mexico’s worker’s compensation law." The New Mexico Supreme Court\'s decision in Delgado overruled the "actual intent test" and created an exception to the exclusivity provisions of the Workers Compensation Act which holds employers legally responsible for on-the-job injuries. The new standard is something less than intentional but more than negligence, purported to set the stage for a deluge of tort claims from injured employees who previously would have been precluded as a matter of law from recovering damages outside of the Act. However, examination of Delgado and its New Mexico progeny, and comparison with case law in other jurisdictions with rules similar to those articulated by the New Mexico Supreme Court, indicate that while Delgado changed the law, legal scholars at the University of New Mexico say its application is so narrow as to have minimal impact. And that subsequent interpretations of the Delgado exception in New Mexico and other jurisdictions employing a similar standard have defined narrow boundaries and severely limited the scope of its coverage. The demurrer goes on to argue that "despite Plaintiff’s attempt to label claims as intentional, nothing about Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that any of Defendants intentionally committed harmful conduct under New Mexico law. The underlying accident occurred when Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins ("Ms. Hutchins), Director Joel Souza ("Mr. Souza"), and Mr. Baldwin, among other film crew members, were rehearsing Mr. Baldwin drawing and pointing a prop six-shooter style revolver firearm ("Prop Gun") for a cowboy-standoff scene." Mitchell’s suit alleges that Baldwin should have double-checked the gun and also accuses the producers of cutting corners, leading to unsafe conditions. In their demurrer, Baldwin’s attorneys argue that Mitchell cannot point to any intentional act that led to the shooting. "Nothing about Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that any of Defendants, including Mr. Baldwin, intended the Prop Gun to be loaded with live ammunition," they wrote. "Moreover, nothing about Plaintiff’s allegations suggests any of the Defendants knew the Prop Gun contained live ammunition." Serge Svetnoy, the gaffer who was also nearby when the shot was fired, filed a separate suit on Nov. 10. The producers have yet to respond to that complaint. The demurrer will be heard on February 24 at 1:30 in Department 32 ...

The U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration announced it is ending the COVID-19 vaccination and testing rules that were struck down by the Supreme Court but vowed to continue efforts to make the rules permanent in the future. "The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration is withdrawing the vaccination and testing emergency temporary standard issued on Nov. 5, 2021, to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers with 100 or more employees from workplace exposure to coronavirus. The withdrawal is effective January 26, 2022." "Although OSHA is withdrawing the vaccination and testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, the agency is not withdrawing the ETS as a proposed rule. The agency is prioritizing its resources to focus on finalizing a permanent COVID-19 Healthcare Standard." "OSHA strongly encourages vaccination of workers against the continuing dangers posed by COVID-19 in the workplace." "The Supreme Court made it clear that the President Biden administration’s attempt to federalize the nation’s workforce is blatantly unconstitutional," First Liberty Institute president, CEO and chief counsel Kelly Shackelford said of the announcement in a statement. "OSHA had no choice but to withdraw its unlawful ETS, but it needs to completely put an end to this dangerous government overreach. We will continue to fight on behalf of our clients and the American people to protect them from being forced to violate their faith." ...