Governor Newsom has signed AB 716, a new law that takes effect on January 1, which modifies ambulance billing practices to prevent out-of-network patients from receiving unanticipated medical bills for emergency medical ground transportation. According to the California Health Benefits Review Program (CHBRP), California has 715 total public and private ambulance services statewide, with 3,600 licensed ambulances. There are 337 emergency ambulance service areas (zones) statewide, of which more than 220 are served by private ambulance companies. The estimated total annual expenditures for ground ambulance services in California is approximately $2 billion. Though the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires health plans to cover out-of-network emergency ground medical transport (EGMT) at usual and customary rates (UCR), there are no specific standards regarding UCR. Health plans often set their UCR much lower than what an ambulance provider charges, leaving patients open to financial liability for the remainder of the charges. For enrollees in Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC)-regulated plans and California Department of Insurance (CDI)-regulated policies, health professionals and facilities are categorized as in- network or out-of-network, based on whether they have an existing contract with specific health plans or insurers to provide service to their enrollees for a specific payment amount. In-network health facilities and professionals have a contract with the enrollee's plan or insurer that defines a contracted rate for payment for services (and no balance billing of the enrollee is allowed). However, when an out-of-network provider's billed charge is more than the plan or insurer will pay, the provider may then seek to recoup the difference, or balance bill, directly from the enrollee. After January 1, under AB 716, a health care service plan contract or a health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2024, an enrollee or insured who receives covered services from a non- contracting ground ambulance provider will be required to pay no more than the same cost-sharing amount that the enrollee or insured would pay for the same covered services received from a contracting ground ambulance provider. A noncontracting ground ambulance provider will be prohibited from billing or sending to collections a higher amount, and would prohibit a ground ambulance provider from billing an uninsured or self-pay patient more than the established payment by Medi-Cal or Medicare fee-for-service amount, whichever is greater. Under the federal "No Surprises Act," which Congress passed in 2020, prohibits most surprise out-of-network bills when a patient receives out-of-network services during an emergency visit or at an in-network hospital without advance notice. The "No Surprises Act" includes air ambulances, but does not include ground ambulance services. California is the 14th state to provide some protection against balance billing for ground ambulance rides ...

Rose Jones was employed at the University of California, Irvine campus as the Director of Scholarship Opportunities . On the day of the incident, at the end of her workday, she exited her office suite at UCI’s science library, walked her bike a short distance to the bike path on Outer Ring Road, mounted her bike, and began riding toward her home. After riding for about 10 seconds, Jones reached a trench, cordoned off with orange posts and caution tape. Upon noticing the obstacle, she swerved and attempted to brake but fell off her bike and sustained injuries. She subsequently sued the University alleging premises liability and negligence, and her husband alleging loss of consortium. The parties and the trial court subsequently treated Jones’s claims as a claim for dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835. The University moved for summary judgment, claiming that Jones’s injuries occurred within the course of her employment and that the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule therefore barred this action. It noted Jones was still on the University’s premises and argued her injuries were subject to the workers’ compensation scheme under the premises line rule. The University alternatively contended Jones could not recover under Government Code section 835 because she did not exercise due care at the time of the accident. The trial court granted the University’s motion for summary judgment. It concluded the exclusivity rule barred Jones’s claim because her injuries occurred within the course of her employment as a matter of law based on the premises line rule. It further concluded that, as a matter of law, Jones did not use due care at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the unpublished case of Jones v. Regents of the University of California -G061787 (October 2023) Under the judicially created "going and coming rule" an employee’s injury while commuting to and from work is not compensable under the workers’ compensation system absent "special or extraordinary circumstances." In an effort to create a sharp line of demarcation as to when the employee’s commute terminates and the course of employment commences, courts adopted the premises line rule, which provides that the employment relationship generally commences once the employee enters the employer’s premises. The same rule applies when the employee is leaving the work premises, provided he does not unnecessarily loiter thereon. Highlighting the merits of the premises line rule, our Supreme Court explained in General Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 595 "The 'premises line' has the advantage of enabling courts to ascertain the point at which employment begins-objectively and fairly." The Court of Appeal wrote we "conclude the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule barred appellants’ claims because Jones’s injuries occurred in the course and scope of her employment as a matter of law. Her accident occurred on UCI’s campus, undisputedly owned by the University, just after she left her workstation. Under these circumstances, the premises line rule brought Jones’s injuries within the worker’s compensation scheme. (General Ins. Co., supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 598.)" ...

The Labor Commissioner’s Office Criminal Investigation Unit partnered with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office in a prosecution of two Catalina Island business owners for grand theft of labor under Penal Code 487(a), a felony. Jack Tucey and Yueh Mei "Nora" Tucey, owners of restaurant and hotel businesses on Catalina Island off the coast of Los Angeles, were arraigned on felony charges of grand labor and wage theft, conspiracy to commit grand labor theft, and unemployment insurance fraud. The total wages due to at least 18 affected workers is $1,032,684. This covers lost wages from July 2008 to October 15, 2022. There may be additional workers affected by the wage theft. The LCO’s Bureau of Field Enforcement (BOFE) initiated the investigation and referred the case to LCO’s Criminal Investigation Unit (CIU) in January 2022. The investigation found the employer engaged in various fraudulent payroll schemes over the course of many years to avoid paying their workers the proper minimum wage and overtime requirements. Workers - who were paid less than minimum wage - were required to clock out to avoid recording overtime. The employer did not accurately record the total number of hours employees worked and did not pay employees for all hours worked. Workers had to record their overtime hours separately on paper so that it was not included in the company’s payroll system. When workers were paid overtime, it was at a reduced rate using aliases rather than their name to hide the overtime hours worked. Employees were required to do preparation work and paperwork off the clock for no pay. Many of the workers were also tenants of the Tuceys on Catalina Island. Most of the restaurant workers would work at multiple locations, finishing a shift at one restaurant and then going to a different eatery owned by the Tuceys to work the evening shift. The Tuceys operated multiple businesses on Catalina Island under the following entities: El Galleon Restaurant, Inc., Mi Casita Authentic Mexican Restaurant, Inc., Antonio's Pizzeria & Cabaret, Inc., Original Antonio's Pizzeria, Inc., Food Brokers International, Inc., Catalina Hotel, Catalina Courtyard Hotel and Original Jack’s Restaurant and Bakery, Inc. Enforcement investigations typically include a payroll audit of the previous three years to determine minimum wage, overtime, and other labor law violations, and to calculate payments owed and penalties due. When workers are paid less than minimum wage, they are entitled to liquidated damages that equal the amount of underpaid minimum wages plus interest ...

Henry Geoffrey Watson, a medical doctor residing in Oakland, California, was convicted by a federal jury of charges that included accepting kickbacks for patient referrals to home health agencies, health care fraud, and false statements relating to a health care matter. The jury found that 67 year old Watson engaged in three health care kickback schemes from 2013 to 2019, using his position as a licensed medical doctor. The first scheme involved a conspiracy in which Watson agreed to refer patients to home health agency Amity Home Health Carein exchange for illegal kickback payments. The evidence at trial proved that Watson and employees of Amity and its CEO, Amanda Singh, conspired to pay Watson regular and recurring amounts, sometimes in the form of cash payments of $3,000 a month, to ensure that Watson referred Medicare patients to Amity each month. Title 42, United States Code, Section 1320a-7b, the Anti-Kickback Statute, makes it a crime for any person to knowingly solicit, offer, or pay a kickback, bribe, or rebate for furnishing services under a Federal health care program including Medicare. In the second scheme proved at trial, Watson accepted kickback payments from an undercover FBI agent posing as a home health agency representative seeking Watson’s agreement to refer his patients to a particular Bay Area home health agency. The evidence at trial included video recordings of Watson accepting envelopes of cash, for a total of more than $10,000, at four meetings in 2017. The jury heard evidence that Watson also suggested other doctors who he believed would be willing to accept illegal payments for referrals from the undercover agent. The third scheme proved at trial involved a conspiracy between Watson and others to repeatedly and falsely certify individuals for Medicare-funded home health services that the individuals did not seek and did not need. The evidence at trial showed that Watson and co-conspirators arranged for Watson to briefly meet large numbers of unwitting elderly residents of Bay Area retirement homes. After these meetings, held in common areas or recreation rooms, Watson certified that each and every resident he met was homebound, meaning they had a normal inability to leave the home. In fact, according to the evidence and the jury’s verdict, Watson knew that the patients were not homebound and did not need the services he prescribed. Watson did not conduct any tests or conduct any inquiry about whether they were homebound, according to trial evidence, but he nevertheless made fraudulent referrals to the three home health agencies. During time periods that Watson repeatedly certified that certain individuals were homebound, testimony from these individuals and their regular primary care doctors showed that the individuals were generally healthy and active, engaging in activities such as traveling internationally, shopping, walking stairs, and jogging. The evidence proved Watson falsely billed Medicare for certifying these individuals for home health and for supervising their home health care, despite the fact that the individuals did not need that care. As part of the conspiracy, Watson was paid illegal kickbacks of $100 per patient referral by a co-conspirator working for the three home health agencies. Criminal charges against Watson were unsealed on September 5, 2019, when the United States Attorney’s Office announced charges by criminal complaint against 30 defendants in a wide-ranging, patients-for-kickback scheme. Those charges included criminal kickback charges against Amity Home Health Care, which was then the largest home health care provider in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Advent Care, a provider of hospice care. In relation to the investigation that led to the charges and conviction of Watson, other individuals and doctors were also convicted of illegal kickbacks: - - Amity’s CEO, Ridhima Amanda Singh pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to pay kickbacks for the referrals of Medicare beneficiaries on August 5, 2022, in Court Case No. 22-CR-267 CRB. - - Dr. Bhupinder Bhandari pled guilty to violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute on June 6, 2022, in Court Case No. 20-CR-374 JD. - - Dr. Zheng Zhang pled guilty to violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute on April 25, 2022, in Court Case No. 22-CR-090 VC. - - Dr. Gerald Myint pled guilty to violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute on November 18, 2020, in Court Case No. 20-CR-408 CRB. - - Dr. Juan Posada pled guilty to violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute on January 27, 2021, in Court Case No. 20-CR-420 RS. All those defendants have been sentenced by the judges assigned to those cases. Watson remains released on bond pending sentencing. Watson’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for February 28, 2024, before Judge Breyer in San Francisco. Any sentence will be imposed by the court after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553 ...

The California workers’ compensation system is established, administered and interpreted on a statewide basis. Nevertheless, there are sharp differences in cost characteristics across regions of the state. To reflect those differences, the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB) released the 2023 WCIRB Geo Study, which underscores regional differences in claim characteristics across California. The web-based interactive map allows you to quickly view key measures across regions. The study, related exhibits and mapping of nine-digit zip codes to the regions referenced in the study are available in the Research section of the WCIRB website. The study’s key findings include the following: - - Even after controlling for regional differences in wages and industry mix, indemnity claim frequency is significantly higher in the Los Angeles (LA) Basin and significantly lower in the San Francisco Bay Area. - - The share of larger indemnity claims (those with incurred costs greater than $250,000) at fifth report level tends to be higher in regions that have lower indemnity frequency. Northern California regions, including the Bay Area and Peninsula/Silicon Valley, tend to have higher shares of larger indemnity claims. - - Between Policy Year (PY) 2020 and 2021, the median injured worker’s average weekly wage increased in all regions. The increases were larger in most of the central and southern parts of the state. The median wage in these regions has often been lower than the statewide average. - - The share of cumulative trauma (CT) claims as a percent of all claims decreased for almost all regions from policy year 2020 to 2021. The largest decrease was in LA/Long Beach, which has a high overall level of CT claims. The decreases were also relatively high in the San Bernardino/West Riverside, Bay Area and Sonoma/Napa regions, which have lower than average shares of CT claims. - - With the adoption of the new medical-legal fee schedule in April 2021, medical-legal costs increased in nearly all regions from PY 2020 to 2021. They remained significantly higher in the LA Basin, Orange County and Santa Monica/San Fernando Valley regions than in the remainder of the state. Four new maps, highlighting differences in the prevalence of permanent disability claims, loss ratios and loss development at the seventh report level, as well as litigation rates, are provided in this year's study ...

A Bakersfield attorney pleaded no contest Monday and was sentenced to two years in jail for his part in a $12.5 million scheme to overbill insurance companies for urine tests at sober living homes in Orange County. Between January 2008 and December 2016, defendants Pamela and Philip Ganong owned sober living homes in Orange County, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, and San Diego, through their business William Mae Company, which operated as Compass Rose Recovery. In December 2011, the Ganongs formed a medical testing lab called Ghostline Labs. Philip William Ganong, 70, accepted a plea agreement approved by Orange County Superior Court Judge Joy Markman. He pleaded no contest to 10 felony counts of fraudulent claims for a health benefit. Multiple charges were filed in 2017 in connection with the scheme allegedly led by Ganong and his wife and co-defendant Pamela Mae Ganong, 67, who owned sober living homes in Orange County, Bakersfield, Los Angeles and San Diego, according to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Pamela Mae Ganong is awaiting trial, but her case has been assigned to a court that handles defendants who are facing questions about whether they are mentally healthy enough to assist in their defense. Pamela Ganong’s sister, 70 year old Susan Stinson of Carlsbad, was charged with conspiracy to commit medical insurance fraud. Stinson pleaded guilty to two felony counts of fraudulent claim for a health benefit on Wednesday and sentenced to time served behind bars, which was 34 days, according to court records. Judge Markman ordered Stinson and Ganong to pay the $12.5 million restitution. Charges against the Ganongs’ son, William Ganong, were dismissed in 2019 after he died, according to court records. Carlos X. Montano, M.D Newport Beach pleaded guilty in 2018 to insurance fraud and was sentenced to one year in county jail. His California medical license was revoked in June 2021. The Ganongs formed a medical testing lab in December 2011, and prosecutors said sober living home residents were recruited to join the scheme to overbill insurance companies for urine tests, which involved listing them as employees and signing them up fraudulently for health insurance. California State Bar records show that Philip Ganong continues to be licensed as an attorney, but does show a cautionary note that he has been charged with a felony ...

Paxlovid is an oral antiviral pill that can be taken at home to help keep high-risk patients from getting so sick that they need to be hospitalized. Paxlovid, the pill that has become the go-to treatment for COVID-19 treatment, was granted full approval by the Food And Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults at high risk for severe disease, including hospitalization and death. The drug also remains available to everyone 12 and older (weighing at least 88 pounds) who has mild-to-moderate disease and is at high risk for severe disease under an FDA Emergency Use Authorization. According to Yale Medicine, the drug, developed by Pfizer, has a lot of positives: It had an 89% reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death in unvaccinated people in the clinical trial that supported the EUA, a number that was high enough to prompt the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to prioritize it over other COVID-19 treatments. Studies outside of the laboratory have since confirmed Paxlovid’s effectiveness among people who have been vaccinated. It’s cheaper than many other COVID-19 drugs (at this time, U.S. residents eligible for Paxlovid will continue to receive the medicine at no charge), and, perhaps most reassuring, it is expected to work against the latest Omicron subvariants. "It's really our first efficacious oral antiviral pill for this virus," says Scott Roberts, MD, a Yale Medicine infectious diseases specialist. "It shows clear benefit, and it really can prevent hospitalization and death in people who are at high risk." Unfortunately, a new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine of US veterans prescribed nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) during COVID-19 infections shows no difference in long-COVID rates among groups who took the antivirals and those who did not. COVID-19 has been linked to the development of many post-COVID-19 conditions (PCCs) after acute infection. Limited information is available on the effectiveness of oral antivirals used to treat acute COVID-19 in preventing the development of PCCs. SARS-CoV-2 infection is believed to increase risk for several medical conditions long after acute illness. Such post-COVID-19 conditions involve multiple organ systems and include pulmonary, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, thromboembolic, neurocognitive, mental health, metabolic, renal, and gastrointestinal disorders. A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested that 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors aged 18 to 64 years and 1 in 4 survivors aged 65 years or older experienced an incident condition that was potentially attributable to previous COVID-19. In this new study, researchers used data from the VA’s Corporate Data Warehouse (a database of VA enrollees’ comprehensive EHRs) and the VA COVID-19 Shared Data Resource (CSDR), both of which are supported by the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI), which integrates multiple data sources to provide patient-level COVID-19–related data. The CSDR includes information on laboratory-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (by either nucleic acid amplification or antigen testing) within the VHA as well as SARS-CoV-2 tests performed outside the VHA and documented in VHA clinical records. The researchers concluded that Paxlovid was not effective at reducing risk for many of the PCCs that were examined, including cardiac, pulmonary, renal, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, endocrine, and general conditions and symptoms. And was associated only with a reduced risk for combined thromboembolic events 31 to 180 days after treatment. The results of this study differed from those of a VA study by Xie and colleagues that reported that treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with lower risk for 10 out of 13 PCCs ...

Neutral time-rounding is a commonplace and efficient timekeeping method used by countless employers throughout California and across the country. For decades, employers have used rounding to efficiently manage their payroll systems and to ensure that their employees are appropriately compensated for all work performed. When applied neutrally - i.e., when time is rounded both up and down - time rounding reduces employers’ overhead costs while providing employees with flexibility when clocking in and out. Over the long run, the compensation for each employee will average out, leaving employees with the same total compensation that they would receive under a system that rigidly recorded their time down to the minute or second. Camp v. Home Depot is a case pending in the California Supreme Court that will decide whether employers in California are permitted to use neutral time-rounding practices to calculate employees' work time for payroll purposes. The case began when Delmer Camp and Adriana Correa filed a putative class action lawsuit against Home Depot, alleging that the company's quarter-hour rounding policy violated California law. Under Home Depot's policy, employees' work time was rounded up or down to the nearest quarter-hour, which resulted in some employees being paid for less time than they actually worked. The trial court granted Home Depot summary judgment, finding that its rounding policy was lawful under California law. However, the California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the rounding policy violated California law because it resulted in employees being underpaid. Home Depot appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court, which granted a review in February 2023 (Docket Number S277518). The case is expected to be heard in the fall of 2023. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce coalition just filed an anamicus brief this October, urging the California Supreme Court to hold that employers are permitted to use neutral time-rounding policies to calculate time worked. The Chamber argues that the practice of neutral time-rounding is expressly authorized by federal law and endorsed by California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE"), had been uniformly affirmed by California courts since the seminal decision in See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889. In See’s Candy, the court recognized that the Labor Code is silent as to the lawfulness of time rounding and thus looked to federal law for guidance, as have courts and administrative agencies in other states when interpreting similar provisions in those states’ labor codes. Nonetheless the Court of Appeal in the Camp opinion clearly said it's opinion applies "in the limited circumstance here, where the employer can capture and has captured all the minutes an employee has worked and then applies a quarter-hour rounding policy. In this regard, we also respectfully invite the California Supreme Court to review the issue of neutral time rounding by employers and to provide guidance on the propriety of time rounding by employers, especially in view of the "technological advances" that now exist which "help employers to track time more precisely." The case has generated significant interest from the business community, as it could have far-reaching implications for employers across the country. If the Supreme Court holds that employers in California are not permitted to use neutral time-rounding practices, it could lead to similar challenges to time-rounding policies in other states ...

It’s been 24 years since the Institute of Medicine’s 2000 study "To Err is Human" report was published, drawing broad attention to medical mistakes that kill up to 98,000 Americans annually. More people die annually from medication errors than from workplace injuries, motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS. To Err Is Human broke the silence that has surrounded medical errors and their consequence - but not by pointing fingers at caring health care professionals who make honest mistakes. Instead, its book sets forth a national agenda--with state and local implications--for reducing medical errors and improving patient safety through the design of a safer health system. 16 years later, a 2016 study published in the British Medical Journal found about 250,000 deaths annually are due to medical error, making it the third leading cause of death in the United States, where it’s more problematic than other developed countries. A great deal of research shows that patients who are told about mistakes are more likely to follow medical advice, and continue with care while being less likely to seek malpractice lawsuits, according to "Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses." According to a recent series on What You Need to Know About Surgery - Part 7 - published by the Epoc Times, many states have "apology laws," which are designed to allow for honest communication between physicians and injured patients. However, the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics said they don’t go far enough. For instance, few states have laws protecting expressions both of sympathy and of fault from being entered into medical malpractice lawsuit evidence. This puts an unofficial gag on doctors, it said. As of 2023 only 17 states, including California, require physicians to disclose an error to the patient. Some doctors hide behind the fact that the definition of "medical error" is vague. More than two-thirds of states have adopted laws that preclude some or all information contained in a practitioner's apology from being used in a malpractice lawsuit. The California law that requires physicians to disclose medical errors to patients is the Patient's Right to Know Act of 2018 (Senate Bill (SB) 1448). This law took effect on July 1, 2019, and requires physicians to disclose all harmful medical errors to their patients, regardless of whether the error resulted in serious injury or death. In 1996, The Joint Commission created a Sentinel Event Policy to help healthcare organizations that experience serious adverse events improve safety. Since that time, The Joint Commission has maintained an associated Sentinel Event Database with de-identified and aggregate data. The Joint Commission has released its Sentinel Event Data 2022 Annual Review on serious adverse events from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, 2022. A sentinel event is a patient safety event that results in death, permanent harm or severe temporary harm. Between January 1 and December 31, 2022, The Joint Commission received 1,441 reports of sentinel events; the majority -90% (1,299) - were voluntarily self-reported to The Joint Commission by an accredited or certified entity. The number of reported sentinel events increased by 19% compared to 2021. The majority of reported sentinel events occurred in the hospital setting (88%). 20% of reported sentinel events were associated with patient death ...

The Documents obtained under the Public Records Act and Prop 103 reveal what Consumer Watchdog claims are details of the secret proposal, drafted in private discussions with insurance lobbyists. to bail out the insurance industry that Commissioner Lara and insurers unsuccessfully tried to jam through the Legislature during the final days of session. The language previews the plan that Lara announced a week later, under which he will issue new anti-consumer regulations that track the failed legislative proposal. The documents reveal what Consumer Watchdog claims are two massive loopholes that make the deal Lara cut to deregulate the price of fire insurance in California, in return for a "commitment" from insurers to expand home insurance coverage in wildfire areas to 85% of their market share outside risky areas, a fraud. - - Insurers would be allowed to meet their commitment by offering bare bones policies - the type of policy homeowners already have access to under the FAIR Plan. - - The commissioner could waive the "85% commitment" to sell more home insurance in wildfire areas for any insurer that claims it cannot meet its commitment. The records obtained are emails and bill language circulated by the commissioner’s chief deputy to the insurance industry’s top lobbyists and legislative staff in late August. "These documents prove Commissioner Lara’s deal with the insurance industry is an outrageous fraud on the public that will make Californians pay vastly more for insurance but not get more people insured. Lara tried to jam the deal through the legislature, and when that failed repackaged it as a regulatory plan. He must explain to the public how he can support an agreement that eviscerates insurance oversight in California without getting a single new homeowner insurance," said Harvey Rosenfield, author of insurance reform Proposition 103 and founder of Consumer Watchdog. The documents also confirm that the proposal circulating in Sacramento in late-August and early-September would have forced homeowners and business owners to bail out insurers for billions in FAIR Plan liabilities. The organization said that the only purported consumer benefit of Lara’s legislative and regulatory plans is a "commitment" by insurers to expand home insurance coverage in wildfire areas to 85% of their market share in the rest of the market. The actual language of the August bill proves that promise is false and will not expand insurance to homeowners struggling to find coverage. Consumer Watchdog also claims the deal also illegally guts the consumer protections of Prop 103 that have saved Californians hundreds of billions of dollars, including the right of the public to independently scrutinize and challenge rate increases that are unjustified, another target of Lara’s September announcement. They say the documents also confirmed that the legislation would have bailed out insurers for their FAIR Plan obligations, a proposal that was not part of Commissioner Lara’s September announcement presumably because the change must be done by legislation, not regulation. A story published by MSN reports that the commissioner’s office in turn accused Consumer Watchdog of seeking to protect a regulatory system its founder crafted from which it has been paid nearly $9 million as an "intervenor" reviewing insurance rates that remain below market and have left many homeowners unable to obtain coverage. "Consumer Watchdog’s latest cynical claims hide the truth that the group has earned millions of dollars signing off on rate increases - while denying the reality that insurance has become impossible for some Californians to find at any price," Deputy Insurance Commissioner Michael Soller said in a statement ...

Over the past quarter, the National Council of Compensation Insurance (NCCI) Quarterly Economics Briefing report for the third quarter of 2023 reports that the labor market has continued to evolve in a positive direction for the workers compensation system relative to the tight post-COVID market of a few years ago. The industry has seen job growth, turnover, and participation moving from the extremes of 2021 to more balanced levels and closer to pre-pandemic (2015-2019) averages. However, the key outstanding question for the industry remains: is the labor market moving softly into balance or are we seeing early signs of deterioration toward recessionary conditions? Net employment growth over the past three months averaged 266,000, up from 201,000 over the previous three months. The October jobs report showed strong gains for the month of September and included meaningful upward revisions to net employment gains in July and August. While employment growth has slowed from the heights of the Great Reshuffle, it remains healthy overall and continues to support economic expansion. Overall job growth also continues to support growth in the workers compensation premium base. Calculated private payroll growth has slowed some in recent months while public (government) job growth has contributed meaningfully to overall employment; however, payroll growth remains elevated relative to pre-pandemic levels due to persistent elevated wage increases. While wage growth has softened some from the peak, NCCI expects it to remain elevated above the pre-pandemic trend for some time as the economy continues to expand and workers push for higher wage gains to offset their inflation experience from the past few years, even as the labor market broadly comes more into balance. These trends have two primary implications for workers compensation: higher premium growth (including audit premium), partially offset by higher indemnity severity. The labor market continues to evolve in a positive direction for workers compensation relative to the post-COVID extremes. Elevated wage growth combined with still-healthy employment growth is leading to continued strong total payroll growth overall. Turnover continues to slow, which reduces low-tenured workers as a percentage of the overall labor force over time. Current data does not contain warning signs of an imminent recession. Instead, it signifies that relative normalcy is returning as employment growth slows relative to Great Reshuffle levels. The household spending and savings imbalance has been offset by record levels of credit card debt; however, debt service remains quite healthy and no abrupt stop to consumer spending appears to be on the horizon. With real wage growth once again positive, consumer activity will likely be able to continue to drive economic growth. That means businesses are unlikely to begin broad layoffs that disrupt the labor market and the workers compensation system ...

The National Labor Relations Board has decided to issue a final rule rescinding and replacing the final rule entitled "Joint Employer Status Under the National Labor Relations Act," which was published on February 26, 2020, and took effect on April 27, 2020. The final rule establishes a new standard for determining whether two employers, as defined in the Act, are joint employers of particular employees within the meaning of the Act. The Board believes that this rule will more explicitly ground the joint-employer standard in established common-law agency principles and provide guidance to parties covered by the Act regarding their rights and responsibilities when more than one statutory employer possesses the authority to control or exercises the power to control particular employees' essential terms and conditions of employment. Under the final rule, an entity may be considered a joint employer of another employer's employees if the two share or codetermine the employees' essential terms and conditions of employment. Joint employment issues typically arise when using professional employment organizations, in contractor-subcontractor, parent-subsidiary, and franchisor-franchisee situations, and in other arrangements. . Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act defines an "employer" to include "any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly." In turn, the Act provides that the "term 'employee' shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless [the Act] explicitly states otherwise . . . ." The Act does not specifically address situations in which statutory employees are employed jointly by two or more statutory employers ( i.e., it is silent as to the definition of "joint employer"), but the Board, with court approval, has long applied common-law agency principles to determine when one or more entities share or codetermine the essential terms and conditions of employment of a particular group of employees. Following a change in the Board's composition under the Trump administration, a divided Board issued a notice of proposed rulemaking with the goal of establishing a joint-employer standard that departed in significant respects from the prior common-law standard. Thereafter, on February 26, 2020, the Board promulgated a final rule that introduced control-based restrictions that narrowed the joint-employer standard. With the intent of reversing the 2020 standard created during the Trump era law, on September 7, 2022, the Board issued a new joint-employer proposed rule, and now a final rule that takes effect on the end of the year. In reversing course over the Trump era standard, the Board concluded that the actual-exercise requirement reflected in the 2020 rule is contrary to the common-law agency principles that must govern the joint-employer standard under the Act and that the Board has no statutory authority to adopt such a requirement. The new final rule, like the proposed rule, provides that a common-law employer of particular employees shares or co-determines those matters governing employees' essential terms and conditions of employment if the employer possesses the authority to control (whether directly, indirectly, or both) or exercises the power to control (whether directly, indirectly, or both) one or more of the employees' essential terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the employer exercises such control or the manner in which such control is exercised. The Board has however modified the proposed rule (1) to clarify the definition of "essential terms and conditions of employment," (2) to identify the types of control that are necessary to establish joint-employer status and the types that are irrelevant to the joint-employer inquiry, and (3) to describe the bargaining obligations of joint employers. Further details about the new 2023 standard, please see the NLRB Fact Sheet on the new rule. The Board received almost 13,000 comments from interested organizations, labor unions, trade associations, business owners, United States Senators and Members of Congress, State Attorneys General, academics, and other individuals. The Board has carefully reviewed and considered these comments, as discussed on its website ...

Orange County California based Klear.ai offers a state-of-the-art SaaS platform equipped with Native AI insurance software solutions, catering to diverse needs like Property & Casualty, Workers' Compensation Claims Administration, Risk Management, Policy Management, Analytics, and Auditing. It said the platform merges industry expertise with technological innovation, ensuring intelligent, effective and efficient solutions. Klear.ai just announced a Software as a Service (SaaS) Agreement with the PATH Alliance, based in Fresno, California, a company that addresses the demands of self-insured employers statewide. This collaboration will involve the deployment of Klear.ai's comprehensive software solutions including their Policy Underwriting Solution, further enhancing The PATH Alliance's operational efficiency and capabilities. Klear.ai provides a seamless secure cloud-based platform solutions that cover Property & Casualty lines of Insurance, including Workers' Compensation and serve businesses such as TPAs, Insurers, Self-Insureds, Pools, Government/Public The PATH Alliance reports it is set to elevate its services to new levels by incorporating the Klear.ai solution. With a dedicated focus on administering self-insured groups and developing top-tier workers' compensation programs, The PATH Alliance said it will benefit from Klear.ai's advanced and versatile software Solutions. These span from configurable policy systems, and powerful accounting integrations to detailed payroll audits and reporting. Members can gain clearer insights into their performance, benefit from customized safety and loss control measures, and efficiently manage data with seamless conversion and upload functionalities. The PATH Alliance was officially formed in 2016, but its true beginning dates back to 2008 with the formation of a company called Occlink. PATH provides consulting, oversight, and program and group administration services to its clients. The company has become an expert in helping California employers transition their workers’ compensation programs to self-insurance. Jerry Laval, President of PATH Alliance, stated, "It's always an honor to work with forward-thinking organizations. With Klear.ai, we see a partnership that will drive mutual growth, innovation, and success." Pete Govek, CRO of Klear.ai, added: "This agreement signifies a step forward in our commitment to providing state-of-the-art solutions to our partners. Collaborating with an esteemed organization like The PATH Alliance solidifies our position in the market. We're eager to see the transformative impact our software will have." ...

Steve Snoeck sued ExakTime Innovations Inc., for six claims: five claims under the FEHA - failure reasonably to accommodate a known or perceived disability, failure to engage in a good faith interactive process, disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, and retaliation - and a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. In June 2019, a jury returned a verdict in Snoeck’s favor on his claim for failure to engage in a good faith interactive process and found in favor of ExakTime on Snoeck’s five other claims. The jury awarded Snoeck $58,088 in economic damages and $72,000 in non-economic damages, for a total of $130,088. Snoeck then filed a motion for attorney fees under Government Code section 12965, former subdivision (b), now subdivision (c)(6), as the prevailing plaintiff on a FEHA claim. He asked for the lodestar amount of $1,193,870 plus a 1.75 multiplier for a total of $2,089,272.50. After several additions and reductions to the requested fee, the court applied a .4 negative multiplier to its $1,144,659.36 adjusted lodestar calculation "to account for [p]laintiff’s counsel’s . . . lack of civility throughout the entire course of this litigation." His attorney, Perry Smith, was ultimately awarded $686,795.62 in attorney fees. Snoeck appealed the reduction in fees for "incivility" of his attorney, however the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's reduction of fees in the published case of Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations -B321566 (October 2023). Snoeck contends the $457,863 reduction in attorney fees based on his counsel Perry Smith’s incivility must be reversed for several reasons. In essence, he argues that - because the fee reduction was not associated with any costs - the court impermissibly applied it to punish Smith and had no legal authority to shift attorney fees to defendant as a sanction. The Court of Appeal reviewed a number of examples of the behavior in question. The trial court record, for example. noted that Smith’s "incivility was not only directed to opposing counsel; it was also directed to the Court." The court remarked that, in its October 8, 2019 minute order, more than two years ago, it had stated, "Plaintiff’s counsel’s tone of voice (which was not reflected in the Court Reporter’s record) was both belittling and antagonistic; at times it verged on the contemptuous." The trial court record continued, "The language quoted above is uncalled-for and unacceptable. Plaintiff counsel’s ad hominem attacks were unnecessary for the zealous representation of his client." Citing caselaw, the court noted the absence of civility "heightens stress and debases the legal profession," and reminded Smith that the California Rules of Court, rule 9.7 requires the attorney oath to conclude with, "As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity." Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded "Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Smith was uncivil toward opposing counsel and the court, and his 'ad hominem attacks were unnecessary for the zealous representation of his client.' " In order to calculate an attorney fee award under the FEHA, courts generally use the well-established lodestar method, the product of the number of hours spent on the case, times an applicable hourly rate. The trial court then has the discretion to increase or reduce the lodestar figure by applying a positive or negative multiplier based on a variety of factors. Those factors include, among others, the novelty and difficulty of the issues presented, the skill demonstrated in litigating them, and the contingent nature of the fee award. In Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734 ,a trial court limited prevailing plaintiffs’ recovery of statutory attorney fees to about one third of the lodestar amount they had requested, after it found the requested fees were unreasonable - in part due to counsel’s overlitigation of the matter and lack of civility in plaintiffs’ briefing. The Court of Appeal in this case thus agreed that "a trial court may consider an attorney’s pervasive incivility in determining the reasonableness of the requested fees. The Court of Appeal concluded that the "record before us amply supports the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s counsel was repeatedly, and apparently intentionally, uncivil to defense counsel - and to the court - throughout this litigation. We thus find no abuse of discretion and affirm." ...

On October 19, 2023, Marko Lukic plead no contest to felony insurance fraud and tax evasion. The Honorable Deborah Lobre sentenced Lukic to 210 days county jail and 2 years formal probation for each violation. He was also ordered to pay $176,297.86 in restitution to the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) and $39,631.16 in restitution to the Employment Development Department (EDD). Lukic is also liable for an additional $200,000 in penalties and interest to EDD. In 2019, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) received information that Lukic, owner of Lukic Construction, was committing insurance fraud. An investigation led by CDI, and assisted by SCIF, determined that Lukic misrepresented the number of employees working for Lukic Construction between 2015 and 2018. This resulted in more than $170,000 in losses to SCIF for coverage of workers’ compensation insurance. Also in 2019, the EDD opened an investigation into Lukic and Lukic Construction Company as part of a joint investigation with CDI. The investigation found that Lukic under-reported wages paid to employees by more than $800,000 between 2015 and 2018. This resulted in Lukic evading almost $40,000 in taxes ...

Andrew Glover, filed an Application for Subsequent Injuries Fund Benefits ("SIBTF") on August 19, 2019, alleging a date of injury of September 2, 2001, as a professional athlete while working for the Oakland Raiders/New Orleans Saints. The underlying case for regular benefits had been resolved by Compromise and Release on October 8, 2008. In his SIBTF petition, he alleged injury to the subsequent injury to his head, neck, upper extremities, and lower trunk. Glover therefore filed his application for SIBTF benefits, 11 years after his Compromise and release in the claim was approved, and 19 years after his original end date of injury. The matter came to trial on the issue of Statute of limitations and the WCJ found that the original Compromise and Release, and its approval, constituted a finding of permanent disability for purposes of the Statute of limitations in SIBTF claims: that the applicant’s date of knowledge for purposes of SIBTF eligibility was no later than October 8, 2008; and that the filing of the application for SIBTF benefits after the date of knowledge was not made timely, as it was not a reasonable amount of time to wait to file. Glover's Petition for Reconsideration was granted in the panel decision of Glover v New Orleans Saints; SIBTF -ADJ916498 (October 2023). There are four Supreme Court cases that provide guidance on the issue of timeliness of a SIBTF claim. (Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Talcott) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 56, 65 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 80]; Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pullum)(1970) 2 Cal.3d 78 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 96]; Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Woodburn) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 81 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 98]; Subsequent Injuries Fund v. Workmens’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Baca) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 74 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 94].) The Supreme Court in Talcott, the seminal case on this issue, provided that if applicant knew or could reasonably be deemed to know that there will be a substantial likelihood of entitlement to subsequent injuries benefits before the expiration of five years from the date of injury, then the limitation period to file a SIBTF claim is five years from the date of injury. However, if applicant did not know and could not reasonably be deemed to know that there will be a substantial likelihood of entitlement to subsequent injuries benefits before the expiration of five years from the date of injury, then the limitation period to file a SIBTF claim is a reasonable time after applicant learns from the WCAB’s findings on the issue of permanent disability that SIBTF has probable liability. The WCAB panel agreed with the WCJ that the second prong of the Talcott analysis applies here: whether applicant filed his SIBTF claim within a reasonable time after he learned from the WCAB’s findings on the issue of permanent disability that SIBTF has probable liability. The WCJ opined that the 2008 Compromise and Release constitutes a finding of permanent disability because once a Compromise and Release is approved by the WCAB, it has the same force and effect as an award made after a full hearing. The WCAB disagreed. "The Compromise and Release is not a finding on the issue of permanent disability. Paragraph 9 of the Compromise and Release specifically states that, “The parties wish to settle these matters to avoid the costs, hazards and delays of further litigation, and agree that a serious dispute exists as to the following issues (initial only those that apply)." Lastly, the WCAB noted that "the WCJ failed to discuss applicant’s knowledge of SIBTF’s probable liability when there is no discussion of how applicant met the SIBTF eligibility thresholds found in Labor Code, section 4751 (Lab. Code, § 4751.)" Accordingly, it granted reconsideration, rescinded the July 19, 2023 Findings and Order, and returned this matter to the trial level for further proceedings on the issue of timeliness of applicant’s SIBTF application ...

A traditional Chinese medicine compound used for cardiac benefits might help reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and even cardiac death rates, according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Tongxinluo, a traditional Chinese medicine compound, has shown promise in in vitro, animal, and small human studies for myocardial infarction, but has not been rigorously evaluated in large randomized clinical trials. So a group of researchers set out to investigate whether Tongxinluo could improve clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Tongxinluo in Chinese means "to open (tong) the network (luo) of the heart (xin)," The compound, consists of a mixture of powders and extracts derived from plants, centipedes, cicada, and other sources. It has been approved in China for the treatment of angina and stroke since 1996. The product may be purchased online as a dietary supplement. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted among patients with STEMI within 24 hours of symptom onset from 124 hospitals in China. Patients were enrolled from May 2019 to December 2020; the last date of follow-up was December 15, 2021. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either Tongxinluo or placebo orally for 12 months (a loading dose of 2.08 g after randomization, followed by the maintenance dose of 1.04 g, 3 times a day), in addition to STEMI guideline-directed treatments. Among 3797 patients who were randomized, 3777 (Tongxinluo: 1889 and placebo: 1888; mean age, 61 years; 76.9% male) were included in the primary analysis. In patients with STEMI, the Chinese patent medicine Tongxinluo, as an adjunctive therapy in addition to STEMI guideline-directed treatments, significantly improved both 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes. But the authors caution that further research is needed to determine the mechanism of action of Tongxinluo in STEMI. This current study is consistent with smaller studies that essentially came to the same conclusion. In a 2006 published study, authors systematically reviewed evidence from 18 randomised controlled trials for the benefit of tongxinluo with or without other treatments, including routine care or placebo, for patients with unstable angina. All the trials were conducted in China. The total number of participants was 1413, ranging in age from 25 to 88 years. Most studies randomized patients to receive tongxinluo with conventional medication or conventional medications alone. The evidence suggested possible benefits relating to a range of outcomes among patients with unstable angina but all the studies were of poor quality and neither blinding nor allocation concealment were used. This makes it impossible to reach firm conclusions about the benefit of this treatment. Thus, in 2006 the authors concluded "Large, high quality, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the possible benefit of tongxinluo for unstable angina and to suggest appropriate future use of this herbal medicine. The editorialist, Richard Bach evaluated the work with a note of skepticism. In his Editorial, Bach raises questions that "underscore lingering uncertainties about the trial results and the use of Tongxinluo outside of China." But he also notes that the malaria drug artemisinin was isolated from a traditional Chinese medicine, and this research was later awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Professor Youyou Tu for her key contributions to the discovery of artemisinin. Artemisinin has saved millions of lives and represents one of the significant contributions of China to global health. Many scientists were involved in the previously unknown 523 Project, and the Nobel Prize given to a single person has not been without controversy ...

California Labor Code 510 requires that "any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee." And that "any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee." California Labor Code Section 515.5 provides that certain computer software employees are exempt from the overtime requirements stipulated in Labor Code Section 510 if certain criteria are met. One of the criteria is that the employee's hourly rate of pay is not less than the statutorily specified rate, which the Department of Industrial Relations is responsible for adjusting on October 1st of each year to be effective on January 1st of the following year by an amount equal to the percentage increase in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. Assembly Bill 10 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 753, Statutes of 2008) amended Labor Code Section 515.5 effective on September 30, 2008, to extend the exemptions to salaried employees whose annual and monthly salaries are not less than the statutorily specified rates, which the department is responsible for adjusting every October 1st of each year to be effective on January 1st of the following year by an amount equal to the percentage increase in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. The State of California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) just issued new annual adjusted minimum thresholds for computer software employees who are considered exempt from the state’s overtime requirements under California Labor Code Section 515.5. The department has adjusted the computer software employee's minimum hourly rate of pay exemption from $53.80 to $55.58, the minimum monthly salary exemption from $9,338.78 to $9,646.96, and the minimum annual salary exemption from $112,065.20 to $115,763.35 effective January 1, 2024. This increase reflects the 3.3% increase in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. The computer software employee exemption in Section 515.5 generally applies to employees who are "primarily engaged in work that is intellectual or creative and that requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment," are "highly skilled," and have job duties such as computer programming, systems analysis, or software design and testing. There are several provisions where the exemption does not apply. For example, if the employee is engaged in the operation of computers or in the manufacture, repair, or maintenance of computer hardware and related equipment. Or if the employee is an engineer, drafter, machinist, or other professional whose work is highly dependent upon or facilitated by the use of computers and computer software programs and who is skilled in computer-aided design software, including CAD/CAM, but who is not engaged in computer systems analysis, programming, or any other similarly skilled computer-related occupation ...

49 year old Erin Lee McCarroll, who lives in Laguna Beach, was arraigned on 27 felony counts including grand theft and forgery after a California Department of Insurance investigation found she allegedly stole more than $62,000 in insurance premiums from at least 10 California business owners. The Department launched an investigation after receiving multiple consumer complaints that McCarroll, who was doing business as Erin McCarroll Insurance Services, allegedly accepted premium payments and pocketed the funds to use for her own personal expenses. The investigation found that between June 2017 and November 2019, McCarroll allegedly failed to forward premium payments totaling over $62,000 from at least 10 victims who were unaware that McCarroll had stolen their premium payments and did not place the insurance coverage they believed they had. McCarroll’s victims were contractors and other small business owners who are required by law to have workers’ compensation coverage for their employees in the event of work-related injuries. McCarroll’s victims also requested and paid McCarroll for general liability policies, which she did not place. The lack of these policies exposed McCarrolls’ victims to possible uncovered claims and the potential for thousands of dollars in losses. McCarroll was allegedly able to deceive her victims by creating and issuing fraudulent certificates of insurance, which were used to demonstrate proof of proper insurance coverage while bidding contracts. The bogus certificates led her victims to believe they had successfully acquired the insurance policies they purchased from McCarroll. This case is being prosecuted by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office ...

Natalie Operstein was employed as a professor of linguistics at California State University, Fullerton (CSUF). In the course of her employment, she experienced conflict with her colleagues in the linguistics department for which she made various written complaints. By May 2014, the matter had escalated to human resources. In November 2014, CSUF engaged Seyfarth Shaw LL, a law firm, to investigate Operstein’s accusations against three of her colleagues. Colleen Regan, at the time a partner at Seyfarth, had primary responsibility for the investigation. Regan interviewed Operstein’s three colleagues she accused of misconduct and another individual, but Operstein agreed only to respond to written questions.Regan provided a summary of her investigation and findings in an eight-page report dated December 18, 2014. The report concluded that none of Operstein’s allegations was well founded and that much of Dr. Operstein’s conduct and email communication was the opposite of collegial. She regularly accused her coworkers of violations and infractions of policy, and of defaming her and violating her rights, all with no apparent basis. Regan also wrote: "Every witness interviewed stated that Dr. Operstein is well regarded as a scholar and researcher, and appears to be a fine teacher. However, since the beginning of her employment at CSUF, she has been difficult for virtually everyone to work with. At least one administrative support employee has requested never to work with her again, and many others find her behavior odd, and even threatening." Operstein’s relationship with CSUF further soured shortly after Seyfarth completed its report. She filed a number of lawsuits related to her complaints, including in April 2020, she filed the lawsuit underlying this appeal. In a complaint solely against Seyfarth and Regan, plaintiffs asserted 11 causes of action based on Seyfarth's work for CSUF in connection with Operstein’s internal complaints of workplace harassment and related mistreatment. In sum, the Seyfarth complaint alleges that, with improper motive, defendants (1) conducted a biased and otherwise flawed investigation of Operstein’s complaints; and (2) prepared and submitted a report that was defamatory of Operstein. Defendants responded with a motion to strike plaintiffs’ complaint under the anti SLAPP statute (C.C.P § 425.16 strategic lawsuit against public participation), and supported their motion with declarations and extensive documentary evidence, including documents they reviewed in the course of their investigation and the resulting report. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and submitted declarations and evidence of their own totaling nearly 3,000 pages. Defendants filed a reply and plaintiffs filed a 70 page surreply. On the same day plaintiffs filed their surreply, the trial court issued a tentative ruling. and was inclined to strike three of the 11 causes of action ("negligent misrepresentation and constructive fraud," "defamation," and "fraud and deceit") because those causes of action "arise solely from protected activity under . . . subdivisions (e)(1) and (e)(2)," but was inclined to request further briefing as to whether defendants’ alleged investigative conduct was protected under the anti SLAPP statute. Later, on the same day the trial court issued its tentative ruling, plaintiffs voluntarily requested dismissal of their entire lawsuit. The court granted their request. Shortly thereafter, defendants filed their motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to subdivision (c). Their ultimate total request was $79,889. The trial court granted this only in part, finding defendants would have only partially prevailed on their special motion to strike. It adopted its tentative ruling, and awarded defendants $63,911- 80 percent of the fees they requested. The trial court awarded the fees without finally ruling on defendants’ anti SLAPP motion to strike - it issued a tentative ruling granting in part and denying in part the motion, and plaintiffs immediately thereafter dismissed their complaint. Plaintiffs Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein appeal the fee award on three general theories. First, the anti SLAPP statute did not apply to their claims, and, in any event, their claims were meritorious. Second, the fees should not have been awarded because defendants did not meet the fee award requirements of subdivision (c)(1) or because judicially created exceptions to their right to seek a fee award applied. Third, even if fees were awardable, the amount awarded was unreasonable. Defendants cross appealed and argued that the trial court should have awarded all the fees they requested, not just a portion of those fees, because all of plaintiffs’ claims were based on conduct protected by the anti SLAPP statute, no exceptions applied, and their request was reasonable. The Court of Appeal agreed with defendants that their motion to strike was wholly meritorious and their fee request therefore should not have been reduced on the grounds that they would have prevailed only partially on their motion. And it disagreed with plaintiffs that the trial court erred in the ways they claim. It therefore affirmed in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with its opinion in the published case of Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (October 2023). The anti SLAPP statute provides a procedure for courts to dismiss at an early stage nonmeritorious litigation meant to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition in connection with a public issue. Courts must "broadly" construe the anti-SLAPP statute to further the legislative goals of encouraging participation in matters of public significance and discouraging abuse of the judicial process. (§ 425.16, subd. (a).) Defendants argued that Seyfarth’s investigation was not an official proceeding authorized by law, and in support cite Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (Vergos), which treated all investigative conduct as communicative. However, since the Vergos decision issued, our Supreme Court in Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995, 1015, has mandated a more granular evaluation of the allegations underlying a cause of action and its subsidiary claims, and disapproved of the gravamen analysis that appears to have been employed in Vergos, so it said "so we will not rely on Vergos. The Court of Appeal agreed with defendants and concluded "that all conduct by defendants alleged in the complaint is protected under the anti SLAPP statute." A "prevailing defendant" on a special motion to strike is "entitled to recover that defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs." (§ 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) The purpose of this provision is to provide the SLAPP defendant financial relief from the plaintiff’s meritless lawsuit. (Liu v. Moore (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 745, 750 (Liu).) The trial court’s fee award pursuant to this authority is the subject of this appeal. When a plaintiff dismisses his or her complaint while the defendant’s special motion to strike is pending, courts agree they retain jurisdiction to award fees and costs. (See, e.g., Coltrain v. Shewalter (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 94, 107 (Coltrain); Liu, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 752; Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1456 (Tourgeman).) This is because permitting an eleventh-hour dismissal to eliminate financial liability would undermine the deterrent purpose of the anti SLAPP statute. (See Liu, at pp. 750-751.) The Court of Appeal also concluded that "Under either the Coltrain standard or the Liu standard, defendants entirely prevailed in their special motion to strike" and thus was entitled to the entire fee they requested ...