The CEO of a Fresno-based home health care company was arrested at San Francisco International Airport while attempting to board a flight to Nigeria. He is charged in a criminal complaint alleging that he fraudulently obtained more than $7 million in payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs for services that were never actually rendered, including care purportedly rendered to veterans weeks after they had died, U.S. Attorney Eric Grant announced. According to court documents, between December 2019 and July 2024, Cashmir Chinedu Luke, believed to be 66, of Antioch, operated Four Corners Health LLC. That entity provided unskilled in-home nursing and day-to-day care for elderly VA beneficiaries under the Veterans Community Care Program. Four Corners provided services in Fresno, Tulare, Merced, Mariposa, Madera, San Francisco, and Contra Costa Counties. Luke engaged in a five-year scheme to bill the VA for hours of care that were not actually rendered to veterans. Luke caused Four Corners to submit approximately 10,000 individual false claims of care provided that caused the VA, through its third-party benefits administrator, to reimburse Four Corners $7 million for duplicate claims for care actually provided, claims for days caretakers were not present with veterans, claims for hours of care beyond those actually worked by caretakers, and claims of care for veterans who were actually dead. Luke served as the sole owner and billing representative for Four Corners and actively deceived the VA’s third-party benefits administrator as it attempted to recover some of the fraudulently paid reimbursements. This allowed the Four Corners billing scheme to continue. Luke personally profited from the scheme as the sole owner of the bank account that received the reimbursement payments. Luke spent reimbursement payments immediately after being paid by the VA, either by spending lavishly on personal expenses or by promptly transferring the funds across a network of bank accounts throughout Asia and Africa. This is not Luke's first encounter with federal law. In 2009, he was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland of conspiracy to commit identification document fraud and aggravated identity theft. His appeal in United States v. Luke, 628 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2010), was filed following his October 23, 2009, conviction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on all four counts of the indictment. Luke challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, arguing that his actions did not fall within the scope of the relevant federal statutes. The Fourth Circuit, in a published opinion authored by Judge Allyson K. Duncan, rejected these arguments in a unanimous decision and affirmed the district court's judgment. The opinion emphasized that the statutes' broad language clearly encompassed Luke's fraudulent conduct, and the evidence at trial was more than sufficient to support the jury's verdict. He served a 27-month prison sentence, followed by three years of supervised release. Court records from that case indicate Luke, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Nigeria, used two identities - his legal name (Cashmir Luke) and birth name (Chinedu Cashmire Osuagwu) - and was found to have committed perjury during his testimony. The 2008 detention order noted his "ties to Nigeria," which may explain the timing of his attempted departure. Luke immigrated to the United States from Nigeria in 1982 and became a naturalized citizen in 1984. He initially obtained a U.S. passport and a Virginia driver's license under his birth name, Chinedu Cashmire Osuagwu. In 1996, he legally changed his name to Cashmir Chinedu Luke but continued to actively maintain both identities for separate purposes, such as professional and personal dealings. At the time of the 2009 offenses, Luke resided in Randallstown, Maryland, and worked as a respiratory therapist at a rehabilitation hospital in Baltimore. This 2025 case is the product of an investigation by the U.S. Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorney Calvin Lee is prosecuting the case. If convicted, Luke faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. 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 ...

A former physician from Santa Monica was sentenced today to 30 months in federal prison for repeatedly selling vials of ketamine to actor and author Matthew 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. Salvador Plasencia, 44, a.k.a. “Dr. P,” was sentenced by United States District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett, who also fined him $5,600 and ordered him immediately remanded to federal custody. Plasencia pleaded guilty on July 23 to four counts of distribution of ketamine. He surrendered his California medical license in September 2025. Plasencia was a physician who owned and operated a Calabasas-based urgent-care clinic called Malibu Canyon Urgent Care LLC. As a medical doctor, Plasencia knew that ketamine was a controlled substance and an anesthetic that is used to treat – without the approval of the United States Food and Drug Administration – depression and other psychiatric conditions. At all relevant times, Plasencia knew about potential risks associated with ketamine, including sedation, psychiatric events, abuse and misuse by patients, among others. As his treatment notes reflected, Plasencia also believed that patients “should be monitored by [a] physician when undergoing treatment as a safety Measure,” according to court documents. On September 30, 2023, Plasencia was introduced to Perry by one of his own patients who stated that Perry was a “high profile person” who was seeking ketamine and was willing to pay “cash and lots of thousands” for ketamine treatment, according to Plasencia’s plea agreement. “Rather than do what was best for Mr. Perry – someone who had struggled with addiction for most of his life – [Plasencia] sought to exploit Perry’s medical vulnerability for profit,” prosecutors argued in a sentencing memorandum. “Indeed, the day [Plasencia] met Perry he made his profit motive known, telling a co-conspirator: ‘I wonder how much this moron will pay’ and ‘let’s find out.’” The same day Plasencia met Perry, he contacted Mark Chavez, 55, then a licensed San Diego physician. Plasencia that day drove to Costa Mesa and purchased from Chavez $795 in ketamine vials and tablets, syringes, and gloves. Plasencia then drove to Perry’s home in Los Angeles, injected Perry with ketamine, and left at least one vial of ketamine to Kenneth Iwamasa, 60, of Toluca Lake, Perry’s personal assistant. Iwamasa paid Plasencia $4,500. During the following weeks, Plasencia again purchased ketamine from Chavez and administered the drug to Perry multiple times at Perry’s home and once in a Long Beach parking lot while in the backseat of Perry’s vehicle. During one ketamine treatment at Perry’s home, Perry’s blood pressure spiked causing him to freeze up. Notwithstanding Perry’s reaction, Plasencia left additional vials of ketamine with Iwamasa, knowing that Iwamasa would inject the ketamine into the victim. From September 30, 2023, to October 12, 2023, Plasencia distributed 20 vials and multiple tablets of ketamine and syringes to Iwamasa and Perry, knowing that his conduct fell below the proper standard of medical care and that the ketamine transfers were not for a legitimate medical purpose. As prosecutors argued in their sentencing memorandum, Plasencia charged a total of $57,000 for these efforts, even though the going price of ketamine was only approximately $15 per vial. Plasencia later placed an order for 10 vials of ketamine through a licensed pharmaceutical company using his Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) license. After receiving the ketamine, on October 27, 2023, he sent the following text message to Iwamasa: “I know you mentioned taking a break. I have been stocking up on the meanwhile. I am not sure when you guys plan to resume but in case its when im out of town this weekend I have left supplies with a nurse of mine ...I can always let her know the plan.” Perry fatally overdosed on ketamine the following day. Plasencia did not provide the ketamine that caused his death. After Perry’s overdose and in response to a subpoena issued by the DEA to Plasencia, Plasencia falsified purported treatment notes and an invoice for Perry, which prosecutors argued were designed to cover up that he had been illegally selling vials of ketamine to Iwamasa. Among other things, Plasencia provided fraudulent notes that claimed on October 7, 2023, Perry was “scheduled to meet for a treatment session but was not present,” when, in fact, as Plasencia knew, the only person he was schedule to meet on that day was Iwamasa, at midnight, at a public street corner outside of a bar in Santa Monica, to sell Iwamasa vials of ketamine, to be administered to Perry without any health care professional present. Chavez and Iwamasa pleaded guilty last year to federal drug charges and are scheduled to be sentenced on December 17, 2025, and January 14, 2026, respectively. Two other defendants charged in connection with Perry’s death – Erik Fleming, 56, of Hawthorne, and Jasveen Sangha, 42, a.k.a. “Ketamine Queen,” of North Hollywood, also pleaded guilty to federal drug charges and await sentencing on January 7, 2026, and February 25, 2026, respectively. The Los Angeles Police Department, the DEA, and the United States Postal Inspection Service investigated this matter.Assistant United States Attorneys Ian V. Yanniello of the National Security Division and Haoxiaohan H. Cai of the Major Frauds Section prosecuted this case ...

Proposition 103, passed by California voters in 1988, is a landmark insurance reform measure that rolled back auto and homeowners insurance rates by about 20%, established prior approval requirements for rate increases (giving the elected Insurance Commissioner oversight), and created other consumer protections to prevent excessive pricing and ensure fair practices. Authored by Harvey Rosenfield of Consumer Watchdog, it has saved Californians billions in premiums over the decades but has come under fire amid the state's ongoing insurance crisis, driven by wildfires, climate change, and rising claims costs. Critics, including some insurers and brokers, argue it stifles market competition and deters companies from offering policies in high-risk areas, leading to insurer pullbacks and coverage gaps. The conflict escalated in 2025, prompting competing ballot measures for the November 2026 election. One of them was the California Insurance Market Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2026. It was filed in August 2025 by Elizabeth Hammack, a Roseville-based insurance broker and owner of Panorama Insurance Associates. This initiative sought to overhaul Prop 103 by repealing its core rate-regulation provisions, allowing faster rate approvals, reducing regulatory burdens, and aiming to attract more insurers back to the market. Supporters framed it as essential for stabilizing California's "free-falling" insurance sector, citing recent catastrophic fires like those in Altadena and Pacific Palisades. This prompted a response. The Insurance Policyholder Bill of Rights. It was filed on September 22, 2025, by Consumer Watchdog leaders Carmen Balber (executive director), Jamie Court, and Harvey Rosenfield. This measure responded directly to Hammack's filing and proposed strengthening consumer protections. Key provisions included: Guaranteeing homeowners insurance for those meeting state wildfire mitigation standards (or facing a five-year sales ban for non-compliant insurers). Consumer Watchdog positioned it as a defense of Prop 103's legacy while addressing modern challenges like the exodus of five major homeowners insurers from parts of California. On December 2, 2025 leaders from both sides announced a mutual "armistice," withdrawing their initiatives from the 2026 ballot. This deal preserves Prop 103's existing reforms intact for now, avoiding a high-stakes voter showdown that could have divided the insurance debate further. In a joint statement from Consumer Watchdog, Balber, Court, and Rosenfield explained: “This armistice preserves the landmark protections and consumer savings under insurance reform Proposition 103, which was the principal reason we filed the Policyholder Bill of Rights this year. We said if the broker withdrew, we would withdraw. There is still a huge need for many of the other protections in the ballot measure, including the right to be guaranteed an insurance policy if homeowners meet state wildfire mitigation standards and the right to better claims handling policies." "We do not have the financial resources to pursue this fight at this time. However, we will spend the next year building support in order to pressure the insurance industry to sell policies in higher risk areas and to treat their customers better. Polling shows 85% of voters want insurance companies to have a mandate to sell homeowners insurance to people who fire-proof their homes. It’s up to the legislature to enact such changes. If they do not, we will work to have the resources to take this popular fight directly to the voters in 2028.” California's insurance market remains strained: Recent laws like SB 1107 (effective January 2026) offer temporary relief by speeding up rate approvals for "good faith" filers, but critics call it a "Band-Aid." The competing ballot withdrawals avert a costly signature-gathering and campaign fight (ballot measures require ~546,000 valid signatures), but they don't resolve underlying tensions - insurers continue to limit policies in fire-prone areas, leaving many homeowners uninsured or underinsured. Public sentiment leans pro-consumer, per the polling cited, which could fuel legislative momentum. This development highlights the ongoing tug-of-war between deregulation (to lure insurers) and consumer safeguards in a wildfire-ravaged state ...

California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), codified in Business and Professions Code Section 17200, prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. This broad statute has been applied to challenge "no-poach" provisions - also known as no-hire or non-solicitation agreements between competing companies - where employers agree not to recruit, solicit, or hire each other's employees, either explicitly or through informal arrangements. Such agreements are viewed as anticompetitive because they restrict employee mobility, suppress wages by limiting competition for talent, and hinder workers' ability to negotiate better compensation or job terms. No-poach provisions also may violate California antitrust laws under the Cartwright Act (Business and Professions Code §§ 16720 et seq.), which bars agreements that restrain trade, including those that suppress compensation or limit hiring among competitors. They can also constitute violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL - Section 17200) when deemed unlawful or unfair business practices. PSSI is a national cleaning and sanitation company that contracts with dozens of meatpacking and food processing facilities in California and hundreds across the country. Nationally, PSSI employs over 17,000 workers across approximately 500 worksites. PSSI has had cleaning contracts with over 20 meatpacking and food processing companies in California, including well-known names such as Foster Farms, Harris Ranch, and Pilgrim’s Pride. DOJ’s investigation revealed that PSSI had implemented a no-poach provision in 22 out of its 24 operative contracts in California, which impacted the rights of approximately 6,000 employees who worked pursuant to those contracts. Today’s judgment, once approved by the court, resolves the allegations stated above. According to the Attorney General, this business practice, often hidden from employees, can have serious implications including artificially lowering employee compensation, reducing incentives for companies to improve working conditions, and limiting employee career growth. Last April, the Attorney General filed a lawsuit against PSSI in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, Case No. 25CU022640C, entitled The People of the State of California v. Packers Sanitation Services, Inc., LTD., dba Fortrex; Packers Sanitation Services, LTD., LLC, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 20, alleging a cause of action for violations of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 Unfair Competition Law related to the No Hire Provision allegedly contained within Services Agreements So-called no-poach provisions are contractual agreements between employers to not hire each other’s employees. The People further allege that PSSI’s No Hire Provision had the effect of restraining employee mobility in violation of Business and Professions Code section 16600. PSSI removed the No Hire Provision from all of its California Services Agreements by February 2024. This week the California Attorney General announced a settlement against Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. LTD., now doing business as Fortrex (PSSI), a national cleaning and sanitation company, resolving allegations that the company used unlawful “no poach” agreements that restrict competition. As part of the settlement, PSSI will provide notice to employees and customers regarding its discontinued use of the unlawful provision, in addition to paying $500,000 in civil penalties. According to the Settlement Agreement the Defendants continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and liability in connection with this litigation. There have been several other no-poaching cases filed in California dating back to at least 2011. 2011 - In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, Settled in 2015 for $415 million. 2014 - In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litigation, Settled in 2017 for $100 million. 2016 - Frost v. LG Electronics Inc., Dismissed in 2018 for failure to plausibly allege U.S. impact. 2017 - Markson v. CRST International Inc, Ongoing 2018 - Multistate Fast-Food No-Poach Settlements (e.g., Arby's, Dunkin', Five Guys, Little Caesars), no monetary penalties but injunctive relief. 2019 - Multistate Fast-Food No-Poach Settlements (e.g., Burger King, Popeyes, Tim Hortons), 2020 settlements prohibited future use nationwide ...

Neill Francis Niblett was employed by the County of Los Angeles’s fire department as a senior mechanic. He frequently voiced complaints about management decisions, often raising his voice toward Samuel S. (a nonparty to this case) who was an assistant chief. On October 5, 2022, Niblett reportedly acted in a verbally abusive manner after Samuel instructed him to pick up parts left on the floor of a department facility. Several days later, on October 11, 2022, Niblett expressed frustration to department secretary Cari Hughes over the transfer of one of his mechanics without his knowledge. During this conversation, Niblett stated, "If they don’t change things in this department, they’re going to have another situation like they had with Tatone." This alluded to a June 2021 incident in which firefighter Jonathan Tatone fatally shot a colleague at Fire Station 81. The County filed a petition for a three-year workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) issued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.82 that protects nonparty Samuel S.3 from defendant and appellant Neill Francis Niblett on November 18, 2022. It was supported by declarations from Samuel and Hughes. A temporary restraining order was issued shortly thereafter. Niblett filed a verified response denying the allegations, accompanied by a declaration from union president Luis Del Cid, who described an interaction between Samuel and Niblett but was not a percipient witness. At the January 18, 2023 hearing, Hughes, Samuel, and Del Cid testified; Niblett appeared but did not testify. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Niblett's October 11 statement constituted a credible threat of violence under section 527.8, as it was a knowing and willful statement that would place a reasonable person in fear for their safety or that of their immediate family, serving no legitimate purpose. The WVRO barred Niblett from harassing Samuel, entering his workplace, or possessing firearms or ammunition, and it was set to expire on January 18, 2026. Due to his conduct, Niblett was placed on leave and had not returned to work as of the hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the partially published case of County of Los Angeles v. Neill Francis Niblett -B327744 (November 2025). On appeal, Niblett challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the credible threat finding, arguing the statement was mere criticism of management rather than a threat. The appellate court rejected this, holding that substantial evidence - viewed in the light most favorable to the County and under the clear and convincing standard - supported the trial court's determination. The court reasoned that a reasonable person could interpret Niblett's reference to the Tatone shooting, made amid ongoing frustrations with department decisions, as an implied threat of violence against management if changes were not made. Samuel, as Niblett's supervisor and a logical target, was appropriately named as the protected party. The court further concluded that great or irreparable harm would likely result without the order, given the reasonable probability of future unlawful violence. Niblett's constitutional claims were also unavailing. His First Amendment challenge failed because the statement qualified as a "true threat," unprotected by the Constitution. The Second Amendment claim regarding the firearm restriction was rejected, as section 527.8's provisions align with historical traditions of disarming individuals posing credible threats of violence. Additional claims of error, including procedural and evidentiary issues, were deemed forfeited due to inadequate briefing or being raised for the first time in reply. Notably, the opinion highlighted concerns over Niblett's appellate counsel's apparent misuse of artificial intelligence in preparing the opening brief, which included misrepresentations of case holdings and citation to a nonexistent case. Counsel failed to correct these errors despite the County's identification of them. In a concurrent ruling, the court ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for undermining the integrity of the appellate process. The WVRO was affirmed in its entirety ...

In the published case of Shayan v. Shakib -B337559 (December 2025) the Court of Appeal issued a strongly worded published order imposing sanctions on appellant’s counsel, Fahim Farivar, for filing an opening brief riddled with fabricated case quotations and an intentionally misleading citation to a hearing transcript from an unrelated case. According to his firm's website "Farivar Law Firm, APC is an AV-rated Los Angeles legal firm which has built a strong reputation for aggressive litigation, outstanding results, and attentive service. We combine the many services of a large legal firm with the personal attentiveness of a sole attorney practice." Farivar has an office at 18321 Ventura Blvd., Suite 750 in Tarzana California. The respondent moved to strike the brief and dismiss the consolidated appeals, contending that the numerous fictitious quotations were the product of artificial-intelligence “hallucinations.” Appellant and Farivar denied any use of AI, instead attributing the inaccuracies to a flawed internal drafting process in which non-attorney staff were given vague paraphrased “placeholders” and instructed to locate and insert verbatim language from Westlaw. The court found this explanation immaterial: whether the false quotations originated from generative AI or from Farivar’s delegation of critical citation work to unqualified staff, the signatory attorney remained fully responsible for ensuring the accuracy of everything submitted to the court. The panel identified three categories of fabrications: (1) real words from cited cases rearranged into sentences that never appeared in the opinions; (2) loose paraphrases presented as direct quotations; and (3) wholly invented statements bearing no relation to the cited authority (including one fabricated quotation about attorney fees in a case that never mentioned the topic). The court rejected Farivar’s characterization of these as mere “clerical citation errors,” noting that the opposition papers themselves continued to misrepresent case holdings. Relying on recent precedent (People v. Alvarez (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1115 and Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 426), the court held that submitting briefs containing fabricated legal authority constitutes an unreasonable violation of the California Rules of Court and the Rules of Professional Conduct, regardless of the source of the falsehoods. Farivar’s practice of providing staff with placeholder paraphrases and expecting accurate verbatim insertions carried the same inherent risk of error as uncritical reliance on AI tools. The court declined to grant respondent’s request to dismiss the appeals, finding that sanction short of dismissal would suffice. Instead, it ordered: - - Monetary sanctions of $7,500 payable by Farivar personally to the clerk of the court within 30 days of remittitur; - - The original opening brief stricken in its entirety; - - Appellant granted leave to file a corrected opening brief (with redline) within 10 days, limited to removing or correcting the fabricated material; and - - A copy of the order forwarded to the State Bar of California for investigation of Farivar’s apparent violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3.3(a)(2) (prohibiting knowingly misquoting authority). Emphasizing the broader threat to judicial integrity, the court warned that inaccurate or hallucinated authorities whether generated by technology or human carelessness can be repeated, believed, and eventually treated as established law. The panel declared there is “no room in our court system for the submission of fake, hallucinated case citations, facts, or law.” The order underscores that, in the era of both generative AI and increasingly complex delegation practices, the ethical and procedural duty of accuracy remains exclusively on the attorney who signs and files the document ...

A federal jury in San Francisco convicted Ruthia He, the founder and CEO of Done, a California-based digital health company, and David Brody, its clinical president, for their roles in a years-long scheme to illegally distribute Adderall over the internet and conspire to commit health care fraud in connection with the submission of false and fraudulent claims for reimbursement for Adderall and other stimulants. Ruthia He was also convicted of conspiring to obstruct justice. Done Global Inc. was founded in 2019 by Ruthia He, a former Facebook product designer with no medical background. The company capitalized on regulatory changes introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) relaxed rules requiring in-person consultations for prescribing controlled substances. This allowed Done to offer online access to ADHD medications, including Adderall, Ritalin, and Vyvanse. According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, He and Brody conspired with others to build a billion-dollar technology company and raise money from investors by providing easy access to over 40 million pills of Adderall and other stimulants in exchange for payment of a monthly subscription fee. They both spent over $40 million on deceptive advertisements on social media networks that sought to convince Americans challenged by a lack of structure during the COVID-19 pandemic that they were suffering from ADHD. Defendants also paid for targeted keyword search advertisements for drug seekers who wanted to obtain Adderall without a legal prescription. The evidence at trial showed that He and Brody sought to place “hard limits” on clinical discretion by limiting the length of the initial appointment to less than half the length of a typical psychiatric examination, and seeking to increase profits by refusing to pay for any follow-up treatment. In order to facilitate the illegal prescriptions, He paid nurse practitioners around the country up to $60,000 per month to refill prescriptions without clinical interaction, and enabled an “auto-refill” technology feature where patients could receive prescriptions without clinical interaction for years based on an auto-generated email sent each month requesting additional prescriptions. The auto-refill policy, in some instances, resulted in prescriptions being issued for deceased patients. He instructed employees that successful technology companies profit off addiction, and offered an expensive luxury electric vehicle to employees who broke the law. Brody told nurses to continue prescribing Adderall, even to patients who were abusing other medications, and to disregard the risk of going to jail. He and Brody also prohibited independent clinical practitioners from discharging patients, and patients were not discharged and continued to receive Adderall even after concerned family members repeatedly notified Done that their children were suffering from bipolar, Adderall-induced psychosis, or other mental health conditions that could be worsened by continued prescriptions. In order to ensure that members continued paying monthly subscription fees, He, Brody, and others conspired to defraud insurers so that Done members would be able to use insurance to pay for Adderall dispensed at pharmacies. He, Brody, and others submitted false and fraudulent prior authorization requests to insurers, which claimed that Done followed the DSM-5 in diagnosing ADHD, utilized urine drug screens, and falsely claimed that non-stimulants had previously been tried without success. As a result, Medicare, Medicaid, and the commercial insurers paid in excess of approximately $14 million. In 2022, national media outlets reported that Done was making Adderall too easy to get online. In response to questions from the media, investors, and certain major pharmacy chains, the defendants made deceptive statements about Done’s policies. While internal documents showed that the defendants followed a “customer-first” philosophy where they attempted to obtain customer approval ratings higher than America’s highest-rated retailers, offered second opinions to patients who complained of being denied Adderall, and that He – who had no medical training – ultimately was responsible for approving clinical practices, The defendants falsely denied the existence of these policies and claimed Done was run by independent clinical leadership. To obstruct the government’s investigation, the evidence at trial showed that He moved operations to China to make personnel and evidence unavailable. He limited her communications on company platforms, used encrypted messaging apps with disappearing messages, and deleted incriminatory documents, such as language encouraging Done providers to provide Adderall even to patients who did not have ADHD. He also transferred over $1 million to a Chinese shell company named Make Believe Asia, conducted internet searches for countries that did not have extradition, and was stopped by law enforcement leaving the country. He and Brody were both convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, four counts of distribution of controlled substances, and one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. He was also convicted of one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice. He and Brody each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on the conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of controlled substances counts. Sentencings are set for Feb. 25, 2026. Judge Breyer will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors ...

Four people have pleaded no-contest to felony insurance fraud and assault charges for their role in staging a collision targeting a rideshare driver. Fifth individual, alleged co-conspirator, Deshawn Perater-Nickson, 26, of Adelanto, faces additional charges of false imprisonment, pimping, and pandering and is due in court January 26, 2026. Ledontae Pope, 30, of San Bernardino, and Kalil Davis, 27, of Hesperia, were arrested on January 24, 2025 for insurance fraud and assault with a deadly weapon related to a staged collision involving a rideshare vehicle. Investigators from the Inland Empire Automobile Insurance Fraud Task Force (IEAIFTF) found on November 23, 2024 a collision involving Pope, Davis, John Murillo, 37, of San Bernardino, occurred on the I-215 in San Bernardino. The suspects ordered a rideshare and during that ride, a separate vehicle driven by Murillo, intentionally collided with the rideshare vehicle driven by the victim. Perater-Nickson was the registered owner of the vehicle that Murillo was driving. The suspects intended to file bodily injury claims against the rideshare driver’s insurance and collect the insurance payout. The incident was originally reported to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) as a hit and run and the suspects traveling in the rideshare vehicle claimed injuries and were transported to the hospital via ambulance. The CHP then reported the collision to the IEAIFTF, after the rideshare driver came forward and suspected they were intentionally hit by the other vehicle. On January 27, 2025 the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office charged Pope, Davis, and Perater-Nickson with assault with a deadly weapon and insurance fraud. At the time of their arrests, two of the three suspects were on probation for previous convictions for narcotics trafficking, assault with a deadly weapon, and felony possession of a firearm. Additional search warrants were conducted after the arrests of Pope, Davis, and Perater-Nickson which led to the discovery of the identities of two additional suspects. The driver, Murillo and co-conspirator Klydale Moses, 24, of Fontana, were arrested on May 19, 2025 on felony charges of insurance fraud and knowingly cause or participate in a vehicle collision/insurance claim. Moses was not in either vehicle at the time of the collision, but was identified as a co-conspirator and participant of the fraud scheme. Between September 30, 2025 and October 30, 2025, the following defendants pleaded no contest to felony charges: - - Pope pleaded no contest to knowingly cause or participate in a vehicle collision/Insurance Claim and Assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. Pope was sentenced to 90 days in county jail and two years felony probation. - - Davis pleaded no contest to Insurance Fraud and Assault with a deadly weapon. Davis was sentenced to 180 days county jail and two years felony probation. - - Murillo pleaded no contest to knowingly cause or participate in a vehicular collision/Insurance Claim. Murillo has not been sentenced and remains in custody, but agreed to two years state prison as part of his plea. - - Moses pleaded no contest to Insurance Fraud. Moses was sentenced to 90 days in county jail and two years felony probation. Perater-Nickson’s was arrested on January 24, 2025 for insurance fraud and assault with a deadly weapon. His case remains in court. While in custody, on March 13, 2025, he was charged with additional charges related to false imprisonment, pimping, and pandering as a result of evidence discovered during the IEAIFTF investigation. The IEAIFTF is comprised of peace officers from the California Department of Insurance, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office, Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, and California Highway Patrol. This case is being prosecuted by the San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office ...

In a newly published decision, the California Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Eight) affirmed the dismissal of a representative PAGA action on claim preclusion grounds, holding that a prior global PAGA settlement barred a subsequent plaintiff’s overlapping claims - even though the settling plaintiff had filed an amended complaint only 35 days after submitting an amended Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) notice for newly added claims and defendants. In this case Lauren Brown, a former Dave & Buster’s employee, filed a standalone PAGA suit in June 2019 alleging meal and rest-break violations, off-the-clock work, inaccurate wage statements, and unpaid vacation wages under Labor Code § 227.3. At that time, at least four other PAGA actions were already pending against the same Dave & Buster’s entities. One of those earlier actions - Andrade v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc. (San Diego Superior Court) -ultimately achieved a court-approved global settlement in November 2022 that expressly released all of the claims Brown was asserting, including the § 227.3 vacation claim, and covered all three Dave & Buster’s entities Brown had sued. Dave & Buster’s successfully moved for judgment on the pleadings in Brown’s case, contending that the Andrade settlement constituted a final judgment on the merits of the same cause of action between parties in privity, thereby precluding Brown’s suit. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action with prejudice. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal in the published case of Brown v. Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc. -B339729 (November 2025). On appeal, Brown conceded that the Andrade settlement precluded her non-vacation claims but argued that (1) she retained standing to pursue post-settlement violations (a contention the Court of Appeal swiftly rejected, noting her employment ended in 2018), and (2) Andrade’s failure to wait the full 65 days after her amended LWDA notice meant Andrade was never “deputized” to pursue or settle the newly added vacation-pay claim and additional entities, relying heavily on LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1172. The Court of Appeal distinguished LaCour, in which the prior settling plaintiff had never provided LWDA notice of the additional claims at all. Here, Andrade did provide an amended notice that specifically identified the § 227.3 claim and the additional defendants. The court held that the statutory 65-day waiting period does not explicitly apply to amended notices, and even if it did, Andrade substantially complied with PAGA’s administrative exhaustion requirement by giving the LWDA actual notice and an opportunity to act. The LWDA’s subsequent acceptance of the settlement (without objection) rendered the premature filing a harmless technical defect. Citing federal district court authority and the longstanding doctrine of substantial compliance (historically applied to Government Claims Act notices), the panel concluded that invalidating the settlement on this ground would improperly allow later PAGA plaintiffs to collaterally attack prior approved settlements - an outcome the Supreme Court expressly rejected in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664. Accordingly, the Andrade settlement fully released Brown’s claims against all defendants, satisfying every element of claim preclusion. The judgment dismissing Brown’s action was affirmed, with costs awarded to Dave & Buster’s. The decision reinforces the finality of approved PAGA settlements and signals that minor procedural deviations in administrative exhaustion will not undermine claim preclusion when the LWDA received actual notice and declined to intervene ...

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), enacted in California over a decade ago, was designed to empower employees to act as "private attorneys general" by suing employers on behalf of the state for alleged Labor Code violations. While intended to bolster worker protections, PAGA evolved into a litigation powerhouse, often criticized for spawning a flood of expansive, costly lawsuits that burdened businesses with unpredictable penalties and discovery demands, sometimes reaching into the millions for minor infractions. In a pivotal shift, California lawmakers passed comprehensive PAGA reforms in 2024, which took effect about 18 months ago. These changes were no small tweak; they fundamentally recalibrated the scales of justice. Key provisions include: - - A Strict One-Year Limitations Period: Plaintiffs must now prove they personally suffered violations within the year leading up to filing, curbing the "ancient history" claims that once ballooned cases. - - Judicial Tools for Manageability: Courts gained explicit authority to narrow claim scopes, limit evidence, and dismiss unwieldy allegations, preventing trials from devolving into fishing expeditions. - - Penalty Reallocations and Standing Rules: Penalties are now split more equitably - 35% to aggrieved employees (up from 25%) and 65% to the state - while stricter standing requirements weed out opportunistic suits. These reforms were a direct response to years of advocacy from business groups like the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber), who argued that the old system was "broken" and disproportionately harmed employers without meaningfully aiding workers. How are they working? A new statement just posted by the CalChamber does not mince words on the broader ripple effects: Litigation volumes are down, compliance is up, and the entire ecosystem is healthier. They quote recent employer defense industry reports as evidence that these reforms are "confirming the positive impact on the system for both parties," with early data suggesting a 20-30% reduction in filed PAGA actions since implementation. For employers, it's a breath of fresh air - less fear of rogue suits, more room to innovate and hire. For California, it's proof that targeted tweaks can restore sanity to a system teetering on the edge. Key early successes reported by the employer defense industry: - - Employers Doubling Down on Compliance Efforts. Employers have ramped up their compliance efforts, conducting audits more frequently while training managers and updating policies proactively. - - Narrower Standing Reduces Frivolous Lawsuits. Employers and defense lawyers report they are now routinely knocking out claims early by proving the plaintiff didn’t experience certain violations, dramatically shrinking exposure. Claims are resolved faster and for less money because legal disputes are narrower and more manageable. - - More Money & Faster Resolution for Employees. PAGA reforms increased the employee share of penalties from 25% to 35%, with the state receiving 65%. The early resolution process through the state’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) also limits the need for extended and costly litigation. - - Reduced Penalties for Employers. Reduced penalties now balance fairness with enforcement. Defense firms report significantly reduced penalties on employers because of the PAGA reforms. - - One-Year Limitations Period. PAGA reforms clarified standing law that a plaintiff must have experienced a violation within the past year to bring a claim. - - Ability to Limit the Scope of Claims and Evidence to Ensure Manageability. Courts now have explicit authority to limit the evidence to be presented at trial or otherwise limit the scope of a PAGA claim to ensure cases remain manageable for trial ...

Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 36 is a landmark 2013 California Court of Appeal decision that clarified minimum wage obligations for employees compensated on a piece-rate basis. Drawing heavily on Armenta v. Osmose, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 314 - which prohibited averaging for hourly employees - the Gonzalez court extended the principle to piece-rate systems. Piece-rate compensation rewards only productive tasks (the "pieces" or "flag hours"), so time spent on non-piece-rate activities (including waiting time under the employer's control) must be separately compensated at no less than the minimum wage. Averaging effectively "borrows" from productive-time earnings to cover non-productive hours, which California law forbids because it undermines the statutory guarantee of minimum pay for all hours worked. Following Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 36, the dealership (operating as First Honda Simi Valley) replaced its pure piece-rate (“flag hour”) system in December 2014 with an hourly compensation that paid technicians double the applicable minimum wage for every hour recorded on the biometric time clock (including unproductive time and rest periods), with an additional “flag bonus” paid only when the technician’s flag-hour earnings exceeded the guaranteed hourly pay. The plan explicitly labeled the excess amount as a “bonus” and described as compensation for performance “above and beyond a median, expected level.” “Flag hours” (also called “book hours,” “flat-rate hours,” or “warranty time”) are the predetermined, fixed amount of time that a manufacturer or industry standard assigns to a specific repair or maintenance task, regardless of how long the task actually takes the technician to perform. These flag hours are intended to represent the amount of time a reasonably skilled technician, using proper tools and working at a normal pace, should need to complete the job. For example, the manufacturer may assign 3.2 flag hours to replace a timing belt. If the technician finishes in 2 hours → they still “flag” (earn credit for) 3.2 hours. If the technician takes 5 hours → they still only flag 3.2 hours. Plaintiffs Gustavo Mora and Mohammad Hanif, former service technicians, filed a lawsuit in 2018 alleging 7 causes of action for wage theft violations, and the case was later amended to include a PAGA cause of action on behalf of plaintiffs and “other employees of” First Honda. Plaintiffs contended that First Honda Simi Valley still violated California’s “no borrowing rule” because unproductive time generated no flag hours, and the dealership was therefore allegedly using potential bonus money to satisfy minimum-wage obligations. The trial court initially ordered the parties to arbitrate the case pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, but subsequently withdrew the matter from arbitration at appellants’ request, after First Honda failed to timely pay its arbitration fees. After a bench trial, the trial court upheld the dealership’s post-Gonzalez hourly-plus-bonus compensation plan for service technicians and rejected both individual and PAGA claims. The Second District Court of Appeal (Division Six) affirmed the judgment in favor of the Honda dealership in the published case of Mora v. C.E. Enterprises, Inc. - No. B337830 (November 2025). The Court of Appeal rejected plaintiffs characterization, holding that the plan complied with California law because technicians were always paid at least double minimum wage for all hours worked, with any flag bonus paid on top as true incentive pay rather than as part of the base rate. The court distinguished Gonzalez, noting that the dealership never averaged or borrowed from productivity pay to meet the minimum-wage floor; the hourly guarantee stood alone and was always satisfied independently. The court also held that the plan did not violate Labor Code section 226.2. Even assuming the flag bonus constituted piece-rate compensation, the dealership qualified for the safe-harbor provision of section 226.2, subdivision (a)(7) because it expressly paid “an hourly rate of at least the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked” in addition to any flag-hour bonus. Finally, the court affirmed the trial court judgment against plaintiffs’ PAGA claim. Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to alleged violations affecting sales and lube employees (the PAGA notice covered only service technicians), and their trial presentation - consisting largely of a law clerk’s assertion that thousands of pay records contained “deficiencies” without concrete examples or calculations - was insufficient to carry their burden of proof ...

Under the Prevailing Wage Law, Labor Code sections 1720 through 1861, workers employed under a public works contract must generally be paid “prevailing wages.” The prevailing wage is set by the Director of Industrial Relations (Director) and depends on worker classification and location. The Director also creates worker classifications, determining the scope of work for each.Contractors on public works projects must pay workers the prevailing wage under the proper job classification. Anton’s Services, a subcontractor performing clearing, grubbing, demolition, and incidental tree work on two City of San Diego public works projects (the 2017 Torrey Pines Road slope restoration and sidewalk project and the 2018 Voltaire Street bridge renovation project), classified its workers under the “Tree Maintenance (Laborer)” prevailing wage classification. The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) determined that the work actually performed - clearing and grubbing slopes, removing vegetation and roots in preparation for soil-nail wall and sidewalk construction, and trimming/stabilizing a Torrey pine tree to permit continuation of slope work - was construction work expressly excluded from the Tree Maintenance classification and instead fell within the broader “Laborer (Engineering Construction)” (Group 2 or equivalent) classification, which carries significantly higher wage rates. After investigation, the DLSE issued assessments totaling $47,280.18 ($36,626.30 for Torrey Pines Road and $10,653.88 for Voltaire Street), comprising unpaid prevailing wages, apprenticeship training fund contributions, section 1775 penalties at $120 per violation (found justified due to willful violations and absence of good-faith mistake), and section 1777.7 apprenticeship penalties. Following an unsuccessful administrative review on stipulated facts before the Director of Industrial Relations, Anton’s sought writ relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The superior court (Hon. Wendy M. Behan) denied the petition. On appeal, Anton’s challenged the findings of worker misclassification, the imposition and amount of section 1775 penalties, liability for liquidated damages under section 1742.1, and the apprenticeship violations and related penalties. The Court of Appeal rejected each contention and affirmed the trial court in the published case of Anton's Services v. Hagen -D084833 (November 2025). Substantial evidence supported the Director’s finding that the work was construction or incidental to construction and therefore outside the Tree Maintenance classification, which explicitly excludes “any work of any employee performing construction or landscape construction work (including work incidental to construction…).” Tree trimming performed to enable continuation of soil-nail wall and sidewalk construction was incidental to the public works project, not separate non-prevailing-wage tree maintenance. The section 1775 penalties at $120 per violation were not an abuse of discretion; Anton’s failed to meet its burden to show good faith mistake or prompt voluntary correction, and the violations were properly deemed willful. Liquidated damages under Labor Code § 1742.1 were correctly imposed because Anton’s neither paid the unpaid wages nor deposited the full amount of the assessments into escrow with the Department of Industrial Relations within 60 days of service. Apprenticeship violations on the Torrey Pines Road Project were established: Anton’s failed to submit DAS 140/142 contract award information to the applicable apprenticeship committee prior to commencement of work and failed to request dispatch of apprentices, violating Labor Code § 1777.5 and title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 230.1(a). The resulting section 1777.7 penalties were upheld ...

CVS Pharmacy Inc. has agreed to pay a total of $18,282,280 to the United States and the State of California to resolve allegations that the company violated the Federal False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act when it knowingly submitted claims for reimbursement for certain prescribed medications to California’s Medi-Cal program that were not supported by applicable diagnosis and documentation requirements, U.S. Attorney Eric Grant announced today. CVS is among the largest pharmacy chains in the United States, with more than 9,000 locations nationwide and more than 1,000 stores in California. CVS submits reimbursement claims for medications dispensed to beneficiaries of the Medi-Cal program - California’s Medicaid health care program administered by the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). Medi-Cal relies on both federal and state funding to provide health care to millions of Californians, including those with low incomes and disabilities. Medi-Cal utilizes a “formulary” list that designates restrictions for certain listed drugs, including restrictions pertaining to diagnoses and required documentation that must be confirmed by the pharmacy before the drug can be prescribed. Drugs listed on the Medi-Cal formulary are commonly referred to as “Code 1” drugs. Medi-Cal will reimburse certain Code 1 drugs only for approved diagnoses, taking into account criteria such as the drug’s safety, efficacy, misuse potential, and cost. Pharmacies such as CVS serve the critical gatekeeping function of confirming and certifying that these Code 1 drugs are dispensed for the approved diagnoses. CVS may bill for drugs prescribed outside of the approved diagnoses, but it must submit a request to DHCS that includes a justification for the nonapproved use. Today’s settlement resolves allegations that CVS failed to confirm and document the requisite diagnoses, and in some instances dispensed drugs for nonapproved diagnoses, then knowingly billed Medi-Cal for those prescriptions. “This settlement demonstrates our commitment to protect the integrity of this critically important federal-state program serving low-income and disabled citizens of this District,” said U.S. Attorney Grant. “My office will continue working to ensure that pharmacies comply with important program regulations like those at issue here.” “Proper billing of federal health care programs is essential and underpins the reliability of our health care system. Oversight is key to ensuring that compliance failures are remedied,” said Acting Chief Counsel to the Inspector General Susan Gillin of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “Although CVS entered into a health care fraud settlement with the United States, CVS did not agree to compliance-related oversight with HHS-OIG through a corporate integrity agreement.” This settlement includes the resolution of claims brought by a former CVS pharmacist under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the Federal False Claims Act. Under those provisions, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery from that action. The qui tam case is captioned: U.S., et al. ex rel. Zimniski v. CVS Health Corporation, no. 2:19-cv-1118 (E.D. Cal.). As part of the settlement announced today, the whistleblower will receive approximately $3.3 million of the recovery proceeds. This settlement is the result of a joint effort by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California and California’s Department of Medicaid Fraud and Elder Abuse, with assistance from HHS OIG and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine Swann handled the case for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability ...

A New York Times investigative article titled "At Wells Fargo, a Quest to Increase Diversity Leads to Fake Job Interviews" published on May 19, 2022, exposed a troubling practice within Wells Fargo's wealth management division where managers conducted sham interviews with diverse candidates (primarily women and people of color) solely to meet internal diversity quotas and satisfy regulatory scrutiny, rather than to offer real job opportunities. These interviews were described as performative exercises to document "diversity efforts" on paper, even though the positions were often already filled or promised to non-diverse candidates. According to the article seven current and former employees reported being instructed by bosses or HR to interview diverse candidates for roles that were pre-decided. The interviews were not intended to lead to hires but to create records showing compliance with diversity goals. Five other employees were aware of or assisted in arranging such interviews. This stemmed from Wells Fargo's aggressive push to increase diversity in its workforce, particularly in wealth management, following past scandals. The focus shifted to superficial metrics, such as the number of diverse candidates interviewed, to prepare for audits by regulators like the Federal Reserve. Wells Fargo's leadership, including CEO Charles Scharf, had publicly touted the bank's diversity commitments. For instance, Scharf emphasized in 2021 that diversity was a priority, but the article highlighted a disconnect between these statements and on-the-ground practices. Joe Bruno, a former managing director in wealth management who was fired in August 2021 after raising concerns, called the practice "inappropriate, morally wrong, ethically wrong." He alleged his termination was retaliation for his complaints, though Wells Fargo claimed it was for unrelated reasons. The bank denied tolerating such behavior, with spokeswoman Raschelle Burton stating in an email that Wells Fargo "expects all employees to follow our hiring policies and guidelines" and holds violators accountable. However, the article suggested the practice was widespread and informally encouraged. In a follow-up development noted in the article's update, Wells Fargo announced a temporary "pause" on the policy that enabled these fake interviews, signaling some acknowledgment of the issue. This exposé contributed directly to the shareholder lawsuit against Wells Fargo, as it revealed how misleading public statements about diversity progress allegedly inflated the stock price, leading to losses when the truth emerged. The lead plaintiff was SEB Investment Management AB (a Swedish institutional investor). The case began with individual investor Khosrow Ardalan filing in June 2022, but after consolidation, SEB was appointed lead plaintiff. Ultimately the case became a certified class action representing all persons/entities who purchased or acquired Wells Fargo common stock between February 24, 2021, and June 9, 2022 (inclusive) and suffered damages. The parties reached an $85,000,000 all-cash settlement in September 2025 (announced to the court on September 25, 2025), with no admission of wrongdoing by Wells Fargo. The federal court granted preliminary approval on November 13, 2025, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e). Final fairness hearing will be scheduled later (motion for final approval due April 28, 2026) ...

Daniel Rikkels of Chula Vista was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that he helped veterans fraudulently obtain disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) while he was a department employee responsible for reviewing and approving disability claims. In 2021, his annual VA salary was $106,963. This salary was 20 percent higher than the average and 45 percent higher than the median salary in the VA. He held two jobs from 2016 to 2024. From 2016 to 2023 Daniel Rikkels J held job of Veterans Claims Examining. According to the 33-count indictment, since 2020, Rikkels knowingly and intentionally instructed veterans to provide false, exaggerated, and misleading claims of service-related injuries to support their disability claims. Rikkels also instructed veterans to alter documents submitted during the claims process. Through these false claims, the indictment said, veterans fraudulently obtained millions of dollars in VA disability payments and backpay, and Rikkels received millions of dollars in payments from the veterans in return for his work on their behalf. Until June of 2025 when he retired, Rikkels was employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was responsible for reviewing and approving VA disability claims from veterans. During this time-period he negotiated with veterans for assistance in their VA claims and demanded payment from them, all while he was taking official action on their claims in violation of government ethics laws. The indictment also alleges that Rikkels frequently requested that veterans who lived in the local area meet him to make payments in cash to minimize what he would have to pay in taxes. According to court records, the investigation revealed that during just a three-month period between February and May of 2025, Rikkels met with at least four local veterans and received a total of $57,000 in cash payments from them. On November 13, 2025, agents searched Rikkels, his vehicle, and residence and seized a total of over $280,000 in cash. Rikkels plead not guilty on November 14, and was released on $750,000 bond secured by Trust Deed. “The Department of Veterans Affairs and the VA disability system serve a crucial role in providing support and care to those who have served and sacrificed in defense of our country,” said U.S. Attorney Adam Gordon. “We will zealously safeguard the integrity of the VA disability program and will investigate and prosecute those who attempt to undermine the system to their own financial advantage.” This case, 25-cr-4276-H, is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph S. Smith and Daniel F. Casillas ...

A new study published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM) examines work-related asthma (WRA) among cannabis industry workers, using data from four US state-based surveillance systems (California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Washington). WRA cases within the cannabis industry were identified and classified as new-onset asthma or work-aggravated asthma. The findings can be used to guide preventative strategies and inform workplace safety policies to protect workers’ respiratory health. From legalization dates (1996 in California, 2012 in Massachusetts, 2008 in Michigan, 1998 in Washington) through 2023, 30 WRA cases were identified. A majority were aged 18 to 34 years (66.7%) and were male (60%). Thirteen (52%) cases were new-onset asthma, and 12 (48%) were work-aggravated asthma, with two fatalities. Four case reports, one from each state, present detailed evidence for the association of workplace exposures and work-related asthma. The most frequently reported exposure was plant materials (40.4%), of which 94.7% were cannabis dust and/or marijuana plant. Most cases (69%) worked in indoor cultivation/processing. 13 cases were new-onset asthma, 12 were work-aggravated asthma, and 5 cases could not be classified. Among the new-onset cases, three had worked in the industry for less than one year. OSHA recently published an OSHA Fatal Facts report regarding q 27-year-old flower technician, who made “pre-rolls” (ground cannabis cigarettes) in an indoor cannabis cultivation and processing facility, experienced a severe asthma exacerbation at work that resulted in cardiac arrest. To reduce the incidence of occupational allergies and asthma in this industry, a multifaceted approach is recommended by OSHA 1) Conduct medical screening and surveillance - - - - Workers experiencing any work-related allergy and/or asthma symptoms noted above should be seen promptly by a healthcare provider with expertise in occupational allergy and asthma - - - - Jobs with exposure to known allergens, such as cannabis, should have written surveillance programs that periodically assess employees for allergy signs and symptoms and perform medical tests as recommended by an appropriate occupational health professional with expertise in occupational allergy - - - - Identify jobs causing symptoms in employees so that exposures can be assessed and controlled 2) Assess hazards in jobs that cause symptoms in workers to identify the causative agents involved5,7 3) Implement exposure control with engineering controls, administrative controls including work practices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) as applicable5,7 4) Provide medical management - - For example, complete cessation of exposure with applicable benefits, rather than exposure reduction and/or respirator use, may be appropriate for workers with occupational allergies 5) Worker training and education should cover - - Identified job hazards - - Use of engineering controls, such as local exhaust ventilation, at point of operation - - Work practices that minimize exposures such as HEPA vacuuming rather than dry sweeping - - Proper use/care of PPE - - Signs and symptoms of occupational allergy and the need for prompt employer notification and medical evaluation if symptoms occur - - Procedures for employees to notify their employer about potential signs and symptoms of occupational allergy Additionally, employers may also collaborate with academia on preventive efforts and risk factors for occupational allergy in this emerging industry. In particular, information that may support development of diagnostic tests for cannabis sensitization would be useful for future preventive efforts ...

A group of retired City of San Francisco employees challenged the City's disability retirement benefit calculations under the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System (SFERS). The lawsuit originated as a class action filed by Joyce Carroll in 2017. The parties agreed to a stipulated class certification order which included the requirement that members of the class retired because they were "incapacitated for performance of duty because of disability determined by the retirement board to be of extended and uncertain duration.” The plaintiffs, all of whom met the disability requirement, and were at least 40 years old when hired and had between 10 and 22.222 years of credited service at retirement. The operative complaint asserted FEHA claims based on disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) and disparate impact (facially neutral policy with unequal effects), along with related claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and equal protection violations under the California Constitution. They focused on "Formula 2," a provision in the City's Charter that imputes additional years of service up to age 60 for employees whose actual service yields less than 40% of their average final compensation under Formula 1 (which multiplies average final compensation by 1.8% times years of service). Plaintiffs claimed this formula disproportionately disadvantaged older hires by capping their benefits below the 40% maximum that younger entrants could more easily achieve. At a four-day bench trial, plaintiffs' expert, Jeffrey Petersen, Ph.D., presented hypothetical arithmetic calculations showing that employees entering SFERS at age 40 or older could never reach the 40% benefit cap under Formula 2, assuming continuous service, while those entering at 37 or younger could. He did not use actual employee data or perform statistical analysis. The City's expert, Dubravka Tosic, Ph.D., criticized this approach, emphasizing the need for real-world data on the entire SFERS population, including factors like service breaks, reciprocity, and purchased credits, which could alter outcomes. Tosic also noted that considering average final compensation (which rises with age) and extending analysis to Formula 1 scenarios showed no overall age-based disadvantage. The trial court ruled for the City. On disparate treatment, it found no adverse employment action (as benefits were calculated per a fixed formula) and no discriminatory animus, concluding Formula 2 was motivated by pension eligibility (credited service years), not age, akin to the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, 554 U.S. 135 (2008). For disparate impact, the court deemed plaintiffs' hypothetical evidence insufficient, as it lacked actual statistical disparities across the protected group. Other claims failed derivatively, with no breach of contract (benefits matched Charter promises) and no equal protection violation (rational basis satisfied). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the published case of Carroll v. City & County of S.F. -A169408 (November 2025). Reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo, it upheld the disparate treatment ruling, agreeing pension status - not age - drove Formula 2, supported by parallels to Kentucky Retirement Systems (e.g., tracking normal retirement rules like the 60/10 provision, uniform ex ante terms, non-stereotypical assumptions, and scenarios benefiting older workers). Plaintiffs' "inexorable zero" argument failed, as hypotheticals ignored real variables like service breaks. For disparate impact, the court confirmed the need for actual statistical proof of disproportionate effects, which plaintiffs lacked. The amendment denial was not reversible error, as the trial court's decision was not solely based on the pleading variance but on broader evidentiary shortcomings. The judgment was affirmed, with no costs awarded, reinforcing that retirement formulas tied to pension eligibility, even if correlated with age, do not inherently violate FEHA absent proof of discriminatory motive or actual adverse impact ...

Dana Williamson, a 53-year-old political consultant from Carmichael, California, has long been a fixture in Sacramento's high-stakes world of state governance, known for her no-nonsense style and role as a trusted enforcer in California's political machine. Born and raised in the region, Williamson built a career spanning over two decades, starting with stints in public affairs and lobbying before ascending to top advisory positions under multiple Democratic governors. Her early work included serving on the staff of former Gov. Gray Davis in the early 2000s, where she honed her skills amid the chaos of his recall election. She later joined former Gov. Jerry Brown's administration, rising to the role of Cabinet secretary, overseeing key policy implementations during his tenure from 2011 to 2019. By late 2022, amid California's shift from budget surplus to deficit and intensifying legislative battles, Williamson was tapped as chief of staff to Gov. Gavin Newsom - a position she held through December 2024, navigating crises like budget shortfalls and policy gridlock while earning a reputation as a blunt, behind-the-scenes operator who could rally committed teams. She departed the governor's office quietly last year, transitioning back to consulting., but her influence lingered as a veteran of three gubernatorial eras. On November 12, 2025, when federal authorities arrested Williamson at her home as part of a sprawling three-year investigation into political corruption, and unsealing a 23-count indictment that painted a picture of greed-fueled schemes exploiting dormant campaign funds and tax loopholes. The charges - ranging from conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, straight bank and wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruct justice, filing false tax returns, to making false statements - stem from alleged activities between 2022 and 2024, during and after her time in Newsom's inner circle. Prosecutors accuse her of masterminding the diversion of over $225,000 from a long-dormant 2026 gubernatorial campaign account belonging to Xavier Becerra, then serving as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary under President Biden. Working with co-conspirators including Becerra's former chief deputy Sean McCluskie - a onetime close ally who has since agreed to plead guilty to a single fraud count and is cooperating with authorities - and lobbyist Greg Campbell, Williamson allegedly used shell companies to bill the account for fictitious "consulting services." When a January 2024 civil subpoena threatened to expose ties to Williamson's own Paycheck Protection Program loan for her consulting firm, she and her allies allegedly scrambled to fabricate backdated contracts to cover their tracks, even pressuring reluctant participants to sign off. Compounding the campaign fund heist were Williamson's separate alleged tax crimes, where she wrote off more than $1 million in lavish personal indulgences as business expenses on her returns from 2021 and 2022. These included a $15,353 Chanel handbag and matching ring, a $5,818 Fendi wallet, $12,000 in additional Chanel jewelry and bags, a $20,000 home HVAC system upgrade, over $10,000 at a California theme park, and extravagant birthday getaways - like a $156,000 Mexico resort splurge featuring an $11,000 yacht rental and a $21,000 private jet charter. Williamson pleaded not guilty to all counts. Her attorney decried the arrest as unnecessary, noting she was no flight risk and had recently been added to a liver transplant waiting list due to illness. She was released on a $500,000 bond, with conditions including surrendering her passport, submitting to drug tests, providing a DNA sample, and forfeiting any firearms - conditions she must fully comply with by November 26. Newsom's office, emphasizing that Williamson had left over a year prior and that the governor faced no accusations, reiterated a commitment to integrity among public servants while underscoring the presumption of innocence amid what they framed as politically charged scrutiny. However, according to a report by the Sacramento Bee, a spokesperson said the office put her on leave “as soon as” Williamson informed them that she was under federal investigation, and that she left the administration in November 2024, not the following month, as the office previously stated. If convicted, Williamson faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count of bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud; up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count of conspiracy to obstruct and making a false statements; and up to three years in prison and a $100,000 fine for each count of subscribing to a false tax return. The United States concurrently unsealed charging documents related to this case for two other individuals, Sean McCluskie and Greg Campbell, both of whom entered plea agreements prior to the November 12, 2025, unsealing and are cooperating with prosecutors as key witnesses against Dana Williamson. McCluskie had ascended to chief deputy in the office of then California Attorney General Xavier Becerra by the mid-2010s. When Becerra was tapped by President Joe Biden in 2021 to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), McCluskie followed as chief of staff, serving through much of the Biden administration until early 2025. While Becerra's former chief of staff, McCluskie allegedly initiated the scheme in early 2022 by proposing to Williamson that they exploit Becerra's dormant 2026 gubernatorial campaign account for supplemental income, given his dissatisfaction with his HHS salary; he then approved and received roughly $225,000 in monthly $10,000 transfers funneled through intermediaries. He reportedly pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud and agreed to full restitution. Campbell, a Sacramento lobbyist, allegedly facilitated the laundering by routing the diverted funds through his consulting firm as bogus fees for his wife's nonexistent work, then backdating contracts in early 2024 to conceal the scheme when a civil subpoena into Williamson's PPP loan arose; he also aided in pressuring others to sign falsified documents. He reportedly pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, plus one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States ...

The Monterey County District Attorney announced that her Environmental Protection Unit resolved a case against The Growers Company, Inc. (“Growers”) for violations of pesticide-related laws, which exposed its employees to pesticides. Specifically, on October 9, 2023, a supervisor for Growers ignored pesticide warning signs on a lettuce field and ordered his crew of 93 fieldworkers into a field that had been treated with various pesticides not 24 hours prior. One such pesticide, Sivanto Prime, had a 24-hour restricted entry interval during which no one was allowed to enter the field. Sivanto Prime (also labeled as Sivanto 200 SL in some formulations) is a systemic insecticide manufactured by Bayer Crop Science, with the active ingredient flupyradifurone. While effective for integrated pest management (IPM), its risks stem from potential human exposure during application, handling, or re-entry into treated areas. Risks are primarily acute (short-term) from dermal, inhalation, or ocular contact, with low chronic (long-term) concerns at labeled use rates. Sixty-six of the fieldworkers developed symptoms consistent with exposure to pesticides, including nausea, dizziness, headache, and irritation to the throat, nose, eyes, and skin. Moreover, despite legal requirements to take all exposed employees to a physician for medical care, Growers only took 34 of the exposed employees to a physician for evaluation. The judgment requires Growers to pay a $125,194 in civil penalties and costs and includes injunctive terms prohibiting them from violating these requirements in the future. A felony criminal charge was also filed against the Growers’ supervisor who ordered the employees into the field, but he has since passed away. The Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office investigated this incident and referred the case to the District Attorney’s Office as a “priority investigation,” pursuant to 3 CCR section 6128, subdivision (e), because the incident caused over five persons to become ill. This is not the first such enforcement under Pacioni's tenure (elected in 2018 as the county's first female DA). In 2021, three companies - Norcal Harvesting, Bay View Farms, and R&T Farms - paid $110,000 combined for failing to notify workers of a fumigant buffer zone (using Tri-Form 80 EC), leading to eye irritation in eight employees. More recently, in an undated but recent case, Azcona Harvesting, LLC was fined $55,000 for not immediately seeking medical care after 27 workers suffered nausea and vomiting from pesticide drift at Reiter Berry Farms; the applicator paid $195,200 separately. These cases, investigated similarly by the Ag Commissioner's Office, show a pattern: drift/entry violations often stem from rushed operations, with penalties focusing on deterrence via fines and training mandates. Nationally, the EPA tracks over 10,000 pesticide illness cases yearly, with California leading due to its ag scale -Monterey accounts for ~20% of the state's incidents. District Attorney Investigator George Costa assisted in the District Attorney’s investigation. The Growers Company cooperated with the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office during its investigation ...

MedVanta, the nation's largest physician-owned, fully integrated musculoskeletal (MSK) platform, announced the launch of VantaStat, an urgent care line and mobile app that redefines how patients access orthopaedic care. The VantaStat app, launched on November 3, 2025, includes a symptom checker as a core feature to empower users with quick, preliminary assessments of musculoskeletal (MSK) issues. While detailed technical specs aren't extensively documented in the initial launch materials (as the product is very new), it's designed to streamline the path to care by allowing users to self-evaluate symptoms before connecting to specialists. Key Features include - - Interactive Symptom Input: Users start by describing their symptoms via text, voice, or selections from guided prompts (e.g., "sprained ankle," "knee pain," or "back strain"). The checker likely uses a step-by-step questionnaire tailored to common orthopaedic conditions, asking about pain location, severity, onset, and aggravating factors. - - Multimedia Uploads: A standout element is the ability to upload photos or short videos of the affected area (e.g., a swollen wrist or limping gait). This visual input helps the tool provide more accurate initial insights, bridging the gap to a specialist review. - - AI-Powered Preliminary Assessment: Powered by MedVanta's integrated tech (including elements from their AI-focused VantaMotion platform), it generates an instant overview - such as potential causes (e.g., strain vs. fracture), severity level (low/medium/high), and self-care tips (e.g., RICE method: rest, ice, compression, elevation). It's not a full diagnosis but flags when urgent specialist input is needed. - - Seamless Triage and Next Steps: Based on the assessment, the app recommends actions like at-home remedies, virtual consult scheduling, or same-day in-person appointments. It integrates directly with VantaStat's 365-day urgent care line, routing high-priority cases to board-certified orthopaedic experts within minutes. - - Personalization and Tracking: Users can save assessments to a profile for ongoing tracking, including symptom progression over time, which informs future consultations and helps prevent recurring issues. How It Works for Users - - Launch the Checker: Open the app (available on iOS/Android) and select "Symptom Checker" from the home screen. - - Input Details: Answer questions and upload media - takes 2-5 minutes. - - https://medvanta.com/platform/products/VantaStat: Receive an on-screen report with visuals (e.g., body maps highlighting issues) and clear recommendations. - - Act Immediately: Tap to book care or call the dedicated line (available 24/7). Why It's an Advantage for Users - - Speed and Empowerment: Get actionable advice in seconds, reducing anxiety and guesswork - ideal for athletes, active adults, or parents dealing with sudden injuries. - - Cost and Time Efficiency: Avoids unnecessary visits (saving $500+ on ER co-pays) by triaging effectively, with 80% of cases potentially resolved via virtual guidance per MedVanta's goals. - - Accuracy Boost: Visual uploads and AI make it more reliable than generic web checkers, leading to better outcomes like faster recovery and fewer complications. - - Accessibility: Free to start (app download via www.VantaStat.com), works offline for inputs, and supports underserved areas with limited specialist access. As VantaStat is in early rollout (initially in select U.S. markets like Maryland and Virginia), features may evolve - check the app for the latest ...