An Orange County physician was sentenced to 151 months in federal prison for illegally distributing opioids and other powerful narcotics by writing prescriptions for "patients" without a legitimate medical purpose. Dr. Dzung Ahn Pham, 61, of Tustin, was sentenced by United States District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who also fined him $35,000, and ordered him immediately remanded into federal custody. Pham pleaded guilty in October 2022 to one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Pham owned Irvine Village Urgent Care and conspired with licensed pharmacist Jennifer Thaoyen Nguyen, 52, of Irvine, who operated the Irvine-based Bristol Pharmacy, to illegally distribute narcotics, including opioids. Pham knowingly prescribed oxycodone, hydrocodone, amphetamine salts, and other controlled substances to people while acting outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose, including to people he knew were drug addicts. Because Pham knew that many pharmacies would not fill his prescriptions, he would direct his "patients" to Nguyen, who would fill them. Pham and Nguyen also took steps to attempt to conceal their criminal conspiracy by agreeing to have Pham write prescriptions for non-controlled substances to avoid red flags to the DEA and Nguyen’s wholesaler based on the amount of controlled substances Pham was prescribing and Nguyen was dispensing. In November 2017, Pham wrote prescriptions to a patient, identified in court documents as "S.C." and whom Pham knew was a drug addict, for more than 700 pills of 30mg oxycodone. To provide more narcotics to S.C., in August 2018, Pham wrote prescriptions for 75 pills of 30mg oxycodone in the name of a person labeled in court documents as “R.C.,” who was S.C.’s wife and who had never seen Pham for any medical appointment. R.C. was unaware that Pham issued the prescription in her name for S.C. As part of the conspiracy, Pham admitted from January 2013 to December 2018, he wrote prescriptions to 18 different "patients" for a total of approximately 53,693 pills of oxycodone, approximately 68,795 pills of hydrocodone, and approximately 29,286 pills of amphetamine salts. According to court documents, Pham abused his trust and authority as a physician to fuel the addiction of drug users in exchange for financial gain. Pham generated large amounts of cash from the operation of Irvine Village Urgent Care by charging between $100 and $150 per office visit, including many times collecting office visit fees in which Pham wrote prescriptions for the "patients" even though they did not even have an office visit. "[Pham], a licensed physician trusted by society and the patients that went to him, stopped treating patients and, plain and simple, became a drug dealer," prosecutors argued in a sentencing memorandum "He turned ‘patients’ into addicts and/or fueled the addictions of drug abusers." Nguyen pleaded guilty in October 2022 to one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. On March 17, Judge Staton sentenced Nguyen to 33 months in federal prison and fined her $10,000 ...

ChatGPT is a chatbot developed by OpenAI. It is designed to be a conversational AI, and it has been praised for its ability to generate human-quality text. Microsoft and OpenAI have a long-term partnership that began in 2019. Microsoft invested $1 billion in OpenAI and became its exclusive cloud provider. This partnership has allowed Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into its products and services, such as its Bing search engine. Google Bard is a conversational AI chatbot developed by Google AI. These three (of many) examples are based upon what is known as Generative AI. Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence that can create new content, such as images, text, and music. It does this by learning from existing data and then using that knowledge to generate new outputs. Unfortunately, the technology is capable of what the industry refers to as "hallucinations." An AI hallucination refers to the phenomenon where an artificial intelligence system generates responses that are not based on real-world data. Researchers and developers are actively working to mitigate and minimize hallucinations in AI systems, as they can hinder the reliability and trustworthiness of the technology. Generative AI can be used to write movie scripts, create music, or write documents. This is not without controversy and criticism. For example, the use of AI by college students to write essays has been a controversial topic in recent years. Some people believe that AI is a valuable tool that can help students to improve their writing skills, while others believe that it is a form of academic dishonesty and plagiarism. And now the controversial use of Generative AI has worked its way into courtrooms. Steven Schwartz, who has worked for Manhattan law firm Levidow, Levidow & Obermam for three decades, apologized repeatedly during his emotional reading of a formal statement before Senior U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel who is overseeing potential sanctions. Schwartz's court filings included fake case citations generated by ChatGPT. According to the report by Courthouse News, he apologized for getting duped by the artificial intelligence tool. "It just never occurred to me that it would be making up cases," Schwartz testified, explaining that he was unable at the time suspend disbelief that ChatGPT could generated totally fabricated responses to his research inquiries. "I deeply regret my actions," Schwartz said in court. "I have suffered both professionally and personally due to the widespread publicity. I am both embarrassed and humiliated and extremely remorseful. To say that this has been a humbling experience would be an understatement." The lawyer's attorneys, Ronald Minkoff and Tyler Maulsby from Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, each argued that Schwartz made a careless mistake and should have noticed the red flags along the way but shouldn’t be accused of acting in bad faith. "There has to be actual knowledge that Mr. Schwartz knew he was providing bad cases ... or that ChatGPT would be providing bad cases," Maulsby said. U.S. District Judge Castel did not immediately rule on punishment. See Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (Doc. 31) (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2023) (issuing rule to show cause where "[a] submission filed by plaintiff’s counsel in opposition to a motion to dismiss is replete with citations to nonexistent cases."). In the wake of publicity about Schwartz’s case, a Texas judge issued an order banning the use of generative artificial intelligence to write court filings without additional fact-checking conducted by an actual person. According to the order given by Judge Brantley Starr who sites on U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas: "These platforms in their current states are prone to hallucinations and bias. On hallucinations, they make stuff up - even quotes and citations. Another issue is reliability or bias. While attorneys swear an oath to set aside their personal prejudices, biases, and beliefs to faithfully uphold the law and represent their clients, generative artificial intelligence is the product of programming devised by humans who did not have to swear such an oath. As such, these systems hold no allegiance to any client, the rule of law, or the laws and Constitution of the United States (or, as addressed above, the truth)." The new requirement comes after a lawyer representing a man suing an airline used ChatGPT to prepare a legal brief, which was discovered to be laden with errors, including made-up court cases. "We're at least putting lawyers on notice, who might not otherwise be on notice, that they can't just trust those databases," Starr told Reuters. "They've got to actually verify it themselves through a traditional database." As another example, Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes in Illinois similarly implemented a standing order that requires parties using generative AI tools in document preparation to disclose such usage in their filings.The disclosure should include specific details about the AI tool employed and the manner in which it was utilized. The judge further stated that reliance on an AI tool may not constitute reasonable inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 ...

The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB) has released an updated COVID-19 report, Medical Treatments and Costs of COVID-19 Claims and "Long COVID" in the California Workers’ Compensation System - 2023 Update. Since March 2020, over 300,000 COVID-19 workers’ compensation claims have been filed in California.The number and average cost of COVID-19 claims declined in 2021 and 2022 compared to the early months of the pandemic, partly due to higher population immunity driven by vaccinations and prior infections. Still, many claims continued to be filed, particularly from healthcare workers on the frontline of COVID-19 patient care and others who had to work outside the home and face higher exposure to COVID-19 infection. In March 2022, the WCIRB published a study on the patterns of medical treatment and costs of COVID-19 claims based on claim experience mostly during the pre-vaccine period. The study showed that COVID-19 claims that involved medical treatments, particularly hospitalizations, incurred significant medical costs. The study also provided an early assessment of the prevalence of "long COVID" (post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, PASC), a constellation of persistent symptoms that can emerge or linger in various body systems long after the initial infection, in the workers’ compensation system. The study estimated that approximately 11% of COVID-19 claims with an initial mild infection received medical treatment for long COVID symptoms over a 4-month post-acute care period. The rate of long COVID spiked to about 40% for those hospitalized for the initial infection. Since then, additional experience of COVID-19 claims has become available, providing additional insights into the impacts of long COVID on permanent disability. The WCIRB has updated the analysis of medical treatments and costs of COVID-19 claims in the California workers’ compensation system based on almost 10,000 insured COVID-19 claims with medical payments and a reported accident date between April 2020 and December 2021. This recent study update focuses on a comparison of claims filed in 2020 to those filed in 2021 when vaccines became more widely available to California workers. The 2023 update analyzes the prevalence of long COVID over a 12-month post-acute care period and the characteristics of workers experiencing long COVID. The update also estimates the long COVID prevalence of workers being treated in the California group health insurance system to validate the estimates in the workers’ compensation system and includes an additional analysis of how comorbidities affect long COVID among patients with group health insurance. Highlights of the report include: - - COVID-19 claims for accident years 2020 and 2021 share a similar mix of mild, hospital and death claims. - - Over a 12-month post-acute care period, approximately 13 percent of COVID-19 claims with medical payments received treatments for long COVID symptoms in the workers’ compensation system. - - The risks of long COVID are higher among female workers, workers over age 50 as well as those with comorbidities. - - Claims involving treatments for long COVID symptoms are four times more likely to receive permanent disability benefits compared to other COVID-19 claims without treatments for long COVID symptoms. The full report is available in the Research section of the WCIRB website ...

Five Guys Enterprises, LLC is an American fast food chain focused on hamburgers, hot dogs, and french fries. It is headquartered in Lorton, Virginia. Five Guys has over 1,600 locations in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia. The company is privately owned and operated by the Murrell family. The state with the most number of Five Guys locations in the US is California, with 128 restaurants, which is about 9% of all Five Guys restaurants in the US. In December 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed by lead plaintiff Jeremy R, Lusk in the United States Federal District Court in Fresno California against Five Guys Enterprises alleging that the company violated California labor laws by denying its workers breaks and overtime pay. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 2,206 non-exempt workers at the gourmet burger chain. Lusk worked as an hourly, non-exempt, manager-in-training at a Five Guys establishment in California from August to November 2016. Lusk alleged that while working as an hourly, non-exempt employee, he and class members were not always permitted to take 30-minute meal breaks and 10-minute rest breaks for each 4-hour work period as it would be too busy to do so. And that he and class members were required to perform work off- the-clock as they would have to clock out but continue to perform work, such as counting out the cash register, which may take up to twenty minutes. Lusk also alleged that he and class members were required to utilize their own personal vehicles to perform their job duties, such as travelling to and from other restaurants owned by Defendants to pick up food and supplies and Five Guys did not reimburse them for utilizing their own personal vehicles to do so. This conduct was the basis of his claims under Labor Code §§ 203 and 226 and the Unfair Competition Law for failure to pay for all time worked, failure to provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse, and failure to provide meal and rest periods. Plaintiff finally alleged that Defendants obtained his and class members’ employment applicants’authorization to procure background check reports through the use of a disclosure form that did not comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ( CCRAA) or Investigating Consumer Reporting Agency Act (ICRAA) requirements. However verified discovery responses later established the Defendants had not actually run any background checks on any employees or applicants, including Plaintiff. In October 2019, Five Guys and the plaintiffs agreed to a $1.2 million settlement. However, the settlement was rejected by a California federal judge on December 23, 2019, the Court without a hearing and identified several issues that needed to be addressed. On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval, which addressed the issues raised by the Court. However, on October 19, 2020, the Court again denied Plaintiff’s motion and found more issues that needed to be addressed. On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental/Second Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval. On June 1, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion. On September 25, 2021,Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval. On January 24, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion. On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval. On October 3, 2022, the Court approved Plaintiff’s amended motion without a hearing in its Order on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval. The Court set the Final Approval Hearing for March 27, 2023, which was later continued to another date.. In a brief filed April 13, 2023, the Five Guys employees urged U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston to green light the settlement -- seven months after they received preliminary approval of the deal. This proposal is the fifth due to the judge’s questions on the four previous occasions. With the new agreement of $1.2 million, each claimant could receive up to $900, dependent on the final plaintiffs’ legal fees. The Five Guys employment law class action is one of several recent lawsuits alleging that the company violated labor laws. In 2022, a former employee filed a lawsuit alleging that Five Guys violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by requiring employees to scan their fingerprints to clock in and out of work. In addition, Five Guys has been hit with a negligence class action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to properly secure the private information of individuals who applied for employment with the company ...

The experience modifier, or ex mod, is a factor that is developed by examining the insured’s actual loss history against the expected or average loss experience for the insured’s class of business. The calculation returns an experience modifier that will result in either a credit or debit to the insured’s premium. Whether a company is eligible for experience rating is determined by a number of factors. To determine eligibility, payroll developed during the experience period is totaled by classification code. These totals are multiplied by the expected loss rate for each classification that applies as of the effective date of the experience modification. The sum of these calculations must equal or exceed the minimum eligibility threshold which may change from time to time. The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB) has released its September 1, 2023 Experience Modification Estimator (Estimator). The Estimator is for insurers, agents and brokers to help policyholders understand how payroll and claims experience will affect the computation of their September 1, 2023 and later experience modification (X-Mod). To use the WCIRB September 1, 2023 Experience Modification Estimator, free of charge, visit the Learning Center on wcirb.com or click on the following link: - - September 1, 2023 Experience Modification Estimator By entering policyholder-specific payroll, classification and claims information into the Excel Spreadsheet Estimator, users can obtain an estimated X-Mod using approved September 1, 2023 California Workers’ Compensation Experience Rating Plan - 1995 values (including expected loss rates, D-Ratios and primary thresholds that vary by employer size). The Estimator’s spreadsheet format makes it easy for users to view and simply copy and paste data into the application. Users can then view, print or save detailed estimated X-Mod information based on that data. The September 1, 2023 Estimator was updated with the approved experience rating values after the Insurance Commissioner issued a Decision on the WCIRB’s September 1, 2023 Regulatory Filing. The Estimator is for informational purposes only, and results are approximations based on the information entered. The Estimator does not produce WCIRB-published X-Mods. For more information and helpful tips on how to use the Estimator, go to the WCIRB Experience Modification Estimators page ...

Combating insurance fraud requires understanding the psychological factors that drive consumers to engage in fraudulent activity. The new Coalition Against Insurance Fraud’s study provides important insights into these factors, such as the perceived likelihood of being caught and the perceived severity of the consequences of committing insurance fraud. The study "Who Me? Who Commits Insurance Fraud and Why" analyzes how American consumers view insurance fraud and insurance crime and delves into the psychology of insurance fraud to understand the motivations and justification for the crime derived from in-depth interviews with those convicted of insurance fraud. A significant number of Americans aged 45 and younger show a high level of tolerance for insurance fraud - even feeling envious of those who commit it - according to a new survey of insurance consumers by Verisk and the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud. The study found that 87-96% of older respondents consider insurance fraud a crime, while only 75% of those under age 45 consider it a crime, with the percentage skewing downward by age to only 64% for the youngest group. Other findings include: - - More than 36% of all Americans believe it’s acceptable to submit an inflated auto damage claim - - Over 30% of 25-34-year-olds "definitely would" submit a fraudulent property damage claim - - 27% of those 18-24 would commit workers’ compensation fraud, compared to less than 10% of those 45 and older - - Over a quarter of those 18-34 are "motivated" to commit insurance fraud compared to less than 7% of those over 45 Completing the "insurance fraud trifecta" the study also looked more closely at attitudes toward submitting a fraudulent workers compensation injury claim. Drawing from the combined overall responses, 5.71% of persons admitted to have already submitted a non-job injury to their employer to be paid. Based on the Coalition’s study in 2022 on Workers Compensation Fraud this alone could constitute nearly $1.5 billion each year of fraudulent workers compensation claim payments. Others have not yet had the chance. Persons who say they "definitely would" submit such fake injury claims accounted for 11.36% of responses, even exceeding those who told us they "might" consider making such a claim at 10.50%. Collectively these groups accounted for 27.57% of all respondents, yet again representing a very high acceptance rate for the commission of insurance fraud in our nation across multiple lines of insurance, and even when doing so would involve not only lying to the insurance carrier, but also to your employer. "This study should sound the alarm for insurers, consumer activists, regulators, and legislators on the state of fraud in America. While it’s marginally reassuring that 84% of Americans in the survey consider insurance fraud a crime, the 16% that do not consider it a crime potentially represent more than 53 million Americans," said Matthew Smith, executive director of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud. "There is a need for consumer education on the harm insurance fraud crimes have on our economy and on every American citizen and family." Sadly, the change in societal attitude toward insurance fraud has been discovered in other surveys on other topics. Several years ago, the Pew Memorial Trust released a report finding younger Americans to have "emerged into adulthood with low levels of social trust." Pew noted, "The future of an ethical society is looking grim and we can expect even more fraud in the future." The recent book The Man Who Broke Capitalism cited a study by McKinsey finding 61% of current American CEOs would be willing to violate federal and state laws if necessary to meet quarterly financial reporting expectations of Wall Street investors ...

The National Safety Council is America’s leading nonprofit safety advocate - and has been for nearly 110 years. As a mission-based organization, it works to eliminate the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing its efforts on the workplace, roadway and impairment. Since its establishment by the National Safety Council in June 1996, organizations and individuals across the country have come together to join NSC in observance of National Safety Month, a dedication each June to bring extra attention to the safety issues faced from the workplace to anyplace. The latest available data reveals more than 4,400 preventable workplace deaths and 4.26 million injuries occurred in 2021. With transportation as one of the leading sectors for workplace fatalities, and NSC estimates showing more than 46,200 people, including workers, died in preventable traffic crashes in 2022, raising public awareness of the leading safety and health risks in order to decrease the number of preventable injuries and deaths in the United States is as important as ever. "Since its start, the National Safety Council has been on a mission to promote safety and health," said Lorraine Martin, president and CEO of NSC. "Regardless of whether you’re on the job, on the roads, in your community or at home, in order to be safe, you must be able to feel safe, and safety means something different for each of us; it’s personal. This June, the National Safety Council encourages employers and individuals alike to be safety role models on and off the job because it just may prevent an injury or save a life." As part of the observance, each week of June is focused on a specific safety issue. This year the topics include: - - Week 1: Emergency Preparedness - - Week 2: Slips, Trips and Falls - - Week 3: Heat-Related Illness - - Week 4: Hazard Recognition For more information on National Safety Month and to access workplace safety resources such as graphics, tip sheets, articles and more, please visit the NSC website ...

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP is a large, international law firm with over 1,500 attorneys in 34 offices across the United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia. The firm was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. In addition to insurance defense, It has a range of legal services such as complex litigation, including class actions, mass torts, and product liability cases. Lewis Brisbois also has a significant practice in representing businesses in a variety of industries, including healthcare, technology, and energy. Last month John Barber, who was chair of the Lewis Brisbois' employment practice, said at least 110 lawyers were leaving Lewis Brisbois after signing agreements to join a newly-formed spinoff firm and as many as 140 lawyers could eventually join the new firm, Barber Ranen. Barber will lead the firm along with Jeffrey Ranen, who was a national vice chair of the labor and employment practice at Lewis Brisbois. Barber Ranen would open three physical offices in Los Angeles, Newport Beach, and San Francisco, Barber said, with other lawyers working remotely in Sacramento, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Boston, Denver, Pittsburgh, Portland, Las Vegas and Phoenix. The Barber Ranen rationale for leaving was to "build something that’s reflective of our values and our beliefs," Barber told Above The Law. "We wanted to lead with empathy, collaboration and compassion, to do it our way and not have any baggage," Ranen told the Los Angeles Business Journal about the formation of Barber Ranen. But this week Above the Law, and other media sources are reporting "Now, Barber and Ranen are making headlines once again, and this time, the news is quite alarming." According to the New York Post, Barber and Ranen are alleged to have engaged in racist, misogynistic, homophobic and antisemitic language about their clients and colleagues while at Lewis Brisbois, according to a review of internal emails released Monday morning. Lewis Brisbois found the problematic emails after an audit triggered by a formal complaint about Barber and Ranen, according to two sources familiar with the matter. The firm said it is now conducting a thorough review of Barber and Ranen’s correspondence and are interviewing other employees who had interacted with the pair. "We are deeply troubled by their use of prejudiced language and racial and cultural slurs aimed at colleagues, clients, attorneys from other firms, and even Judges," the firm’s leader said in a statement. Barber Ranen CEO Tim Graves released a statement Monday confirming that the two men had resigned following the discovery of the emails. "The remaining Equity Partners express their disappointment and disdain for the language Mr. Barber and Mr. Ranen used. We will form a new firm. We ask for the support of our friends and colleagues while we heal and plan our path forward." The first release of these emails was made by Lewis Brisbois to Forward, a non-profit that claims to be "the most widely read Jewish newspaper anywhere." Forward said that "The firm released a larger tranche of inflammatory correspondence from the attorneys targeting other groups, which was first reported on by the New York Post on Saturday." According to Forward, the internal emails go back to 2012. and "reveal the two cultivated a culture of bigotry and disparagement." Robert Glassman, a member of the board of directors at Los Angeles’ Stephen S. Wise Temple and a partner at Panish Shea Boyle Ravipudi, said he worked on dozens of cases against Lewis Brisbois and found it appalling that "this kind of hatred still permeates itself in the Los Angeles legal community." In a Sept. 13, 2012 email, for example, Ranen wrote to Barber, "I forgot to write that we will not hire Jews" after the latter recommended a person - his or her identity was redacted by the company - for a litigation contract. In another email earlier that year, Ramen told Derek Sachs, a former partner at Lewis Brisbois, "This is the reason why people don’t like Jews," in response to an invoice submitted to them. In a June 2012 email thread that begins with discussing a new hire, Ranen referred to Barber as a "Jew" for owing him money. Many of the shocking missives obtained by The Post from the pair’s former firm "were also racist or anti-LGBTQ." Critics ripped the two men’s behavior and the firm’s hypocrisy. "Though they may pretend to have founded their new firm in pursuit of ‘empathy and compassion,’ it is beyond any doubt that they are incapable of doing so," civil rights activist Al Shaprton told The Post. "I am calling on The State Bar of California to conduct a full review of their character and licenses to practice law. Though these emails alone are beyond sufficient to question Barber and Ranen’s integrity, it is easy to imagine they are just the tip of the iceberg of their intolerance toward communities of color, women and the LGBT community." Barber and Ranen did not return multiple messages seeking comment. The Barber Ranen exodus followed an earlier announcement this January that Atlanta-founded labor and employment law firm Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete added 32 cybersecurity and data privacy lawyers from Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith. The law firm said it will open six new offices with the new team, which includes lawyers spread across 17 cities ...

In the ever-evolving landscape of cyber threats, a new player has emerged called RansomHouse. Unlike traditional ransomware operations, RansomHouse focuses on breaching networks through vulnerabilities to steal valuable data. Mission Community Hospital has been providing healthcare in the San Fernando Valley community for more than 50 years. It is owned and operated by Deanco Healthcare, LLC. It is licensed for 75 medical/surgical beds, 10 critical care beds plus an additional 60 beds for psychiatric care. DataBreaches.net reported on June 4 that the Hospital was infected by ransomware after hacker group RansomHouse exploited vulnerabilities in its Paragon and Cisco systems. According to the website, RansomHouse listed on its leak site that it has 2.5 terabytes of the hospital's data and provided some proof, along with a note: "Dear Mission Community Hospital Management, We strongly recommend you to contact us to prevent your confidential data or research data to be leaked or sold to a third party." Rather than encrypting stolen files, the group reportedly just exfiltrates them and demands a ransom in exchange for deleting them and providing a security report, according to the story. DataBreaches.net reviewed a letter from Mission Community's outside general counsel that it discovered the breach while investigating a May 1 network switch failure and has since rejected the threat actor. Mission Community Hospital and RansomHouse did not respond to DataBreaches.net's requests for comment. RansomHouse is a cybercrime group that extorts money from victims by threatening to leak stolen data. The group first emerged in December 2021 and has since targeted a number of high-profile organizations, including AMD, the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority, and a German airline support service provider. RansomHouse operates in a different way from traditional ransomware groups. Instead of encrypting victims' data and demanding a ransom payment to decrypt it, RansomHouse steals data and then offers to delete it in exchange for a payment. If the victim does not pay, RansomHouse threatens to leak the stolen data online. The group's website, available on the Tor network features a dark web blog where they post updates about their activities, as well as screenshots of stolen data. RansomHouse also uses the blog to taunt victims and to encourage other cybercriminals to target them. RansomHouse is a sophisticated threat actor that has been able to successfully target a number of high-profile organizations. The group's use of a data-leaking tactic is a new and worrying development, as it means that victims are no longer just at risk of having their data encrypted, but also of having it exposed online. Users on Twitter, Telegram, and dark web forums have been debating whether RansomHouse is a real ransomware gang that is responsible for attacking and stealing those databases, or an extortion group that buys leaked databases from a third party and tries to extort the victims by demanding a ransom fee in return for not leaking the data to the public ...

State Farm General Insurance Company®, State Farm’s provider of homeowners insurance in California, just announced it will cease accepting new applications including all business and personal lines property and casualty insurance, effective May 27, 2023. This decision does not impact personal auto insurance. State Farm General Insurance Company made this decision "due to historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure, and a challenging reinsurance market." Before State Farm’s announcement, the company requested a 28% rate hike on homeowners’ insurance. Instead, the state forced the company to cut rates. While recent headlines have followed State Farm pulling out of the new homeowners insurance market in the state, Allstate says they paused it last year. "We paused new homeowners, condo and commercial insurance policies in California last year so we can continue to protect current customers," Brittany Nash, spokesperson for the company, told ABC10 in an email. Allstate had previously filed for a 39.6% increase. In a statement to ABC10 a spokesperson for the California Department of Insurance (CDI) said current customers will not lose their insurance. State Farm was California’s largest property insurer and Allstate was fourth as of 2021. The late May decision by State Farm follows a similar call by insurance giant GEICO, which closed all sales centers in the state last year. The Sacramento Bee reported last August that 38 offices are closing and hundreds of GEICO workers are being laid off across the state as a result. And according to a report by CBS News, from 2020 to 2021, auto insurance losses spiked 25% while premiums increased by only 4.5%, according to the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. The rate and severity of auto accidents are up as well as the costs to cover them. Progressive stopped advertising in the state. Progressive President and Chief Executive Officer Tricia Griffith said in an earnings call last year that the company was slowing its growth in California. Insurers "are becoming increasingly less willing to write new business" in California because of the moratorium, Joseph Lacher Jr., Kemper’s president, chief executive officer and chairman said during an earnings call last month. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, a series of catastrophic wildfires in recent years has increased calls from insurers to weaken the state’s consumer-friendly policies that have held down rates for decades. The insurance crunch is affecting buyers across the state already, even in areas where the wildfire risk is low. In San Francisco, real estate agents say they have seen deals fall through because would-be buyers couldn’t get insured. And last March, before the State Farm announcement, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Insurance Companies Are Quietly Fleeing California." It went on to say that the "recent spate of flood-level storms in Northern California brought attention to the Golden State’s ailing levees. As an "atmospheric river" pummeled the low-lying Sacramento region, a nearly endless parade of trucks carrying rubble raced to shore up an aged system. "The recent floods and wildfire season have also have saddled insurance companies with as much as $1.5 billion in losses. Insurance markets could weather these blows, but California’s government-controlled insurance system won’t let them. Thus, insurers are pulling out of the state or reducing their underwriting, leaving many homeowners dependent on the bare-bones insurer of last resort: the state-created (though insurer-funded) Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan." Car insurers are backing away, too, Jerry Theodorou, an R Street Institute insurance expert observed in the Orange County Register, notes, as losses increased 25% in one year, while premiums rose only 4.5%. That statistic offers insight into the problem. In 1988 California voters approved a ballot measure backed by tort lawyers that turned the insurance commissioner into a rate-setting czar. "Proposition 103 . . . requires the ‘prior approval’ of California’s Department of Insurance before insurance companies can implement property and casualty insurance rates," the department’s website explains. "The ballot measure also required each insurer to ‘roll back’ its rates 20 percent. Prior to Proposition 103, automobile, property and casualty insurance rates were set by insurance companies without approval by the Insurance Commissioner." "In the last six years, we lost 20 years’ worth of underwriting profit, and that was due to the catastrophic wildfires that we’ve faced," said Janet Ruiz, a spokesperson with the Insurance Information Institute. However, according to a report by Consumer Watchdog, State Farm’s announcement that it would immediately stop selling homeowners insurance to new customers in California is unlawful under Proposition 103, and appears intended to force Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to rubber stamp $721 million in new and potentially unjustified premium hikes State Farm wants its policyholders to pay, Consumer Watchdog said this morning. Consumer Watchdog warned of damaging consequences for California consumers unless Commissioner Lara orders Illinois-based State Farm - the state’s largest insurance company - to reverse its action and comply with the law, as previous Commissioners have done when insurers break the law. However the California Insurance Commissioner does not seem to agree with Consumer Watchdog's interpretation of Proposition 103. Following State Farms announcement, the Insurance Commissioner published a "Consumer Alert" which announced the State Farm decision, and clearly stated "While the California Department of Insurance cannot legally control a company’s business decision, we can help Californians navigate their options." The Department of Insurance concluded by saying it "continues to proactively outreach to insurance companies to write more business in California so consumers continue to have available coverage options in the face of continued climate change. These discussions are on-going." ...

Dozens of U.S. states on Friday announced a $102.5 million settlement with the drugmaker behind Suboxone, the brand name for a critical drug used to treat opioid dependence. The California Attorney General joined a coalition of 42 attorneys general in announcing a settlement against Invidior Inc. to resolve allegations that the global pharmaceutical company violated state and federal antitrust laws by attempting to maintain market exclusivity over Suboxone. As part of the settlement, Indivior will pay $102.5 million to the states and be prohibited from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. Manufactured and marketed by Invidior, Suboxone is a prescription drug approved for use by recovering opioid addicts to avoid or reduce withdrawal symptoms while they undergo treatment. California will be receiving over $7.1 million of the multi-state settlement funds. In addition to requiring Indivior to pay $102.5 million, under the settlement" - - Indivior must provide the states with information and reasons for any reformulated versions of Suboxone; - - If pharmaceutical companies file for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of generic versions of Suboxone, Indivior must leave the original product on the market for a limited period to allow doctors and patients to choose which formulation they like better; and - - If Indivior files an FDA Citizen Petition in an attempt to delay generic competition in the future, it must also submit any data or information underlying that petition to the FDA and the states. Indivior received FDA approval for Suboxone in 2002, along with exclusive rights to sell the drug for seven years based on representations that it was otherwise unlikely to recover its investment in the drug. Suboxone originally came in tablet form. However, in 2010 - a year after Indivior's exclusive right to the Suboxone tablet had expired and generic manufacturers were set to enter the market - the company switched from tablet to sublingual film, falsely citing safety concerns. Sublingual film is a dissolving film. In response, the California Attorney General's office and fellow attorneys general sued Indivior in 2016, alleging that Indivior engaged in a "product-hopping" scheme to block competition to Suboxone. In such a scheme, pharmaceutical companies try to maintain profits generated via a monopoly by slightly reformulating their product in a way that blocks generic competitors without offering any significant medical or therapeutic advantages to patients. In April 2021, the Attorney General announced a separate $300 million settlement against Indivior resolving claims that Indivior falsely and aggressively marketed Suboxone, resulting in improper use of state Medicaid funds. California was a part of the team of states that negotiated the settlement which was paid to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. California is joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The settlement agreement has been submitted to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for approval ...

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, was a student at Daniel Pearl Magnet High School, operated by Los Angeles Unified School District). Daniel Garcia was an employee at the school when plaintiff enrolled in the ninth grade for the 2014-2015 academic year. Garcia began to give special attention to plaintiff. He acted affectionately toward her at school, rubbing her legs and holding her hand. Garcia also sent plaintiff flirtatious and sexual text messages. In November 2014, Garcia sexually assaulted her.Plaintiff later told her parents about Garcia’s actions. Her parents immediately contacted the police. In May 2016, Garcia was arrested and charged with criminal offenses associated with his misconduct. Before these events occurred, the District allegedly had learned in February 2014 that Garcia - who at the time worked as an aide at a different District school - was involved in a "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationship with another female student, H.M. The District did not fire Garcia upon learning of this relationship, but instead transferred him to the high school where he would encounter plaintiff. The District also created a false report stating that Garcia and H.M. had met and dated before Garcia’s employment with the District commenced. Plaintiff’s civil action alleged sexual abuse, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sexual harassment against Garcia. Against the District, plaintiff alleged various negligence theories and a claim for failing to report suspected child abuse. In addition to economic and non-economic damages, plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages from Garcia and an award of up to treble damages under Code Civ. Proc., §340.1(b)(1) from the District. The District brought a motion to strike the request for up to treble damages pursuant to Government Code section 818, a provision within the Government Claims Act, which specifies in relevant part that "a public entity is not liable for damages awarded under Section 3294 of the Civil Code or other damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant." The superior court denied the motion, concluding that section 340.1(b)(1)'s treble damages provision was intended to be compensatory, not punitive. The Court of Appeal reversed, and determined that section 818 shields public entities from liability for enhanced damages under section 340.1(b)(1). The California Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal and affirmed in the case of Los Angeles Unified School District v Superior Court - S269608 (June 2023). Since the Court of Appeal ruling in this case, other Courts of Appeal also have determined that enhanced damages under section 340.1(b)(1) are not recoverable against public entities, such as the appellate court inX.M. v. Superior Court (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1014, review granted December 1, 2021, S271478 (X.M.). Even more recently, the court in K.M. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 717 also concluded that section 818 precludes the application of section 340.1(b)(1) to public entities. The Opinion noted that section 818 manifests an appreciation that when additional impositions upon a public entity are "primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant," they also create a liability that will be borne not by the immediate wrongdoers but by taxpayers, and may not effectively achieve the goals of retribution and deterrence. For these reasons, such awards should not be permitted, at least without a clear indication by the Legislature that they may be imposed. In this case the first task was to identify the kinds of damages awards to which section 818 applies. Plaintiff argued that this provision prohibits only the imposition of damages that are "simply and solely punitive." However the Supreme Court concluded "that section 818 is not so limited, and instead immunizes public entities from damages awarded under Civil Code section 3294 and from other damages that would function, in essence, as an award of punitive or exemplary damages." The Opinion then discussed Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1 which is, for the most part, a statute of limitations intended to expand the ability of victims of childhood sexual abuse to hold to account individuals and entities responsible for their injuries. Since its original enactment in 1986 the statute has been amended on multiple occasions to extend the filing periods for claims alleging childhood sexual assault and revive otherwise time-barred claims. A 2019 amendment revised section 340.1(b)(1) to provide that in an action seeking damages suffered due to childhood sexual assault, "a person who is sexually assaulted and proves it was as the result of a cover up may recover up to treble damages against a defendant who is found to have covered up the sexual assault of a minor, unless prohibited by another law." The Opinion went on to note that "This court and others have frequently characterized treble damages as exemplary or punitive." And it went on to say that "In adding the treble damages provision to section 340.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Legislature presumably was aware of our prior decisions so characterizing treble damages and understood that the provision could be perceived similarly." And similarly it said "the damages authorized under section 340.1(b)(1) have substantial punitive qualities beyond the simple fact that they may go well beyond actual damages. These objective characteristics confirm that enhanced damages under the statute function, in essence, as punitive or exemplary damages by serving 'to punish past childhood sexual abuse coverups to deter future ones.' " Thus the Justices then determined that in enacting Government Code section 818 the Legislature intended to shield public entities from damages under Civil Code section 340.1(b)(1) ...

Plaintiffs are farmworkers who harvested strawberries in Santa Barbara County, California in 2016 and 2017. They were hired by three farms that grew the berries: Higuera Farms, Inc., Big F Company, Inc., and La Cuesta Farming Company, Inc. ("the Growers). The fruit was then turned over to Red Blossom Sales, Inc. and Better Produce, Inc. ("the Marketers") for distribution. The Marketers held master leases to the farmlands and subleased them to the Growers. The Marketers were each licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell produce as a "commission merchant." Such a license is required for any entity that buys or sells more than 2,000 pounds of fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables in a given day. The Marketers entered into yearly marketing and sublease agreements with the Growers, which specified that the land would be used only to grow strawberries and that the Marketers retained the exclusive right to sell the strawberries to their retail customers. Under their agreements, the Growers were responsible for preparing and cultivating the land and for supervising and controlling the workers. The Marketers provided the Growers with packaging materials, communicated with them about the quantity of the strawberries produced, and had the strawberries placed into containers with the Marketers’ labels on them. The Marketers retained the right to enter the lands to conduct inspections of the strawberries. Red Blossom’s retail customers required Red Blossom to conduct additional food safety compliance inspections, including random food safety audits, and to pay for a third-party audit. The Growers conducted the actual farming operations and supervised the plaintiffs' work. The Marketers cooled and sold the berries principally to large retail grocery chains. The Marketers conducted their cooling and distribution operations on premises that were close to but separate from the farms. In 2018, the Growers stopped paying the workers, so they filed a class action lawsuit against both the Growers and the Marketers, alleging wage and hour violations, as joint employers under California and federal law. The Marketers were allegedly client employers under California Labor Code § 2810.3. While the proceedings were ongoing, the Growers filed for bankruptcy. The parties agreed to bifurcate the trial, with all issues related to the Growers' liability to be tried later by a jury. The Marketers' liability was to be determined first in a bench trial. After a two-day bench trial the district court entered judgment in favor of the Marketers The Plaintiffs' appealed only with respect to the Marketers’ liability under Labor Code § 2810.3. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court and held that Plaintiffs' were not performing labor within the Marketers’ "usual course of business" as defined by the statute in the published case of Morales-Garcia V. Better Produce, Inc. 2:18-cv-05118-SVW-JPR (June 2023). This appeal concerns the application of a California labor law enacted in 2014 to protect workers whose labor has been outsourced to a labor provider. Under the statute, the outsourcing entity, known as a "client employer," is liable for the laborers' wages if the laborers' work is within the outsourcers' "usual course of business." Cal. Labor Code § 2810.3(a)(1)-(3), (6). The California Legislature enacted § 2810.3 to establish a new form of liability for employers, termed "client employers," who obtain workers from third-party contractors. The legislative history of the statute indicates that client employer liability was created to address the growing business model where a business uses a contractor to supply workers who are supervised and paid by the contractor, but appear to be employees of the business. Under the statute, Cal. Labor Code § 2810.3(a)(1)-(3), (6), the outsourcing entity, known as a "client employer," is liable for the laborers' wages if the laborers' work is within the outsourcers' "usual course of business." The panel held that the Plaintiffs' were not performing labor within the Marketers’ "usual course of business" as defined by the statute. That term is defined as "the regular and customary work of a business, performed within or upon the premises or worksite of the client employer." "By requiring the work to take place on the premises of the client employer, the legislature required that a client employer exercise some element of control over the place where the laborers work. Given the particular facts of this case, the panel concluded that the plaintiffs’ work took place on the farms where the strawberries were grown, not on the premises or worksites of the Marketers, and that the Marketers are therefore not liable as client employers under § 2810.3". Given the particular facts of this case, the 9th Circuit panel concluded that "Appellants' work took place on the farms where the strawberries were grown, not on the premises or worksites of the Marketers. The Marketers are therefore not liable as client employers under California Labor Code § 2810.3." ...

Medical fee schedules calculate payments by use of Current Procedural Terminology.(CPT) codes. CPT codes for MRI scans are organized by regions of the body. But there are no CPT code categories for the level of technology of the MRI device itself. And not all MRI scanners are the same. The technology is constantly advancing, as there is seemingly an unending list of newly published scientific studies. GE Healthcare is the leading manufacturer of MRI equipment, with a market share of over 25%. Siemens Healthineers is the second-leading manufacturer, with a market share of over 20%. Philips Healthcare is the third-leading manufacturer, with a market share of over 15%. The leading manufacturers of MRI equipment continue to invest in research and development, and they are constantly developing new technologies that improve the quality and accuracy of MRI scans. Here are some of the advancements in MRI equipment over the last decade: - - Increased field strength: MRI scanners have become more powerful, with field strengths now reaching up to 7 Tesla. This allows for better image quality, especially in areas with high tissue contrast, such as the brain and spine. - - Improved gradient coils: Gradient coils are used to create a magnetic field gradient, which is necessary for image acquisition. Improved gradient coils allow for faster scan times and better image resolution. - - New coil designs: New coil designs allow for improved image quality in specific areas of the body. For example, phased array coils can be used to acquire images of the heart, while diffusion tensor imaging coils can be used to study the brain's white matter. - - Software advancements: Software advancements have led to faster scan times, improved image quality, and new imaging techniques. For example, parallel imaging techniques allow for faster scans by acquiring data from fewer receiver coils. - - Open MRI scanners: Open MRI scanners are designed for patients who are claustrophobic or who cannot lie down flat for an MRI scan. These scanners have a larger opening and do not require patients to lie down flat, which can make the scan more comfortable for some patients. These advancements have made MRI a more versatile and powerful imaging tool. MRI is now used to diagnose a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, heart disease, stroke, and neurological disorders. Here are some specific examples of how these advancements have been used to improve patient care: - - Increased field strength has allowed for better visualization of tumors and other abnormalities in the brain and spine. This has led to earlier diagnosis and treatment of these conditions, which can improve patient outcomes. - - Improved gradient coils have allowed for faster scans of the heart. This is important for patients who are at risk for heart disease, as it allows doctors to diagnose and treat heart problems early. - - New coil designs have allowed for improved imaging of the brain's white matter. This is important for studying conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease. - - Software advancements have led to faster scans of the entire body. This is important for patients who need to undergo multiple MRI scans, as it can reduce the amount of time they spend in the scanner. - - Open MRI scanners have made MRI scans more accessible to patients who are claustrophobic or who cannot lie down flat. This has improved the quality of life for many patients who would otherwise be unable to receive an MRI scan. 7 Tesla MRI systems are typically used for research purposes, but they are becoming increasingly available in clinical settings. However, 7T MRI systems also have some disadvantages, including increased risk of side effects. There is no MRI system with absolutely zero side effects. However, the highest Tesla system with minimal side effects is likely a 3 Tesla (3T) system. 3T systems are becoming increasingly common in clinical settings, and they offer a number of advantages over lower-field systems, such as improved image quality and resolution ...

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for a concrete company - Glacier Northwest - to pursue damages over a truck driver walkout that left it with damaged products. Glacier Northwest delivers concrete to customers in Washington State using ready-mix trucks with rotating drums that prevent the concrete from hardening during transit. Concrete is highly perishable, and even concrete in a rotating drum will eventually harden, causing significant damage to the vehicle. Glacier’s truck drivers are members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. After a collective-bargaining agreement between Glacier and the Union expired, the Union called for a work stoppage on a morning it knew the company was in the midst of mixing substantial amounts of concrete, loading batches into ready-mix trucks, and making deliveries. The Union directed drivers to ignore Glacier’s instructions to finish deliveries in progress. At least 16 drivers who had already set out for deliveries returned with fully loaded trucks. By initiating emergency maneuvers to offload the concrete, Glacier prevented significant damage to its trucks, but all the concrete mixed that day hardened and became useless. Glacier sued the Union for damages in Washington state court, claiming that the Union intentionally destroyed the company’s concrete and that this conduct amounted to common-law conversion and trespass to chattels. The Union moved to dismiss Glacier’s tort claims on the ground that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempted them. The trial court agreed with the Union. After the appellate court reversed, the Washington Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s decision. In its view, "the NLRA preempts Glacier’s tort claims related to the loss of its concrete product because that loss was incidental to a strike arguably protected by federal law." Glacier Northwest v International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 - 198 Wash. 2d 768, 774, 500 P. 3d 119, 123 (2021). The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the NLRA preempts Glacier’s tort claims alleging that the Union intentionally destroyed its property during a labor dispute. In an 8-1 opinion, with Justice Jackson dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that "the NLRA did not preempt Glacier’s tort claims alleging that the Union intentionally destroyed the company’s property during a labor dispute" in the case of Glacier Northwest v International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. (June 1, 2023). "The drivers engaged in a sudden cessation of work that put Glacier’s property in foreseeable and imminent danger.The Union knew that concrete is highly perishable and that it can last for only a limited time in a delivery truck’s rotating drum. It also knew that concrete left to harden in a truck’s drum causes significant damage to the truck. The Union nevertheless coordinated with truck drivers to initiate the strike when Glacier was in the midst of batching large quantities of concrete and delivering it to customers. Predictably, the company’s concrete was destroyed as a result. And though Glacier’s swift action saved its trucks in the end, the risk of harm to its equipment was both foreseeable and serious." "The Union failed to 'take reasonable precautions to protect' against this foreseeable and imminent danger. Bethany Medical Center, 328 N. L. R. B., at 1094. It could have initiated the strike before Glacier’s trucks were full of wet concrete - say, by instructing drivers to refuse to load their trucks in the first place." The unions argument oversimplified the NLRA. "As we explained, the right to strike is limited by the requirement that workers 'take reasonable precautions to protect the employer’s plant, equipment, or products from foreseeable imminent danger due to sudden cessation of work.' Bethany Medical Center, 328 N. L. R. B., at 1094. So the mere fact that the drivers engaged in a concerted stoppage ofwork to support their economic demands does not end the analysis." "Thus, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the Union did not take reasonable precautions to protect Glacier’s property from imminent danger resulting from the drivers’ sudden cessation of work. The state court thus erred in dismissing Glacier’s tort claims as preempted on the pleadings." ...

Coccidioidomycosis, commonly known as Valley Fever, is a fungal infection caused by the fungus Coccidioides. It primarily affects the lungs but can also spread to other parts of the body, such as the bones, skin, and central nervous system. Coccidioides fungi are found in soil in certain arid and semiarid regions, particularly in the southwestern United States, Mexico, and parts of Central and South America. When the soil is disturbed, such as through construction, farming, or wind, the fungal spores can become airborne and be inhaled by humans and animals. Ernest Sanchez was a correctional officer for the State of California. He filed a claim for injury to the respiratory system and musculoskeletal system in the form of coccidioidomycosis. The WCJ issued a Findings and Order of March 30, 2021 finding that he did not sustain the injury as alleged. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ’s decision, and return this matter to the trial level for further development of the medical record and analysis in order for the parties, the reporting physician(s), and the WCJ to consider the applicability of Labor Code section 3212.10 in the panel decision of Sanchez-I v State of California - ADJ12021219 (June 2021). After further proceedings, the WCJ again issued another Findings and Order on March 3, 2023 finding that the valley fever was again not industrial. And again the WCAB panel granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ’s decision and issued a new decision reflecting that applicant sustained presumptive industrial injury in the form of coccidioidomycosis in Sanchez-II v State of California ADJ12021219 (May 2023) The panel cited Labor Code section 3212.10 as authority for this decision which states: "In the case of a peace officer of the Department of Corrections who has custodial or supervisory duties of inmates or parolees ... the term "injury" as used in this division includes ... pneumonia, ... that develops or manifests itself during a period in which any peace officer covered under this section is in the service of the department or unit." And that "the ... pneumonia ... so developing or manifesting itself shall be presumed to arise out of and in the course of employment. " The panel then cited Lee v. State of California (2017) 2017 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 543 [Appeals Bd. panel]; and Thomas v. State of California (2021) 2021 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 62 [Appeals Bd. panel]),as "previous cases in which valley fever has been found to constitute pneumonia." In Lee v State of California the panel noted that "The statutory language in section 3212.10 does not identify or designate a specific type of pneumonia nor does it limit the applicability of the presumption to a specific type of pneumonia. If the Legislature had intended to limit the presumption, it would have done so." It then quoted from the AME report from AME Gerald Markovitz, M.D. that stated ""Mr. Lee presented today for AME evaluation in the field of internal medicine. He developed a case of primary pulmonary coccidiomycosis [coccidioidomycosis] (Valley Fever). There is a Presumption for pneumonias in Correctional Officers and he developed a pneumonia, so there is no reason to deny industrial responsibility for his Valley Fever." From this reporting the panel commenced this trilogy of cases equating valley fever as within the definition of "pneumonia" for purposes of the presumption in Labor Code 3212.10 . In Thomas v State of California, the second case of the trilogy, PQME Paul J. Grodan, M.D., testified that valley fever constitutes pneumonia. "Therefore, applicant had pneumonia that developed or manifested itself during his service in a custodial role at CDCR. The burden thus shifted to defendant to show that applicant did not develop industrial pneumonia." Turning then to Sanchez II v State of California, the third case in the trilogy, after citing Lee and Thomas as authority for application of the "pneumonia" presumption in valley fever cases, the panel noted that the burden of proof shifted to the employer. The record was developed with two short supplemental reports from qualified medical evaluator Jeffery M. Freesemann, M.D. "However, Dr. Freesemann never states, let alone provides substantial medical evidence, that applicant’s valley fever was probably not contracted at work. Rather, he states that the cause of the injury is "impossible to determine." Defendant thus did not meet its burden of overcoming the statutory presumption." ...

In 1986, Congress reformed U.S. immigration laws by passing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). IRCA prompted the creation of the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, which was designated as the means of documenting that the employer verified an employee’s identity and U.S. employment authorization. Since the Form I-9 became a requirement for all U.S. employers hiring new employees, one key rule has remained unchanged. Within three business days after the first day of employment employers must "physically examine" the documentation presented by new employees from the Lists of Acceptable Documents to ensure that the presented documentation appears to be genuine and to relate to the individual who presents them. In March 2020, ICE announced that it would defer the requirement that employers review employees’ identity and employment authorization documents in the employees’ physical presence, instead allowing that to occur remotely, with the expectation that physical inspection would occur within three business days after normal operations resumed. In follow-on guidance, ICE noted that employers could continue to implement the flexibilities until affected employees undertake non-remote employment on a regular, consistent, or predictable basis, or the extension of the flexibilities related to such requirements is terminated, whichever is earlier. In October 2022, DHS and ICE announced that the flexibilities would be extended until July 31, 2023. However, on May 4, 2023 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that employers will have 30 days to reach compliance with Form I-9 requirements after the COVID-19 flexibilities sunset on July 31, 2023. As noted in the March 2020 announcement, under the flexibilities, employers with employees taking physical proximity precautions due to the COVID-19 pandemic were allowed to temporarily defer physical examination of employees’ identity and employment authorization documents. Instead, employers could examine the employees’ documents remotely (e.g., over video link, fax, or email) and enter "COVID-19" as the reason for the physical examination delay in the Section 2 Additional Information field when physical examination took place in the future. Once the employees’ documents were physically examined, the employer would add "documents physically examined" with the date of examination to Section 2 Additional Information field on the Form I-9, or in Section 3, as appropriate. However, on Aug. 18, 2022, DHS issued a proposed rule that would allow alternative procedures for the examination of identity and employment eligibility documents. The public comment period closed on Oct. 17, 2022. DHS is currently reviewing public comments and plans to issue a final rule later this year. This proposed rule would create a framework under which the Secretary of Homeland Security could authorize alternative options for document examination procedures with respect to some or all employers. Such procedures could be implemented as part of a pilot program, or upon the Secretary’s determination that such procedures offer an equivalent level of security, or as a temporary measure to address a public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, or a national emergency declared by the President pursuant to Sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act. This proposed rule would allow employers (or agents acting on an employer’s behalf) optional alternatives for examining the documentation presented by individuals seeking to establish identity and employment authorization for purposes of completing the Form I-9 ...

Morris & Dickson Co., LLC is a pharmaceutical wholesaler based in Shreveport, Louisiana. It is one of the largest privately held wholesale drug distributors in the country. The company was founded in 1841 by Alexander Dickson and William Morris, and it has been in continuous operation for over 180 years. It has since become the nation's fourth-largest wholesale drug distributor, with $4 billion a year in revenue and nearly 600 employees serving pharmacies and hospitals in 29 states. In October 2017, DEA became aware of the high-volume sales of Oxycodone and Hydrocodone from Morris and Dickson Company to five of the top ten purchasing pharmacies within the state of Louisiana. DEA records indicated that Morris and Dickson Company had not filed any suspicious order reports on any of the pharmacies in question in Louisiana. A review of the purchases made by these high-volume independent pharmacies showed that these pharmacies were purchasing quantities which were not indicative of the pharmaceutical market. Not only were numerous "independent" retail pharmacies purchasing more Oxycodone and Hydrocodone than the largest chain pharmacies operating within the state, they were purchasing more narcotics than several of the largest chain pharmacies combined within the same zip code. In some instances, DEA noted these "independent" pharmacies were purchasing more than ten times the amount of narcotics the average Louisiana pharmacy purchased per month. While Morris & Dickson wasn’t the only drug distributor who the DEA accused of fueling the opioid crisis, it was unique in its willingness to challenge those accusations in the DEA’s administrative court. In a scathing recommendation in 2019, Administrative Law Judge Charles W. Dorman said Morris & Dickson’s argument that it has changed its ways was too little, too late. This month DEA announced it has suspended the DEA Certificate of Registration as a drug distributor pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Sections 823 and 824. The DEA’s investigation of Morris and Dickson Company determined that the continued registration of this company constitutes a substantial likelihood of imminent danger to public health and safety. This action only applies to the distribution of controlled substances and will not affect non-controlled pharmaceutical drugs distributed by the company. Morris and Dickson Company received written notice of the factual and legal basis for this action. In addition, they will be given the opportunity for an administrative hearing within the next 60 days. After the hearing, the DEA Acting Administrator will make a final decision on whether Morris and Dickson Company’s registration should be permanently revoked. DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in the 68-page order that Morris & Dickson failed to accept full responsibility for its past actions. Milgram specifically cited testimony of then-president Paul Dickson Sr. in 2019 that the company’s compliance program was "dang good" and he didn’t think a "single person has gotten hurt by (their) drugs." "Those statements from the president of a family-owned and operated company so strongly miss the point of the requirements of a DEA registrant," she wrote. "Its acceptance of responsibility did not prove that it or its principals understand the full extent of their wrongdoing ... and the potential harm it caused." In a statement, the company said it has invested millions of dollars over the past few years to revamp its compliance systems and appeared to hold out hope for a settlement. "Morris & Dickson is grateful to the DEA administrator for delaying the effective date of the order to allow time to settle these old issues," it said. "We remain confident we can achieve an outcome that safeguards the supply chain for all of our healthcare partners and the communities they serve." The DEA has been highly criticized in the delay it has taken to conclude this investigation ...

Scientists used artificial intelligence to identify a new antibiotic that might be useful to fight a deadly drug-resistant bacteria commonly found in hospitals and medical offices. The study has just been published in the journal Nature Chemical Biology. The newly discovered drug - Abaucin is a narrow-spectrum antibiotic that is effective against Acinetobacter baumannii, a superbug that is resistant to many antibiotics. Abaucin works by inhibiting the transport of lipoproteins, which are essential for the growth and survival of bacteria. It has now also been shown to be safe in animal studies Abaucin was developed by a team of researchers led by James J. Collins at the MIT Jameel Clinic and Jonathan Stokes at McMaster University. The team used an artificial intelligence algorithm to screen thousands of compounds for potential antibiotic activity. Abaucin was one of the compounds that was identified by the algorithm. Abaucin works by inhibiting lipoprotein transport, which is essential for bacterial growth. It is a narrow-spectrum antibiotic, which means that it is only effective against a few types of bacteria. This makes it less likely to cause resistance to develop. Abaucin is still in the early stages of development, but it has the potential to be a valuable new tool for treating infections caused by Acinetobacter baumannii. "There's a lot of trepidation around AI and I genuinely understand it," said Jonathan Stokes, lead author on the paper and an assistant professor of biomedicine and biochemistry at at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada. "When I think about AI in general, I think of these models as things that are just going to help us do the thing we're going to do better." According to a report by USA Today, Stokes teamed up with researchers from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard to screen for potential antibiotics to use on Acinetobacter baumannii, a superbug that can cause infections in the blood, urinary tract and lungs. This bacteria usually invades hospitals and healthcare settings, infecting vulnerable patients on breathing machines, in intensive care units and undergoing operations. This type of bacteria, resistant to the potent antibiotic carbapenem, infected 8,500 in hospitals and killed 700 in 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Stokes said the lab team developed AI models to predict which ones would have the highest likelihood of antimicrobial activity, narrowing the field to 240 drugs or active ingredients. Researchers then narrowed the field again through testing before discovering a molecule RS102895, renamed abaucin, that appeared to be potent against the superbug. "It's important to remember right when we're trying to develop a drug, it doesn't just have to kill the bacterium," Stokes said. "It also has to be well tolerated in humans and it has to get to the infection site and stay at the infection site long enough to elicit an effect." Researchers said they can screen a much larger volume of potential drugs by using machine-learning techniques. The study said while existing high-throughput screening can evaluate a few million drugs or chemical ingredients at once, algorithms developed from machine learning can assess "hundreds of millions to billions" of drug molecules. There are other examples of AI being used to develop new drugs: - - Exscientia is a pharmaceutical company that uses AI to design new drugs. The company has developed several drugs that are now in clinical trials, including a drug for Alzheimer's disease and a drug for cancer. - - Insilico Medicine is another pharmaceutical company that uses AI to develop new drugs. The company has developed several drugs that are now in preclinical trials, including a drug for Parkinson's disease and a drug for HIV. - - Atomwise is a company that uses AI to design new drugs for infectious diseases. It has developed several drugs that are now in preclinical trials, including a drug for malaria and a drug for tuberculosis. - - BenevolentAI is a company that uses AI to develop new drugs for rare diseases. It has developed several drugs that are also now in preclinical trials, including a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy and a drug for cystic fibrosis. These are just a few examples of the many companies that are using AI to develop new drugs. AI has the potential to revolutionize the drug discovery process, and it could help to develop new treatments for a wide range of diseases ...

A.C.R. worked as a bartender at Kolla’s, Inc., a nightclub in Orange County. In 2014, A.C.R. complained to Gonzalo Estrada that she had not been paid wages owed for her previous three shifts of work. Estrada responded by threatening to report A.C.R. to immigration authorities, terminating her employment, and telling her never to return to the club. In June 2014, A.C.R. filed a complaint against Estrada and Kolla’s with Department of Labor Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), which opened an investigation. After determining that Estrada’s immigration-based threats and termination of A.C.R. violated California law, DLSE notified Estrada and Kolla’s of proposed remedies, including payment of lost wages to A.C.R., reinstatement of A.C.R.’s previous position, and payment of civil penalties to A.C.R. and DLSE. After Estrada and Kolla’s declined to accept DLSE’s proposed remedies, the Labor Commissioner sued them for violations of the Labor Code, including retaliation in violation of section 1102.5(b). The trial court entered an order granting in part the Labor Commissioner’s application for default judgment but ruled against the Labor Commissioner on the section 1102.5(b) claim. The court held that the Labor Commissioner did not state a valid cause of action under section 1102.5(b) because A.C.R. reported her complaints to her employer rather than a government agency. The Labor Commissioner appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had relied on an outdated version of section 1102.5(b) and that the current version of the law protects disclosures made to one’s employer. The Court of Appeal nonetheless affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the section 1102.5(b) claim, concluding that a private employee’s report of unlawful activity directly to his or her wrongdoing employer is not a protected disclosure under section 1102.5(b). The Court of Appeal explained that Estrada, as the owner of the nightclub, "was at least aware of - if not responsible for - the non-payment of wages" and that an " 'employee’s report to the employee’s supervisor about the supervisor’s own wrongdoing is not a "disclosure" and is not protected whistleblowing activity, because the employer already knows about his or her wrongdoing.' " The California Supreme Court reversed and remanded, and held that a protected disclosure under section 1102.5(b) encompasses reports or complaints of a violation made to an employer or agency even if the recipient already knows of the violation. It further concluded that complainant A.C.R. made a disclosure protected by section 1102.5(b) in the case of P. ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla's, Inc. - S269456. (May 2023). The Legislature enacted section 1102.5 in 1984 to provide whistleblowers with protection from employer retaliation. In 2003, in the wake of a "recent spate of false business reports and other illegal activity by Enron, WorldCom and others," the Legislature amended section 1102.5(b) to include several additional employee protections. In 2013, the Legislature again amended section 1102.5(b), expanding its protections to include an employee’s disclosure made "to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance." The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that section 1102.5(b) "reflects the broad public policy interest in encouraging workplace whistle-blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation." (Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 77 (Green); Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, 709 (Lawson); Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 287.) It is undisputed that the employer’s conduct was prohibited by the Labor Code. The question here is whether a report of unlawful activities made to an employer or agency that already knew about the violation was a protected "disclosure" within the meaning of section 1102.5(b). The Supreme Court concluded that it was, noting that "Applying the Court of Appeal’s reasoning here would result in outcomes contrary to the Legislature’s purpose." And it disapproved Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Community College Dist., 202 Cal.App.4th 832 to the extent it is inconsistent with its opinion. Mize-Kurzman rested on federal precedent subsequently abrogated by Congress. In 2012, Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA) (Pub.L. No. 112-199 (Nov. 27, 2012) 126 Stat. 1465), an update to the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), that "clarif[ied] the broad meaning" of disclosure to correct Federal Circuit precedent that had "wrongly accorded a narrow definition to the type of disclosure that qualifies for whistleblower protection." ...