In April 1999, Julian Rodriguez began working as an hourly machine operator for Lawrence Equipment Inc. a manufacturer of flat bread machinery, and later became a computer numerical control operator. In July 2014, Rodriguez executed an arbitration agreement with Lawrence. The agreement required Rodriguez and Lawrence to submit any dispute related to Rodriguez’s employment to binding arbitration. Lawrence terminated Rodriguez’s employment in October 2015. 1 In December 2015, Rodriguez filed a class action against Lawrence, alleging six different wage-and-hour violations, a seventh cause of action for Unfair Business Practices. He also sought civil penalties and wages in the eighth cause of action pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.)1 (PAGA). The trial court ordered arbitration of Rodriguez’s wage and hour claims, and stayed Rodriguez’s single PAGA cause of action pending the completion of arbitration. In February 2018, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of Lawrence and against Rodriguez. While acknowledging that Rodriguez’s complaint "alleged that he had not been provided with proper meal and rest periods . . . that he had not been provided with accurate wage statements . . . [and] had not been paid all earned and final wages," the arbitrator stated Rodriguez only presented evidence related to Lawrence’s alleged nonpayment of hours worked and noncompliant meal and rest breaks. The arbitrator found that Rodriguez had "failed to sustain his burden of proof as to whether he was actually required . . . to be at his work site five minutes" early, and "[e]ven if he had sustained his burden on this issue," his timesheets failed to show he was actually there before the work shift started. The arbitrator also found that Rodriguez "received a total of thirty minutes of rest breaks each day and a thirty minute meal break," and thus failed to sustain his burden that he was entitled to additional pay for any alleged failure to provide proper meal and rest breaks. The arbitration award stated that Rodriguez shall take nothing by way of his complaint. After the trial court entered judgment on the arbitration award, Lawrence brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings asserting that the remaining PAGA cause of action was barred by issue preclusion since Rodriguez’s standing as an aggrieved employee was predicated on the disproven wage and hour violations. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Rodriguez’s case. Rodriguez appealed, contending for the elements of issue preclusion have not been satisfied. The Court of Appeal affirmed in the published case of Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment, Inc. -B325261 (Nov 2024). Courts "have frequently used ‘res judicata’ as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which [have been] described as two separate ‘aspects’ of an overarching doctrine. [Citations.] Claim preclusion . . . acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties. [Citation.] Issue preclusion, . . . historically called collateral estoppel, describes the bar on relitigating issues that were argued and decided in the first suit." At issue on appeal is whether an arbitrator’s previous adjudication of Labor Code violations in favor of Lawrence precludes Rodriguez from asserting a PAGA cause of action based on those same Labor Code violations. In Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 65, 77 (Rocha), Division One of the Second District Court of Appeal addressed this very issue. The Rocha court considered whether an arbitrator’s finding that the employer did not violate section 1102.5, rendered in the context of the employees’ personal claims for damages, precluded those employees from alleging in a subsequent complaint that they had standing under PAGA to seek civil penalties based on the same purported violation. (Rocha, at pp. 76-78.) Applying general principles of issue preclusion, the appellate court held the employees could not rely on the employer’s alleged section 1102.5 violation to establish PAGA standing. (Rocha, at p. 79.) The Rocha court expressly disagreed with Gavriiloglou v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 595 (Gavriiloglou), which Rodriguez cites in support of reversal. In Gavriiloglou, Division Two of the Fourth District concluded the arbitrator’s finding that plaintiff had not suffered a Labor Code violation did not preclude that same plaintiff from qualifying as an "aggrieved employee" under the PAGA based on the same alleged Labor Code violations. (Id. at pp. 601-603.) Citing the Restatement Second of Judgments, Code of Civil Procedure section 1908, and several California cases about claim preclusion (not issue preclusion). "We find persuasive Rocha’s analysis of issue preclusion and thus decline to follow Gavriiloglou." "We therefore conclude all of Rodriguez’s wage and hour violations, including those related to sections 226, subdivision (a), and 201, were actually litigated and necessarily decided in the arbitration proceedings." "We also note that Rodriguez presented no evidence at arbitration to support his sections 226, subdivision (a), and 201 contentions. The arbitration award observed: 'The evidence presented at the arbitration hearing dealt solely with the issues of alleged non-payment for all hours worked and the allegation of legally non-compliant meal and rest breaks.' In other words, Rodriguez chose not to present evidence on these claims at arbitration and now seeks to justify litigation of these claims based on that choice. This is precisely the type of gamesmanship that issue preclusion aims to prevent." ...
Jatinderjeet "Jyoti" Sihota, 37, of Selma, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit crop insurance fraud, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced. According to court records, for many years, Sihota’s family’s farming operation produced table grapes and other crops in Fresno and Tulare Counties, and it sold many of those crops through a fruit packing company where Ralph Hackett was a member and manager. The farming operation also entered into financial agreements with the fruit packing company where various costs that the farming operation incurred selling its crops were advanced and covered by the company. The farming operation then had to pay the fruit packing company back by a certain date. Beginning in 2012, Sihota became involved with her family’s farming operation. Thereafter, from 2012 through 2016, she and Hackett carried out a fraud scheme to obtain more than $650,000 in crop insurance payments to which they were not entitled. They caused false information that underreported the amount of crops the farming operation sold through the fruit packing company to be provided to the insurance company to make it appear as though the farming operation had suffered significant crop losses when that was not true. Hackett, 69, of Clovis, was separately charged and has pleaded guilty for his role in the fraud scheme. He agreed to certain sentencing enhancements because he directed lower-level employees at the fruit packing company to participate in the scheme and hid his misconduct from other principals at the company. Hackett also agreed to pay criminal restitution of $650,000 and a separate civil settlement of $605,000. This case is the product of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General and Risk Management Agency Special Investigations Staff. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Barton is prosecuting the case. Sihota is scheduled to be sentenced on March 3, 2025, and Hackett is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 27, 2025. They each face a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000. The actual sentences, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables ...
In a triad of decisions by three separate Court of Appeal panels, namely, Earley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., et al., 94 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2023)("Earley"), Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., et al., 97 Cal. App. 5th 1213 (2023)("Zurich"), and most recently in Mayor v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., et al., 104 Cal. App. 5th 1297 (2024)("Mayor") , the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board’s "grant for study" orders pursuant to the former version of Labor Code section 5909 (Section 5909) have been found to be unlawful. And now on November 4, 2024 a new Petition for Writ of Mandate was filed in the California Supreme Court by another representative group of eleven California injured workers all of whom allege they have been unlawfully and unfairly denied their constitutionally guaranteed right to speedy and unencumbered resolution of their claims for workers’ compensation benefits as a result of the WCAB’s prior issuance of so-called "grant for study" orders. They continue to allege that "By way of these orders, the Board has attempted to grant to itself, sua sponte indefinite extensions of time to render final decisions concerning Petitions for Reconsideration. To make matters worse, Petitioners are precluded from seeking adjudication of any further disputes which may arise until the WCAB finally issues its final decisions in their cases." And that they are "suffering severe prejudice and irreparable harm due to the Board’s refusal to comply with the above-cited constitutional mandate for expeditious and unincumbered (sic) dispute resolution." "Petitioners’ predicament does not represent an isolated, 'outlier' phenomenon. Quite to the contrary, pursuant to a California Public Records Act information request in connection with Earley, it was determined that as [of] October 2021 more than five hundred (500) cases remained undecided at that time as a result of 'grant for study' orders issued within the preceding three-year period alone. The number of Petitioners in this case give rise to a reasonable inference that a similar number of undecided cases remain 'on hold' due to the Board’s issuance of 'grant for study' orders." They ask the Supreme Court to " issue a writ of mandate directing the WCAB to issue final decisions in all cases wherein a 'grant for study' was issued under the former version of Section 5909." And should it decide to do so, the "outcome of these proceedings will directly affect the interests of all litigants in the workers’ compensation system, injured workers, employers, insurance carriers and lien claimants alike, since they are all precluded from adjudicating further issues before the WCAB per Rosendin (Rosendin Electric, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 73 Cal. Comp. Case. 1123 (2008)(writ denied)).until the WCAB issues final decisions regarding the pending, undecided Petitions for Reconsideration." These injured workers go on to allege that "this Court possesses original jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by way of this Petition pursuant to Wenke v. Hitchcock, 6 Cal. 3d 746 (1972)("Hitchcock"); Clean Air Constituency v. State Air Resources Bd., 11 Cal. 3d 801 (1974)("Clean Air Constituency"); Greener v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 6 Cal. 4th 1028 (1993)("Greener"); Betancourt v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 16 Cal. App. 3d 408 (1993)("Betancourt"); Legislature of State of California v. Padilla (2020) 9 Cal.5th 867 (2020) ("Padilla"); and California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, 53 Cal. 4th 231 (2011)("Matosantos"), as well as many other similar cases." And that "proper grounds exist for this Honorable Court to exercise original jurisdiction in the above-captioned matter pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 8.500(b)(1) to settle an important question of law, namely, whether the WCAB should be allowed to continue to delay issuing final decisions regarding Petitions for Reconsideration after having employed the now-determined to be unlawful "grant for study" procedure under former Section 5909 for many months or years at a time thereby prejudicing all litigants involved in workers’ compensation proceedings. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board State of the State of California is named as the Respondent in the case. It will now have an opportunity to respond to the Petition. The major issue here is a determination by the Supreme Court that they will hear the case at all, since the Petition asks for an extraordinary writ, and there is no obligation that the Supreme Court hear and decide it. If it does however, there will likely be substantial requests by other interested parties and organizations in the industry to file briefs as amicus. It would not be unusual for a decision to take far more than a year to be delivered ...
On June 6, 2024, applicant’s attorney John R. Ramirez (SBN 201939) and The Ramirez Firm filed a petition for attorney’s fee pursuant to section 5710, and alleged that he personally represented applicant at her deposition in the case of Latrice Reed vs.County of San Bernardino, permissibly self-insured,and sought payment for 1 hour of preparation time and 1.1 hours of actual deposition time, or 2.1 hours. (Id. at p. 1.) Applicant requested an award at the hourly rate of $425.00 per hour, or $892.50. Thereafter, defendant paid fees at $400.00 per hour, or $840.00. On June 10, 2024, the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued an order reducing applicant’s attorney’s hourly rate to $400.00 per hour and ordered defendant to pay $840.00 as a reasonable fee. On June 11, 2024, applicant filed an objection to the order and a Declaration of Readiness to proceed to a mandatory settlement conference on the issue of section 5710 fees. The matter proceeded to a hearing on August 7, 2024. The WCJ ordered the matter taken off calendar over applicant’s attorney’s objection. Applicant’s attorney filed a Petition for Reconsideration (which was deemed by the WCAB to be a Petition for Removal) and objected to an Order taking the matter off calendar. Specifically, in the Petition, Mr. Ramirez alleges that he is entitled to the unpaid portion of attorney’s fees under Labor Code3 section 5710 of $52.50; Mr. Ramirez seeks to proceed to a trial on the issue of attorney’s fees. The WCJ filed a Report recommending that the Petition for Reconsideration be dismissed as the Order taking the matter off calendar was a non-final order. To the extent that the petition seeks removal, the WCJ recommended that the petition be denied as applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice. This case has not proceeded to an evidentiary hearing. In its panel decision in the case of Reed v County of San Bernardino - ADJ18725678 (November 2024) - which it characterized as a Significant Panel Decision. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10325(b); see Lab. Code, §§ 5300, 5301, 5302.) the WCAB denied applicant's Petition. The WCAB responded that as "we previously stated in our En Banc decision in Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg.: A petition for reconsideration may properly be taken only from a 'final' order, decision, or award. (Lab. Code, §§ 5900(a), 5902, 5903.) A 'final' order has been defined as one that either 'determines any substantive right or liability of those involved in the case' (Rymer v. Hagler (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 1171, 1180, 260 Cal. Rptr. 76; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Pointer) (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 528, 534-535 [163 Cal. Rptr. 750, 45 Cal. Comp. Cases 410]; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kramer) (1978) 82 Cal. App. 3d 39, 45 [43 Cal. Comp. Cases 661]) or determines a 'threshold' issue that is fundamental to the claim for benefits. (Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 1068, 1070, 1075 [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 65 Cal. Comp. Cases 650].) Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, entered in the midst of the workers' compensation proceedings, are not considered 'final' orders. (Id. at p. 1075 ['interim orders, which do not decide a threshold issue, such as intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions, are not ‘final' ']; Rymer, supra, at p. 1180 ['[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders or discovery orders']; Kramer, supra, at p. 45 ['[t]he term [‘final’] does not include intermediate procedural orders'].) Such interlocutory decisions include, but are not limited to, pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting,venue, or similar issues." The panel went on to say "Not only did we make clear in Ledezma that orders regarding trial setting are not final orders, but we also made clear that seeking reconsideration of non-final orders is sanctionable. (See generally, id.; see also, Ledezma v. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg, (2024) 89 Cal.Comp.Cases 549 (En Banc) ['ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND COSTS'].)" "Here, Mr. Ramirez improperly filed a Petition for Reconsideration in response to a non-final order. However, while the attempt to seek reconsideration was without merit, it does not appear that the Petition was filed for an improper purpose such as halting proceedings at the trial level. That is, Mr. Ramirez’s objective was to proceed to trial as quickly as possible, and all parties have the right to seek such relief as appropriate. Thus, for the purpose of this decision, we will assume that the filing of a petition for reconsideration rather than one for removal was merely a careless error. Accordingly, we do not take up the issue of sanctions at this time." Instead, it admonished applicant’s attorney John R. Ramirez (SBN 201939) and The Ramirez Firm that any future petition challenging a non-final order such as an order taking the matter off calendar must be filed as a petition for removal and that this conduct may be subject to sanctions under section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10841 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10421)." ...
Congress enacted the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPASA) "to provide the Federal Government with an economical and efficient system for . . . [p]rocuring and supplying property and nonpersonal services, and performing related functions including contracting." 40 U.S.C. § 101(1). In 2014, President Obama invoked the FPASA to issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay employees a $10.10 per hour minimum wage. Exec. Order No. 13658, 79 Fed. Reg. 9851 (Feb. 12, 2014). Following notice and comment, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a rule implementing the executive order. Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, 79 Fed. Reg. 60,634 (Oct. 7, 2014). The rule was not challenged. In 2018, President Trump issued an executive order that excluded contracts related to seasonal recreational services from the minimum wage requirements of President Obama’s 2014 executive order. Exec. Order No. 13838, 83 Fed. Reg. 25,341 (May 25, 2018). But President Trump’s executive order maintained the minimum wage requirement for "lodging and food services associated with seasonal recreational services." Id. DOL again issued an implementing rule following notice and comment. Minimum Wage for Contractors; Updating Regulations to Reflect Executive Order 13838, 83 Fed. Reg. 48,537 (Sept. 26, 2018). This rule was also unchallenged. About three months after taking office, President Biden issued Executive Order 14026 which required federal contractors to pay employees a $15 minimum wage. 86 Fed. Reg. 22,835 (Apr. 27, 2021). President Biden also rescinded President Trump’s 2018 exemption for seasonal recreational services. Id. at 22,836. The executive order noted that "[r]aising the minimum wage enhances worker productivity and generates higher-quality work by boosting workers’ health, morale, and effort; reducing absenteeism and turnover; and lowering supervisory and training costs." Id. at 22,835. Five states challenged the wage mandate immediately after it took effect. The states alleged that the wage mandate violated the FPASA, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the major questions doctrine, the non-delegation doctrine, and the Spending Clause. They sought to enjoin and vacate both the executive order and DOL’s implementing rule. The states sought a preliminary injunction, and the Government sought dismissal or summary judgment. Nebraska, Idaho, and Indiana had minimum wages of between $7.25 and $9.00 per hour when the mandate took effect. Arizona had a minimum wage of $12.80 per hour. And South Carolina lacked a state-specific minimum wage. In January 2024, the mandated minimum wage increased to $17.20 because of inflation, which exceeded the minimum wage in every Plaintiff State. The district court denied a preliminary injunction and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss.It concluded that the wage mandate did not violate the FPASA, and the major questions doctrine did not apply because the economic impact was too small. Four of the five states (Appellants) appealed. Appellants are affected by the wage mandate because they sometimes act as federal contractors.They assert that the executive order and implementing rule violate the FPASA and the major questions doctrine, and that the implementing rule violates the APA. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which governs California) reversed the trial court, finding that Executive Order 14026 exceeds the power granted to Biden under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. in the published case of State of Nebraska v Su No. 23-15179 (9th Cir. Nov. 2024) It concluded that the Plaintiff States have stated legally sufficient claims and therefore reversed the district court’s order dismissing the complaint. It also vacated the district court’s order denying the Plaintiff States a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The 61-page opinion (which covers California) runs contrary to the 10th Circuit's opinion on the same issue. Last April The Tenth Circuit recently addressed a slightly different scenario: whether the DOL minimum wage mandate rule is permissible as applied to recreational services permittees. See Bradford v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 101 F.4th 707, 732 (10th Cir. 2024), petition for cert. filed, No. 24-232 (U.S. Aug. 28, 2024). The Tenth Circuit majority held that the FPASA authorizes the President to implement policies he considers necessary to promote an economic and efficient procurement system, pointing to § 101 as the only source for this authority. Id. at 721.3 The majority then upheld the rule because it "advances the statutory objectives of economy and efficiency." Id. at 714. These two decisions now set the framework for the possible intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve these two conflicting opinions ...
The Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO) reached settlements with multiple parties for $942,604 to settle a citation and a lawsuit filed against Baked in the Sun, a wholesale bakery in Vista, California that closed its doors without paying 187 workers. The parties involved will now have to pay more than $3 for every $1 in wages originally owed to workers. As Baked in the Sun faced financial struggles, the company sought loans from multiple lenders. One lender, HCAP Partners III, L.P., took control of the company in the months before its demise, leading to the nonpayment of wages. The Labor Commissioner held this lender and its restructuring officer, Gregg Yorkison, jointly responsible for the failure to pay those wages through a wage citation. Shortly after the bakery ceased operations, another lender, First Choice Bank, took possession of company assets and sold them to new owners. In doing so, it failed to use sale proceeds to pay final wages to the bakery workers. This action violated state law, which requires that workers’ final three months of wages be paid first when a business closes and its assets are sold. The LCO filed a lawsuit seeking those wages. After issuing the citations and filing the lawsuit, the LCO settled with most of the parties, including founder Rachel Shein, lender First Choice Bank, lender HCAP Partners III, L.P., and restructuring officer Gregg Yorkison. LCO’s Bureau of Field Enforcement (BOFE) and Judgment Enforcement Unit (JEU) collaborated on this case to help the workers recover their unpaid wages. More judgment success stories are posted online. The LCO has begun distributing the back wages to former employees of Baked in the Sun. Workers who believe they are owed money in this case should contact the LCO at 833-LCO-INFO (833-526-4636). Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower said: "This case demonstrates our team’s aggressive litigation strategy in pursuing enforcement actions against all liable parties, leading to the identification of assets that might otherwise have gone undetected. We pursued multiple defendants who collectively are paying three times the amount initially owed in wages. Robbing workers of their wages has proven to be a costly crime." ...
The Justice Department, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), announced that Lyft Inc.has agreed to resolve allegations that it made false and misleading statements about how much Lyft drivers would earn. The settlement includes an agreement to pay $2.1 million in civil penalties and a permanent injunction prohibiting such false and misleading earnings claims. Lyft operates a mobile app ride-hailing platform that connects consumers seeking rides with those who provide rides with their own personal vehicles. Through marketing campaigns and advertisements, Lyft recruits drivers. After a driver is hired, Lyft sets the rates the driver charges and collects a portion of the fare for each ride. In a civil complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the government alleges that, as early as 2021, Lyft made false and misleading claims in its advertising and marketing regarding potential earnings and incentives to be earned by drivers who signed up to drive for Lyft in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, in connection with its false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims regarding driver earnings. Lyft allegedly continued these practices even after it received a Notice of Penalty Offenses in October 2021 that placed the company on notice that false and misleading earnings claims were unlawful. The complaint alleges that Lyft disseminated advertisements promoting specific hourly amounts that drivers throughout the United States could earn. The company, however, did not disclose that the potential hourly amounts were based on the earnings of the top 20% of its drivers. The complaint also further alleges that Lyft also tried to induce drivers to offer more rides by promoting "earnings guarantees," which guaranteed that drivers would be paid a set amount if they completed a specific number of rides in a certain time. These guarantees allegedly did not clearly disclose that drivers were paid only the difference between what they otherwise earned for the rides and Lyft’s advertised guaranteed amount, rather than receiving the full guaranteed amount in addition to their regular earnings for the rides. In the stipulated order entered by the United States District Court Northern District of California , Lyft is required to pay a $2,100,000 civil penalty. The order also enjoins Lyft from making any misrepresentations regarding driver earnings and includes other monitoring and reporting provisions aimed at promoting Lyft’s compliance with the order. "The Justice Department will vigorously enforce the law to stop companies from misleading Americans about their potential earnings in the gig economy," said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. "We will continue to work with the FTC to stop unfair and deceptive marketing practices." "Lyft drivers deserve accurate information about how much they will be paid for the work they do," said Director Samuel Levine of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. "Our settlement with Lyft bans exaggerated earnings claims and underscores the FTC’s commitment to ensuring gig workers are treated fairly." Trial Attorney Paulina Stamatelos and Assistant Director Zachary Dietert of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ekta Dharia for the Northern District of California, and Abdiel Lewis and Evan Rose of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection handled the matter ...
The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) has posted an updated DWC Form 7 (Notice to Employees-Injuries caused By Work) on its website. The updated Form 7 contains additional information required by Assembly Bill 1870, as enacted in 2024, which amended Labor Code section 3550(d)(4) to require notice to injured workers that: (1) they may consult a licensed attorney to advise them of their rights under workers’ compensation laws; and (2) in most instances, attorney’s fees will be paid out of what they recovery as a result of their claims. The amendment to Labor Code section 3550 becomes operative on January 1, 2025. According to the Bill Analysis by the legislature, "Injured workers that have access to a lawyer generally have more success in navigating the workers’ compensation system. Injured workers who are represented by an attorney are more likely to challenge any initial denial of benefits and ultimately receive treatment and workers’ compensation benefits for their workplace injuries." "According to the California Judicial Counsel one of the main reasons civil litigants give for not retaining a lawyer is that they cannot afford one. The same perception likely applies for injured workers who do not seek legal help with their workers’ compensation case. However, attorneys in the workers’ compensation system are generally not paid until the case is resolved and are paid out of the injured worker’s recovery. Additionally, attorney fees must be approved by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board." "In each of the last six years, an average of 1,810 unrepresented injured workers asked to have their denial of benefits adjudicated. In each of those same six years, an average of 145,799 represented injured workers asked to have their denial of benefits adjudicated." "This bill requires notice of an employee’s right to consult an attorney, in relation to their workers’ compensation claim, be included on the Employees’ Rights posters posted by employers. In general, employers must replace state and federal labor law posters whenever the language of the employment law changes. At a minimum, this tends to happen annually." The updated notice, which is posted in English and Spanish versions, contains all of the information mandated under Labor Code section 3550(d) and can be used by employers to comply with the statute's requirement that a notice be posted at the worksite advising employees of their rights under the state's workers' compensation laws. The new version of the notice has been approved by the Office of Administrative Law and information regarding obtaining a copy of the form can be found at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9881.1. The form is available at no charge by downloading it from the web at www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/forms.html or by request from the DWC Information Services Center at 1-800-736-7401 ...
The California Attorney General joined a coalition of 50 states and territories in announcing two significant cooperation agreements and settlements with Heritage Pharmaceuticals and, in the near future, Apotex totaling $49.1 million to resolve allegations that both companies engaged in widespread, long-running conspiracies to artificially inflate and manipulate prices, reduce competition, and unreasonably restrain trade on numerous generic prescription drugs. As part of the settlement agreements, both companies have agreed to cooperate in the ongoing multistate litigations against 30 corporate defendants and 25 individual executives. Both companies have further agreed to a series of internal reforms to ensure fair competition and compliance with antitrust laws. A motion for preliminary approval of the $10 million settlement with Heritage was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in Hartford. A settlement with Apotex for $39.1 million is contingent upon obtaining signatures from all necessary states and territories and will be finalized and filed for approval in the U.S. District Court soon. The three cases against these companies stem from a series of investigations built on evidence from several cooperating witnesses at the core of the different conspiracies alleged in each case, a database of over 20 million documents, and a separate database containing millions of call detail records and contact information for over 600 sales and pricing individuals in the generics industry. Each complaint addresses a different set of drugs and defendants and shows how an interconnected web of industry executives meant to be competitors met up for industry dinners, "girls’ nights out," lunches, cocktail parties, golf outings, and communicated through frequent telephone calls, emails, and text messages, sowing the seeds for their illegal agreements. Defendants used terms like "fair share," "playing nice in the sandbox," and "responsible competitor" to describe how they unlawfully discouraged competition, raised prices, and enforced an ingrained culture of collusion. Among the records obtained by the coalition is a two-volume notebook containing the contemporaneous notes of one of the coalition’s cooperators that memorialized his discussions during phone calls with competitors and internal company meetings over a period of several years. The first complaint included Heritage and 17 other corporate defendants, two individual Defendants, and 15 generic drug manufacturers. Two former executives from Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Jeffery Glazer and Jason Malek, have since entered into settlement agreements and are cooperating. The second complaint was filed against Teva Pharmaceuticals and 19 of the nation’s largest generic drug manufacturers. The complaint names 16 individual senior executive defendants. The third complaint, which will be tried first, focuses on 80 primarily topical generic drugs that account for billions of dollars of sales in the United States and names 26 corporate defendants and 10 individual defendants. Six additional pharmaceutical executives have entered into settlement agreements with the coalition and have been cooperating to support the coalition’s claims in all three cases. Connecticut led a coalition of nearly all states and territories in filing the three antitrust complaints, starting with the first in 2016. If a party purchased a qualifying generic prescription drug between 2010 and 2018, they may be eligible for compensation. To determine eligibility, call 1-866-290-0182 (Toll-Free), email info@AGGenericDrugs.com, or visit www.AGGenericDrugs.com. The California Attorney General joined the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Puerto Rico ...
Two Temecula brothers were sentenced to federal prison for defrauding the United States Postal Service (USPS) out of more than $2.1 million by filing thousands of fraudulent Priority Mail insurance claims. Anwer Fareed Alam, 36, and Yousofzay Fahim Alam, 34, each were sentenced to 27 months in prison by United States District Judge Wesley L. Hsu, who also ordered them to jointly pay $2,135,739 in restitution. Both Alam brothers pleaded guilty on February 16 to one count of mail fraud. From October 2016 to May 2019, the Alam brothers purchased from the USPS Priority Mail packages and postages that included $100 in insurance for lost or damaged parcel contents. Anwer Alam wrapped empty packages or packages containing little or no value and then sent them via Priority Mail to fake recipients at fictitious addresses. Yousofzay Alam then submitted to USPS fraudulent insurance claims via the Postal Service’s website and falsely certified that the packages contained items of higher value than they did and lied that the packages were lost or had been damaged in transit. Yousofzay Alam also included false invoices as well as photographs of goods that were not actually inside the parcels. The Alam brothers used aliases and fake business names to hide the number of false insurance claims they submitted. Relying on the false information in the fraudulent insurance claim forms, USPS issued checks to the Alam brothers to cover their purported losses up to $100 in value plus the cost of shipping. USPS sent the insurance claim checks by mail to the Alam brothers to various addresses in Temecula, which included their home addresses, their business addresses, and approximately 15 different post office boxes at two different post offices. The brothers then deposited the fraudulently obtained funds into their bank accounts. For example, in November 2018, the Alam brothers fraudulently caused to be sent in the mail via USPS a $106.59 Priority Mail claim check, which was mailed to a business address in Temecula. The total loss caused to USPS through this scheme was approximately $2,135,739. The United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General investigated this matter.Assistant United States Attorney Courtney N. Williams of the Riverside Branch Office prosecuted this case ...
Amazon Web Services (AWS) announced the inaugural AWS IMAGINE Grant: Children’s Health Innovation Award, which recognizes visionary institutions in the nonprofit healthcare sector who are using generative artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced cloud services to drive progress across critical children’s health domains. This group represents AWS’s first cohort of recipients of the investment in children’s health announced earlier this summer. The goal is to empower nonprofit organizations to leverage cloud technology in order to accelerate their mission. The IMAGINE Grant program offers support both financially and strategically to the grant winners. As part of the program, it asked for proposals for pilot projects, proofs of concept, or existing programs that utilize technology in a new or expanded way. The event gathered leaders and innovators to discuss how technology can positively impact healthcare and health research globally. "We are thrilled to support these organizations as they pursue groundbreaking advancements in children's health, pediatric care, and research enabled by the AWS Cloud," said Dave Levy, head of worldwide public sector at AWS. "From applications of generative AI to enable precision care in pediatric genomics, to AI-powered tools for physicians that will provide access to more data insights than ever before, these organizations have bold plans to improve children's health outcomes on a global scale. We're excited to work closely with them to realize these goals with cloud technology." The tech giant selected nine winners from across the globe on Oct. 30. The 2024 Children’s Health Innovation Award recipients are: Texas Children's Hospital, Rady Children's Hospital and Institute for Genomic Medicine, Children's Mercy Hospital,Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Association of Public Health Laboratories, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation, Brightpoint, Great Ormond Street Hospital, and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine. San Diego based Rady Children’s Hospital and Institute for Genomic Medicine is building pediatric genomics large language models (LLMs) to improve treatment of rare pediatric diseases, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation is applying generative AI techniques to provide clinicians with real-time insights into HIV patient risks in children, and Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center is developing advanced machine learning (ML) and generative AI models that will drive improvements in translational research and broad-scale changes in precision cancer care for children worldwide. These are just a few of the high-impact projects planned by grant recipients. Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine is a non-profit research organization embedded within Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego. It pioneered a medical revolution to end the diagnostic odyssey for neonatal and pediatric rare disease. It is now moving to end the therapeutic odyssey. The Genetics Division of UCSD Medical School is actively involved in clinical care, research, teaching and service. The Division sees more than 4,000 patients per year in a variety of clinics, primarily as outpatients at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego (RCHSD), but also throughout Southern California, and in Mexico. The Division has an active inpatient consult service, and also sees more than 500 inpatients per year. Faculty members in the Division presently hold more than $6 million in grants and contracts, and have published over 60 original articles and chapters within the last two years. "Leveraging AI and cloud computing is a critical step for Rady Children's Institute for Genomic Medicine as we work towards making genetic testing more equitable, inexpensive and widely available," said Matthew Bainbridge, Ph.D, Supervising Research Scientist at Rady Genomics, a nonprofit research institute at Rady Children's Hospital San Diego. "Working with AWS allows us to utilize their expertise in AI and cloud computing to improve the speed and access to pediatric genetic testing, ultimately shortening a child’s diagnostic odyssey." These organizations are poised to drive transformation across a variety of children’s health disciplines, with this cycle focusing on projects that accelerate pediatric research,o advance maternal child total health, and empower the pediatric workforce and caregivers ...
Cal/OSHA within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has launched a pilot program to improve communication with workers throughout the state by utilizing an advanced interpretation app with the ability to instantly translate in over 200 languages and dialects. The app is currently being used by Cal/OSHA’s Enforcement Division across the state, with a focus on industries like agriculture, where communication barriers are often experienced. The tool was adapted by creator TranslateLive to meet the specific needs of Cal/OSHA. It is being used on a pilot basis to enhance and improve services that meet the needs of all Californians. The technology allows users to communicate seamlessly with individuals who speak different languages by providing live translations. Each person speaks into their device - whether it’s a smartphone, tablet or computer - and the app instantly translates the spoken words into the desired language. The text is displayed on-screen in real-time as the translation is read aloud, enabling an interactive conversation between parties who do not share a common language. This technology also allows for the integration of Cal/OSHA-specific terms to ensure that essential language and phrases are accurately translated. The app is designed to complement and enhance existing live interpretation services, as well as support ongoing efforts to hire bilingual safety inspectors. Cal/OSHA will continuously monitor the tool’s impact and gather feedback from staff. Through ongoing evaluation, DIR aims to assess the effectiveness of this innovative interpretation app and consider its potential broader use within the organization. "California is home to one of the world’s most diverse workforces, which drives the world’s fifth-largest economy," said Cal/OSHA Chief Debra Lee. "By embracing this technology, we are committed to breaking down barriers and upholding the safety and rights of every employee, regardless of language or background." ...
As hospitals reconsider how and where they deliver care to patients, many are seeing the hospital-at-home model as a promising approach to improve value. Hospital-at-home enable some patients who need acute-level care to receive care in their homes, rather than in a hospital. This care delivery model has been shown to reduce costs, improve outcomes and enhance the patient experience. In November 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the Acute Hospital Care At Home program to provide hospitals expanded flexibility to care for patients in their homes. On September 30, 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a report on the agency’s study of the Acute Hospital Care at Home (AHCAH) initiative, which allows certain Medicare-certified hospitals to treat patients with inpatient-level care at home. While the initiative was launched during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (CAA, 2023) extended the waivers and flexibilities associated with the AHCAH initiative until December 31, 2024. The CAA, 2023 also required CMS to conduct a study and analysis on the AHCAH initiative and post such a report on a CMS website by September 30, 2024. The new study fulfills the requirement in the CAA, 2023, and evaluates several aspects of the AHCAH initiative, including: - - Criteria participating hospitals used to determine which individuals would qualify to receive services under AHCAH. - - Demographic information on beneficiaries treated under the initiative. - - Clinical conditions treated and diagnosis-related groups associated with discharges from the inpatient setting versus those under AHCAH. - - Quality of patient care for those patients treated in the brick-and-mortar inpatient setting relative to patients with similar conditions and characteristics treated under AHCAH. - - Beneficiary and caregiver experience with AHCAH. - - Medicare spending and utilization for patients who received care in the inpatient setting and through AHCAH. - - Quantity, mix, and intensity of services furnished through brick-and-mortar inpatient care relative to those served under the AHCAH initiative. The study found that AHCAH-approved hospitals used a variety of sources and methods to establish patient selection criteria to determine which individuals would qualify for AHCAH services. These criteria were largely rooted in published hospital at home (HaH) literature, in addition to the individual hospital’s experience and resource capabilities to provide inpatient-level care in the home environment. Participating hospitals indicated that these criteria were developed and utilized with the intent to ensure that eligible patients were willing and able to participate in a HaH program, that such patients were clinically and psychosocially appropriate to safely receive care in the home, and that patients’ home and community environments were conducive to the safe and effective provision of acute inpatient care at home. CMS hosted a series of four virtual listening sessions with various groups of stakeholders, including patients and caregivers who had participated in the AHCAH initiative, to learn about their experiences with care and gather feedback on ways to improve the program. Additionally, CMS collected anecdotal information on shared lessons learned through site visits, direct correspondence with patients and hospital program operators, and other means, contributing to the qualitative analysis of beneficiaries’ experiences with the AHCAH initiative. Overall, the information collected and detailed in the study suggests that patients and caregivers had positive experiences with the care provided in the home setting through the AHCAH initiative. The feedback was generally consistent with evidence concerning patient experience with HaH programs more broadly. This positive feedback was mirrored by clinicians’ experiences providing care to patients under the AHCAH initiative. More detailed findings on the patient experience of care under AHCAH and the interpretation and limitations of the underlying data and analysis are presented in the report. The American Hospital Association has considerable information about providing HaH services for it's members, as does the California Hospital Association ...
Building on an enduring commitment to graduate and medical education, Cedars-Sinai has established Cedars-Sinai Health Sciences University to prepare generations of academic scientists, physician leaders and allied health professionals for the future of healthcare and biomedical science. The university will integrate clinical, basic and translational scientific research education in an academic medical center, offering a breadth of advanced research and vocational programs aimed at creating healthcare and scientific leaders. These programs will also spur innovation and nurture thought leaders in medical education. "The new Health Sciences University builds on Cedars-Sinai’s legacy to foster continual learning as a way to improve the health of communities," said Peter L. Slavin, MD, president and CEO of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Cedars-Sinai Health System. "We are proudly committed to developing high-achieving academic investigators and educators in disease-focused science." Students will gain a better understanding of human disease, how best to treat individuals and populations, enhance disease prevention and elevate the overall health of communities. "This milestone moment in Cedars-Sinai’s history will provide students with a unique opportunity to enrich and advance their careers as they receive the highest level of training in the medical sciences and healthcare delivery," said Shlomo Melmed, MB, ChB, executive vice president of Medicine and Health Sciences and dean of the Medical Faculty. "We are building a university that will offer meaningful career paths that align with Cedars-Sinai’s mission to elevate the health status and wellbeing of patients and communities." Cedars-Sinai already is home to more than 315 graduate students and postdoctoral scientists and 540 medical residents and fellows. Current students can earn a PhD in biomedical and translational sciences and master’s of science degrees in health systems and magnetic resonance in medicine. The PhD in health AI will offer rigorous training in AI algorithms and methods, with a focus on analyzing clinical data to enhance patient care. The hands-on, active approach to teaching will reinforce AI concepts through clinical rotations and scholarly collaboration with physicians and medical staff. Graduates will be positioned to directly improve healthcare and patient outcomes through the rigorous development and deployment of AI algorithms and software. Also new is the Chuck Lorre School of Allied Health, established with a $30 million gift from the Chuck Lorre Family Foundation to offer allied healthcare careers for individuals in historically marginalized groups in Los Angeles and beyond. In the first phase of this program, students will earn a bachelor of science degree in respiratory therapy or certification in one of three other high-demand technical specialties that are chronically understaffed in hospitals: pharmacy technician, clinical laboratory scientist and radiation therapy technician. Regardless of the discipline or area of research, students in the university will be matched with clinical partners who will provide mentorship and training throughout the duration of their programs. "We want Cedars-Sinai Health Sciences University to attract the best and brightest - both in medicine and outside of medicine - individuals who want to devote their careers to making a profound impact on patient lives," said Jeffrey A. Golden, MD, executive vice dean of Research and Education and director of the Burns and Allen Research Institute. "Our goal is for every student to realize an invaluable training opportunity and enriching experience for their growth as a healthcare professional." For more information, visit Cedars-Sinai Health Sciences University ...
Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 988, the Freelance Worker Protection Act (FWPA), into law on September 28, 2024. Codified at California Business & Professions Code Section 18100 et seq., the FWPA imposes requirements on individuals and companies that hire freelance workers for specified "professional services." The companies that use freelance workers are required to comply with this new law starting January 1st. The law is applicable to a "hiring party" which means a person or organization in the State of California that retains a freelance worker to provide professional services, with certain limited excepts such as the United States or State of California or any foreign government. Among other mandates, whenever a hiring party retains the services of a freelance worker, the contract between the hiring party and the freelance worker shall be in writing. The hiring party shall furnish a signed copy of the written contract, either physically or electronically, to the freelance worker. The hiring party shall retain the contract for no less than four years. Certain time limits are specified for making payment. Except as otherwise provided by law, a hiring party shall pay a freelance worker the compensation specified by a contract for professional services on or before the date compensation is due pursuant to the contract. If the contract does not specify when the hiring party shall pay, no later than 30 days after the completion of the freelance worker’s services under the contract. An aggrieved freelance worker or a public prosecutor may bring a civil action to enforce this new law. A prevailing plaintiff in an action alleging a violation of this law is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive relief, and any other remedies deemed appropriate by the court. The Legislative Analysis that discussed this new law claimed that "for several decades, the employer-employee relationship was put under pressure due to the increased use of independent contractors and the misclassification of employees. The issue culminated with a 2018 Supreme Court decision, Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903. Under Dynamex, the test for whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee was simplified to a three-prong test." "Freelance workers contribute essential services to our homes and businesses and are one of the fastest growing sectors of the workforce. As noted above, because freelance workers are not employees but independent contractors, they typically do not receive the same protections against wage theft. Efforts to enact laws protecting freelance workers have begun to pass in several states and localities." Indeed freelance workers in the City of Los Angeles received more protections with the Los Angeles City Council’s adoption on February 24, 2023 of Ordinance 187782 which was intended to protect the Freelance industry. The City of Los Angeles law became effective on July 1, 2023 and Los Angeles hirers must now comply with the provisions of this ordinance as well as state and federal and any other local ordinance that might cover the hiring. In 2017, New York City was the first to pass a law, the "Freelance Isn’t Free Act," which made significant changes to entities utilizing independent contractors for projects costing $800 or more. Specifically, the law requires a written contract, timely and full payment, and protection from retaliation. The law also establishes penalties for violations of these rights, including statutory damages, double damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. In 2023, Illinois enacted similar protections by adopting the "Freelance Worker Protection Act," to take effect July 1, 2024 ...
Milton C. Grimes, a long-time Los Angeles lawyer, pleaded guilty to evading the payment of more than $4 million in federal taxes over a 21-year period. Grimes pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion relating to his 2014 taxes, admitting that he failed to pay $1,690,922 to the IRS. He was the man who served as the lead attorney for Rodney King about three decades ago has been payed close attention to the events that led to the death of George Floyd. Grimes was responsible for winning a $3.8 million civil claim on behalf of King, the Black motorist who became the most infamous victim of police brutality in the history of America. It is not the first time tax charges have been leveled against Grimes. Not long after the lawyer made national headlines representing accused murderer Sheryl Lynn Massip - who was charged with running over her infant son with the family Volvo in 1987, Grimes pled guilty in 1988 to three counts of willfully failing to file a tax return. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 19401.) According to his plea agreement, Grimes did not pay federal income taxes due for 23 years, 2002 through 2005, 2007, 2009 through 2011, and 2014 through 2023 - a total of $4,071,215 owed to the IRS. Grimes also admitted he did not file a 2013 tax return with the IRS. From at least September 2011, the IRS attempted to collect Grimes’ taxes by issuing more than 30 levies on his personal bank accounts. However, from at least May 2014 to April 2020, Grimes willfully evaded the payment of the outstanding income tax owed to the IRS by not depositing income he earned from his clients into his personal bank accounts that were subject to levy. Instead, Grimes purchased approximately 238 cashier’s checks totaling $16 million to keep the money out of the reach of the IRS. Grimes would routinely purchase cashier’s checks and withdraw cash from his client trust account, his Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA), and his law firm’s bank account, rather than pay the IRS. For example, on December 5, 2018, Grimes purchased nine cashier’s checks worth approximately $1,001,961, following the deposit of the same amount and on the same date into his IOLTA bank account. United States District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. scheduled a February 11, 2025, sentencing hearing, at which time Grimes will face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison. Prosecutors have agreed to seek a prison sentence of no more than 22 months for Grimes. IRS Criminal Investigation investigated this matter. Assistant United States Attorneys Valerie L. Makarewicz and Sarah S. Lee of the Major Frauds Section and Trial Attorney Sara A. Henderson of the Justice Department’s Tax Division are prosecuting the case ...
Back in 2012, a blistering study titled "Rogue Rehabs: State failed to police drug and alcohol homes, with deadly results" took no prisoners. It was done by the California Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes and the department overseeing addiction treatment was dismantled in its wake — and DHCS was born. To, like, fix things. Perhaps it’s time to examine how well that’s worked out? The State Auditor released a long-awaited study on how California regulates its (fraud-prone) addiction treatment industry. It confirmed that there are serious issues, and that Orange County in particular and Southern California in general are the epicenters, and that there are steps lawmakers can and should take to make things better. While the audit didn’t mention the many federal prosecutions for body brokering and insurance fraud currently underway in O.C. and L.A., it did back up some general assertions. Key Findings of the State Auditor: - - There were approximately 500 small facilities in California in 2023, and we identified groupings of such facilities in specific geographic areas throughout the State. For example, we found several small facilities with the same owner located next door to or across the street from each other in residential neighborhoods in Orange County and in San Diego County. - - State law mandates that small facilities must be considered a residential use of property for purposes of any zoning ordinance. Because local authorities may use zoning requirements to regulate facilities serving more than six residents (large facilities) more strictly than small facilities, some facility operators may avoid certain zoning regulations by intentionally grouping small facilities in the same geographic area instead of establishing one large facility. - - Although required to assign a complaint to an investigator within 10 days, Health Care Services frequently does not assign complaints on time. The audit found that it took Health Care Services an average of 183 days to assign the complaints when it did not meet its 10-day required time frame. - - The department’s internal guidelines generally identify that investigative reports must be submitted by the analyst to a supervisor within 30 to 60 days. However, the audit found that it took Health Care Services analysts nearly one year on average to submit investigative reports for low - and medium - priority complaints. - - Health Care Services completed high - priority investigations, such as those relating to resident deaths, within an average of less than three months but still did not meet its guidelines. - - Health Care Services did not always conduct site visits when investigating unlicensed facilities and did not always follow up after completing investigations of unlicensed facilities that were unlawfully advertising or providing services to ensure that they ceased doing so. For Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, the audit confirms what he and other lawmakers have been saying for years: DHCS is seriously under-sourced, takes forever to investigate complaints, can’t do frequent-enough inspections or enforce the laws. The Auditor had recommendations to improve oversight. "Legislature could potentially change state law if these facility concentrations are not consistent with the law’s intent, which we believe was to integrate residents of these facilities into the communities and to provide for sufficient numbers and types of treatment services to meet local needs." The auditor also recommended that DHCS fill its vacant positions, improve the timeliness of inspections and complaint investigations, do additional site visits and follow up with unlicensed facilities to ensure they stop providing or advertising services beyond their reach. "We have a road map here," said Assemblymember Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach, who requested the audit more than a year ago. "It confirms key concerns that are now validated by third-party analysis: Investigations take too long, sometimes don’t even happen, and there can be infrequent follow-up. It will help us shape legislation based on these facts." Dixon quickly assembled lawmakers after the report to push the governor and Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) Director Michelle Baass for greater accountability and an increase in the number of inspectors. "We’re coming together for solutions," she said. "We want people to get well." In its response, Baass said the department is already implementing many of the auditor’s recommendations and "is committed to robust oversight of residential treatment facilities to ensure Californians receive safe and high-quality care." According to the Audit Report "Health Care Services agreed with our findings and, in some cases, has already begun implementing the recommendations that we directed to it." ...
The Hollywood film industry has experienced a significant shift in recent decades, with many productions relocating from California to other states and countries.This trend is primarily driven by financial incentives, such as tax credits and rebates offered by various governments to attract film and television productions. States like Georgia, New York, and Louisiana have emerged as popular alternatives to California, offering generous tax breaks that can significantly reduce production costs. Additionally, factors such as labor costs, infrastructure, and local film crews have also influenced the decision to relocate. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data crunched by Marketplace partners at APM Research Lab, employment in "motion picture and sound recording" has grown nationwide, but the share of workers in LA or New York went from just under half at the beginning of 2023 to just one-third earlier this year. The shift comes amid major upheavals in the industry and the ways in which it delivers shows and movies, which are having an effect on the availability of work for the people left in the industry’s historic capitals. Chasing the success of Netflix, tons of companies set up streaming services in recent years, banking on demand from subscribers. To entice them, they filled their platforms with new shows and movies. All this activity peaked in 2022, when 600 original scripted shows were in production, according to the network FX. That gave lots of opportunities to everyone who makes a film shoot possible: Writers, crew members, caterers, and actors. But it didn’t last.. Per FX’s count, the number of scripted shows dropped to 516 last year. Studios pulled back for a few reasons, according to Patrick Adler, an assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong and head of the consulting firm Westwood Economics, which issued a recent report on the film industry workforce. While California remains a major hub for the entertainment industry, the exodus of productions has raised concerns about job losses and economic impact. To counter this trend, California has implemented its own tax credit program to retain productions within the state. However, the competition from other states and countries continues to pose a challenge. Travis Knox, a longtime movie producer who teaches at Chapman University, thinks a long-term industry trend might be at play here: Generous state tax credits for film production. "If the state’s going to give you 30% of your budget back, it’s kind of a no-brainer, you have to go," he said. This trend goes back decades, to when Louisiana first offered a tax credit to film studios that brought their productions to the state. Dozens more states have followed suit since, with some, like Georgia, becoming major players in the industry. Many allow production companies to recoup significant percentages of their spending, if they film in a particular state and meet local hiring thresholds and other requirements. Though some incentives have come and gone over the decades, state policy makers have shown a resurgent interest in enticing film productions in recent years: At least 18 states have created or expanded film incentive programs since 2021, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. California's film industry tax credit program has evolved over the years to compete with other states and countries that offer similar incentives. California introduced its initial film tax credit program in 2009, allocating $100 million annually for eight years. This program aimed to retain and attract film and television productions to the state. The program was significantly expanded in 2014, increasing the annual allocation to $330 million. This expansion aimed to make California more competitive in attracting major productions. This weekend at a press conference Governor Newsom proposed a significant increase in the annual tax credit allocation from $330 million to $750 million. The program aims to attract a wider range of productions, including TV series, feature films, and independent films. Local hire incentives: The program provides additional incentives for hiring local crews and talent ...
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced a $50 million penalty against American Airlines for numerous serious violations of the laws protecting airline passengers with disabilities between 2019 and 2023. DOT’s investigation into American Airlines uncovered cases of unsafe physical assistance that at times resulted in injuries and undignified treatment of wheelchair users, in addition to repeated failures to provide prompt wheelchair assistance. American also mishandled thousands of wheelchairs by damaging them or delaying their return, leaving travelers without the device they need for mobility. DOT regulations require airlines to timely return wheelchairs and other mobility devices in the condition in which they were received and to provide passengers with disabilities prompt assistance to get on and off aircraft including moving within the airport. The Department also considers violations of these regulations for those traveling on domestic flights to be a failure to provide safe and adequate service. In July 2022, DOT published the first-ever Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights to help travelers understand what they’re entitled to when they fly. In its investigation of American Airlines, DOT reviewed complaints against the airline involving allegations of inadequate wheelchair assistance, including three formal complaints filed by Paralyzed Veterans of America alleging similar issues. DOT also investigated American’s handling of wheelchairs between 2019 and 2023, including an incident captured on video at the Miami International Airport of American’s personnel mishandling a wheelchair by dropping it down a baggage ramp. American had been one of the worst performers among U.S. airlines in terms of both the total number of wheelchairs and scooters mishandling claims and the rate of mishandling claims, and DOT’s investigation revealed a significant number of violations. These problems are not unique to American Airlines, and allegations of wheelchair mishandling and inadequate wheelchair assistance are far too common. DOT has active investigations into similar violations at other U.S. airlines. Today’s enforcement action is 25 times larger than DOT’s previous largest airline penalty for violations of disability protections and sets a new precedent for how DOT will enforce against such violations going forward. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division provided valuable assistance and advice to DOT during the negotiation of this penalty As part of the $50 million penalty, American Airlines will be required to pay a $25 million fine to the U.S. Treasury. In addition, American Airlines will be credited $25 million towards the total penalty for investments in equipment to reduce incidents of wheelchair damage, investments in a systemwide wheelchair tagging system to reduce incidents of wheelchair delay, deployment of hub control center employees to coordinate wheelchair handling on a systemwide basis at large airports, and compensation for affected passengers during the timeframe covered by DOT’s investigation. If these expenditures are not made, the additional $25 million will be paid as a fine to the U.S. Treasury. DOT has sought higher penalties that go beyond the cost of doing business to better hold airlines accountable for the mistreatment of passengers and change airline behavior. Between 1996 and 2020, DOT collectively issued $71 million in total penalties against airlines for consumer protection and civil rights violations. During the current Administration, DOT has tripled that amount, issuing nearly $225 million in penalties, including the following: - - DOT’s largest ever airline penalty: $140 million against Southwest Airlines for its 2022 meltdown during Winter Storm Elliot. - - DOT’s largest airline penalty for religious discrimination: $4 million against Lufthansa for denying boarding to 128 Jewish passengers. - - DOT’s largest airline penalty for extreme tarmac delays: $4.1 million against American Airlines for dozens of instances where passengers were kept on the tarmac for 3+ hours. DOT claims it has also taken historic action to improve transportation for people with disabilities in air travel. - - Published the Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights, which describes the fundamental rights of air travelers with disabilities under the Air Carrier Access Act and its implementing regulation. - - Established a final rule on accessible lavatories on aircraft, requiring airlines to make lavatories on new single-aisle aircraft large enough to permit a passenger with a disability and an attendant to approach, enter, and maneuver within as necessary to use the aircraft lavatory. - - Funded accessibility improvements at airports through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Airport Terminals Program. Nearly 150 projects funded under this program are improving airport terminal access for people with disabilities and ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. - - Proposed a new rule to ensure safe and dignified accommodations for air travelers with disabilities using wheelchairs. The proposed rule would set new standards for assistance, mandate enhanced training for airline employees and contractors who physically assist passengers with disabilities and handle passengers’ wheelchairs, and outline actions that airlines must take to protect passengers when a wheelchair is damaged during transport. DOT is currently working towards issuing a final rule ...
Innovaccer Inc., has published its latest research report, The State of AI During the Great Burnout in Healthcare, offering timely insights into the current adoption of AI and its potential to transform healthcare delivery. The report, based on a survey of 568 healthcare professionals from 386 US healthcare organizations, highlights the growing reliance on AI to tackle administrative burdens, improve operational efficiency, and mitigate clinician burnout. The report shows that 82% of leaders consider AI crucial for their operations, and 67% believe AI is essential in addressing the escalating burnout crisis that continues to strain the workforce. "In today’s complex healthcare environment, AI is not a silver bullet but a powerful multiplier that can enhance efficiencies and alleviate systemic burdens," said David B. Nash, MD, Founding Dean Emeritus of the Jefferson College of Population Health, in the report. "AI’s ability to provide timely information to doctors, streamline workflows, and reduce the operational load will be key to improving outcomes and reducing burnout at its source." A Balanced Approach to AI Adoption and avoid over-reliance on Point Solutions While the potential of AI in healthcare is promising, the research emphasizes that organizations must approach AI adoption strategically rather than tactically. The report strongly cautions against over-reliance on point solutions that address only immediate needs, advocating instead for comprehensive AI strategies that consider the broader healthcare ecosystem. A key finding highlights the critical role of unified data platforms in successful AI adoption. The research reveals that fragmented systems and multiple vendors for isolated AI use cases often lead to operational inefficiencies and integration challenges. Organizations achieving the most success with AI implementation are those taking a unified approach, resulting in smoother operations, better interoperability, and more streamlined decision-making processes. As healthcare professionals look for solutions to reduce administrative tasks and improve patient care, the report identifies several key trends that underscore AI's growing importance: - - AI as a Workforce Support Tool: Unlike common fears of AI replacing jobs, the research shows that AI is primarily seen as an assistant, with 69% of healthcare leaders prioritizing AI’s role in reducing burnout, while 48% emphasize addressing gaps in care quality. - - Adoption Barriers: Although 87% of those who haven’t yet implemented AI are eager to explore its potential, concerns over data accuracy, ease of integration, and financial feasibility remain the primary barriers to adoption. - - Unified Approach Drives Positive Experience: When leaders used AI in three or more areas integrated with their systems, 100% reported a positive experience. The findings suggest that AI, when applied thoughtfully, can play a transformative role - not just by automating administrative tasks, but by enabling more meaningful patient-provider interactions and improving clinical decision-making. "AI is set to be a game changer in healthcare by simplifying everyday tasks. With smart tools that automate scheduling, manage patient info, address clinical documentation and coding, and provide clinical decision support, healthcare professionals will have more time to focus on their patients," said Dr. Drew Albano, Chief Medical Officer, Prisma Health. Download the full report to explore detailed findings on how AI can help transform your organization’s approach to burnout and operational efficiency ...