Former Tesla HR execs Linda Peloquin, Adam Chow, Tiara Paulino, Sharnique Martin, Gregory Vass and Ozell Murray just filed a lawsuit against Tesla Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Case 3:25-cv-06690-AMO. The lawsuit concerns the automaker’s Fremont, California, facility that has been at the center of several previous discrimination lawsuits. These former Tesla HR professionals alleged that they were either fired or effectively forced to resign after attempting to surface other employees’ race discrimination and retaliation complaints at the company’s Fremont, California, plant. According to the Peloquin complaint, one of Tesla’s HR managers, Nicole Burgers, was a “common denominator” in the various claims made by the plaintiffs. They alleged that the manager, the overall HR manager for the entire Fremont facility, “had an irrational fixation on fostering the delusion that the environment and culture at Tesla is one of tolerance and innovation, rather than racism and retaliation.” Allegations continue to say that "Much of Tesla’s workplace toxicity stems from its rapid sales growth and manufacturing demand, and the breakneck pace at which it hired employees to work in its plants and overall operation. Since its introduction in 2020, Tesla’s “Model Y,” for instance, has become the Company’s top-selling vehicle line - and, by most estimates, one of the top-selling electric vehicles in the world. Thus, there was, and remains, constant pressure to keep the Model Y’s sales trajectory high." "Yet, as a consequence of this desire to produce vehicles at such a rapid pace, the Company has failed to cultivate a healthy working environment at the Fremont facility, and instead fostered one that is beset with racism, sexism, cronyism, and outright physical violence." Plaintiffs claim "even employees that had been terminated for instances of workplace violence were loopholed back in via temp agencies. That meant, then, that oftentimes the employee who had been previously victimized had to actually resume working with their attacker and tormentor." "In fact, that Senior Security Manager himself was attacked and suffered a serious injury when he attempted to stop a loopholed employee - one who had been returned to work after being terminated for cause - after that employee came back aboard and attacked another worker." At some point plaintiffs allege that Tesla "turned its ire on the HR professionals that had merely investigated and substantiated the bases of the complaints. So, oddly, in most instances it was the HR official that wound up being penalized and pushed out for substantiating the alleged wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoer themselves. Consequently, a dizzying number of HR professionals - the Plaintiffs here: Peloquin, Chow, Paulino, Martin, and Vass, among them - have either been outright fired for substantiating complaints of discrimination and retaliation, or resigned because they saw a termination coming and did not want that type of disciplinary stain on their job history. Details of the complaint allege "A common denominator in many of these terminations is a HR Manager named Nicole Burgers. By all accounts, Burgers has had an irrational fixation on fostering the delusion that the environment and culture at Tesla is one of tolerance and innovation, rather than racism and retaliation. By all accounts, given that Burgers was the overall HR manager for the entire Fremont facility, she believed that she would be held accountable for further instances of racism and misconduct at the Fremont location - particularly in light of the pending State, Federal, and private litigation against the Company. Thus, rather than undertake to change the culture and environment that fostered those types of instances of racism, Burgers instead undertook to weed out the HR professionals beneath her that merely investigated and substantiated the occurrence of that type of depravity." Page 24 of the 159 page complaint continues to provide details by writing "Karen Draper was one of the first dominos to fall in what became a long line of retaliatory terminations by Burgers and her Texas-based counterparts - Allie Arebalo, Bert Somsin, Jenifer Romero, and Leah Allen - or, instances where other HR professionals simply resigned under protest because they knew Burgers had begun to target them ...

Adolfo M. Corona was a judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County in California. He assumed office in 2003. He left office on May 1, 2024. Corona was appointed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003. His legal career included working as an attorney at Dowling Aaron & Keeler Inc. in Fresno from 1986 to 2003 and serving as a judge pro tem for the Fresno County Superior Court from 1992 to 2003. He was also a member of the Central Valley Chapter of La Raza Lawyers Association. At the time of his retirement, he was presiding over juvenile court cases. State charges were first filed against Corona in September 2024 following a state grand jury indictment by the Fresno County District Attorney. Prosecutors charged him on one count of felony sexual penetration by force, fear, or duress and one count of misdemeanor sexual battery, stemming from an alleged assault on a court employee on March 14, 2024, at the Fresno County Superior Court. He pleaded not guilty, was released on $70,000 bail, and is represented by attorneys Michael Aed and Margarita Martinez-Baly. The two renowned local defense attorneys have represented the likes of Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula. Aed reportedly would not answer questions about the timing of the judge’s resignation, weeks after the alleged incident. “He is entitled to counsel of his choice. This case came out of the blue without any pre-warning. He made certain decisions at the beginning of the case. He expects a vigorous and complete defense, and we intend to give him that,” Aed reportedly said. Now in August 2025, the U.S. Justice Department announced that a federal grand jury in Fresno returned a five-count indictment charging 66 year old Corona with federal offenses for sexually assaulting a court employee (Victim 1), making false statements to cover up the assault, and with obstructing the investigation into allegations that he sexually assaulted another court employee (Victim 2) in his chambers. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Eric Grant of the Eastern District of California, and Special Agent in Charge Siddhartha Patel of the FBI Sacramento Field Office made the announcement regarding the new federal case. The indictment alleges that on March 14, 2024, Corona, while serving as a California Superior Court Judge, led Victim 1 into a courthouse stairwell where he sexually assaulted her. The indictment further alleges that Corona, during separate interviews with the FBI and court administrators, made false statements about the circumstances of his assault on Victim 1. Additionally, the indictment alleges that Corona obstructed the investigation into allegations that he sexually assaulted Victim 2. Corona was alone with Victim 2 in his chambers for approximately two hours on Dec. 5, 2023, and she was later found alone in the judge’s chambers after being passed out. The indictment charges that Corona falsely told the FBI that he left Victim 2 alone in his chambers while he drove to pick up a motorcycle. Corona allegedly attempted to persuade a motorcycle dealership employee to change company records to falsely reflect that he had picked up his motorcycle in order to corroborate his alibi. If convicted, Corona faces a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison on the sexual assault charge and 20 years on each of the obstruction charges. Any sentence, however, would 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. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This case is the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office. Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Escobar for the Eastern District of California and Special Litigation Counsel Michael J. Songer of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section are prosecuting the case. Anyone with information about this investigation is encouraged to contact their local FBI office, call 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324), or submit a tip to tips.fbi.gov ...

Elon Musk's social media company, X Corp, has reached a tentative settlement in a lawsuit filed by former employees who claimed they were owed $500 million in severance pay. The lawsuit, filed as a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 23-03461, McMillian et al. v. Musk et al.), was initiated in July 2023 by former Twitter employees Courtney McMillian (former head of total rewards, overseeing employee benefits) and Ronald Cooper (former operations manager). They alleged that Twitter's 2019 severance plan, established under the company's previous ownership, entitled laid-off employees to substantial payouts: two months of base pay plus one week for each year of service for most workers, and up to six months for senior employees like McMillian. Following Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in October 2022 and the subsequent rebranding to X, approximately 6,000 employees were terminated as part of cost-cutting measures. The plaintiffs claimed that X Corp. violated this plan by offering at most one month of severance pay, with many receiving nothing, resulting in an estimated $500 million in owed benefits. On July 9, 2024, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson dismissed the case without prejudice. The core of her ruling centered on the inapplicability of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which governs employee benefit plans and provides federal jurisdiction for such disputes. Judge Thompson determined that Twitter's severance arrangement did not qualify as an ERISA-governed plan because it lacked an "ongoing administrative scheme. However, Judge Thompson allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint to pursue alternative claims not reliant on ERISA, such as potential state law breach-of-contract allegations. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 24-5045, McMillian v. Musk) shortly after the district court's decision. In their appeal, the former employees argued that Twitter's severance policy did indeed qualify as an ERISA plan because it involved ongoing benefit payments, even if administered without individualized discretion. They received support from the U.S. Department of Labor, which filed an amicus brief endorsing this view, emphasizing that ERISA coverage applies to plans paying benefits on a continuing basis regardless of administrative complexity. In response, Musk and X Corp. filed a brief on January 9, 2025, urging the Ninth Circuit to affirm the dismissal. Their key arguments included: - - No formal ERISA plan existed, as the employees failed to produce official plan documents (e.g., summary plan descriptions) or evidence of widespread communications to workers about the severance terms prior to Musk's acquisition. - - References to a "severance matrix" (a confidential document allegedly taken by McMillian) and general corporate statements at most indicated offers of simple lump-sum payments, which do not constitute an ERISA-governed scheme requiring ongoing administration. - - This lack of a qualifying plan was "fatal" to the class action, as it undermined the basis for federal jurisdiction. Oral arguments were scheduled for September 17, 2025, in San Francisco. However, as of August 21, 2025, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement, the financial terms of which were not disclosed. In a joint court filing, both sides requested a postponement of the hearing to finalize the deal, which would resolve the class action and compensate the affected former employees. The Ninth Circuit granted the delay on August 22, 2025, effectively pausing the appeal process. This settlement does not impact other ongoing related lawsuits, such as those in Delaware and California courts involving different claims or plaintiffs. In summary, the appeal remains unresolved on the merits due to the impending settlement, marking a potential end to this specific dispute without a full appellate ruling on the ERISA question. Other related lawsuits, including one by former executives like ex-CEO Parag Agrawal, remain pending. This settlement aims to resolve the dispute over severance pay for the affected former employees ...

Construction continues to be one of the most dangerous industries, with workers constantly exposed to physically demanding and repetitive activities. Exoskeletons are emerging as ergonomic interventions that amplify human strength and agility while reducing muscle fatigue and discomfort. However, like any robotic technology, exoskeletons may have unintended consequences. While studies have examined the health and safety risks of exoskeletons in construction, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding their ethical and social risks. Issues related to privacy concerns, exoskeletons’ design, and discrimination, among many others, are housed in the ethical risks, and social risks often include questions regarding exoskeletons’ affordability, accessibility and impact on social identity and communication, among others. A new study just published by The Center for Construction Research and Training addresses that gap by investigating the ethical and social risks associated with exoskeleton use in construction, assessing their impact on workers' health and safety and exploring how they can be designed to minimize these risks. This study further developed a comprehensive and practical worker-centric guide aimed at advancing the safe and ethical implementation of exoskeletons in the construction industry. This research leverages a systematic literature review, a Delphi technique (consisting of three rounds of surveys), and a focus group discussion to achieve the research objectives. The study developed a practical, worker-centric guide that examines exoskeleton preferences for construction trades, ethical and social risks of exoskeletons, the impacts of these risks on construction workers’ health and safety, the impact of these risks on the implementation of exoskeletons in the construction industry, and strategies to mitigate these identified ethical and social risks. The study further highlights barriers to implementing the identified strategies. 1. Ethical and Social Risks: A total of 34 ethical and social risks were identified from the literature review. Out of the 34, 18 were verified by experts in the construction industry and used in this study. These risks are categorized under design, autonomy, dehumanization, stigmatization, vulnerability, affordability, and accessibility. 2. Risk Criticality: Experts rated the identified risks on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being not critical, 2 less critical, 3 moderately critical, 4 very critical, and 5 extremely critical). Results show inaccessibility and unaffordability are examples of Very Critical risks, and stigmatization and loss of identity are examples of Less Critical risks. 3. Exoskeleton Suitability: Passive exoskeletons are suitable for repetitive overhead work and awkward postures, while active exoskeletons are better for heavy lifting. Back-support exoskeletons are most suitable for trades such as plumbers and carpenters, while full-body exoskeletons suit laborers. 4. Risk Impact on Workers’ Health and Safety: The findings revealed that ethical and social risks related to design, autonomy, privacy, unauthorized access, dependency, exoskeleton weight, and overdependence pose significant health and safety concerns to workers. 5. Mitigating Strategies: Seventy strategies to mitigate identified ethical and social risks were proposed and evaluated. 6. Barriers to proposed strategies: Fifteen barriers to effective risk mitigation were identified. 7. Worker-Centric Guide: A comprehensive guide was developed to facilitate the implementation of exoskeletons such that the ethical and social risks are minimized. CPWR - The Center for Construction Research and Training is a nonprofit dedicated to reducing occupational injuries, illnesses and fatalities in the construction industry. A copy of the 74 page document can be downloaded without charge by using this link ...

A new study from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) examines the key factors associated with high-cost workers’ compensation claims involving back and shoulder injuries, where medical expenses exceed $65,000 within 36 months of injury. “In a previous WCRI study, we identified factors that increase the likelihood of high medical payments by looking at all injury types together,” said Sebastian Negrusa, WCRI’s vice president of research. “This new study refines that analysis by focusing on back and shoulder injuries to better understand what contributes to higher claim costs.” The study looks at four back conditions (neurologic back pain; disc disorders; degenerative back conditions; and sprains, strains, and non-specific pain) and three shoulder injuries (rotator cuff disorders, frozen shoulders, and shoulder osteoarthritis). Key questions the study explores include the following: - - How prevalent are high-cost claims for these injuries, and how do they compare in terms of medical costs and duration of temporary disability - - What characterizes high-cost claims versus other claims within each injury category? - - What factors are associated with elevated medical payments? - - How do degenerative conditions and comorbidities influence treatment choices and affect costs? The analysis is based on about 194,000 workers’ compensation claims with more than seven days of lost time, from 32 states. These claims involve injuries that occurred between October 1, 2015, and March 31, 2019, with detailed treatment and billing data tracked for up to 36 months after the injury, through March 31, 2022. The full report, Patterns and Trends of High-Cost Claims Involving Back and Shoulder Injuries, is authored by Dongchun Wang, Kathryn L. Mueller, and Randall D. Lea. It is available to WCRI members and can be purchased by nonmembers at www.wcrinet.org ...

Assemblymember John Harabedian (D–Pasadena), in partnership with the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, held a press conference on Monday, August 25th, calling on the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to take immediate action to protect wildfire survivors and ensure insurance companies comply with state law. “Our responsibility is clear: to protect survivors, give them the time and resources to rebuild their home and their lives, and ensure they can do so with security and peace of mind. That’s why I am leading this effort - calling on the California Department of Insurance to act swiftly and decisively, enforce the law, expedite claims, and provide every protection available - so families can recover with dignity and hope for the future,” said Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena). Assemblymember Harabedian underscored the urgency of reforms to: - - Expedite the State Farm Market Conduct Exam - - Guarantee smoke coverage under the FAIR Plan - - Enforce California law to keep families housed - - Require transparency in loss estimates - - Make CDI’s complaint process transparent The press conference also highlighted AB 238 (Mortgage Forbearance), legislation authored by Assemblymember Harabedian that allows disaster-impacted homeowners to pause mortgage payments for up to one year while they recover and rebuild. “We paid our premiums faithfully for decades, trusting insurers to protect us. Now they’re using illegal delays and denials to profit from our pain. Families are maxing out credit cards, draining savings, and living in contaminated homes. We call on the California Department of Insurance to stand with survivors, not with the insurers breaking the law” said Joy Chen, Co-Founder and CEO, Eaton Fire Survivors Network. “For months, I have been leading the call to launch an investigation into the hundreds of insurance complaints by Eaton Fire victims. These residents should not be pushed aside during their greatest time of need,” said Senator Sasha Renée Pérez. “Insurance companies should not be allowed to raise rates before we get answers into how they are treating their policyholders following this disaster. I will continue to fight alongside my constituents for the fair and timely resolution of their insurance claims.” “The Eaton and Palisades fires have caused devastation in the lives of hundreds of California families. While we cannot undo what nature has done, we can attempt to ease the pain of those suffering from nature’s wrath,” said Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin. “AB 238 minimizes the financial impact through temporary mortgage relief and AB 493 assures victims that banks are required to pay interest on money deposited as a result of insurance payouts. In addition to these legislative efforts, we need the Department of Insurance to step up and enforce the law to protect victims from further harm caused by insurers. Those of us representing fire-impacted communities are committed and will continue to address these issues as they arise. Thank you, Assemblymember Harabedian, for being a voice for these victims when they need it most.” “The Eaton Fire devastated residents in my district and exposed glaring issues in the insurance market,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger. “Too many continue to face undue claims delays, underpayments, and denials that compound their hardship and loss. Continued vigilance in oversight and enforcement are vital, and new reforms are needed from our state regulators and legislature. I applaud Assemblymember Harabedian’s leadership and partnership to pass critical legislation on this important issue.” “Behind every delayed insurance claim is a family forced to wait in limbo. Survivors of the Eaton Fire deserve to be treated as people, not numbers. We’re asking the Department of Insurance to stand with Altadena and NOT with insurers to deliver justice for those who’ve already lost so much” said Altadena Town Council Chair Victoria Knapp. These reforms, together with AB 238, are intended to unlock billions in delayed insurance payouts and deliver immediate relief to wildfire survivors across California. Watch the full press conference here ...

Laurance Iloff lived and worked in an unincorporated area of Humboldt County known as Bridgeville, on property owned by Bridgeville Properties, Inc. and managed by Cynthia LaPaille. Iloff’s employers rented out the property, which includes small houses, cabins, and other structures. For several years, Iloff performed maintenance on Bridgeville’s structures, grounds, and water system, and LaPaille provided him instructions, directions, and approvals in relation to this work. Under an informal arrangement, Iloff’s employers allowed him to live rent-free in one of the houses but did not provide him any other benefits or compensation for his services. After his employers terminated this arrangement, Iloff filed claims against them with the Labor Commissioner, initiating a process for adjudicating wage claims informally known as “the Berman process.” The employers argued that Iloff was an independent contractor, but the Labor Commissioner determined that he was an employee and as such, was entitled to unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, and interest. The employers appealed, seeking de novo review of the Labor Commissioner’s ruling in the superior court. In response, Iloff — now represented by an attorney from the Labor Commissioner’s office — filed a notice of claims. In this notice, Iloff reasserted the wage claims he had raised before the Labor Commissioner and added new claims, including a claim for penalties under the Paid Sick Leave law. Following a bench trial, the superior court found that Iloff was an employee. Applying the framework set out in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, the court reasoned that Iloff was properly classified as an employee, rather than an independent contractor, because he was not “free from [the employers’] control and direction” and he performed work that was within the “usual course” of their business. (Id. at p. 964.) The court ruled that Iloff was entitled to unpaid wages, penalties, and interest. On the two issues addressed by the California Supreme Court in this case, the superior court ruled in favor of the employers. First, the court ruled that Iloff was not entitled to liquidated damages because his employers had acted in “good faith” in not paying him and had “reasonable grounds for believing” they were complying with the law governing minimum wages. (§ 1194.2, subd. (b).) The court based this ruling on its findings that the employers and Iloff intended and expected Iloff to perform his services in exchange for free rent and that neither he nor the employers understood or believed, at any time before his termination, that he would be paid wages or treated as an employee. Second, the court rejected Iloff’s claim for penalties under the Paid Sick Leave law, concluding that the statute did not authorize Iloff to seek those penalties in the context of the employers’ Berman appeal. (§§ 246, subd. (i), 248.5, subds. (a) & (b).) Iloff appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part, affirming the trial court’s judgment in the employers’ favor on the liquidated damages and Paid Sick Leave law issues. (Seviour-Iloff v. LaPaille (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 427, 447–451 (Seviour-Iloff).) The Supreme Court granted review to address these two issues. This case addresses two issues concerning the rights of California workers whose employers fail to pay them the minimum wage or provide them paid sick leave benefits. The first issue relates to the good faith defense to the default rule that employees who prove minimum wage violations are entitled to liquidated damages. (Labor Code, § 1194.2.) The Supreme Court held that to establish the good faith defense, an employer must show that it made a reasonable attempt to determine the requirements of the law governing minimum wages; proof that the employer was ignorant of the law is insufficient. The second issue relates to the process for raising claims under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (§ 245 et seq.; the “Paid Sick Leave law”). Specifically, we must determine whether a court may consider a Paid Sick Leave law claim that an employee raises in the context of their employer’s appeal to the superior court of a Labor Commissioner ruling. (§ 98.2, subd. (a).) We hold that a court may do so. The Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion on both issues, thus the Supreme Court reversed in the published case of Iloff v. LaPaille - S275848 (August 2025) ...

American Psychiatric Centers, Inc., doing business under the name Comprehensive Psychiatric Services (CPS), has agreed to pay $2.75 million to resolve allegations that CPS violated the False Claims Act by submitting false claims to government healthcare payors for certain psychotherapy services. CPS, which is headquartered in Walnut Creek, Calif., provides behavioral medicine services for individuals and families in the State of California. Since at least 2015, CPS and its healthcare providers have submitted claims to government payors using Current Procedural Terminology codes 90833 and 90836, which are “add-on” codes to be used when psychotherapy services are performed in conjunction with an evaluation and management visit, and which require specific documentation. The settlement announced today resolves the government’s allegations that, from Jan. 1, 2015, through Dec. 31, 2022, CPS submitted fraudulent claims using these add-on codes in instances where its healthcare providers either had not provided the services described by those codes or had failed to sufficiently document that such services had been provided. CPS will pay $2,615,569.32 to the United States and $134,430.68 to the State of California. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelsey Helland handled this matter for the government, with the assistance of Garland He. The investigation and settlement resulted from a coordinated effort by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, HHS-OIG, DCIS, VA OIG, OPM OIG, and the California Department of Justice, Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse. The investigation and resolution of this matter illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement can be reported to HHS at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477). The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability ...

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and its 33 member companies reached a $2.8 billion settlement in October 2024 to resolve a 12-year antitrust lawsuit filed by healthcare providers, including hospitals, physicians, and other professionals. Preliminary approval was granted on December 4, 2024, by Judge R. David Proctor, with final approval on August 19, 2025. The lawsuit, In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2406), began in 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Providers alleged that BCBSA and its affiliates violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in anticompetitive practices, specifically by dividing the U.S. into exclusive "service areas" and agreeing not to compete in those regions, which suppressed competition, increased insurance costs, and reduced provider reimbursements. They also claimed price-fixing through the BlueCard program, which processes claims for out-of-network patients. BCBSA denied the allegations but agreed to the settlement to avoid further litigation costs and risks. The settlement, the largest antitrust agreement in U.S. healthcare history, includes a $2.8 billion fund and operational reforms to enhance transparency and efficiency in the BlueCard program, such as faster claims processing, a cloud-based platform, and prompt payment guarantees. Eligible providers who treated Blue Plan patients from July 24, 2008, to October 4, 2024, could file claims until July 29, 2025, though nearly 6,500 providers opted out to pursue separate lawsuits. A court document indicated that nearly 6,500 provider organizations chose to opt out of the settlement. These providers include a range of healthcare entities such as hospital systems, physician groups, clinics, and other healthcare facilities across the United States. Notable organizations that opted out include the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Geisinger, MedStar, CommonSpirit, Bon Secours Mercy Health, Temple University Health, and physician staffing firm TeamHealth. Providers who opted out likely did so to preserve their right to pursue individual lawsuits against BCBS, believing they could achieve greater financial recovery or address specific grievances through separate legal action. The settlement required providers to release claims against BCBS for the same antitrust issues (e.g., market allocation and price-fixing through exclusive service areas and the BlueCard program). Opting out allows these providers to file their own claims, potentially seeking higher damages than what they would receive from the settlement’s $2.8 billion fund, where 92% is allocated to healthcare facilities and only 8% ($160 million after fees) to professionals like individual practitioners. Many of the providers who opted out filed new lawsuits in federal courts in states like Pennsylvania, California, and Illinois. For example, a group led by Temple Health and Penn State Health filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These lawsuits echo the original allegations, claiming BCBS’s anticompetitive practices, such as colluding to limit competition and underpaying providers, violated antitrust laws. The plaintiffs argue that BCBS’s actions resulted in payments far lower than what they would have received in a competitive market. California providers who reportedly opted out include: - - Providence St. Joseph Health: A large nonprofit health system with extensive operations in California (e.g., hospitals in Los Angeles, Orange County, and Northern California). They opted out to seek potentially larger recoveries, including treble damages under antitrust law. - - The Regents of the University of California (UC Health): The governing body for the University of California's health system, which operates major academic medical centers and hospitals across the state (e.g., UCLA Health, UCSF Health). They cited concerns over the settlement's release of future claims and the potential for higher individual damages. - - NorthBay Healthcare Corporation: A community-based health system headquartered in Fairfield, California, serving Solano County with hospitals and clinics. They opted out due to dissatisfaction with the settlement's monetary allocation (e.g., only 8% for professionals after fees) and to preserve litigation rights. - - CommonSpirit Health: While headquartered in Chicago, this system has a major presence in California through its Dignity Health division (operating dozens of hospitals statewide, including in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Southern California). They opted out for similar reasons, focusing on allegations of BCBS's "take-it-or-leave-it" contracting and reimbursement penalties ...

Business Group on Health is the leading non-profit organization representing employers’ perspectives on optimizing workforce strategy through innovative health, benefits and well-being solutions and on health policy issues. According to a new report it published this week, for the 2nd year in a row, health care costs sharply outpace projections, largely due to prescription drugs, chronic and complex conditions, persistent delivery system flaws. Employers will need to act with greater urgency and willingness to be bold as they head into 2026 after a second year of actual health care costs sharply outpacing projections, according to Business Group on Health’s 2026 Employer Health Care Strategy Survey, released today in Washington, D.C. Employers predict that health care cost trend increases for 2026 will come in at a median of 9%, offset to 7.6% with plan design changes. These somber forecasts come as more employees use GLP-1s for obesity, receive cancer diagnoses and use mental health services, the survey showed. On a compounded basis, costs in 2026 are likely to be 62% higher than 2017 levels. “In this challenging environment, employers remain firmly committed to an ongoing investment in employee health and well-being,” said Ellen Kelsay, president and CEO of Business Group on Health. “Yet they will need to make bold and strategic moves to contain costs, sometimes disrupting health care models along the way.” Kelsay added, “For instance, we will see them rigorously evaluating benefit offerings, vendor performance and patient outcomes. We will also see more employers exploring non-traditional health plan and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) models. And as employers urge workforces to use health plan resources and navigation tools to find high-value care, we’ll see more people using primary care and getting recommended screenings and immunizations.” Employer respondents said other interrelated priorities for the coming year were affordability for both their businesses and workforces; a greater reliance on utilization management and weight management programs in concert with GLP-1s to ensure optimal outcomes in obesity treatment; and assessment of mental health access and appropriateness of care. The Business Group on Health survey gathered data on key topics related to employer-sponsored health care for the coming year. A total of 121 employers across varied industries, who together cover 11.6 million people, completed the survey between June and July 2025. Expensive obesity medications play a significant role in overall health care cost increases, and they will continue to be a challenge. Fully 79% of employers have seen an uptick in the use of GLP-1s, while an additional 15% anticipate seeing such an increase in the future. In addition, the percent of employers covering GLP-1s for conditions other than diabetes will stagnate as employers try to stabilize their health care costs, while more of those that cover these medications for weight loss will require utilization management, prescriptions from specific providers, participation in a weight management program and higher expectations from vendor partners to deliver sustainable, cost-effective financial models for this class of medications. A systemic overhaul of the pharmacy supply chain is essential to address pharmaceutical costs for both employers and employees. While most employers use plan design approaches and other strategies offered by their PBMs, pharmacy cost pressures also have resulted from rising prices, a robust pipeline of expensive therapies and cost-shifting from proposed changes to Medicare and Medicaid. In 2024, nearly a quarter of all employer health care spend (24%) went to pharmacy expenses. Further, employers see no relief on the horizon, with a forecast of an 11% to 12% increase in pharmacy costs heading into 2026. This cannot be remedied by plan design changes, and employers need to explore PBM models that champion transparency and rely less on rebates. Cancer is the top condition driving employer health care costs for the fourth year in a row, made worse by a growing prevalence of cancer diagnoses and the escalating costs of treatment. Accordingly, employers will have a greater focus on cancer prevention and screening coverage, including alternatives to colonoscopies, expanding coverage of breast cancer screenings and removing age restrictions on preventive care coverage. Employers also recognize that access to high-value treatments is essential, with about half offering a cancer COE in 2026, and another 23% considering doing so by 2028. Most employers have seen an increase in the use in mental health services, making it an emerging cost driver. As employers continue to seek ways to expand access to mental health services, they want to ensure that offerings are high-quality and appropriate. Fully 73% of employers reported an increase in mental health and substance use disorder services, while another 17% anticipate a future increase ...

Lance Miraco filed Application for Adjudication of Claim against the City of Salinas and Corvel Corporation alleging cumulative injury arising from his employment as a police officer with the City. The City and its claims administrator, Corvel, filed an answer denying the allegations of the application. The matter proceeded to trial before the WCJ. After trial, the WCJ issued her written findings, award, and order (findings and order), finding that Miraco “sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment during the period from January 1994 through December 31, 2013, to his low back, right leg, and sustained gastritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, insomnia and hypertensive cardiac disease.” Applying Labor Code § 5412, the WCJ found the date of injury for Miraco’s hypertensive cardiac disease was June 14, 2013, while the date of injury for his orthopedic injuries and related conditions (including gastritis, reflux, and insomnia) was December 16, 2020. The findings and order explained that based on the date of injury, Miraco’s workers’ compensation claim for hypertensive cardiac disease, filed on December 24, 2020, “is barred and is not compensable, as beyond the statutory limitation imposed by [section] 5405.”3 Based on these findings, the WCJ awarded future medical treatment for Miraco’s “injuries to his low back, right leg, gastritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and insomnia” but not for his cardiac disease. On October 16, 2023, Miraco timely submitted a petition for reconsideration of the findings and order. The petition for reconsideration challenged the WCJ’s finding that the claim for hypertensive cardiac disease was time barred. The City and Corvel answered the petition for reconsideration within 10 days. On Nov ember 7, 2023, the WCJ served on the parties a report and recommendation on the petition for reconsideration. Under former Labor Code § 5909, based on Miraco’s filing of the petition for reconsideration on October 16, 2023, the Board had until December 15, 2023, to “act[] upon” the petition before it was “deemed to have been denied. The Board did not issue its decision until March 12, 2024, when it granted the petition for reconsideration. In deeming its March 12 order timely, the Board invoked the judicially created exception to the 60-day deadline articulated in Shipley v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1104 (Shipley) for petitions that are not received by the Board due to procedural irregularity. On the merits, the Board granted the petition for reconsideration and substituted its findings for that of the WCJ. It set the date of injury for Miraco’s injuries, including hypertensive cardiac disease, as December 11, 2020, and determined that compensation for those injuries was not time- barred. The City and Corvel filed a petition for writ of review to challenge the lawfulness of the Board’s order granting the petition for reconsideration after the expiration of the 60-day statutory deadline delineated by former § 5909. The Court of Appeal ruled that former § 5909 did not preclude the application of equitable tolling, and the facts warrant its use here. It therefore affirmed the order and opinion of the appeals board in the published case of City of Salinas v Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. --H052062 (August 2025). During the briefing period for this writ proceeding, the Legislature amended § 5909, effective July 2, 2024. In addition, the California Supreme Court granted review of similar issues in Mayor v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 713 (Mayor), review granted December 11, 2024, S287261. The question presented here on appeal is whether the Board may apply equitable tolling to act upon a petition for reconsideration after expiration of the 60-day timeline set forth in former section 5909, and, if so, whether the facts of this case warrant the application of tolling principles. It was noted that the Court of Appeal in Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1213 (Zurich) disagreed with Shipley. It went on to say "neither Zurich nor Mayor decided whether the Board’s failure to act on a petition for reconsideration within 60 days meant only that it acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or whether it lost fundamental jurisdiction to consider the petition. Instead, both decisions recognized that, even if the expiration of the 60-day deadline did not affect the Board’s fundamental jurisdiction, the circumstances of those cases did not support the application of equitable tolling. (Zurich, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at p. 1236, fn. 17; Mayor, supra, 104 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1310–1311, review granted.)" And it went on to say "We discern no express prohibition in the statutory language of former section 5909 that would preclude, as a matter of law, the application of traditional equitable doctrines like tolling." "Our conclusion that the appeals board retains the authority to exercise equitable powers where appropriate, and in the absence of legislative direction to the contrary, is consistent with the judicial powers vested in it." ...

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board is a significant case involving constitutional challenges to the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). On August 19, 2025, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling in the consolidated cases of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), along with related appeals involving Energy Transfer, L.P., La Grange Acquisition, L.P., and Aunt Bertha (doing business as Findhelp). The court affirmed preliminary injunctions granted by three federal district courts in Texas, halting NLRB administrative proceedings against these employers on unfair labor practice charges. The decision, authored by Circuit Judge Don R. Willett and joined by Judges Jacques L. Wiener Jr. (concurring in part and dissenting in part) and Stuart Kyle Duncan, found that key aspects of the NLRB's structure are likely unconstitutional under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and separation-of-powers principles. The case stemmed from unfair labor practice complaints filed by the NLRB against the employers. SpaceX, for instance, was accused of unlawfully firing employees who had circulated an open letter criticizing CEO Elon Musk. Rather than defending the charges before the NLRB, the employers sued in federal district court, arguing that the agency's structure violates the Constitution by insulating its Board members and administrative law judges (ALJs) from presidential removal. The district courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the NLRB hearings, prompting the NLRB to appeal. The Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeals and addressed whether the district courts had jurisdiction and whether the injunctions were proper. The court held that NLRB ALJs are "inferior officers" under the Appointments Clause, exercising significant authority (e.g., issuing subpoenas, ruling on evidence, and rendering decisions that can become final without Board review). They are shielded by two layers of for-cause removal protections: ALJs can only be removed "for good cause" by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), whose members are themselves removable only for cause by the President. Drawing on precedents like Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010) and Jarkesy v. SEC (5th Cir. 2022), the court found this dual insulation unconstitutional, as it unduly restricts the President's Article II authority to oversee executive officers. The National Labor Relations Act allows the President to remove Board members only for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." The court ruled this restriction likely unconstitutional, distinguishing it from the 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which upheld similar protections for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as a "quasi-legislative" body. The NLRB, the court reasoned, exercises substantial executive power (e.g., investigating and prosecuting labor violations) without the FTC's statutory requirements for bipartisan composition or non-partisan operations. Quote: "Both the Supreme Court and this circuit have declined to extend Humphrey’s Executor to agencies that are not a ‘mirror image’ of the FTC." The court rejected the NLRB's claim that the Norris-LaGuardia Act barred the injunctions, finding the disputes did not arise from a "labor dispute." It also applied the Thunder Basin factors to confirm district court jurisdiction, noting the claims were collateral to the NLRB's expertise and that precluding review would deny meaningful judicial oversight. "These disputes do not implicate wages, hours, working conditions, or even union representation. They have nothing to do with employee boycotts, union organization, or labor strikes." The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district courts' injunctions, preventing the NLRB from proceeding with its cases against the employers pending full resolution of the constitutional challenges. This ruling represents a significant setback for the NLRB, potentially affecting its ability to enforce labor laws nationwide if upheld or expanded. It aligns with recent Supreme Court trends curtailing administrative agency power (e.g., in SEC v. Jarkesy, 2024) and could invite further challenges to other agencies. The decision has drawn commentary on X, with legal analysts noting its broad implications for labor rights and agency structures ...

One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law on July 4, 2025, as Public Law 119-21, among other provisions, introduces two key provisions of immediate concern to employers, "No Tax on Tips" (Sec. 70201) and "No Tax on Overtime" (Sec. 70202) - effective for tax years 2025 through 2028. The IRS has released FS-2025-03 with interim guidance on the changes, but more detailed guidance is expected in the coming months. Employers face new administrative and reporting burdens to support employees claiming these deductions. Failure to comply could result in penalties for inaccurate information returns or withholding errors. By acting promptly, employers can minimize disruptions and avoid penalties (e.g., up to $270 per inaccurate W-2). The following are just some of the concerns and solutions voiced by the business community and their advisors so far, since passage of OBBBA. Employers, particularly in industries like hospitality, retail, construction, and manufacturing, should prepare for increased administrative complexity. The provisions are retroactive to January 1, 2025, but the IRS has promised transition relief for 2025 to ease the burden. The IRS will publish a list of qualifying tipped occupations by October 2, 2025. Review this to confirm employee eligibility. Expect updated withholding tables, forms (e.g., potential new boxes on W-2 for tips/occupation or overtime), and publications (e.g., Pub. 15 for withholding). The IRS has indicated further guidance on reporting and anti-abuse rules is forthcoming. For 2025, use a "reasonable method" (to be specified by the IRS) to approximate and separately account for tips and overtime if full tracking isn't feasible. Integrate software updates to track and report tips (including occupation) and qualified overtime separately. This may require new fields in payroll systems for FLSA overtime premiums. Review employee classifications under FLSA to ensure accurate overtime qualification - misclassification could lead to disputes or audits. Adjust for the expanded FICA tip credit if in beauty services; calculate and claim it on Form 8846 to offset payroll taxes. Employers must now separately report the total amount of cash tips (including charged tips and tip-sharing arrangements) and the recipient's occupation on information returns (e.g., Form W-2 for employees or Form 1099 for non-employees) filed with the IRS or Social Security Administration (SSA). This must also be included on statements furnished to workers. Only "qualified tips" (voluntary payments from customers, not mandatory service charges or negotiated fees) in occupations customarily receiving tips qualify. The law extends the existing FICA tip credit (under IRC Section 45B) to beauty service establishments (e.g., barbering, hair care, nail care, esthetics, and spa treatments), previously limited to food and beverage industries. This allows eligible employers to claim a credit for their share of Social Security taxes paid on employee cash tips. Employers should maintain detailed records of tips to prevent reclassification abuse (e.g., labeling wages as tips). The IRS may issue regulations to address potential misuse. Note that these provisions do not affect state taxes or overtime laws (e.g., California's daily overtime rules), so maintain separate compliance with unique state tax and payroll laws. The provisions expire after 2028, so plan for potential reversions in reporting and withholding. Also note that these tips and suggestions are taken from various information sources across the country, and may or may not accurately reflect the new employer obligations as they interpreted by the accounting and tax law industry. This report is not provided as a substitute for legal or accounting advice. It should only be considered as topics of interest that need further inquiry by employers should they have concern about any one of these tips ...

Prostate biopsies are usually performed under ultrasound guidance and involve collecting 12 to 16 samples. However, these biopsy samples provide only limited glimpses into a much larger and more complex landscape. The scattered samples provide limited insight, leading to a miss rate of up to 52 percent of clinically significant cancers. Effective prostate cancer treatment relies on early detection of cancer before it has spread outside the prostate. To help improve the success rate of finding prostate cancers during routine biopsy, Mirabela Rusu, PhD, Assistant Professor, Stanford Medicine Department of Radiology (IBIIS division), developed an artificial intelligence tool called ProCUSNet that analyzes the ultrasound images already acquired during the biopsy procedure. The ProCUSNet model was trained on over 2,200 prostate cancer patients, using 3D volumes reconstructed from 2D B-mode images captured during routine transrectal ultrasound procedures. Unlike previous research that required raw or investigational imaging, this approach focused on real-world data already available in clinical settings. The current version takes approximately 10 seconds to analyze a 3D ultrasound volume and was developed using data from a specific ultrasound system. Broader validation across different devices and practice settings will be necessary. Future studies will also explore faster integration, prospective clinical trials, and adaptation to other ultrasound modalities. Dr. Rusu said “What makes ProCUSNet unique is its ability to localize areas of cancer on standard ultrasound images using deep learning. We’re not asking clinicians to change how they perform biopsies. Instead, we’re enhancing the value of the data they already collect with a tool that’s fast and practical for use in the real world.” The findings, recently published in European Urology Oncology, show that ProCUSNet can help clinicians detect high-grade prostate cancers. The algorithm was able to detect 82% of clinically significant cancers and identify 44% more lesions than human readers interpreting the same ultrasound images. The researchers also showed that ProCUSNet was also able to detect cancers missed by standard systematic biopsy. Among patients who went on to have surgery, nearly 30% had high-grade tumors that were not captured through conventional sampling. ProCUSNet successfully flagged many of these otherwise undetected lesions. The potential clinical impact of this approach is substantial. As the majority of prostate biopsies worldwide continue to rely solely on conventional ultrasound, tools such as ProCUSNet may offer a practical means to improve diagnostic precision and consistency ...

Skyler A. Womack was a dependent adult with physical and developmental disabilities. In January 2020, he was admitted as an inpatient at a 24-hour skilled nursing facility called Asistencia Villa Rehabilitation and Care Center in Redlands, then operated by Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. Skyler died on October 29, 2020, while still residing at Asistencia. Following his death, Skyler’s parents and heirs, plaintiffs Jonie A. Holland and Wayne D. Womack, filed suit against Silverscreen. Plaintiffs’ complaint asserted four causes of action: (1) dependent adult abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welfare and Institutions Code, section 15600 et seq. (Elder Abuse Act); (2) negligence; (3) violation of residents’ rights under Health and Safety Code, section 1430, subdivision (b); and (4) wrongful death. Plaintiffs alleged that Silverscreen failed to protect Skyler from “multiple falls with injury, and infections which caused him pain and suffering and were substantial factors in his untimely demise.” Plaintiffs also alleged that Silverscreen failed to “employ an adequate number of qualified personnel to carry out all of the functions of the facility”; failed to “keep[] its facility in good repair at all times”; failed to “correct deficiencies issued by the State of California’s Department of Public Health”; and failed to “provid[e] [Skyler] with good nutrition and necessary fluids for hydration.” On admission to Asistencia, Skyler had signed a “Resident-Facility Arbitration Agreement.” The agreement provided for arbitration of malpractice claims, adhering to statutory language and formatting requirements for medical services contracts covering disputes as to the “professional negligence of a health care provider.” (§ 1295(a).) It stated that “any dispute as to medical malpractice, that is as to whether any medical services rendered under this contract were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered, will be determined by submission to arbitration.” (Quoting § 1295(a).) The agreement further provided — in its own language — that the agreement was “binding on all parties, including the Resident’s representatives, executors, family members, and heirs.” Based on this agreement and the Supreme Court decision in Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838 (Ruiz), Silverscreen filed a motion to compel arbitration of each of the four causes of action asserted in the complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the petition. They argued that Ruiz did not apply because their wrongful death claim was based on Silverscreen’s “neglect,” as that term is defined under the Elder Abuse Act, and not its “professional negligence.” The trial court granted Silverscreen’s motion to compel arbitration of the three survivor claims but denied the motion as to plaintiffs’ individual claim for wrongful death. Following the lead of the Court of Appeal in Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 835, 843 (Avila), the trial court explained that although “[t]he complaint includes allegations that could be categorized as professional negligence as well as elder abuse,” plaintiffs “ ‘chose to plead a cause of action under the [Elder Abuse Act], and they did so successfully. The fact that they could have also pleaded a claim for medical malpractice, had they wished to do so, is irrelevant. Accordingly, . . . plaintiffs’ claim is not one within the ambit of section 1295, and therefore, Ruiz’s holding does not apply.’ ” (Quoting Avila, at p. 843.) The Court of Appeal reversed. (Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1125 (Holland).) The Court of Appeal acknowledged several appellate cases, including Avila, in which courts refused to compel arbitration of wrongful death claims predicated on allegations of neglect by nursing homes and similar residential care facilities. (Holland, supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at p. 1134). The Court of Appeal agreed with these cases insofar as they “confined Ruiz’s holding to wrongful death claims predicated on medical malpractice or professional negligence,” but it disagreed with the cases to the extent they might suggest that plaintiffs’ claim here falls outside Ruiz. (Holland, at p. 1134; see id. at pp. 1134–1135.). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal in the case of Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. -S285429.PDF (August 2025). In Ruiz the Supreme Court identified an exception for certain wrongful death claims based on medical malpractice. If a patient agreed to arbitrate medical malpractice disputes in compliance with the arbitration provision of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) (codified as Code Civ. Proc., § 1295), the patient-provider agreement may bind the patient’s heirs in a wrongful death action, even if the heirs themselves never agreed to arbitration. (Ruiz, at pp. 849–850.). The question before the Supreme Court here concerns the application of Ruiz in a recurring context. Plaintiffs sued a 24-hour skilled nursing facility, alleging that the facility’s neglect caused their son’s death. Before his death, plaintiffs’ son had signed an agreement to arbitrate medical malpractice disputes against the facility. Parting company with appellate courts that had taken different approaches to the issue, the Court of Appeal in this case held that the patient-provider agreement binds plaintiffs because their wrongful death claim based on the nursing facility’s neglect is necessarily a claim about the manner in which a health care provider rendered its professional services. The Supreme Court concluded that "the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case extends Ruiz past statutory bounds. Ruiz does not apply to every type of wrongful death claim that might be brought against a health care provider - particularly a provider that, like the skilled nursing facility in this case, provides both medical care and day-to-day custodial care of dependent adults. Under Ruiz, plaintiffs’ claim must be submitted to arbitration only if they are raising a dispute about medical malpractice as that term is defined in MICRA’s arbitration provision - that is, a dispute “ ‘as to whether any medical services . . . were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered.’ ” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1295, subd. (a) (§ 1295(a)).) Ruiz does not require plaintiffs to arbitrate their disputes about a facility’s neglect of a resident’s basic welfare and safety needs." "To the extent the plaintiffs’ complaint in this case fails to detail whether they are alleging deficiencies in the nursing facility’s rendering of medical services or instead in its provision of custodial care, we conclude that they should be permitted to amend their complaint to specify." "We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings." ...

Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 648 into law, and, as a non-urgency measure, takes effect on January 1, 2026. SB 648 primarily amends Section 351 of the California Labor Code, reaffirming and expanding enforcement of employee gratuity pay (tips) protections. Under prior law, employers were already prohibited from taking, collecting, or deducting tips from employees' wages, but enforcement relied heavily on private lawsuits or limited administrative actions. This left workers vulnerable to "tip theft," where employers might withhold or misappropriate tips, particularly in industries like hospitality and service. The bill's purpose, as outlined in its legislative digest, is to strengthen protections by empowering the state's Labor Commissioner (through the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or DLSE) to more actively investigate and penalize violations. This enhances compliance, deters misconduct, and provides a more accessible enforcement mechanism for workers without requiring them to pursue costly civil litigation. The rationale stems from ongoing concerns about wage theft in tipped industries, aiming to ensure tips remain the sole property of employees and are not used to offset employer costs like credit card fees. According to the Legislative Analyst "some of the lowest paid workers are at risk of having their livelihoods stolen by unscrupulous employers through various violations of law including by taking their tips." "According to a 2008 study which surveyed 4,387 workers in low-wage industries in the three largest U.S. cities - Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, 12 percent of tipped workers in the sample experienced “tip stealing” during the previous work week." Unlike under federal regulations, in California an employer cannot use an employee's tips as a credit towards its obligation to pay the minimum wage. California law requires that employees receive the minimum wage plus any tips left for them by patrons of the employer's business. Although existing law directs the Department of Industrial Relations to enforce the provisions of existing law regarding gratuities, the Labor Commissioner lacks citation authority to recover gratuities taken or withheld from workers. The only option available to the Labor Commissioner to recover stolen gratuities is through filing of an action in court. Given the limited resources available at the Labor Commissioner’s office, granting the LC the ability to issue citations to recover owed gratuities would go a long way in helping workers. This bill would do just that by authorizing the Labor Commissioner to investigate and issue a citation or file a civil action for gratuities taken or withheld in violation of existing law. SB 648 was supported by the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO. There was no opposition noted in Legislative Analyst,s report ...

Tyson Perez filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim on August 24, 2022, alleging a cumulative trauma injury while working as a professional baseball player for the Houston Astros from June 1, 2011, to June 25, 2022. He later filed an Amended Application joining the Chicago Dogs as a party defendant. The Chicago Dogs and its carrier, Liberty Mutual, filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed seeking adjudication on the sole issue of personal jurisdiction. The matter was set for a trial on personal jurisdiction over the Chicago Dogs at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on May 23, 2024. The Pre-Trial statement listed the applicant, Tyson Perez, and also Trish Zuro, the Chief Operating Officer of the Chicago Dogs as witnesses, among other individuals. On June 11, 2024, the undersigned served all parties with an affidavit from Trish Zuro. At trial, the Chicago Dogs offered a witness statement into evidence. Counsel for the Applicant and Co-Defendant, Houston Astros, objected to the witness statement of Trish Zuro because it was not served before the close of discovery and because admitting the written statement into evidence would deprive the parties of their due process to cross-examine the witness. The applicant attorney and co-defendant objected to the testimony and the admission of the affidavit at the Trial date, and after 8 months when the affidavit was previously served to the parties and more than 8 months when the parties were notified on the Pre-Trial Conference statement that Ms. Zuro was listed as a witness. The witness was to rebut the applicant’s contentions of minimum contacts of the team with California.The WCJ denied Chicago Dogs’ request to permit witness Trish Zuro to testify by telephone. The Findings and Order, dated May 13, 2025, found that the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Chicago Dogs for the Applicant’s alleged cumulative trauma injury claim. The WCJ did not permit Trish Zuro to testify by telephone because the Chicago Dogs did not file a petition before the trial, showing good cause for why she should be allowed to testify remotely. Per CCR 10618(a), “If a witness intends to testify electronically, a petition showing good cause shall be filed pursuant to rule 10510 by the witness or by the party offering the witness's testimony before the hearing, and shall identify the witness and contain the witness's full legal name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number. There was no such petition requesting remote appearance filed in this matter. Chicago Dogs filed a Petition for Reconsideration, appealing the trial court’s decision not to allow the witness statement into evidence and not allow the witness to testify remotely. Reconsideration was granted in the En Banc decision of Tyson Perez v Chicago Dogs -ADJ16597333 (August 2025). The issue was the interpretation and application of WCAB Rule 10817(a), which states in relevant part that: “If a witness intends to testify electronically, a petition showing good cause shall be filed pursuant to rule 10510 by the witness or by the party offering the witness’s testimony before the hearing, and shall identify the witness and contain the witness’s full legal name . . . .” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10817(a).) "As a matter of due process, all parties to a workers’ compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805]." A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. In 1890, the California Supreme Court opined: “The principal purpose of vesting the court with the discretionary power to correct ‘a mistake in any other respect’ is to enable it to mold and direct its proceedings so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits, when it can be done without injustice to either party, whether the obstruction to such a disposition of cases be a mistake of fact or a mistake as to the law, although it may be that the court should require a stronger showing to justify relief from the effect of a mistake of law than of a mistake of fact.” (Ward v. Clay (1890) 82 Cal.502, 23 P.50, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 591. "Therefore, based on these principles, interpretation of our rules must necessarily incorporate California’s public policy in favor of adjudication of claims on their merits, rather than on the technical sufficiency of the pleadings." Thus the WCAB concluded "Therefore, based on these principles, interpretation of our rules must necessarily incorporate California’s public policy in favor of adjudication of claims on their merits, rather than on the technical sufficiency of the pleadings." Thus the WCAB concluded that "In considering the application of WCAB Rule 10817(c), we preliminarily conclude that a request on the record for electronic witness testimony at the beginning of the hearing, with an opportunity for any party to respond, satisfies the petition requirement and is sufficient to adjudicate the issue of electronic testimony. Moreover, we preliminarily conclude that the due process right to a fair hearing and a determination based on the merits is good cause to allow the electronic testimony of the witness. Therefore, when a witness is unable to appear in person, as a matter of due process, a request to testify electronically should be readily permitted." "Accordingly, we grant defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law." ...

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was first adopted in 1975 as part of the original enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Beginning in 1993 the Rule was interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in three landmark decisions that are now know as the "Daubert Trilogy." The Rule requires a high level of scrutiny of scientific evidence in a "Daubert" hearing before a federal trial commences. This Daubert standard is mandatory in all federal trial courts. And approximately 42 states have adopted the Daubert standard or a substantially similar standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in their state courts, either fully or with modifications. California state courts have not. Instead, California uses the "Fry" standard which is far more lenient. And in California experts who rely on controversial science in forming an opinion may testify, and the controversy applies for the "weight" of the evidence rather than admissibility, compared to the Daubert standard which makes controversial scientific evidence inadmissible. Large corporate defendants who are sued in California may be entitled to remove the case to federal court under some circumstances such as diversity jurisdiction. Often, their reason for doing so it to take advantage of the mandated use of Rule 702. This new published 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Favor of Monsanto in one of its "Roundup" toxic injury cases is a clear example of why employers may move to have California state cases removed to federal courts when they meet the requirements to do so. From 1990 to 2015, Peter Engilis, Jr. routinely hand- sprayed Roundup several times per month at each of his three homes in Florida. In 2014, he was diagnosed with a blood cancer known as chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), which is a type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). In November 2019, Engilis filed a lawsuit against Roundup manufacturer Monsanto in the Middle District of Florida, invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction and asserting claims under Florida state law that were premised on the allegation that exposure to Roundup caused him to develop CLL. The case was subsequently transferred to a multidistrict litigation proceeding in the Northern District of California, in which thousands of cancer victims have alleged that Roundup caused their NHL. In a “toxic tort claim for physical injuries,” a plaintiff must “show that he was exposed to chemicals that could have caused the physical injuries he complains about (general causation), and that his exposure did in fact result in those injuries (specific causation).” Golden v. CH2M Hill Hanford Grp., 528 F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2008). To demonstrate that Roundup caused Engilis’s cancer, Engilis relied on the expert opinion of board-certified oncologist Dr. Andrew Schneider. Dr. Schneider submitted an expert report offering opinions on both general causation and specific causation. Monsanto moved to exclude Dr. Schneider’s opinion. At the hearing on the motion to exclude, Monsanto’s counsel extensively cross-examined Dr. Schneider about his basis for ruling out Engilis’s obesity as a potential cause of Engilis’s cancer. In response, Dr. Schneider sought to defend his assertion that Engilis was not obese. But after conceding that he had not examined Engilis and could not say whether Engilis was obese or not, Dr. Schneider testified that, regardless of whether Engilis was obese, he did not view obesity as a potential cause of NHL. During follow-on questioning, he stated that although some medical literature reports an association between obesity and the development of NHL, his clinical experience led him to believe that obesity does not contribute to NHL. After the hearing, the district court issued an order excluding Dr. Schneider’s specific causation opinion. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in the published case of Engilis et al v Monsanto 3:19-cv-07859- VC (August 2025). The admissibility of expert testimony is controlled by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. That Rule provides that, “before admitting expert testimony, the district court must perform a gatekeeping role to ensure that the [proffered] testimony is both relevant and reliable.” The parties parties dispute the significance of the 2023 amendment to Rule 702 and the effect of that amendment on existing precedent. Thus the Court of Appeals reviewed the current precedent starting with the "Daubert Trilogy" which refers to three landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that established the modern standard for admitting scientific expert testimony in federal courts. These cases clarified the admissibility of expert evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 702, replacing the earlier Frye standard. In 2000, Rule 702 was amended for the first time to codify the holdings of the Daubert trilogy, and to resolve conflicts that had arisen within the courts about the meaning of that trilogy. The Rule was amended again in December 2023 to expressly require a proponent of expert testimony to “clarify and emphasize” that proffered expert testimony must meet the admissibility requirements of Rule 702 by a preponderance of the evidence. Before the amendment, “many courts” had erroneously held “that the critical questions of the sufficiency of an expert’s basis, and the application of the expert’s methodology, are questions of weight and not admissibility.” "Here, the district court properly concluded that Engilis failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Schneider’s conclusion was based on sufficient facts or data." ...

SpineFrontier, Inc., founded in 2006 by Dr. Kingsley R. Chin, is a Massachusetts-based medical device company. SpineFrontier faced a multi-year investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) starting in 2016, initiated by whistleblower allegations under the False Claims Act. The civil case, settled in November 2023, alleged that SpineFrontier paid kickbacks to spine surgeons consulting with the company. SpineFrontier products, such as doughnut-shaped plastic cages, titanium screws, and other spinal implants, are used by spine surgeons across the United States, including in surgeries reimbursed by federal health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are active in California. In addition to the civil cases, in 2021, SpineFrontier, Dr. Chin, and CFO Aditya Humad were indicted on criminal charges including conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute and money laundering. Dr. Chin pleaded guilty in May 2025 to one count of making false statements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. The false statements involved misreporting a $4,750 payment to a surgeon as “consulting” fees, despite no actual consulting work being performed. Money laundering charges were dismissed in December 2024, and all criminal charges against Dr. Chin and SpineFrontier were dismissed by May 2025, except for a guilty plea to one count of false statements to CMS. Dr. Kingsley R. Chin was sentenced on August 7th by U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani to one year of supervised release with the first six months to be served in home confinement. He was also ordered to pay a fine of $9,500, in addition to $40,000 he personally agreed to pay as part of a related civil settlement, and $855,000 his wholly-owned company, KICVentures, agreed to pay as part of the same settlement. KICVentures is a private equity firm led by Dr. Kingsley R. Chin. It focuses on advancing outpatient spine surgery through the Less Exposure Spine Surgery (LESS) philosophy. The firm manages a portfolio of spine technology companies aimed at improving patient outcomes and empowering physician-led innovation. Pursuant to the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, device manufacturers, like SpineFrontier, are required to report any payments or transfers of value to physicians, including spine surgeons. CMS maintains a database, via the Open Payments website, which makes all such payments or transfers of value publicly accessible. SpineFrontier offered surgeons the opportunity to engage in purported consulting on product development. Specifically, Chin directed his employees to report the payment of fees paid to a surgeon as consulting fees that were not compensation for actual consulting work. Chin caused his employees to report a payment of $4,750 on Jan. 19, 2016, to the surgeon as a “consulting” payment, even though Chin knew that the surgeon had not performed actual consulting work for the payment. He also knew that he and SpineFrontier were required to accurately report any payments or transfers of value to the surgeon. United States Attorney Leah B. Foley; Roberto Coviello, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General; Ted E. Docks, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Division; Christopher Algieri, Special Agent in Charge of the Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, Northeast Field Office; and Ketty Larco-Ward, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Boston Division made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Abraham R. George, Christopher R. Looney and Mackenzie A. Queenin prosecuted the case ...

Eric Benjamin “Ben” Halem, 37, of Porter Ranch, a former full-time Los Angeles Police Department officer and current LAPD reserve officer, and his brother, Jacob Halem, 32, of Tarzana, were arraigned in May 2025 on felony insurance fraud charges following an investigation by the California Department of Insurance. The investigation found the brothers allegedly filed a fraudulent auto insurance claim in an attempt to obtain benefits they were not entitled to receive. The Department of Insurance began its investigation after receiving a fraud referral alleging Eric Halem falsely reported a crash involving his 2020 Bentley Continental GT, stating his brother Jacob Halem had borrowed the vehicle and was involved in a solo-collision on January 5, 2023. However, the investigation revealed that the luxury vehicle had actually been rented out through Eric Halem’s exotic car rental company, Drive LA, and crashed by the renter three days earlier. Upon learning that the rental driver’s claim had been denied, Eric Halem allegedly filed a fraudulent claim with his insurance company on his personal policy, misrepresenting the accident details. He claimed that his brother, Jacob Halem, had been driving the vehicle at the time of the crash. On August 11, 2025 the Los Angeles District Attorney announced that felony charges have been filed against Halem and three other men in connection with a violent home invasion and kidnapping for ransom in Koreatown last December. Also charged in the case are Luis Banuelos (dob 5/25/97) of Jurupa Valley in Riverside County, Pierre Louis (dob 12/8/98) of Attleboro, Mass. and Mishael Mann (dob 7/31/05) of Los Angeles. Each defendant faces counts of kidnapping for ransom, first-degree residential robbery, and home invasion robbery in concert. Mann and Halem are being held on no bail, and Louis and Banuelos are each being held on $1.3 million bail. On Dec. 28, 2024, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Halem and Mann allegedly entered an apartment in Koreatown, where they handcuffed two victims, transferred money from the victims’ cryptocurrency account, and stole cash and jewelry before fleeing. Banuelos and Louis are accused of serving as getaway drivers who waited outside the location ...