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 ...

In November 2016, Orlando Rodriguez suffered severe head and brain injuries while working as a mechanic for Managed Mobile, Inc. His employer's insurer, Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency LLC, acknowledged the injuries as work-related and began providing compensation benefits. Starting in September 2018, Rodriguez's primary treating physician, Dr. Yong Lee, repeatedly requested authorization for home health care services in six-week increments to support Rodriguez's recovery. Illinois Midwest approved at least eight such requests between September 2018 and August 2019, sometimes directly by a claims adjuster and other times after subjecting them to utilization review. However, when Dr. Lee submitted a new request for authorization on September 12, 2019, Illinois Midwest forwarded it to utilization review. On September 19, 2019, the reviewing physician denied the request, deeming the ongoing home health care no longer medically necessary. Rodriguez challenged this denial not through the statutorily required independent medical review (IMR) process, but by seeking an expedited hearing before a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In March 2020, the WCJ ruled in Rodriguez's favor, awarding him ongoing home health care. The judge reasoned that since the treatment had been previously authorized and Rodriguez's need was "ongoing and constant," Illinois Midwest could not terminate it without demonstrating a substantive change in his medical condition - a showing the insurer had failed to make. This decision relied heavily on a non-binding WCAB significant panel decision in Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 [2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 98] (Patterson), that suggested employers must continue providing authorized ongoing treatments unless circumstances change, without restarting the review process. A significant panel decision is a decision of the Appeals Board that has been designated by all members of the Appeals Board as of significant interest and importance to the workers’ compensation community. Although not binding precedent, significant panel decisions are intended to augment the body of binding appellate and en banc decisions by providing further guidance to the workers’ compensation community. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10305(r).) The WCJ also noted that the facts presented were similar to those considered in Warner Brothers v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Ferrona) (2015) 80 Cal. Comp. Cases 831, 832-834 (writ denied), wherein the Appeals Board panel affirmed the trial judge’s finding that the reasoning in Patterson applies to assistive home care Illinois Midwest petitioned the WCAB for reconsideration, arguing that the WCJ lacked jurisdiction because medical necessity disputes must be resolved exclusively through utilization review and IMR under reforms enacted in 2004 and 2013. These reforms aimed to shift such decisions from judges and courts to medical professionals, using evidence-based guidelines like the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) to control costs and ensure quality care. In January 2025 - after a nearly five-year delay - the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's ruling, again invoking Patterson and concluding that Illinois Midwest bore the burden of proving changed circumstances to justify ending the treatment. It cited Patterson (supra) Illinois Midwest then sought review in the California Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal annulled the WCAB's decision in the published case of Illinois Midwest Ins. Agency, LLC v. WCAB -B344044 (November 2025). The Court of Appeal held that the WCAB exceeded its jurisdiction by bypassing the mandatory utilization review and IMR processes. It emphasized that the 2013 reforms (via Senate Bill No. 863) made IMR the sole avenue for appealing adverse utilization review decisions for injuries occurring after January 1, 2013, or denials communicated after July 1, 2013 - criteria met in Rodriguez's case. The Court of Appeal rejected any exception for "ongoing" or "continual" treatments, distinguishing and limiting Patterson to pre-2013 contexts where IMR was not yet exclusive. "We reject Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910 (Patterson) to the extent it set forth a contrary rule for injuries or medical necessity determinations arising after the 2013 reforms." It clarified that even for extended treatments like home health care, each new request for authorization triggers the statutory review process, and the burden remains on the worker to prove ongoing medical necessity through medical evidence, not on the employer to prove changed circumstances. The court underscored the legislative intent: to ensure medical professionals, not judges or courts, make medical necessity determinations, promoting efficiency and evidence-based care. By allowing the WCAB to intervene, the lower rulings had undermined this framework. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion, effectively requiring Rodriguez to pursue any further challenge through IMR if he sought to overturn the denial ...

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration on Tuesday announced its most frequently cited workplace safety standards for fiscal year 2024. Scott Ketcham, director of the directorate of enforcement programs for OSHA, together with Safety+Health magazine presented the preliminary data for OSHA’s Top 10 during the 2024 NSC Safety Congress & Expo, the world’s largest annual gathering of safety professionals. Fall Protection – General Requirements remains at the top of the list for the 14th year in a row, followed by Hazard Communication and Ladders. “While incredible advancements are made in safety each year, we continue to see many of the same types of violations appear on OSHA’s Top 10 list,” said Lorraine Martin, NSC president and CEO. “As a safety community, it’s critical we come together to acknowledge these persistent trends and identify solutions to better protect our workforces.” The Top 10 most frequently cited workplace safety standards for FY 2024 are: 1. Fall Protection – General Requirements (1926.501): 6,307 violations 2. Hazard Communication (1910.1200): 2,888 3. Ladders (1926.1053): 2,573 4. Respiratory Protection (1910.134): 2,470 5. Lockout/Tagout (1910.147): 2,443 6. Powered Industrial Trucks (1910.178): 2,248 7. Fall Protection – Training Requirements (1926.503): 2,050 8. Scaffolding (1926.451): 1,873 9. Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment – Eye and Face Protection (1926.102): 1,814 10. Machine Guarding (1910.212): 1,541 A more in-depth analysis of the Top 10 violations for 2024 will be published in the December edition of Safety+Health magazine, a National Safety Council publication. The National Safety Council is America’s leading nonprofit safety advocate – and has been for 110 years. As a mission-based organization, we work to eliminate the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing our efforts on the workplace and roadways. We 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 ...

Survivors of the Eaton and Palisades fires on Thursday urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to call for the resignation of California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, following a front-page New York Times report revealing that Lara privately struck a deal with insurers allowing them to drop tens of thousands of policyholders ahead of the Los Angeles fires. The New York Times investigation, based on internal state documents and communications, found that in 2023 Lara struck a secret deal with insurance companies that incentivized them to dump tens of thousands of policyholders in exchange for future rate hikes. The deal was sold to the public as a way to keep people out of the state's high-cost, low-benefit FAIR Plan, but just the opposite happened. FAIR Plan nearly doubled, and many families lost coverage just months before the Los Angeles fires. At a press conference in Altadena, survivors point to this and their own experience to say that California now faces two crises: families who can no longer buy or renew insurance, and those who still have coverage but cannot access the benefits they've already paid for. Both failures, survivors said, fall under Lara's leadership - and now sit on the governor's desk. Joy Chen, executive director of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network and a former deputy mayor of Los Angeles, said: "Families can no longer buy or renew coverage, and those who still have it can't access the benefits they've already paid for. Californians can't afford another year of failed oversight. This crisis now sits on the governor's desk. Governor Newsom should call for Commissioner Lara to resign and install leadership that enforces the law and restores public trust." A Department of Angels report found that 70 percent of insured Eaton and Palisades survivors face systemic underinsurance and delays and denials blocking their recovery. A second Department of Angels report, released in October 2025, found that more than eight in ten Los Angeles fire survivors remain displaced, with most expected to lose their temporary housing coverage within months. With coverage expiring in real time, families are being forced out of rentals now - a slow-motion disaster unfolding as state leaders fail to act. Survivors described widespread, needless suffering among tens of thousands of Los Angeles fire survivors - families still displaced, underinsured, or denied the benefits they've paid for. Branislav Kecman, an Eaton Fire survivor, said his family paid premiums to State Farm for 12 years before being dropped just months before the fire. The cancellation forced them onto the state's FAIR Plan, which costs more and covers less. "That was painful enough," he said. "But what's truly devastating is learning that our own Insurance Commissioner secretly cut a deal that encouraged insurers to drop families like ours. We thought we could trust the system. We never imagined we'd be betrayed by the very person elected to protect us." Jill Spivack, a longtime Pacific Palisades resident and State Farm policyholder whose home burned in the Palisades Fire, said what began as heartbreak has turned into outrage. "After the fire, I thought we were protected - we'd paid State Farm for 25 years. But the real disaster was the endless maze of delays and denials. I had to put my business on hold just to fight for what we'd already paid for. Governor Newsom, your words gave us hope. Now we need your actions to make that hope real. Californians deserve an Insurance Commissioner who protects families, not the insurers doing the most harm." Consumer Watchdog Executive Director Carmen Balber said Lara's secret deal exposed a crisis of leadership that can only be resolved by the Governor. Survivors warned that Los Angeles stands on the edge of a second catastrophe - one of permanent displacement. Lara has approved billion-dollar rate hikes for the state's largest insurer, State Farm, while 82 percent of its policyholders report negative claims experiences. A Los Angeles Times analysis found that five major California wildfires between 2017 and 2020 destroyed 22,500 homes – and by 2025, only 38 percent had been rebuilt. The Times identified insurance as the single biggest factor determining recovery: when insurance paid promptly, families rebuilt; when it didn't, most never recovered. The Eaton Fire Survivors Network, representing more than 8,500 Californians, has documented nearly 500 firsthand accounts of insurer misconduct and delivered a five-step enforcement plan to Commissioner Lara.. Every elected official representing the Eaton and Palisades fire zones - including Senators Sasha Renée Pérez and Ben Allen, Assembly members John Harabedian and Jacqui Irwin, Supervisor Kathryn Barger, Mayor Karen Bass, and Altadena Town Council President Victoria Knapp - has joined survivors' call for accountability. In closing, Chen added: "Let our Los Angeles experience be a warning to every Californian. Our entire housing market will collapse if families can't buy or renew insurance, and if those who have it can't get the benefits they've paid for. California cannot afford another year of Ricardo Lara. We call on Governor Newsom to act now: urge Commissioner Lara to resign, and install new leadership that enforces the law and rebuilds a functioning insurance market." ...

Novartis announced the opening of a new 10,000-square-foot radioligand therapy (RLT) manufacturing facility in Carlsbad, California. This state-of-the-art site represents a key milestone in the company’s previously announced $23 billion investment in US infrastructure over the next five years. The opening of the Carlsbad manufacturing facility allows Novartis to seamlessly meet future demand for RLT, adding additional capacity and augmenting the company’s world-class supply chain capabilities. The Carlsbad facility has been filed with the FDA as an additional US point of supply, and commercial manufacturing may begin once approval is granted. RLTs are a form of precision medicine that combines a tumor-targeting molecule (ligand) with a therapeutic radioisotope, enabling the delivery of radiation to the tumor with the goal of limiting damage to the surrounding cells. Because each RLT dose is custom-made and time-sensitive, with a radioactive half-life measured in hours, proximity to treatment centers and transit hubs helps ensure patients receive their treatment when and where they need it. Novartis is the only pharmaceutical company with a dedicated commercial RLT portfolio, and the Carlsbad facility is its third US RLT manufacturing site, reinforcing its global leadership in radioligand therapies with unmatched expertise in development, production, and delivery to patients worldwide. The Carlsbad facility is purpose-built to manufacture the company’s FDA-approved RLTs with capacity for future expansion. “We commend Novartis for supporting our broader mission of bringing manufacturing capacity in the United States,” said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H.. “Our unique partnership approach is working.” “Novartis is transforming the future of cancer care - and it's happening right here in Carlsbad,” said Carlsbad City Council Member Melanie Burkholder. “This new advanced RLT production facility is a major milestone for our region, strengthening California’s position as a hub for life sciences innovation. It will bring exciting new opportunities for our community, including more engineering and manufacturing jobs. I'm proud our local community will be part of the future of cancer care.” In addition to the Carlsbad opening, Novartis has announced multiple construction initiatives and future plans in the US, including: - - Two additional RLT manufacturing facilities in Florida and Texas. - - Expansion of existing sites in Durham, North Carolina, Indianapolis, Indiana, and Millburn, New Jersey. - - Establishing its second global R&D hub in the US with a new state-of-the-art biomedical research innovation facility in San Diego, California. These investments, enabled by a pro-innovation policy and regulatory environment in the US, reflect Novartis' broad commitment to the market and building its infrastructure. Novartis expects to invest nearly $50 billion in its US operations over the next five years, including the $23 billion announced earlier this year, underscoring its long-term commitment to strengthening the US healthcare ecosystem ...

In 2017, the Legislature enacted the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights. The legislation comprehensively addresses issues concerning lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) seniors’ access to, and treatment by, “[l]ong-term care facilit[ies] - an umbrella term covering entities that provide services ranging from skilled nursing to residential personal care for the elderly. In December, just before the 2017 law went into effect, plaintiff Taking Offense (which describes itself as an entity dedicated to opposing efforts “to coerce society to accept [the] transgender fiction that a person can be whatever sex/gender s/he thinks s/he is, or chooses to be") filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court seeking to block enforcement of the pronouns provision as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The lawsuit worked its way up to the California Supreme Court. On November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in Taking Offense v. State of California (S270535), a case challenging a key provision of the 2017 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents' Bill of Rights. This legislation aimed to fulfill existing anti-discrimination laws by explicitly prohibiting various forms of bias based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or HIV status. The Legislature cited studies highlighting pervasive mistreatment of LGBT elders, including denial of admission, abrupt discharges, harassment, restrictions on visitation, and refusal to use preferred names or pronouns, often stemming from lifelong marginalization that left many without family support networks. At the heart of the dispute was Health and Safety Code § 1439.51, subdivision (a)(5) - the "pronouns provision" - which makes it unlawful for facility staff to "[w]illfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed," when motivated wholly or partially by the resident's protected characteristics. Enforcement draws from pre-existing administrative, civil, and, in extreme cases, criminal penalties applicable to other violations in long-term care settings. Taking Offense, an unincorporated association of California taxpayers opposed to what it termed the "transgender fiction," filed a pre-enforcement petition for writ of mandate in Sacramento County Superior Court in December 2017, seeking to block the provision as a facial violation of the First Amendment's free speech protections. The trial court denied the petition, upholding the provision against First Amendment challenges. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal partially reversed in 2021, deeming the pronouns provision overinclusive and insufficiently tailored to the state's anti-discrimination interest, thus facially unconstitutional under heightened First Amendment scrutiny - whether viewed as content-based speech regulation or compelled speech. The appellate court emphasized that the law criminalized a viewpoint on gender identity without adequately advancing its goals. The Supreme Court granted review. In a unanimous opinion the court first addressed standing, raised by the state for the first time on review. The justices agreed that the 2018 amendment to Code of Civil Procedure § 526a, which governs taxpayer standing, now limits such suits to local governments and excludes wholly state entities or officers. Tracing the evolution from common law taxpayer standing to the statute's history, the court clarified that prior decisions blending the two doctrines no longer apply post-amendment. However, under the case's unusual circumstances - including the state's delayed objection, the parties' full litigation of the merits, and the court's own past expansive interpretations - the justices exercised discretion to reach the merits, avoiding an advisory opinion while deferring broader questions about common law or public interest standing. On the substance, the court reversed the Court of Appeal, upholding the pronouns provision. Emphasizing the narrow context - vulnerable residents in a "captive audience" environment akin to their home, where staff provide intimate medical and personal care - the justices characterized the law as a regulation of discriminatory conduct that only incidentally burdens speech. Drawing on U.S. Supreme Court precedents like R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and this court's plurality in Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (1999), the opinion reasoned that anti-discrimination measures targeting hostile environments, such as workplace harassment, do not trigger First Amendment scrutiny merely because they involve words. The provision is carefully limited: it requires willful, repeated, knowing acts motivated by bias, exempts professionally reasonable clinical judgments, and does not bar staff from expressing gender views in other ways or contexts. Distinguishing cases like Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), which involved content-based restrictions in public forums or compelled expressive services, the court found no abridgment of free speech rights. Even assuming intermediate scrutiny applied (as a content-neutral regulation), the provision was appropriate as it advances compelling state interests in protecting LGBT seniors' dignity, access to care, and freedom from discrimination in a setting where avoidance is impractical, and it is narrowly tailored without restricting more speech than necessary. The court also rejected claims that potential criminal penalties - available only for egregious, unremedied violations after administrative processes - render the law facially invalid, noting their rarity and the Legislature's intent to use them as a last resort ...

Inland Empire Hospice operators, Ralph and Rochell Canales, were sentenced for submitting false claims to the Medicare and Medi-Cal programs. Ralph was sentenced by the San Bernardino County Court to seven years and four months in state prison and was jointly ordered to pay $1,455,233. Rochelle was sentenced to one year in jail, and ordered to abstain from working with Medicare and Medi-Cal beneficiaries in a caregiver or fiduciary capacity and from working for any healthcare provider that receives funds from Medicare or Medi-Cal. The prosecution of these individuals was carried out by the California Department of Justice’s Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse. From 2013 through 2022, Ralph Canales and his wife Rochell Canales, along with brother Sherwin Canales and business partners Giovanni and wife Maureen Ibale, operated Sterling Hospice, New Hope Hospice, River of Light Hospice, and Mt Olive Hospice in the Inland Empire. Ralph Canales played a primary role as owner and operator of these companies while his wife played a supporting role at the direction of her husband. While running these companies, these individuals paid illegal kickbacks, in the form of cash and personal checks, to illicit marketers and two Inland Empire-area doctors, who certified patients for hospice services though the patients were not suffering from conditions likely to be terminal. Between the four companies, at least 52 patients were identified as being ineligible to receive hospice care substantially defrauding the Medicare and Medi-Cal programs. In addition to committing fraud against the Medicare and Medi-Cal programs, Ralph and Rochell failed to pay corporate taxes to the Franchise Tax Board and California Employment Development Department. Since taking office, the current Attorney General said that he has filed criminal charges against 109 individuals with hospice fraud-related offenses and conducted 24 civil investigations, which resulted in multiple civil filings. Building on his efforts to combat hospice fraud, this August, the Attorney General launched a new initiative aimed at educating the public and providing vital reporting resources to individuals and families who may have been impacted by hospice fraud. DMFEA works to protect Californians by investigating and prosecuting those responsible for abuse, neglect, and fraud committed against elderly and dependent adults in the state, and those who perpetrate fraud on the Medi-Cal program. The Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse receives 75 percent of its funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under a grant award totaling $77,652,892 for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2026. The remaining 25 percent, totaling $25,884,297 for FFY 2026, is funded by the California Attorney General’s Office. FFY 2026 is from October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026 ...

On November 3, 2025, two nearly identical class action lawsuits were filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, targeting the ridesharing giants Uber and Lyft for alleged sex-based discrimination against male drivers through preferential matching programs designed to prioritize female and nonbinary drivers for certain passengers. In the case of Almond and Ruud v. Uber Technologies, Inc., plaintiffs Andre Almond and Hans Ruud - both allegedly highly rated, long-term male independent contractors who have driven for Uber in California for over seven and ten years, respectively - accuse Uber of unlawfully implementing its "Women Preferences" program on August 13, 2025, in Los Angeles and San Francisco. This initiative, which Uber had piloted globally since 2019 in over 40 countries and completed more than 100 million sex-segregated rides, allows female riders to request female drivers via in-app settings, effectively reserving access to roughly half the passenger pool (female riders) for the 20% of drivers who are women. Male drivers like the plaintiffs, who represent about 80% of Uber's workforce and allegedly have spotless safety records with female passengers, are systematically excluded from these matches, resulting in lost income, fewer ride opportunities, reputational harm from implied unsafety stereotypes, and strained rider relationships. Despite alleged internal memos from 2022 highlighting "significant legal risk" under U.S. anti-discrimination laws - and delays in domestic rollout due to counsel's warnings - Uber proceeded, promoting the feature for "safety and confidence." The suit claims this violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which broadly prohibits arbitrary sex discrimination in business establishments and entitles victims to at least $4,000 in statutory damages per violation. It is seeking class certification for over 80,000 affected male California drivers, the plaintiffs demand declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the program, plus actual, punitive, and compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, and a jury trial. Also on November 3, the same lawfirm filed Kennedy v. Lyft, Inc.- which brings forth plaintiffs William Kennedy and Louie Alatorre - fellow veteran male Lyft drivers from Los Angeles County allegedly with over eight years of service, thousands of five-star rides, and no incidents involving female passengers. They charge Lyft with perpetuating similar bias via its "Women+ Connect" program, launched nationwide on September 11, 2023, and expanded to over 240 markets by 2025. According to the information on the Lyft website "Women+ Connect puts women and nonbinary people in the driver's seat - literally - by letting them choose to match with more women and nonbinary riders. The feature offers the option to turn on a preference in the Lyft app to prioritize matches with other nearby women and nonbinary riders. If no women or nonbinary riders are nearby, drivers with the preference on will still be matched with men as Women+ Connect is a preference feature, not a guarantee." These plaintiffs allege Lyft "has facilitated "millions" of such sex-based assignments, openly advertising the tool for enhanced "comfort" and "peace of mind" despite knowing it disadvantages the 77% male driver majority." The Lyft case is proposing a class of hundreds of thousands of impacted male California drivers (potentially over 80,000), they seek the same sweeping remedies: program termination through injunctions, statutory damages starting at $4,000 per violation, disgorgement of profits, punitive awards, interest, costs, and a jury trial ...

A consolidated class action lawsuit has been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for about six years. It challenged Aetna Life Insurance Company's longstanding policy of classifying single-level lumbar artificial disc replacement (L-ADR) surgery as "experimental and investigational," leading to systematic denials of coverage for plan members seeking this treatment for degenerative disc disease or related spinal conditions. The consolidated action, In re Aetna Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement Coverage Litigation, stems from two primary complaints: - - Hendricks v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. (filed August 2019) Case No.2:19-cv-6840-AB (MAAx): A proposed class action by plaintiffs Brian Hendricks and Andrew Sagalongos, alleging systematic ERISA violations for denying L-ADR coverage to 239 class members from 2014 onward. This case was certified in June 2021 for claims under the "abuse of discretion" review standard. - - Howard v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. (filed March 2022) Case No. 2:22-CV-01505-AB (MAAx): A separate proposed class action by plaintiff Andrew Howard, alleging similar ERISA breaches for denials under the "de novo" review standard (affecting 43 class members from 2019–2023). Certified in February 2024. Artificial disc replacement (ADR) is newer type of spinal disc procedure that utilizes an anterior (front – through the abdominal region) approach to replace a painful, arthritic, worn-out intervertebral disc of the lumbar spine with a metal and plastic prosthesis (artificial disc). It is an alternative to traditional spinal fusion. The suit alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), claiming Aetna's denials were arbitrary, not based on credible evidence, and inconsistent with FDA approvals (e.g., for devices like the ProDisc-L since 2006) and medical guidelines from organizations like the North American Spine Society (NASS). Plaintiffs argued this practice caused financial harm, forcing patients to pay out-of-pocket or forgo treatment. At At the time of settlement, Aetna had produced nearly 30,000 pages of information concerning the class and merits issues in the consolidated cases. For their part, Plaintiffs produced nearly 1,500 pages of information supportive of their position that Aetna’s policies and practices are amenable to class treatment and that L-ADR is a safe and effective treatment for degenerative disc disease. The parties participated in multiple days of mediation before Edwin Oster, Esq., an experienced and well-respected private mediator with Judicate West over a three-year period. The parties first participated in mediations and negotiations between July 2022 and April 2023. After these negotiations failed, the parties engaged in further vigorous litigation, merits discovery and expert discovery before participating in an additional mediation and arm’s-length negotiations between March 2025 and May 2025. The parties notified the Court that they reached a settlement in principle on May 16, 2025, two weeks before the final pre-trial conference and six weeks before trial. ( According to the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed on October 8, 2025 by plaintiff attorneys, "After nearly six years of vigorous litigation, investigation, and discovery, multiple mediations, and only six weeks before the scheduled trial in this matter, Plaintiffs Brian Hendricks, Andrew Sagalongos, and Andrew Howard (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”) and Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company (“Aetna”) agreed to settle this class action on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement " The Settlement provides that all Class Members who paid out-of-pocket for Single-Level L-ADR will be reimbursed up to $55,000. In addition, the Settlement provides that Class Members who have not yet the L-ADR are entitled to surgery or reimbursement for a future surgery. Class Members who are current Aetna members will be authorized for a future Single-Level L-ADR so long as their surgeon attests that the surgery is medically necessary for them, without any review by Aetna using Aetna’s own internal medically necessity criteria. Several other major insurance companies have faced class action or ERISA-based lawsuits challenging their systematic denials of coverage for single-level lumbar artificial disc replacement (L-ADR) surgery, often labeling it as "experimental," "investigational," or "unproven" despite FDA approvals dating back to 2004 (e.g., for devices like the ProDisc-L). These cases mirror the Aetna litigation in alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for arbitrary denials that force patients to pay out-of-pocket or opt for less effective alternatives like spinal fusion. As in the Aetna case, most suits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, with some settlements achieved. However, coverage has improved industry-wide - now about 90% of private insurers cover single-level L-ADR, up from near-zero in the early 2000s. Aetna revised its policy in February 2023 to cover single-level L-ADR as medically necessary under certain criteria. These suits have driven policy changes. For instance, post-settlement, UnitedHealthcare and Anthem now cover L-ADR for eligible patients, reducing denials to <10% industry-wide. Litigation continues in a case pending in the Central District of California which was filed in 2021 against Blue Shield of California. (Torres v. California Physicians' Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California Case No. 2:21-cv-08942-FMO-JEM filed October 29, 2021). This suit, led by the same firm (Gianelli & Morris), alleges similar ERISA violations for BSC's continued blanket denials of L-ADR coverage as "experimental/investigational" post-2017 settlement, particularly for patients not fitting narrow post-policy criteria or under self-funded plans. It claims BSC failed to fully implement the injunctive relief from Escalante v. California Physicians' Service d/b/a Blue Shield of California (Case No. 2:14-cv-03021-DDP-PJW), leading to renewed harms (e.g., out-of-pocket costs exceeding $40,000 per patient) ...