Sean Vice worked as an IT Analyst for the Shasta County Office of Education. On June 4, 2025, he claimed he was injured on the job while setting up equipment for a graduation ceremony. According to Vice, a speaker stacked on top of another speaker began to fall, and as he reached behind his back to catch it, he felt a pop in his shoulder followed by sharp pain. He testified that he told two co-workers — Ashley Talladino and Cole Rumford — about the incident, then drove to seek medical treatment and called his supervisor, James Alspaugh, to report the injury en route. The account unraveled, however, through the testimony of co-worker Talladino. She testified that on the morning of the alleged workplace incident, Vice had told her he had actually hurt his shoulder playing hockey the night before. According to Talladino, Vice said he had no sick time left, needed to see a doctor, and was considering filing a workers' compensation claim by attributing the injury to the graduation setup — specifically, that "he was going to say he lifted a speaker up and fell possibly backwards and that his shoulder had popped." A text message Vice sent to Talladino was admitted into evidence, in which he wrote: "Hey keep my shoulder between you and I. I'm saying I pulled it on a speaker." Vice attempted to explain the text at trial by saying he simply did not want people to know he was hurt, and attributed the phrase "I'm saying I pulled it on a speaker" to a "fat thumb" or autocorrect error. Workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) issued Findings and Order on January 5, 2026, finding that Vice did not sustain any injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The WCJ found Talladino's testimony credible and found Vice's testimony "not completely forthcoming." She rejected his explanations for the text message — particularly the autocorrect defense — as not credible, especially given that he had already reported the injury to his supervisor and to Rumford by the time he claimed he wanted to keep the matter quiet. Vice petitioned the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Vice v. Shasta County Office of Education -ADJ21105749 (April 2026), leaving the WCJ's findings intact. The Board's reasoning was brief and rested entirely on the deference owed to a trial-level credibility determination. Credibility findings are nearly unreviewable. The Board cited the well-settled principle that in bench proceedings, the finder of fact is the sole judge of witness credibility and may believe or disbelieve any witness if there is a rational basis for doing so. It quoted Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570, 582, which in turn drew on Davis v. Kahn (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 868, 874; and other published cases. The Board reinforced this principle in the workers' compensation context by citing Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318–319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500], which holds that a WCJ's credibility determinations are entitled to great weight because of the judge's direct opportunity to observe witness demeanor. The WCJ's call was well within her discretion. The text message corroborated Talladino's testimony directly. Vice's innocent explanations for the message — that he merely wanted privacy and that autocorrect was responsible for the incriminating phrase — were undermined by the fact that he had already openly reported the injury to his supervisor and a second co-worker. The Board found no basis to disturb the WCJ's weighing of the competing accounts and denied the petition accordingly ...

Adam Martinez worked as an emergency medical technician (EMT) for Sierra Lifestar, Inc. — an ambulance company serving Tulare County — for roughly ten months, from September 2019 to July 2020. During that tenure he received a single bonus: a $109.47 "EMS Bonus" paid in May 2020 in recognition of National Emergency Medical Services Week, netting him $100 after withholdings. Lifestar paid that bonus to all of its employees that week. Martinez filed a class action in July 2023 on behalf of himself and approximately 135 current and former Lifestar employees. His theory was straightforward: California law requires that nondiscretionary bonuses be folded into an employee's "regular rate of pay" when calculating overtime, double time, and meal and rest period premium pay. (Lab. Code, §§ 510, 226.7.) Lifestar, he alleged, paid ten categories of bonuses — including EMS Bonuses, Sign-On Bonuses, Paramedic Bonuses, Preceptor Bonuses, and others — but systematically excluded every one of them when computing those elevated rates, causing class-wide underpayment. An expert who reviewed Lifestar's payroll data estimated the potential overtime and double-time shortfall at roughly $462,000, with an additional $32,000 in unpaid meal premiums. In March 2025, the trial court denied Martinez's motion for class certification on a single ground: Martinez had failed to show his claim was typical of the proposed class. The court reasoned that Lifestar paid ten different types of bonuses, each with its own criteria, and that various exclusions listed in the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) Policies and Interpretations Manual could apply differently to each bonus type. Specifically, the court found a "significant possibility" that Martinez faced defenses unique to him — namely, that his EMS Bonus was either a gift or a purely discretionary payment — which could distract from the broader class litigation and swamp the common issues. The court declined to reach the separate question of whether common questions of law or fact actually predominated across the ten bonus categories. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of class certification in the published case of Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar, Inc. Case No. F089576 (April 2026) and remanded for further proceedings. The court did not direct the trial court to certify the class outright, instead acknowledging that several certification criteria beyond typicality had never been addressed below and warranted fresh consideration on remand. The appellate panel noted that the trial court retains discretion on remand to consider whether to narrow the proposed class or to create subclasses organized around particular bonus types. The court's analysis turned on a single legal error: the trial court misunderstood what "unique" means in the class-action typicality context. Typicality is not a demanding standard. Citing Seastrom v. Neways, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1502, the court restated the familiar three-part test: typicality is satisfied when (1) other members suffered the same or similar injury, (2) the action rests on conduct not unique to the named plaintiff, and (3) other class members were harmed by the same course of conduct. Quoting Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC (5th Cir. 1999) 186 F.3d 620, 625, the panel emphasized that federal courts consistently describe typicality as "not demanding," and that California has never required a class representative to have interests identical to those of every class member. Classen v. Weller (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 27, 46. The "unique defense" doctrine was misapplied. A proposed representative's claim may fail typicality if it is subject to a defense peculiar to that plaintiff alone — one that would distract from the claims of the rest of the class. CE Design Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc. (7th Cir. 2011) 637 F.3d 721, 726. But where a defense applies broadly across the class, it cannot defeat typicality for the representative. Here, Lifestar's argument — that EMS Bonuses paid during National Emergency Medical Services Week were gift-like or discretionary — applied with equal force to all 51 other employees who received the same EMS Bonus under the same circumstances. Lifestar's own vice-president testified that no bonuses of any kind were ever included in overtime calculations. The defense was class-wide, not individual. The evidence compelled the opposite conclusion. Even construing the trial court's ruling as a factual finding, the appellate court held it was unsupported by substantial evidence. Payroll data, pay stubs, and the analyses of both parties' own witnesses uniformly showed that Martinez's situation mirrored that of his fellow EMS Bonus recipients. There was nothing about his claim that set it apart from theirs. Under Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1022, a certification ruling based on erroneous legal assumptions cannot stand, and under Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 522, 530, reversal is required whenever the stated reasons for a ruling are legally infirm — even if other reasons might theoretically have supported the same outcome ...

In November 1988, California voters approved Proposition 103, which made changes in the regulation of automobile insurance, as well as the approval of premium rates for property and casualty lines of insurance in California. Proposition 103 also allows for public participation through consumer intervention. Any person who "represents the interests of consumers" and intends to raise any issue relevant to a rate proceeding is permitted to intervene. Recognizing the importance of public participation, the Legislature also authorized the award of certain costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees to an intervenor who makes a "substantial contribution" to a rate decision. Proposition 103 has allowed, from the time it was implemented in 1988, for any person to initiate or intervene in any proceeding before the Department and to challenge any action of the Insurance Commissioner. However, citing abuses of this process primarily by an organization known as Consumer Watchdog, the California Insurance Commissioner has proposed and submitted for approval, the first overhaul of intervenor process in 35 years. A broad coalition of insurance consumers, including home builders, farmers, affordable housing advocates, local governments, bankers, independent insurance agents and others, wrote that they were "in strong support of the California Department of Insurance’s proposed intervenor reforms." They claimed that "the intervenor process has been abused for financial gain - at the direct expense of consumers - while contributing to the growing insurance availability and affordability crisis." They claim that "at the heart of this crisis is a broken rate approval process - made worse by a flawed intervenor process that Consumer Watchdog wrote into Proposition 103 for its own benefit." And as an example they say "Despite contributing no measurable benefit, Consumer Watchdog - an organization with ZERO members and no accountability - has pocketed more than $22.5 million in intervenor fees by exploiting the intervenor program - the very program they wrote into law. These fees are ultimately paid for by consumers through higher premiums.' A coalition of consumer, labor, senior, immigrant, low-income, and public advocates and concerned civic organizations on proposed regulations authored a letter in opposition to the proposed reforms. It claimed the reforms would result in "stifling consumer voices in the setting of insurance rates and regulations." However, it was the Insurance Commissioner who concluded in legal documents that "Significantly, Consumer Watchdog is the primary financial beneficiary of a process it created over thirty years ago, and a process that constitutes the largest source of funding for its organization." The Commissioner went on to say "Consumer Watchdog, who has no members and is accountable to no one but itself, fails to acknowledge the role of the Department's rate regulation branch in the rate application process, and wrongly contends to have saved consumers $6 billion in insurance premiums since 2002. The Department's rate regulation branch analyzes all rate change requests to ensure that what is being requested by insurers is compliant under Proposition 103. If proposed rates are excessive, the Department then requires insurers to reduce the proposed rates to no greater than the maximum permitted rate under Proposition 103. The goal of inviting additional public participation is to bring in a unique perspective or additional value, and not to simply participate for participation's sake." Following the rulemaking procedures that aired these points of view, the California Department of Insurance has submitted its Intervenor and Administrative Hearing Bureau Fairness and Accountability rulemaking package to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for final review - what is claims is "marking the most significant modernization of the intervenor system since Proposition 103 was enacted in 1988. The reforms strengthen transparency, improve efficiency, and protect consumer dollars in the insurance rate review process. Once approved by OAL, the regulations will establish clear standards for intervenor compensation, expand public reporting, and reinforce the Department’s authority to ensure that every dollar in the rate review process serves the public interest. “These reforms strengthen Proposition 103 by bringing long overdue transparency and accountability to every part of the rate review process,” said Commissioner Lara. “Californians deserve to know that every dollar in this system is protected, and I will not allow any organization — insurer or intervenor — to operate without clear guardrails.” Key provisions of the regulations include: - - Clarifying “substantial contribution” and reasonableness standards for an intervenor’s request for compensation - - Defining the role of the Department’s Administrative Hearing Bureau (AHB) in settlement agreements and requests for compensation - - Requiring regular status updates from AHB Administrative Law Judges every 30 days to all parties - - Expanding public reporting by posting intervenor activity and statistics on the Department’s website - - Improving public access to proceedings through required posting of AHB calendars, dockets, and documents The Insurance Commissioner also addressed mischaracterizations raised by opponents during the rulemaking process. “Some groups have misrepresented these reforms as limiting consumer voices. That is simply false,” he said. “The right to intervene remains untouched. What changes is the expectation that compensation must be earned, documented, and aligned with the issues in the proceeding.” The Office of Administrative Law has up to 30 working days to complete its review. Once approved, the regulations will be filed with the Secretary of State and take effect shortly thereafter ...

Zurich American Insurance Company has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against two Ontario-based staffing companies — Managing Personnel Services, Inc. and Employee Force Provider, Inc. — alleging breach of contract for failure to pay over $1.1 million in workers' compensation insurance premiums following post-policy audits. The defendants, described in the complaint as a captive insurance provider and program, were issued two consecutive workers' compensation policies by Zurich. The first policy (WC Agreement I) covered the period July 1, 2023 through July 1, 2024. The second (WC Agreement II) covered July 1, 2024 through July 1, 2025, but was canceled by Zurich effective June 9, 2025 for nonpayment of premium. Managing Personnel Services, Inc. (MPS) was incorporated in California on February 11, 2015, and as of late 2024 maintained an active filing status with the California Secretary of State. The company describes its core mission as empowering employers by building workforces and assisting job seekers, specializing in outsourced employment and human resource services. It serves machine operators, clerical, general labor, and light industrial sectors. Employee Force Provider, Inc. (EFP) was also founded in 2015 and is headquartered at 3400 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite 210, Ontario, California — the same street address listed in the complaint for both defendants. EFP describes itself as supporting companies ranging from small to Fortune 500 firms throughout the United States, offering on-site, direct hire, temp-to-hire, and temp services, with specialties in distribution/logistics, manufacturing/industrial, clerical, and IT/technical staffing. The BBB profile for Employee Force Provider lists two CEOs: Walter Ladislao Ramirez and Jairo Mendoza Jr. Both companies operate in the same Inland Empire labor market, were founded in the same year, share the same street address, and appear to offer nearly identical services. The complaint itself specifically alleges that the two defendants are alter egos of one another and essentially extensions of each other. Under both policies, initial premiums were based on estimated payroll exposure, subject to a "true-up" audit at the end of the policy period — a standard feature of workers' comp policies for staffing and labor-intensive businesses. When actual payroll exposure exceeds the estimate, additional premium is owed; if lower, a refund is issued. The audits here produced substantial additional premium obligations. In December 2024, the audit for WC Agreement I revealed an additional premium owed of $179,753. The defendants made a partial payment of $100,000 in May 2025, leaving a balance of $79,752. The post-cancellation audit for WC Agreement II, issued in August 2025, produced a demand of $1,059,255 — which the defendants did not pay at all. In February 2026, Zurich issued a consolidated Statement of Account demanding $1,139,007, plus interest. When the defendants failed to respond, Zurich filed this single-count breach of contract action in federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction based on the parties' differing states of incorporation and the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Zurich seeks a judgment for the full $1,139,007, pre-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate, and costs of suit. A bench trial has been requested. This lawsuit is a reminder of the significant premium audit exposure that can arise in workers' compensation programs serving staffing companies, particularly those operating under captive or loss-sensitive structures. The gap between estimated and audited payroll — particularly for WC Agreement II, where the audit produced a figure nearly six times the outstanding balance from WC Agreement I — underscores the importance of diligent mid-term payroll monitoring and timely premium collections. Carriers and program administrators would do well to review their audit enforcement procedures and premium security mechanisms before exposure of this magnitude accumulates. Case filings are publicly available through PACER. The case docket does not contain any responsive pleading from any named defendants ...

Jessie Walton enrolled as a postsecondary nursing student at Victor Valley Community College District in 2017. Her coursework required her to complete clinical rotations at two local hospitals under the supervision of District faculty. Her supervisor during the spring 2018 rotations was Diego Garcia, the District's nursing program director. Walton alleged that Garcia subjected her to extensive verbal and physical sexual harassment, attempting to coerce her into a sexual relationship in exchange for better grades. When she rejected his advances, Garcia allegedly retaliated by giving her a failing grade and refusing to discuss it with her. In June 2018, Walton sent a formal complaint letter to the District. The District placed Garcia on administrative leave and hired a third-party firm to investigate. In August 2018, the District denied Walton's request for a grade correction. She withdrew from the program in September 2018 and eventually completed her nursing degree out of state. By November 2018, the third-party investigator issued a 79-page report confirming Garcia had engaged in "highly inappropriate behavior" and harassed at least one other female student. District HR recommended his removal from his tenured position, and Garcia never returned. In December 2018, Walton's attorney sent the District a detailed 13-page letter outlining Garcia's misconduct and Walton's estimated damages, warning of potential litigation. After failed mediation, Walton filed suit asserting five claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to prevent, retaliation, and injunctive relief; Civil Code violations; Education Code violations; and negligence. The District moved for summary judgment, arguing Walton lacked FEHA standing, failed to comply with the Government Claims Act, and could not show deliberate indifference under Education Code section 66270. At the hearing, the trial court excluded Walton's attorney's declaration because it lacked a penalty-of-perjury subscription and omitted the place of execution — a technical deficiency counsel acknowledged on the spot as an oversight. Less than an hour after the hearing, counsel filed a corrected declaration curing both defects. The court ignored the corrected filing and sustained the objection. Without the declaration, key opposition evidence — including deposition excerpts showing the District had prior knowledge of Garcia's harassment of other students — was stripped from the record. The trial court then granted summary judgment for the District on all claims, finding: (1) Walton lacked FEHA standing because she was a student, not an unpaid intern; (2) the December 2018 attorney letter did not satisfy Government Claims Act notice requirements; and (3) the District's investigation demonstrated it was not deliberately indifferent to Walton's complaints. The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment on all claims except Walton's Civil Code cause of action, which she did not contest on appeal in the published case of Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District Case No. G064668 (April 2026). The District was granted summary adjudication on that single claim only. On the excluded declaration, the court held the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a cure of a plainly technical defect. The court emphasized that granting summary judgment based on a curable procedural default deprives a party of a decision on the merits. Here, counsel was present in the courtroom, offered to fix the error immediately, and in fact filed a corrected declaration within the hour. The District identified no prejudice from allowing the cure. On FEHA standing, the court rejected the notion that "student" and "unpaid intern" are mutually exclusive categories. The Legislature's 2015 amendment to FEHA explicitly extended protections to unpaid interns, and the legislative history of Assembly Bill No. 1443 (2013–2014 Regular Session) specifically identified nursing clinical rotations as the type of internship the amendment was designed to cover. California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11008(m) further defines an unpaid intern as "any individual (often a student or trainee)" working without pay in a limited-duration program. Walton therefore had standing. On Government Claims Act notice, the court found Walton's attorney's detailed December 2018 letter substantially satisfied the statutory requirements. The court reiterated that a claim is sufficient if it discloses enough information for the public entity to investigate and potentially settle. The District could not even identify which required element the letter allegedly omitted. A claimant's subjective intent in labeling a letter a confidential settlement communication is irrelevant — what matters is whether the letter disclosed a claim that, if unresolved, would result in litigation. It did. On deliberate indifference, the court found triable issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. While the District pointed to its investigation as proof of responsiveness, the court noted the investigation concluded only after Walton had already been forced out of the program — it conferred no benefit on her. A reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference from the District's refusal to address her grade while she was still enrolled. The excluded deposition evidence — showing the District had prior complaints about Garcia harassing other students — reinforced that a genuine factual dispute existed. On negligence, the court rejected the District's reliance on Thomas v. Regents of University of California (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 587, which held that colleges have no duty to protect students from purely nonphysical harassment. Because Walton alleged unwanted physical touching, Thomas was inapplicable, and her negligence claim survived ...

Former teacher Jeanett Valenzuela Ayub pleaded guilty in federal court admitting that she conspired with others to launder millions of dollars of health care fraud proceeds. In total, Valenzuela admitted that she and her co-conspirators billed Medicare nearly $51 million for bogus prescriptions and were paid approximately $20 million, ultimately laundering at least $14 million dollars of Medicare proceeds and paying $3.7 million in unlawful kickbacks. On April 7, the Department of Justice announced the creation of the National Fraud Enforcement Division. The core mission of the Fraud Division is to zealously investigate and prosecute those who steal or fraudulently misuse taxpayer dollars. Department of Justice efforts to combat fraud support President Trump’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, a whole-of-government effort chaired by Vice President J.D. Vance to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse within Federal benefit programs According to her plea agreement, Valenzuela and co-conspirators owned and operated multiple durable medical equipment (DME) companies, which sold orthotics – including back, wrist, and knee braces – to Medicare beneficiaries. Valenzuela admitted that in operating the DME companies, she and co-conspirators paid unlawful kickback payments to sham marketing companies who provided bogus prescriptions for DME. The prescriptions were signed by physicians who had no legitimate doctor-patient relationship with the beneficiary; had not conducted a legitimate medical evaluation of the beneficiary; and had not impartially determined that the beneficiary actually needed the DME. When agents interviewed Medicare beneficiaries during its investigation, the Medicare beneficiaries confirmed that they never spoke with a doctor, were never examined by a doctor related to the prescribed DME, and were not familiar with the prescribing doctor; never used nor even opened the packages containing the DME; and many of the Medicare beneficiaries still had the DME in their original unopened packages. Valenzuela further admitted that she used DME companies to submit fraudulent claims to Medicare. Once Valenzuela’s or her co-conspirator’s DME companies were suspended from billing Medicare, Valenzuela conspired to put DME companies in the names of nominee owners while she and her co-conspirators maintained control of the companies and the monies received from Medicare. Among Valenzuela’s co-conspirators was her brother, Fernando Valenzuela Ayub, who previously pleaded guilty to the same offense and is pending sentencing. When her brother was arrested on December 9, 2024, for his involvement in this conspiracy, Valenzuela absconded to Tijuana. Ultimately, Valenzuela was detained in August 2025 in the Dominican Republic after she left Mexico and traveled with family for a vacation. After being detained in the Dominican Republic, Valenzuela was removed to the United States through Miami, Florida, where she was then arrested by U.S. Marshals and ultimately transported to San Diego to face the pending charges against her. Valenzuela is scheduled to be sentenced on July 24, 2026, at 9 a.m. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Blanca Quintero of the Southern District of California. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Valerie Chu contributed significantly to the case ...

A technology that has been gaining significant traction in orthopedic practice offers a faster and more accurate alternative. In-office needle arthroscopy — sometimes called in-office diagnostic arthroscopy, or IONA — allows orthopedic surgeons to directly visualize the interior of a joint during a routine office visit, using nothing more than local anesthesia and a needle-sized camera. The leading device in this space is the mi-eye system, now in its third generation, manufactured by Trice Medical. The mi-eye 3 is an FDA-cleared, single-use needlescope measuring just 2.3 millimeters in diameter — roughly the width of a standard blood-draw needle. It integrates a high-resolution image sensor, LED illumination, and a camera into a single handheld instrument, paired with a portable tablet for real-time visualization. The most recent iteration introduced a 25-degree angled lens, a feature long standard in traditional operating-room arthroscopes, which significantly expands the surgeon's field of view. According to Trice Medical, early data suggests the angled camera can capture over sixteen times more visual information than a zero-degree scope. The clinical workflow is straightforward. The physician numbs the tissue around the joint with a local anesthetic, inserts the needlescope through a standard portal site, and injects a small amount of saline to distend the joint for visibility. Within seconds, the surgeon can visualize cartilage surfaces, meniscal tissue, ligaments, and other structures directly, capturing both still images and video for the medical record. The entire procedure typically takes only minutes, and patients generally resume normal activity within 24 hours. No general anesthesia is required, no operating room is needed, and no hospital facility fee is generated. Physicians who have integrated the procedure into their practices report that it can be performed the same day as the presenting office visit, often while the patient is still in the exam room. The clinical evidence supporting needle arthroscopy's diagnostic performance is compelling. In a prospective, multicenter study comparing the mi-eye device to both MRI and traditional surgical arthroscopy as a reference standard, the needle arthroscope correctly identified all pathologies in over 91% of patients, compared to roughly 61% for MRI. The device proved more sensitive than MRI in detecting meniscal tears — 92.6% versus 77.8% — and substantially more specific, at 100% versus 41.7%. Those specificity numbers are particularly significant in a workers' compensation context, where a false-positive MRI finding can drive unnecessary surgical authorizations and inflated claim costs. Published case reports have illustrated the technology's value in precisely the kind of scenario that frustrates claims professionals. In one well-documented case, a patient with persistent knee pain following an injury had undergone MRI imaging that came back negative. Despite the normal scan, symptoms continued. An in-office needle arthroscopy was performed and immediately identified a tear of the medial meniscus that was subsequently confirmed and repaired during follow-up surgery. The diagnosis was reached in approximately twenty seconds of visualization. A 2025 review published in the Journal of Arthroscopic Surgery and Sports Medicine examined the expanding clinical applications of IONA across multiple joints — knee, shoulder, ankle, wrist, elbow, and hip — and concluded that it is more accurate than MRI for identifying intra-articular pathologies in many of these settings. Notably, the technology has also extended beyond pure diagnostics: surgeons are now performing minor therapeutic procedures through the same needle-sized portals, including partial meniscectomies using miniaturized instruments, which could further reduce operating-room utilization and associated costs. The economic case for in-office needle arthroscopy is particularly relevant to the workers' compensation system. A cost-minimization analysis published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Open Access evaluated societal costs of using in-office diagnostic arthroscopy compared to MRI for employed patients receiving workers' compensation or disability benefits. The study, which examined data from four U.S. metropolitan regions, found that in-office arthroscopy produced potential savings of approximately $7,852 to $11,227 per operative patient compared to the MRI pathway. Those savings reflected not only lower direct procedure costs — average commercial reimbursement for in-office knee arthroscopy was approximately $629, compared to over $1,000 for outpatient MRI — but also the substantial indirect costs of delayed diagnosis: lost wages, extended disability payments, additional office visits, and interim treatments that might prove unnecessary once a definitive diagnosis is reached ...

Air ambulances can be lifesaving for workers with severe job related injuries, and their costs vary widely across states. A new FlashReport from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) examines air ambulance use and payments in workers’ compensation claims across 32 states. “Air ambulances play a critical role in workers’ compensation by providing rapid emergency transport for workers with severe or life‑threatening injuries,” said Sebastian Negrusa, vice president of research at WCRI. “This study helps clarify key questions about costs and access to services, particularly in remote areas.” The study finds wide variation in average payments for air ambulance services across states. It also highlights ongoing legal uncertainty over who has authority to regulate air ambulance pricing, as providers and states differ on whether federal law preempts state workers’ compensation fee schedules. This uncertainty has contributed to wide variation in air ambulance payments across states. The study addresses: - - How frequently air ambulance services are used in workers’ compensation claims and how use differs between rural and non rural areas. - - Differences in air ambulance use and payment levels across states. - - Changes in payments for air ambulance services over time and how trends in payment growth vary by state. The analysis for Use and Cost of Air Ambulance Transport Services in Workers’ Compensation—A WCRI FlashReport is based on workers’ compensation claims from 32 states covering injuries through 2024. The states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The study is free for WCRI members and available for purchase by nonmembers ...

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni co-starred in the film It Ends With Us, a movie exploring domestic violence based on a Colleen Hoover novel. Baldoni co-founded Wayfarer Studios and also directed the film. Lively's role was negotiated through her loanout company, Blakel, Inc., under an Offer Letter dated May 4, 2023. The parties never executed the contemplated long-form Actor Loanout Agreement ("ALA"), though they negotiated it for over a year while filming proceeded. A separate Contract Rider Agreement ("CRA") was signed in January 2024, setting conditions — including a no-retaliation clause — under which Lively would return to production after the 2023 WGA/SAG-AFTRA strikes. Lively alleged in the lawsuit she filed in the United States District Court Southern District of New York that during the first phase of filming in New Jersey, Baldoni and Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath subjected her to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment — including comments about her body, an intrusion on her physical privacy while she was undressed, pressure to perform nudity beyond what was agreed, and discussions of personal sexual matters. In November 2023, Lively's attorneys sent a "Protections for Return to Production" letter identifying seventeen conditions for her return to set. A January 4, 2024 all-hands meeting addressed these concerns, and the CRA was signed shortly after. Lively alleged that following the film's August 2024 release, the defendants launched a coordinated public-relations campaign — engaging crisis consultants, digital operatives, and media contacts — to destroy her reputation in retaliation for her complaints. Expert reports submitted by Lively showed statistical evidence of artificially manipulated online content targeting her. In the Opinion and Order on Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment in the case of Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC No. 24-cv-10049 (S.D.N.Y.) on April 2, 2026, Judge Liman ruled on the Wayfarer Parties' combined motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment on all thirteen of Lively's claims, which spanned Title VII, California FEHA, California Labor Code § 1102.5, breach of contract, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy. The court granted the motions on most claims but denied them on three: (1) Lively's FEHA retaliation claim against IEWUM and Wayfarer (Count Four); (2) her FEHA aiding-and-abetting retaliation claim against The Advocacy Group, LLC (Count Seven); and (3) her breach of the CRA claim against It Ends With Us Movie LLC (Count Nine). All other claims — including Title VII, California Labor Code § 1102.5, FEHA sexual harassment, defamation, false light, civil conspiracy, and breach of the ALA — were dismissed. Employment Status (Title VII and California Labor Code). The court held that Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee, under both the federal Reid factors and California's Borello test. Lively enjoyed extensive contractual approval rights over the script, director, co-lead, wardrobe, marketing, and release pattern; she exercised significant practical control over hiring, firing, editing, and production logistics; she was paid a flat fee plus equity through her loanout entity with no tax withholding or benefits; and her engagement was limited to a single six-week project. Citing Alberty-Velez v. Corporacion de Puerto Rico Para La Difusion Publica, 361 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004), and Lerohl v. Friends of Minnesota Sinfonia, 322 F.3d 486 (8th Cir. 2003), the court reasoned that a director's creative control over an actor does not automatically convert the actor into an employee, and that Lively's independence — both contractual and practical — was overwhelming. Contract Claims. The ALA was found unenforceable because it was never signed, IEWUM consistently insisted on execution as a condition precedent, and Lively could not identify which draft bound the parties or when. The CRA, however, was enforceable: it was signed by both parties, supported by valid consideration (Lively's agreement to return to set when her obligation to do so was doubtful), and its anti-retaliation clause was not dependent on execution of the ALA. Why a New York Federal Court Applied California FEHA. This is the opinion's most significant issue. California law presumes its statutes do not apply extraterritorially, citing Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court, 968 P.2d 539 (Cal. 1999), and courts have consistently held that FEHA does not reach conduct occurring outside California. See Campbell v. Arco Marine, Inc., 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 626 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). The ALA's California choice-of-law clause could not resolve this issue because the ALA was never executed. The court therefore applied the Campbell framework, which asks whether the "core of the alleged wrongful conduct" — particularly the "ultimate" or "crucial" discriminatory acts — occurred in California. For the sexual harassment claims, the answer was no: the alleged hostile-work-environment conduct occurred on a New Jersey film set, and California connections such as Heath's text messages or pre-production Zoom calls were too peripheral to constitute "core" wrongdoing. The court rejected Lively's argument that retaliatory acts committed from California could bootstrap her harassment claims into California's territorial reach, noting that the alleged retaliation occurred after the working relationship ended and thus could not create a hostile work environment. For the retaliation claims, however, the court reached the opposite conclusion. The allegedly retaliatory smear campaign was planned, directed, and largely executed from California. Baldoni and Heath — both California residents — directed their California-based PR consultants (TAG, Nathan) to implement the campaign. TAG retained a digital operative (Wallace) from California. The "decision to take retaliatory actions was made in California," which courts have held satisfies the territorial nexus. See eShares, Inc. v. Talton, 2025 WL 936921, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2025). The court further noted that FEHA's anti-retaliation provision protects "any person" — not just employees — meaning Lively's independent-contractor status did not bar her FEHA retaliation claim. See Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 265, 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). Retaliation — Triable Issues. The court found genuine factual disputes on all three elements of the FEHA retaliation claim: (1) Lively engaged in protected activity through the Protections Letter and all-hands meeting, and it was reasonable for her to believe she was opposing sexual harassment; (2) the Wayfarer Parties' campaign — including statements about wanting to "bury" and "destroy" Lively, coordination with digital operatives whose work would be "untraceable," and expert evidence of artificially manipulated online content — could constitute adverse employment action materially impairing her career prospects; and (3) a jury could infer retaliatory motive from the sequence of events and the Wayfarer Parties' documented anger over Lively's complaints. Remaining Claims Dismissed. The defamation claim was barred by New York's fair-report privilege because all challenged statements were made by counsel in connection with judicial proceedings. The false-light claim failed because New York law — which governed under choice-of-law analysis focused on Lively's New York domicile — does not recognize the tort. Civil conspiracy claims fell with the underlying torts they were predicated on. Individual aiding-and-abetting claims against Nathan and Abel were barred under Reno v. Baird, 957 P.2d 1333 (Cal. 1998), which prohibits personal liability for individual nonemployer agents, though the court reserved judgment on TAG's potential liability as a business-entity agent under Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, 534 P.3d 40 (Cal. 2023). The case is scheduled to proceed to trial on May 18, 2026 in New York ...

James Heaps served as a gynecologist and oncologist affiliated with U.C.L.A. for nearly 35 years. At various times, he saw patients at the Ronald Reagan U.C.L.A. Medical Center and at his office at 100 Medical Plaza. Heaps was reportedly at one time the highest paid physician in the entire U.C. system and had treated approximately 6,000 patients. In October 2022, Heaps was convicted of three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration of an unconscious person. Those charges involved two former patients. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison in April 2023. But that conviction did not stand. On February 6, 2026, the California Second District Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial in the published case of People versus Heaps -B329296 (February 2026). The key issue on appeal was a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, specifically the right to a fair trial and an impartial jury. During deliberations, the trial court received a note indicating that an alternate juror had limited English proficiency, which potentially affected their ability to understand the proceedings and participate fully. The court did not disclose this note to the parties or allow input from the defense and prosecution before proceeding. That procedural error was deemed reversible. So following that reversal, Heaps pleaded guilty this April in case number SA100560 to thirteen counts. Those counts include six felony counts of sexual penetration of an unconscious person, five felony counts of sexual battery by fraud, and two felony counts of sexual exploitation of a patient. The plea came at a pretrial hearing just two months after the appeals court overturned his original conviction. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo sentenced Heaps to 11 years in prison. He is also required to register as a sex offender for life. The charges involved five female patients who were assaulted between 2011 and 2018 while Heaps was working as an obstetrician and gynecologist at U.C.L.A. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman commented on the sentence, saying, quote, today marks the second time that we're holding James Heaps responsible for the unconscionable crimes he committed while being entrusted with the safety of his patients, end quote. Hochman added that for years, Heaps exploited the sacred trust between a doctor and patient to prey on vulnerable victims during medical procedures. He said the sentence ensures Heaps will finally be held accountable for the harm he inflicted under the guise of care. Hochman addressed the survivors directly, expressing hope that the outcome brings them closure, and stating, quote, to all survivors, please know that we believe you and we will fight for you, end quote. This criminal case is just one piece of a much larger scandal at U.C.L.A. involving Heaps. Hundreds of women accused him of inappropriate exams and abuse over many years, leading to his removal from practice and massive civil settlements. More than 500 lawsuits were filed against Heaps and U.C.L.A., accusing the school of failing to protect patients after becoming aware of the misconduct. During the course of the criminal prosecution, attorneys for 312 former patients announced a $374 million settlement of abuse lawsuits against the University of California on May 24, 2022. That came on top of a $243.6 million resolution involving about 200 patients announced in February of that year, and a $73 million settlement of federal lawsuits involving roughly 5,500 plaintiffs. By that point, U.C.L.A. had paid out approximately $700 million in total settlements to hundreds of former patients over related sexual misconduct claims spanning decades. And for context, this is not the only case of its kind in the U.C. system or in higher education more broadly. In March 2021, in a similar case, U.S.C. agreed to pay more than $1.1 billion to about 17,000 former patients of former campus gynecologist George Tyndall. That remains the largest sex abuse payout in higher education history ...

Gregg Rader sustained an industrial injury to his psyche in the form of emotional stress while employed by Ticketmaster Corporation, with dates of injury spanning from November 12, 1991 through November 12, 1992. On January 19, 2011, a Workers' Compensation Judge approved the parties' Stipulations with Request for Award, granting Rader an award of 100 percent permanent total disability at a weekly rate of $336.00. As part of that award, the WCJ approved an attorney's fee of $39,444.71 — calculated as 15 percent of the present value of Rader's anticipated lifetime benefits of $262,964.75 (after a 3% present value reduction). To fund this fee, the parties agreed to commute it laterally from Rader's weekly benefits, reducing each payment by $50.40 and yielding a net weekly payment of $285.60. Years later, Rader contended that the total amount withheld from his weekly benefits had fully satisfied the $39,444.71 attorney's fee. His math was straightforward: dividing $39,444.71 by $50.40 per week produced roughly 782.63 weeks, which — counted from the initial payment date of June 6, 2008 — pointed to approximately June 5, 2023 as the date the commutation should have ended. He argued that his weekly rate should have returned to the full $336.00 at that point and sought penalties and interest for the continued withholding. Defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) countered that the award was silent on any end date for the commutation and that the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to alter the award. The WCJ sided with SCIF. The WCJ reasoned that imprecision is inherent in life-expectancy estimates and that the gross amount of weekly reductions exceeding the fee amount was simply the expected outcome when an applicant outlives the projected life expectancy. The WCJ further found that under Labor Code section 5804, the attempt to undo the rate reduction was filed many years outside the permissible five-year window for amending an award, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction. Last January, the WCAB granted Rader's Petition for Reconsideration in the Significant Panel Decision of Gregg Rader v Ticketmaster -ADJ7138762 (January 2026) and substitute new Findings of Fact that the WCAB retains ongoing jurisdiction over the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 5803, and that because defendant has taken credit from applicant’s weekly payment of permanent indemnity in an amount equivalent to the dollar amount of commuted attorney’s fees, applicant is thereafter entitled to the full amount of his award without further reduction for attorney’s fees. The State Fund was now the aggrieved party in the case for the first time, thus it was allowed to filed its own Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB just denied SCIF's petition for reconsideration in the second panel decision of Rader v. Ticketmaster Corporation -ADJ7138762 (April 2026), affirming its own January 8, 2026 Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration (ODAR) which has been deemed a Significant Panel Decision. That earlier decision had revIersed the WCJ, holding that the WCAB retains jurisdiction over the dispute and that the weekly commutation ends once the gross amount of the awarded attorney's fee ($39,444.71) has been fully satisfied — after which Rader is entitled to his full $336.00 weekly rate. On Jurisdiction: The WCAB acknowledged that Labor Code section 5804 bars rescission, alteration, or amendment of an award more than five years from the date of injury. However, the Board drew a critical distinction: this dispute concerned the enforcement of the existing award's terms — specifically, the allocation of attorney's fees — rather than an alteration of the underlying disability award itself. Under Labor Code section 5803, the WCAB retains ongoing jurisdiction to enforce its orders and awards, including matters collateral to the award such as commutations and attorney's fees. Relying on Hodge v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 501, 508-509 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1034], the Board emphasized that commutation merely alters the form of an award and does not affect the merits of the basic decision determining the worker's right to benefits. On the Merits: The WCAB examined the actual language of the Stipulations and Award and found that the only basis for withholding was to satisfy the specified attorney's fee lien of $39,444.71. Neither the Stipulations nor the Award authorized withholding for any other purpose or contemplated an indefinite reduction. The Board reasoned that once a lien is fully paid, no statutory basis exists to continue allowing it as a charge against compensation under Labor Code section 4903(a). Additionally, under Labor Code section 5100, all commutations must avoid inequity and undue hardship to the applicant — and continuing to reduce benefits for attorney's fees that have already been fully satisfied would be manifestly inequitable. On SCIF's Commutation Table Argument: SCIF pointed to Examples D and E in the commutation instructions under Administrative Director Rule 10169.1 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10169.1), which provide that after commutation of all remaining life pension indemnity, no further benefits are due. The WCAB found these examples inapposite because they involve commuting the entirety of an applicant's future benefits, whereas here the parties commuted only a fixed dollar amount of attorney's fees from an ongoing lifetime benefit stream. A Remaining Open Question: While affirming that the commutation must end once the fee amount is satisfied, the WCAB expressly declined to opine on whether the present-value equivalent of the fees had already been fully withheld — noting that such a determination may require expert testimony and proper application of the 3% present-value calculations under AD Rules 10169 and 10169.1. The Board encouraged the parties to resolve the issue amicably but reminded them that any further proceedings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, citing Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 478 (Appeals Bd. en banc) ...

A U.S. District Judge sentenced Felipe Ruiz, 52, of Fresno, and Jose Gabriel Aguirre, 53, of Clovis, to 63 months in prison for conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The Judge also ordered forfeiture of nine properties owned by Aguirre and Ruiz, as well as a $2.6 million personal forfeiture money judgement against Aguirre and a $12.1 million personal forfeiture money judgement against Ruiz. According to court documents, Ruiz was a podiatrist and the sole owner of West Coast Podiatry Inc. (WCP), a podiatric medical practice with locations in Fresno, Madera, and Stanislaus Counties. Aguirre was a pharmaceutical sales representative who sold skin grafts to Ruiz and WCP. Aguirre was not licensed to practice medicine. Between June 2021 and January 2024, Ruiz purchased skin grafts from Aguirre and permitted Aguirre to apply skin grafts and perform other medical procedures on patients suffering from severe wounds, including foot amputations. Application of the skin grafts required sharp debridement, which means using a scalpel to scrape the wound until it bleeds. Some patients believed Aguirre was a physician, referring to him as “Dr. Gabe.” Aguirre would perform medical procedures alone without supervision from a trained physician. Ruiz and Aguirre submitted fraudulent claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and Medi-Cal that falsely represented that Ruiz and other physicians had performed the medical procedures, such as applying skin grafts to patients, when Aguirre had actually rendered the services. In one example, WCP submitted $150,000 in claims to Medicare in 2023, claiming a physician performed the procedures, when in fact the physician was out of the country on vacation. In another example, Aguirre cut into patients with recently amputated feet with a scalpel and apply skin grafts without a physician’s supervision. Ruiz knew about Aguirre’s conduct and dismissed staff’s concerns about Aguirre. Throughout the period, staff and third-party auditors raised concerns about Ruiz and Aguirre’s billing practices. The two ignored those warnings and continued to bill Medicare and Medicaid for services performed by Aguirre. As a result, Ruiz submitted approximately $3,200,000 in false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and Medi-Cal between 2021 and 2024. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brittany M. Gunter and Cody S. Chapple prosecuted the case ...

Jeanette France worked as an occupational health nurse for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), first through a staffing agency from June to September 2016, and then as a direct hire under an emergency appointment beginning September 27, 2016. Emergency appointments under the Los Angeles City Charter are temporary, capped at one year, and may be terminated at any time without cause. France's immediate supervisor was Bedros Okhanes, who reported to medical director Dr. Leslie Michelle Israel. On January 9, 2017, France was injured at work when a chair she was sitting in fell, causing injuries to her lower back and shoulder. The next day she reported the injury and filed a workers' compensation claim. On February 1, 2017 — less than a month after the injury — the DWP terminated her employment. France described a sequence of events that day: she was first called to the workers' compensation office, where she met with Okhanes and two workers' compensation staff members who asked her to sign documents. France told them she had retained a lawyer — something she had not previously disclosed. Ten to fifteen minutes later, she was called into Dr. Israel's office, where the DWP's director of human resources, Deitra Barnett, told France she was fired without explanation. The DWP maintained that France was terminated for poor job performance that predated her injury. Dr. Israel identified several concerns: France failed to check patient identification before administering vaccines, left vaccines unrefrigerated, and did not take a patient's blood pressure before a breathing test. Okhanes, in a 2019 deposition (he passed away in 2022), confirmed that France had "problems with her assignments." Barnett testified that as an emergency hire, no written documentation of performance deficiencies was required before termination. France denied ever being spoken to about performance issues or receiving any discipline. She also pointed out that the DWP's internal termination paperwork listed no reason for her discharge. France pursued two tracks. First, she filed a civil lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. In December 2019, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment for the DWP, finding under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 that France was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons — namely, poor performance predating her injury — and that France failed to raise a triable issue of pretext. Second, France filed a workers' compensation petition alleging the DWP violated Labor Code section 132a, which prohibits employers from discharging employees for filing or threatening to file a workers' compensation claim. After a multi-day hearing, the workers' compensation judge denied the claim, finding that France failed to prove the termination was retaliatory in light of the performance evidence, and that she produced no evidence that those involved in terminating her even knew about her statements in the workers' compensation meeting minutes earlier. France sought reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition, reversed the judge, and found the DWP had violated section 132a. The WCAB concluded the DWP failed to carry its burden of establishing good cause for termination, emphasizing the absence of written disciplinary records, the lack of a stated reason on termination paperwork, and the fact that Dr. Israel could not recall exact dates for the performance issues she observed. The Court of Appeal granted the DWP's petition for writ of review in the unpublished case of L.A. Department of Water & Power v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Case No. E086551 (April 2026) and annulled the WCAB's decision, directing the WCAB to reinstate the workers' compensation judge's original order denying France's section 132a claim. The court held that the WCAB's findings were unreasonable because the Board systematically ignored relevant evidence rather than evaluating the record as a whole. Citing Bracken v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 246, 255, the court emphasized that while the WCAB has broad authority to make its own credibility determinations on reconsideration, it cannot meet the substantial evidence standard by isolating favorable evidence and ignoring contradictory facts. The court also relied on Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 and Garza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 for the same principle. Specifically, the court identified several ways the WCAB mischaracterized the record. Both Barnett and Israel testified that France was terminated for poor performance, yet the WCAB found that no witness confirmed this. The WCAB stated Barnett testified France was terminated merely because the emergency appointment ended, but Barnett actually testified the appointment was ended because of poor performance. The WCAB discredited Israel's testimony because she could not recall specific dates for the performance issues, while ignoring the superior court's summary judgment order — part of the record — containing Israel's declaration placing those issues in October and November 2016, well before the injury. The WCAB faulted the absence of testimony from France's direct supervisor Okhanes without acknowledging his 2019 deposition testimony, which was in the record and was the only testimony available given his death in 2022. Finally, the WCAB drew negative inferences from the lack of written documentation without addressing Barnett's unrebutted explanation that emergency hires required no such documentation under the City Charter. The court stressed that the WCAB was free to weigh evidence and make credibility determinations, but it was not free to simply ignore evidence that cut against its conclusions. Because the WCAB's decision was not based on the entire record as required by Labor Code section 5952, the court annulled it under the standard set forth in Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 530, 535 and ordered reinstatement of the original award following Redner v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 83, 97 ...

Adrian Muñoz, 36 (born October 22, 1989, and a Los Angeles resident), formerly worked as a medical examiner investigator for the County of Los Angeles Medical Examiner’s office (previously the Department of Medical Examiner-Coroner) since 2018. On April 10, 2026, he pleaded no contest in Los Angeles Superior Court (case BA519016) to one felony count of grand theft and one misdemeanor count of petty theft. These charges involved stealing personal items from deceased individuals during death investigations he was assigned to handle. On January 6, 2023: Muñoz responded to the death of a warehouse worker in South Los Angeles who died of a heart attack on the job. Surveillance footage showed him removing a gold crucifix necklace from the deceased man’s neck and placing it in his medical bag. He did not return the item to the family or document it on the required property receipt. The warehouse worker was previously identified by his family as Miguel Solorio. They told the Los Angeles Times in 2023 that he had worn the necklace for decades.Solorio had been a roughly 10-year employee of Hylands, working in a warehouse where homeopathic products were loaded, unloaded, managed and shipped. Rosalba Solorio, Miguel’s daughter-in-law, who also worked at Hylands, said a representative of the district attorney’s office had called the family to tell them that Muñoz had been arrested. “We’re happy the investigation didn’t just fall through the cracks,” she said. “They actually did something about it and hopefully we’ll see justice for my father-in-law.” An employee of Hylands, who asked for anonymity for fear of retribution, told The Times that Muñoz had been called to take care of Solorio’s body. According to the employee, a security camera at the warehouse caught Muñoz removing the necklace from the body, placing it in a glove and then slipping it into his medical bag. The footage also showed Muñoz taking cash from the front pocket of the man’s pants and, again, slipping it into a glove in his medical bag. “There is something especially appalling about stealing from the dead. During a time when dignity and respect should be absolute, Mr. Muñoz chose greed,” Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said. “Today’s plea is a step toward justice, but it cannot undo the additional trauma inflicted on families who were already dealing with loss. Thank you to Deputy District Attorneys Brandy Chase and Kristopher Gay of the Justice System Integrity Division for their work to ensure the defendant was brought to justice.” Muñoz is scheduled to be sentenced June 5 in Department 113 of the Foltz Criminal Justice Center. Muñoz is expected to be sentenced to two years of formal probation, serve 180 days in Los Angeles County jail, permanently resign from the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and pay restitution to each victim’s family. The case was prosecuted by Deputy District Attorneys Brandy Chase and Kristopher Gay and investigated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department ...

A San Fernando Valley woman was sentenced to 180 months in federal prison for her long-running drug dealing activities, including selling ketamine that contributed to at least two deaths, including the overdose death of actor Matthew Perry in October 2023. Jasveen Sangha, 42, a.k.a. “Ketamine Queen,” of North Hollywood, was sentenced by United States District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. Matthew Langford Perry was an American and Canadian actor, comedian, director and screenwriter. He gained international fame for starring as Chandler Bing on the NBC television sitcom Friends (1994–2004). Perry also appeared on Ally McBeal (2002) and received Primetime Emmy Award nominations for his performances in The West Wing (2003) and The Ron Clark Story (2006). He played a leading role in the NBC series Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (2006–2007), and also became known for his leading film roles in Fools Rush In (1997), Almost Heroes (1998), Three to Tango (1999), The Whole Nine Yards (2000), Serving Sara (2002), The Whole Ten Yards (2004), and 17 Again (2009). On October 28, 2023, Perry was found unresponsive in a hot tub at his home in Pacific Palisades. On December 15, 2023, Perry’s death was revealed to have occurred due to acute effects of ketamine. On August 15, 2024, indictments and charges were filed against five people: Perry’s personal assistant, two doctors, and two drug dealers (including TV director Erik Fleming), alleging involvement in the distribution of ketamine that caused the death of Perry and one other person. Sangha pleaded guilty in September 2025 to one count of maintaining a drug-involved premises, three counts of distribution of ketamine, and one count of distribution of ketamine resulting in death or serious bodily injury. Sangha is a dual citizen of the United States and the United Kingdom and has been in federal custody since August 2024. “For years…Sangha operated a high-volume drug trafficking business out of her North Hollywood residence,” prosecutors argued in a sentencing memorandum. “To cultivate her business, [Sangha] marketed herself as an exclusive dealer who catered to high-profile Hollywood clientele…While [Sangha] worked to expand and profit from her drug trafficking, she knew – and disregarded – the grave harm her conduct was causing.” According to court documents, Sangha worked with Erik Fleming, 56, of Hawthorne, to knowingly distribute ketamine to Perry, a successful actor and author whose struggles with drug addiction were well documented. In October 2023, Sangha and Fleming sold Perry 51 vials of ketamine, which were provided to Kenneth Iwamasa, 61, of Toluca Lake, Perry’s live-in personal assistant. Leading up to Perry’s death, Iwamasa repeatedly injected Perry with the ketamine that Sangha supplied to Fleming. Specifically, on October 28, 2023, Iwamasa injected Perry with at least three shots of Sangha’s ketamine, which caused Perry’s death. In August 2019, Sangha sold four vials ketamine to victim Cody McLaury, who died hours later from a drug overdose. In March 2024, law enforcement searched the residence and found thousands of pressed methamphetamine pills, 79 vials of liquid ketamine, MDMA (Ecstasy) tablets, counterfeit Xanax pills, baggies containing powdered ketamine and cocaine, and other drug trafficking items such as a gold money counting machine, a scale, a wireless signal and hidden camera detector, drug packaging materials, and $5,723 in cash. Sangha also used her North Hollywood residence to store, package, and distribute narcotics, including ketamine and methamphetamine, since at least June 2019. Besides Sangha, the following defendants have been sentenced in this case: - - Salvador Plasencia, 44, a.k.a. “Dr. P,” of Santa Monica, is serving a 30-month prison sentence after pleading guilty in July 2025 to four counts of distribution of ketamine. He surrendered his California medical license in September 2025. Plasencia repeatedly sold vials of ketamine to Perry despite knowing Perry’s well-documented history of drug addiction and that Perry’s personal assistant was administering the drug without medical training or supervision. - - Mark Chavez, 55, of San Diego, was sentenced to three years of probation, eight months of home detention, and was ordered to perform 300 hours of community service after he pleaded guilty in October 2024 to one count of conspiracy to distribute ketamine. Chavez operated a ketamine clinic and sold the drug to Plasencia, who then distributed it to Perry. Chavez surrendered his medical license in November 2024. Iwamasa and Fleming are scheduled to be sentenced in the coming months. Each of them pleaded guilty in August 2024 to federal narcotics charges ...

A San Fernando Valley man who operated corrupt medical clinics was sentenced to 216 months in federal prison for participating in a drug trafficking ring that sold thousands of illegal opioid prescriptions for cash. Justin Douglas Cozart, 48, of Woodland Hills, who operated and supervised the ChiroMed medical clinics, was sentenced by United States District Judge David O. Carter. In February 2025, at the conclusion of a five-day trial, a federal jury found Cozart guilty of one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone, one count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, and one count of concealment money laundering. From 2017 to January 2020, Cozart and others knowingly and intentionally participated in a conspiracy to distribute the opioid painkiller oxycodone outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose. Cozart operated several medical clinics in Southern California. Other members of the conspiracy recruited sham patients to go to Cozart’s clinics – including ones in Inglewood, Santa Ana, and Anaheim – to obtain oxycodone prescriptions. Cozart employed doctors at the clinic, including John Korzelius, 74, a.k.a. “Dr. K,” of Long Beach, who wrote oxycodone prescriptions for the fake patients. The recruiters then paid Cozart for the fraudulent oxycodone prescriptions. Upon obtaining the prescriptions from the clinic, the recruiters took the sham patients to a pharmacy to fill the prescriptions. After collecting and consolidating the pills, co-conspirators shipped them to a drug customer in the Boston area, for distribution on the black market. On two occasions in October and December 2018, parcels containing their consolidated pills were seized by law enforcement. In November and December of 2019, at a clinic in Inglewood, Korzelius issued prescriptions for 60 30 milligram oxycodone pills – the highest dose of short-acting oxycodone available and the dose most popular among drug abusers – to a patient who actually was an undercover law enforcement officer. Korzelius did not conduct a physical examination of this “patient” and instructed the undercover officer to not fill the prescription at a large pharmacy such as Walmart or CVS. “[Cozart] was a primary, illegal source of supply of oxycodone, a dangerous and frequently abused drug, for an organization that was shipping thousands of pills across the country for sale,” prosecutors argued in a sentencing memorandum. “He converted otherwise lawful chiropractic clinics into drug trafficking businesses, and pulled their existing employees…into his scheme.” In total, prosecutors in this case have secured nine convictions. Korzelius pleaded guilty in February 2025 to one count of conspiracy to distribute oxycodone. His California medical license expired in December 2020. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for June 8 ...

An Orange County man has pleaded guilty to submitting nearly $270 million in fraudulent claims over an 11-month span to Medi-Cal for expensive prescription drugs containing generic ingredients that were not medically necessary and, in many instances, not provided to the purported recipients. Paul Richard Randall, 66, of Orange, pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud committed while on release. He has been in federal custody since June 2025. According to his plea agreement, Randall, along with Kyrollos Mekail, 37, of Moreno Valley, and Patricia Anderson, 58, of West Hills, took advantage of Medi-Cal’s suspension of its requirement that health care providers obtain prior authorization before providing certain health care services or medications as a condition of reimbursement. The suspension of the prior authorization requirements was part of an ongoing transition of Medi-Cal’s prescription drug program to a new payment system. Through a business called Monte Vista Pharmacy, Randall and his co-schemers exploited Medi-Cal’s prior authorization suspension by billing Medi-Cal tens of millions of dollars per month for dispensing high-reimbursement, non-contracted, generic drugs through Monte Vista Pharmacy. Some prescription medications purportedly were to treat pain and included Folite tablets, a vitamin available over the counter. Normally, these high-cost reimbursement medications would have required prior authorization under Medi-Cal’s old payment system. Medication involved in this scheme was medically unnecessary, frequently was not dispensed to patients, and procured by kickbacks. From May 2022 to April 2023, Monte Vista billed Medi-Cal more than $269 million and was paid more than $178 million for 19 expensive, non-contracted drugs containing low-cost, generic ingredients that were not medically necessary, not provided, or both. Randall and others then laundered their illicit proceeds by transferring the proceeds of the Medi-Cal fraud scheme to a third party to pay kickbacks to Anderson, to promote the fraud scheme and to conceal and disguise the transfers from detection by law enforcement. Randall admitted in his plea agreement to transmitting by wire at least approximately $269,120,829 in false and fraudulent claims to Medi-Cal for purportedly dispensing the fraud scheme medications that Anderson prescribed, on which Medi-Cal paid at least approximately $178,746,556. United States District Judge Mark C. Scarsi scheduled an August 3 sentencing hearing, at which time Randall will face a statutory maximum sentence of 30 years in federal prison. Relatedly, Mekail pleaded guilty in August 2024 to two counts of health care fraud and awaits sentencing. Anderson is charged with two counts of health care fraud. The United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), the FBI, and the California Department of Justice are investigating this matter. Assistant United States Attorney Roger A. Hsieh of the Major Frauds Section and Trial Attorney Siobhan M. Namazi of the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section are prosecuting this case. Assistant United States Attorney James E. Dochterman of the Asset Forfeiture and Recovery Section is handling asset forfeiture matters in this case ...

The National Safety Council NSC, is America’s leading nonprofit safety advocate – and has been for over 110 years. As a mission-based organization, it works to eliminate the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing our efforts on the workplace and roadways. It seeks to create a culture of safety to not only keep people safer at work, but also beyond the workplace so they can live their fullest lives. According to a new NSC study, workers who use technology to prevent musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on the job report real benefits: reduced concern about injury, improved posture and greater awareness of risks that lead to pain and strain. This conclusion comes from new National Safety Council research that puts worker experience at the center of the conversation. The report, Frontline Worker Perceptions of MSD Prevention Technology, draws on an MSD Solutions Lab survey of more than 400 non-managerial workers across diverse industries, including manufacturing, construction, health care, and transportation and warehousing. The MSD Solutions Lab was established in 2021 with funding from Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN). Nearly 70% of respondents said they experience job-related MSD symptoms. The research also shows that when the right technologies are implemented appropriately they can make a meaningful difference. “For too long, the conversation about MSD prevention technology has centered on employers and developers – not the workers using these tools every day," said Paige DeBaylo, Ph.D., director of the MSD Solutions Lab at NSC. "Employers are looking for different ways to make their workers' jobs safer and less physically demanding. Many report that these technologies improve safety, reduce strain and support overall job satisfaction. That's why NSC is focused on advancing solutions that help prevent injuries before they happen.” Innovations that provide direct physical support, such as exoskeletons and robots, were most strongly associated with reduced MSD symptoms. Monitoring technologies like wearable sensors and computer vision helped workers identify ergonomic risks and build safer work habits. Across all technology types, one factor consistently predicted better outcomes: When organizations involve workers in selecting and using these tools, results improve. This reflects a core NSC workplace safety principle — workers are not just recipients of safety solutions, they are essential partners in making them work. These findings build on the Council’s ongoing research and collaboration to advance solutions that protect workers. Learn more at nsc.org/msd ...

Chronic kidney disease affects over 35.5 million Americans, and roughly 800,000 suffer from end-stage renal disease (ESRD), which requires either a kidney transplant or regular dialysis. More than 80% of ESRD patients are unemployed and lack employer-sponsored insurance. Private insurers reimburse dialysis providers at rates well above Medicare, creating an incentive for providers to keep patients on private plans. The American Kidney Fund (AKF), a nonprofit charity, runs a Health Insurance Premium Program (HIPP) that helps ESRD patients pay insurance premiums regardless of whether they choose public or private coverage. AKF's largest donors are dialysis giants DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care, which together account for an estimated 80% of AKF's funding. When HIPP recipients carry private insurance, these providers benefit from higher reimbursement rates. In 2019, California enacted Assembly Bill 290 to address what the legislature viewed as providers exploiting the Affordable Care Act's preexisting-condition rules. AB 290 contained five key provisions: a Reimbursement Cap tying provider payments to Medicare rates if the provider donated to a charity like AKF; a Patient Disclosure Requirement forcing AKF to reveal assisted patients' names to insurers; a Financial Assistance Restriction barring AKF from conditioning aid on treatment eligibility; a Coverage Disclosure Requirement mandating that AKF inform patients of all available insurance options; and a Safe Harbor Provision giving AKF until July 1, 2020, to request an updated federal advisory opinion. AKF warned it would shut down California operations if AB 290 took effect. AKF, the providers, and individual patients sued. The United States District Court Central District of California granted partial summary judgment to each side. It struck down the Anti-Steering Provision, the Patient Disclosure Requirement, and the Financial Assistance Restriction as unconstitutional, but upheld the Reimbursement Cap, the Coverage Disclosure Requirement, and the Safe Harbor Provision. The court also found the unconstitutional provisions severable from the rest of the statute. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part, ultimately invalidating most of AB 290 in the published case of Fresenius Medical Care Orange County, LLC v. Bonta, Nos. 24-3654, 24-3655, 24-3700 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026) Reimbursement Cap — Reversed (unconstitutional). The court held that capping reimbursement only for providers who donate to charities like AKF burdens the First Amendment right to expressive association, triggering exacting scrutiny under Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595 (2021). California demonstrated a sufficiently important interest in preventing distortion of insurance risk pools, but the Cap failed narrow tailoring. The state could have directly regulated reimbursement rates for ESRD patients without conditioning the cap on charitable donations. The provision was also overbroad, sweeping in any healthcare provider making any donation. Patient Disclosure Requirement — Affirmed (unconstitutional). Because California's sole justification for this provision was enforcing the now-unconstitutional Reimbursement Cap, the requirement lacked any surviving governmental interest and violated the First Amendment. Financial Assistance Restriction — Affirmed (unconstitutional). The court agreed the restriction burdened AKF's right to choose its own beneficiaries. While California has a substantial interest in protecting vulnerable populations from abusive practices, see Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 731 (1997), the restriction's broad text eliminated AKF's ability to determine its patient population, far exceeding what narrow tailoring permits. Coverage Disclosure Requirement — Affirmed as constitutional but not severable. Under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), the requirement to inform patients of all coverage options compels only factual, uncontroversial information reasonably related to preventing consumer deception. However, the court found this provision failed volitional severability: since 90% of affected patients already carry public insurance, a standalone disclosure mandate — especially without the Anti-Steering Provision — could actually push patients toward private coverage, defeating the legislature's purpose. Safe Harbor Provision — Moot. The deadline for AKF to request an updated advisory opinion (July 1, 2020) passed without action, rendering the issue nonjusticiable ...

Workplace amputations, while less common than sprains, strains, and fractures, generate some of the most complex and expensive claims in the system. They frequently involve catastrophic injury designations, lifetime medical benefits, permanent total disability determinations, and extensive vocational rehabilitation. The prosthetic device itself is often one of the largest recurring cost items in the claim, as socket prostheses require periodic replacement, refitting, and repair throughout the injured worker's lifetime. New research presented at the 2026 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) in New Orleans is reshaping the conversation around prosthetic limb technology for amputees — and the implications for catastrophic workers' compensation claims are substantial. Three studies from Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), the nation's top-ranked orthopedic hospital, presented findings on osseointegration, a surgical procedure in which a metal implant is anchored directly into the residual bone of an amputee, allowing a prosthetic limb to attach to the skeleton itself rather than to a traditional socket worn over the stump. The research challenges longstanding clinical assumptions about who should receive this procedure and when. For decades, the standard rehabilitation path after a limb amputation has been a socket-mounted prosthesis — an external cup that fits over the residual limb and connects to the artificial leg or arm. The socket approach is familiar, widely available, and covered by most insurers. But it is also plagued by well-documented problems. Studies indicate that up to three-quarters of lower-extremity amputees experience skin ulcers, excessive perspiration, poor fit, or pain where the residual limb meets the socket. Frequent refitting is common. The size and shape of the residual limb can fluctuate significantly in the first 12 to 18 months after surgery, leading to misalignment, balance problems, and falls. Many amputees eventually reduce how often they wear their prosthesis — or stop using it altogether. Osseointegration eliminates the socket entirely. A biocompatible titanium implant is surgically inserted into the residual bone — most commonly the femur (above-knee amputation) or tibia (below-knee amputation). Over time, the bone grows into the implant's surface, creating a permanent mechanical bond. The external prosthetic limb then clicks directly onto the implant through a small opening in the skin. Osseointegration is not new — the concept dates to the 1940s, and the first prosthetic applications were developed in Sweden decades ago. What is new is the pace at which the clinical evidence base is expanding, the range of patients being treated, and the emergence of custom 3D-printed implants that can accommodate more complex anatomies. With HSS, the University of Colorado Limb Restoration Program, and other leading centers actively publishing outcomes data, the procedure is moving from niche to mainstream orthopedic practice. The clinical advantages are significant. Patients with osseointegrated prosthetics report improved stability, better energy transfer during walking, and dramatically improved proprioception — the body's sense of where a limb is in space. Because the prosthesis connects directly to bone, vibrations from ground contact travel through the skeleton, giving the user a degree of sensory feedback that socket prostheses cannot provide. Patients describe being able to feel the ground beneath them again. HSS has performed more osseointegration surgeries than any other hospital in the United States — over 300 since 2017 — and its surgeons were the first in the country to use the procedure for below-knee amputations. The three AAOS 2026 presentations each addressed a different question: Femur vs. tibia outcomes. The first study compared safety and functional outcomes between patients who received osseointegration at the femur level and those who received it at the tibia level. Previously, there was limited published data comparing the two. The researchers found that both groups achieved significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes and prosthetic use, with comparable safety profiles. This finding broadens the pool of candidates who may benefit from the procedure. Timing of the procedure. The second study examined whether osseointegration should be performed at the same time as the initial amputation or reserved for patients who have already tried and failed with a socket prosthesis. Conventional clinical practice has generally required amputees to attempt socket-based rehabilitation first. The HSS researchers found that patients who underwent simultaneous amputation and osseointegration achieved mobility and quality-of-life gains comparable to those who had osseointegration after an existing amputation, with no significant difference in complications. The lead researcher stated that the findings support offering osseointegration at the time of amputation for well-informed patients who prefer to bypass the socket trial — a meaningful departure from the current standard of care. Custom 3D-printed implants. The third study reviewed early outcomes using custom-made, 3D-printed osseointegration implants for patients whose anatomy does not fit standard implant configurations. The custom implants avoided a complication known as intraoperative distal chip fracture, which can occur with off-the-shelf implants, and showed no loosening. Short-term functional outcomes were comparable to standard implants ...