Plaintiffs Michelle Arzate and others filed a class action complaint alleging that ACE American Insurance Company misclassified them as exempt employees and failed to provide them with the benefits required for nonexempt employees under state law, such as overtime pay and meal and rest periods. In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs added claims on an individual and representative basis under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, but the court’s order did not address who was to commence the arbitration. The court ordered the parties “to submit a joint statement by September 8, 2023, confirming that an arbitrator has been selected and notifying the [c]ourt of the arbitration hearing date and the date of anticipated completion.” The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s order, which was summarily denied on July 19, 2023 (Arzate v. Superior Court, No. B328586), followed by a petition for review in the Supreme Court, which was denied on September 20, 2023 (Arzate v. Superior Court, No. S281211). On August 25, 2023, while their petition remained pending before the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the trial court to lift the stay in the case. The plaintiffs argued that ACE was required to initiate the arbitration process, and that by failing to do so within the agreement’s 30-day time period, ACE had waived its right to arbitration. On February 2, 2024, the trial court agreed with the plaintiffs’ assessment and granted the motion, finding that ACE’s inaction “was inconsistent with its right to arbitrate.”The trial court concluded that the obligation to commence arbitration lay with the defendant, ACE American Insurance Company, which had filed the motion to compel arbitration, rather than with the plaintiffs, a group of ACE employees who had consistently resisted arbitration. In the court’s view, ACE waived its right to arbitrate the dispute by failing to commence the arbitration. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court and reversed in the published case of Arzate v. ACE American Insurance Company -B336829 (February, 2025). ACE argues that the trial court erred by finding it breached the arbitration agreements and waived its right to arbitration by failing to initiate arbitration within 30 days of the court’s order compelling arbitration. The Court of Appeal agreed. The plaintiffs argue that ACE is the only party that “want[ed]” arbitration. ACE filed a motion to compel arbitration, whereas the plaintiffs always preferred to remain in court and resisted arbitration. The plaintiffs conclude that ACE was thus required to submit a demand within 30 days of the court order compelling arbitration. When it failed to do so, it breached the arbitration agreement and waived any right to arbitration. The arbitration agreements at issue require any person having “employment related legal claims” to “submit them to . . . arbitration.” They also require “A party who wants to start the [a]rbitration [p]rocedure should submit a demand within the time periods required by applicable law." The agreements also specified that "In the event an employee demands arbitration, the employee must also send with the demand letter a check or money order for $200 made payable to the [AAA]. The $200.00 sent by the employee will be used to pay a part of the administrative fees charged by the [AAA], the organization that will be providing arbitration services. The remaining fees charged by AAA will be paid by ACE. In the case of a court ordered arbitration, the demand for arbitration must be filed in accordance with these rules and procedures within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of entry of the court order or such other time period as determined by the court.” "In this case, the language regarding the party that 'wants' or 'demands' arbitration occurs in the context of an agreement by the plaintiffs, 'in the event [they] have any employment related legal claims, [that they] will submit them to final and binding neutral third-party arbitration.' ACE’s arbitration policy, which was incorporated in the arbitration agreements, made the point even clearer, stating that 'arbitration by a neutral third party is the required and final means for the resolution of any employment-related legal claim not resolved by the internal dispute resolution processes,' and that the policy 'prevents both ACE and the employee from going to court over employment-related disputes.' " The plaintiffs also claim that ACE, by failing to initiate arbitration, acted unconscionably and “effectively block[ed] every forum for redress including arbitration itself.” However the Court of Appeal noted that "The reason this case has not proceeded in arbitration is that the plaintiffs have thus far declined to pursue it there. We now make clear that it is the plaintiffs who must prosecute their case, including submitting a demand as specified in the arbitration agreements, so that it may proceed." ...

Sutter Health announced a transformational plan to expand access to its comprehensive, integrated and coordinated high-quality care across the greater East Bay region. As part of this phased approach, Sutter will construct a flagship campus in the City of Emeryville featuring a regional destination ambulatory care complex and a new medical center with an initial capacity of up to 200 beds and room for future expansion. The plan prioritizes recruiting primary care and specialty physicians, reducing barriers for patients when scheduling appointments and obtaining referrals for care, and investing in programs and partnerships to strengthen the healthcare workforce.  Sutter announced it is investing more than $1 billion to expand services across the East Bay, ensuring patients will be able to conveniently reach comprehensive care within a 15-minute drive from home or work. At the heart of this regional expansion is the newly acquired, 12-acre Sutter Emeryville Campus at Horton and 53rd streets, which will serve as a key healthcare destination. When complete, the new medical campus (approximately 1.3 million sq. ft.) in the heart of Emeryville will offer outpatient services at two existing buildings (approximately 530,000 sq. ft.) at 5555 Hollis Street and 5300 Chiron Street plus acute care services at a newly constructed medical center adjacent to the Hollis Street property. The Sutter Emeryville campus will also offer medical office space and parking at an existing 1,992-space parking garage.    Key Features of the Sutter Emeryville Campus - - A new ambulatory care complex offering hospital-based outpatient clinics (neuroscience, rheumatology, pulmonary, dermatology, non-chemotherapy infusion), orthopedic center, physical therapy, ophthalmology, women’s center, pediatrics, digestive diseases and surgery, OB/GYN graduate medical education clinic, urology, ear, nose and throat (ENT), audiology, endoscopy center, urgent care, imaging and laboratory. The first ambulatory patients are expected as early as 2028.  - - Destination advanced centers in neuroscience, orthopedics, women’s health, primary care, urgent care, imaging, and other specialty clinics.  - - Approximately 190 primary and specialty care clinicians. - - A new medical center (approximately 335,000 sq. ft.) with up to 200 beds is slated to include labor and delivery, neonatal intensive care, an ICU, emergency services, imaging services, operating rooms, private patient rooms and additional space for future bed expansion. The target opening for the new medical center is 2032-2033. When it opens, the new Emeryville medical center will replace the acute care services at 2450 Ashby Ave. in Berkeley. The Ashby campus will be reimagined to encompass an ambulatory surgery center, urgent care clinic, and possibly skilled nursing services. These new services offered in Berkeley will complete the integrated care continuum in the East Bay. The Alta Bates campus will remain an acute care facility until the new medical center is built about 2.5 miles away in Emeryville. Once the new medical center opens, Sutter Health will reimagine the campus to feature an ambulatory surgery center, urgent care services and possibly skilled nursing. Convenient, on-site resources - including diagnostic labs, blood draw stations, advanced imaging technologies and treatment areas - will continue to provide care close to home for patients in Berkeley. Sutter plans to expand behavioral health at the Herrick campus in Berkeley. Patients will access acute, crisis and outpatient care tailored to meet the needs of people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders, while ensuring specialized care for those with the most complex and serious conditions. Renovation of a 10,000 sq. ft. medical office building at 3075 Adeline Street, across from the Ashby BART station, is already underway. This 20-exam-room primary care facility will also offer dedicated OB/GYN services. It will be staffed by 10 providers and is slated to open in the Spring 2025.     In Oakland, the Summit campus of Alta Bates Summit Medical Center already offers advanced centers dedicated to cancer care, heart and vascular care and other specialties. The campus will also be home to the $400 million Stanford Medicine Sutter Health Cancer Center when it opens in November 2026.​ The five story, 167,000 sq. ft. building is currently under construction and will bring advanced cancer care to the East Bay, offering infusion services, outpatient clinics, imaging, radiation oncology and an ambulatory surgery center. Renovations are planned for the emergency departments at Oakland’s Summit campus and Castro Valley’s Sutter Eden Medical Center to accommodate more patients ...

On June 16, 2022, Scott McNalley filed an application for adjudication, alleging that he sustained cumulative injury to his neck, back and foot while employed as a foreman by Taft Electric Company during the period of November 12, 2020 through November 12, 2021. Taft Electric Company filed a petition for dismissal, alleging that the “parties were subject to the terms and conditions of the collectively bargained [ADR] agreement,” that, “although jurisdiction is conferred upon the Appeals Board by Labor Code Section 3201.5, all parties preserve their rights by following the alternative system procedures,” and that dismissal of the application for adjudication was therefore warranted. The WCJ granted the petition for dismissal, stating that the claim was dismissed with prejudice on the grounds that the alleged ADR agreement established that “the WCAB lacks jurisdiction.” The order states that “timely objection within 10 days of service showing good cause voids the order.” On October 4, 2022, defendant’s attorney filed a proof of service of the order upon applicant and applicant’s attorney. On August 21, 2023, McNalley filed a petition to have his claim removed from ADR and proceed with his claim at the WCAB. On April 17, 2024, the parties appeared for a mandatory settlement conference on the issue of the petition. The WCJ advised that he would issue a formal order denying McNalley’s petition, and he ordered the case off calendar. On November 8, 2024, the WCJ issued the Order. McNalley Petitioned for Reconsideration of the “Order Denying Applicant’s Petition to Remove Claim from Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Affirming Previous Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Jurisdiction” issued on November 8, 2024, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied applicant’s petition to remove his case from ADR and proceed before the WCAB and that the previous order dismissing the case for lack of WCAB remains in effect." His Petition was granted in the panel decision of McNalley v Taft Electric Company -ADJ16306548 (February 2025). "Here, the record reveals that the WCJ granted the Petition for Dismissal without holding a settlement conference, framing the issues for trial, or holding a hearing in violation of Labor Code section 5502(d)(2). Applicant’s petition essentially sought to set aside the September 19, 2022 order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The result of this process was the Order served to terminate applicant’s case in a manner akin to summary judgment. However, pursuant to WCAB Rule 10515, summary judgment proceedings are not permitted in the workers’ compensation system and contested matters are to be tried by way of hearing on the record. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10515.)" The WCAB panel noted that decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) "We observe that “self destruct” orders such as the one here illustrate why use of this type of notice and order is disfavored. Whether good cause is presented is an issue of fact that requires a record, and because the moment that the order becomes “void” is dependent on whether and when a good cause objection is filed, it makes it difficult to determine exactly when or if the order is void." "Because the September 19, 2022 order dismissing the case and the November 8, 2024 Order were issued without a hearing, we are persuaded that the orders violate applicant’s right of due process. Accordingly, we will rescind the Order and return the matter to the trial level so that the record may be developed on the parties’ respective contentions regarding the enforceability of the ADR agreement." ...

The California Department of Insurance issued a PSA with a warning for California drivers about an increase in scams involving tow truck companies targeting car accident victims where vehicles are being held hostage for cash. The scam has become prevalent in Southern California and the Department’s Inland Empire Automobile Insurance Fraud Task Force, has investigated multiple cases including one that has resulted in the arraignment and charges against 16 Southern California residents. This task force investigation found the auto fraud ring allegedly conspired together to create fraudulent insurance claims to illegally collect over $216,932. The investigation discovered the large-scale organized auto insurance fraud ring was engaged in multiple types of schemes including holding vehicles hostage and collusive collisions. This same ring was previously charged in a similar scheme stemming from vehicles stolen under false pretences and brought to California Collision in San Bernardino County. One of the scams in this case involves a tow truck showing up immediately after a collision occurs and offering to help the driver by towing their vehicle to a body shop. Then the body shop forces the driver to pay a large amount of money typically not covered by your insurance in order to get the vehicle back. The Inland Empire Automobile Insurance Task Force began this investigation in November 2022 after they found out a California Highway Patrol non-sworn employee, Rosa Isela Santistevan, 56, of Irvine, was unlawfully selling traffic collision report face pages, which contained personal information of people who had been involved in collisions throughout Southern California. After the task force served numerous search warrants they seized over 3,500 CHP traffic collision report face pages from the residence of Esmeralda Parga, 27, of Pomona, who the task force determined was connected to Santistevan through the organized ring’s ringleader, Andre Angelo Reyes, 37, of Corona. The conspiracy began after Reyes befriended Santistevan and other CHP employees by donating to various CHP events and parties. Santistevan printed and unlawfully sold thousands of traffic collision face pages to Reyes who would then provide the reports to E. Parga. E. Parga would then contact the parties involved in the collision, pretending to be from their insurance company and coordinate having their vehicle towed to a repair center that they misrepresented as approved by the insurance company. Unbeknownst to the victims, E. Parga did not represent the insurance company and was stealing the victims’ vehicles. Reyes and E. Parga would then dispatch tow trucks, whose drivers cooperated in the scheme and would pick up the vehicles in Riverside County and tow them to Certified Auto in Buena Park, owned by Anthony Gomez, 36, of Jurupa Valley. Once the vehicles were at Certified Auto, Certified Auto would hold the vehicle hostage and demand cash payment from the insurance companies to have the vehicles released. During the numerous search warrants, additional evidence was obtained showing the alleged ring was engaged in other types of insurance fraud schemes, including collusive collisions.The Riverside County District Attorney’s Office has also charged Reyes and Diana Villa Pineda, 34, of Corona with tax evasion of $136,408. The Department of Insurance said that there are a few red flags drivers should be aware of to make sure they are not a victim of this type of scam: - - Tow truck shows up within minutes of accident, you may not even have had time to call anyone yet. - - Tow truck driver tells you which body shop your car is going to instead of working with you to identify where you want your vehicle to go. - - Tow truck driver tells you someone will contact you by phone or asks you to sign documents. - - Tow truck driver requests a rideshare for you. The Department urges drivers if they believe they may be in a situation like this to verify the tow truck with their insurance company or wait for CHP to verify the tow truck was dispatched by CHP. Also, do not sign any documents until they have talked to their insurance company ...

Blue Cross of California d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross is a California Stock Corporation with its principal place of business in Woodland Hills, California. Anthem sells health insurance and related administrative services to California employers, individuals, and families. AA Insurance Advocacy, Inc. is a California-based company that was incorporated on May 21, 20212. The company is registered as a California Stock Corporation and is currently active. The principal address for the company is 1421 Ambassador Street, Unit #212, Los Angeles, CA 900352. Alanna Apfel is listed as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Director, and Secretary of the company. She is an insurance patient advocate who helps patients with employer-sponsored PPO insurance negotiate with insurance companies to cover their out-of-pocket mental health therapy costs or services provided by out-of-network therapists. According to a Civil Complaint filed on February 3, 2025 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Anthem alleges that Apfel and her Corporation submitted "fraudulent claims for out-of-network healthcare services that were misrepresented, inflated, or never provided at all." Anthem further alleges that "This scheme was carried out by Alanna Apfel, on her own behalf and through AA Insurance Advocacy, Inc., an entity through which she presents herself to Anthem members and the public as an “insurance advocate” that will negotiate with Anthem (and other insurers) to maximize reimbursement for certain out-of-network medical expenses." To date, Anthem alleges it "has already identified more than $7.6 million dollars in payments that were directly caused by Ms. Apfel’s fraudulent requests for out-of-network authorizations and/or submission of claims on behalf of more than 480 Anthem members." And it further alleges that this "figure is highly conservative, with the true amount of loss expected to grow dramatically as Anthem continues its investigation." Anthem provided details in the allegations of its lawsuit. "In reality, Ms. Apfel generates additional reimbursement not through advocacy, but rather by falsely seeking out-of-network authorizations and creating sham out-of-network medical claims for healthcare services. She then submits those claims to Anthem to obtain reimbursement payments to her member-clients for services never rendered or which are far in excess of what the healthcare providers actually charged and the members actually paid for." Anthem further alleges that "Ms. Apfel then charges Anthem members a fee for her “services,” typically based on a percentage of these inflated reimbursements as a kickback for submitting the falsified claims on the members’ behalf." "Ms. Apfel typically starts with a request for a “network exception” for the member: a way for the member to see an out-of-network provider so that, in theory, the member can receive reimbursement from Anthem for the full out-of-pocket costs supposedly paid to the provider by the member for that authorized, out-of-network care." Anthem then claims that when "Anthem, predictably, is unable to identify an appropriate in-network provider satisfying Ms. Apfel’s numerous requirements, it will authorize the out-of-network referral and provide the member with a network exception which requires Anthem to reimburse the member for the actual out-of-pocket costs paid to that out-of-network provider." "Ms. Apfel’s and Defendants’ “advocacy” was designed to fraudulently intervene and capitalize on this out-of-network reimbursement process by, depending on the case, grossly inflating or completely fabricating services supposedly rendered by the out-of-network provider and paid for by the member. This caused, and continues to cause, Anthem to pay out millions of dollars to reimburse members for costs they never actually incurred." Anthem provided several examples of the alleged fraudulent scheme, all involving inflated schemes for psychotherapy with various mental health practitioners. In one example, "Anthem member K.S. retained Ms. Apfel to obtain reimbursement for treatment from out-of-network provider Dr. Joseph Whitcomb, PsyD, LMFT, a provider who had previously treated K.S." "Based on Ms. Apfel’s representations, Anthem authorized an out-of-network referral/network exception for K.S., in good faith, to treat with Dr. Whitcomb for in-office treatment from May 1, 2023 through April 29, 2024. On or about January 9, 2024, Anthem renewed the authorization for in-office treatment from Dr. Whitcomb from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024." "Dr. Whitcomb, however, could not have treated K.S. during this timeframe because he had moved to Europe years earlier in 2021, shortly after K.S. had originally stopped treating with him." Anthem alleges that "Apfel submitted a claim for reimbursement on behalf of K.S. which included a fraudulent bill Ms. Apfel had created purporting to show that, in March 2024, K.S. had received 17 sessions of psychotherapy from Dr. Whitcomb at a cost of $675 per session, and that K.S. had paid Dr. Whitcomb $11,475 for this period." Further, Anthem alleges "Dr. Whitcomb died suddenly on May 18, 2024 while in Europe. Roughly one month after his death, on June 16, 2024, Ms. Apfel submitted a claim for reimbursement on behalf of K.S. which included a fraudulent bill Ms. Apfel had created showing that, in May 2024, K.S. supposedly had received 23 sessions of psychotherapy from Dr. Whitcomb at a cost of $995 per session, including 10 sessions that purportedly occurred after Dr. Whitcomb’s May 18, 2024 death, and that K.S. had paid Dr. Whitcomb $22,885 for this period." No answer or other responsive document has been filed in the Superior Court by any defendants as of the date of this report ...

Centene Corporation is a leading healthcare enterprise that provides access to healthcare services. The company focuses on government-sponsored healthcare programs, including Medicaid and Medicare, as well as individuals and families served by the Health Insurance Marketplace. Centene operates in all 50 states and serves over 28.6 million managed care members. Health Net Federal Services, Inc. (HNFS) of Rancho Cordova, is a subsidiary of Centene Corporation. HNFS provides healthcare services to military service members, retirees, and their families through the TRICARE program. HNFS is responsible for managing the TRICARE West Region, which includes processing claims, providing customer service, and ensuring access to healthcare for beneficiaries. HNFS and its corporate parent, Centene Corporation, have agreed to pay $11,253,400 to resolve claims that HNFS falsely certified compliance with federal contractor cybersecurity requirements, The cybersecurity requirements were contained in a contract between HNFS and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to administer the Defense Health Agency’s (DHA) health insurance program TRICARE for servicemembers and their families. The settlement resolves allegations that, between 2015 and 2018, HNFS failed to meet certain cybersecurity controls and falsely certified compliance with them in annual reports to DHA that were required under its contract. The United States alleged that HNFS failed to timely scan for known vulnerabilities and to remedy security flaws on its networks and systems, in accordance with its System Security Plan and the response times HNFS had established. Furthermore, the United States alleged HNFS ignored reports from third-party security auditors and its internal audit department of cybersecurity risks on HNFS’s networks and systems related to asset management; access controls; configuration settings; firewalls; end-of-life hardware and software in use; patch management (i.e., installing critical security updates released by vendors to counter known threats); vulnerability scanning; and password policies. Nonetheless, the United States alleged, HNFS annually certified to DHA that it complied with controls that it violated and, for all of these reasons, its claims for payment were false. The government’s pursuit of this matter is part of its ongoing efforts to hold accountable entities or individuals that put sensitive information at risk by knowingly providing deficient cybersecurity products or services, knowingly misrepresenting their cybersecurity practices or protocols or knowingly violating obligations to monitor and report cybersecurity incidents. Information on how to report cyberfraud can be found here. The claims asserted against defendants are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability ...

On October 7, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 824 (“AB 824”) into law. AB 824 creates a presumption that “reverse payment” settlement agreements regarding patent infringement claims between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical companies are anticompetitive and unlawful. Reverse payment settlement agreements arise primarily - if not exclusively - in the context of pharmaceutical drug regulations and suits brought under the statutory provisions of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, once a brand-name company has submitted a new prescription drug to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and gained approval to market it, a manufacturer of a generic drug with the same active ingredients that is biologically equivalent to the approved brand-name drug can gain approval to market the generic through an abbreviated FDA process. The New Drug Application (“NDA”) process to which new prescription drugs are subject is long, comprehensive, and expensive, whereas the Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) process to which generic drugs are subject is substantially less expensive and requires far less testing. In order to gain approval through the FDA, the generic company must file an ANDA. As part of this application, the generic company must assure the FDA that its drug will not infringe on any patents owned by the brand-name company. The brand-name company can and often does bring suit against the generic drug manufacturer over patent rights. Settlements of the resulting lawsuits sometimes include reverse payments in which the plaintiff, the brand-name company, pays the defendant, the infringing generic company, a sum of money for the promise that the generic company will keep its drug off the market for an agreed-upon length of time. These have become known as "pay-for-delay" agreements in the drug industry. AB 824 targets these types of settlements. According to the State, AB 824 closes this loophole in the Hatch-Waxman Act and ensures a brand-name company cannot continue to enforce an otherwise weak patent against generic companies through these reverse payment settlement agreements. AB 824 imposes a presumption that a settlement agreement involving a brand-name company compensating the generic company for keeping its drug off the market is anticompetitive under California antitrust law. A nonprofit, voluntary association comprised of the leading manufacturers and distributors of generic and biosimilar medicines, manufacturers and distributors of bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients, and suppliers of other goods and services to the generic and biosimilar pharmaceutical industry, filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to invalidate AB 824 in the case of Association for Accessible Medicines v Bonta - 2:20-cv-01708-TLN-SCR. On September 15, 2023, the State of California and Plaintiff Association-for-Accessible-Medicines filed motions for summary judgment. The State argued the participation of each of Plaintiff’s members is necessary to establish associational standing and all of Plaintiff’s claims fail on the merits. Plaintiff argued there are no genuine disputes of fact regarding its standing and that it succeeds on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim. On February 12, 2025 the motions were granted in part and denied in part. The Court converted "the current preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction. The State may enforce the provisions of AB 824 with respect to settlement agreements negotiated, completed, or entered into within California’s borders. The injunction bars the Attorney General of the State of California, as well as the Attorney General’s officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from implementing or enforcing AB 824 against Plaintiff, its member entities, or their agents and licensees, with the exception of settlement agreements negotiated, completed, or entered into within California’s borders." ...

OpenAI was founded in December 2015 by a group of tech visionaries, including Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Ilya Sutskever, Greg Brockman, and others. Their mission was to develop artificial intelligence in a way that benefits all of humanity. OpenAI is headquartered in San Francisco, California, nestled in the heart of Silicon Valley, what some say is the global hub for technology and innovation. Initially, OpenAI was a non-profit organization, but in 2019, it transitioned to a capped-profit model to attract more funding and talent. The organization consists of the non-profit OpenAI, Inc., registered in Delaware, and its for-profit subsidiary introduced in 2019, OpenAI Global, LLC. Microsoft owns roughly 49% of OpenAI's equity, having invested US$13 billion. It also provides computing resources to OpenAI through its cloud platform, Microsoft Azure. A dispute between OpenAI and Elon Musk has been brewing for some time. Musk, who was one of the co-founders and early investors in OpenAI, has been critical of the organization's direction and its shift towards a for-profit model.There has been an ongoing power struggle within OpenAI, with Musk and Altman having differing visions for the company's future. Musk has taken legal action against OpenAI, claiming that the organization is violating the terms of his foundational contributions. He has also accused OpenAI of unfairly stifling business competition, particularly with his own AI startup, xAI. In response to Musk’s lawsuit, OpenAI has said it will move to dismiss Musk’s claims and that Musk “should be competing in the marketplace rather than the courtroom”. “Something is going to trial in this case,” US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, said earlier this month as Judge Rogers was considering Musk’s recent request for a preliminary injunction to block OpenAI’s conversion before going to trial. The stakes on OpenAI’s corporate transition have now escalated, as OpenAI’s last fundraising round of $6.6bn and a new round of up to $25bn under discussion with SoftBank are conditioned on the company restructuring to remove the nonprofit’s control. Recently, Musk led a group of investors in an unsolicited $97.4 billion bid to buy OpenAI. This bid was unanimously rejected by OpenAI's board over the weekend. OpenAI has accused Musk of contradicting his own lawsuit with his takeover bid, arguing that his actions are at odds with his legal claims. AI models like ChatGPT, has become a dominant force in the field. Musk’s vision of a more open-source, safety-oriented approach to AI development stands in contrast to OpenAI’s evolving business model, which increasingly focuses on monetization. The situation remains dynamic, with both legal and business maneuvers playing out publicly ...

Ordering the insurance companies’ FAIR Plan to continue swiftly paying claims to Southern California wildfire survivors, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara today took action to maintain its solid financial footing. The FAIR Plan, an insurance safety net that the state requires insurance companies to operate, requested the Commissioner’s approval for $1 billion in additional funds from its member companies and also released detailed data about its claims paid to wildfire survivors. Commissioner Lara approved the FAIR Plan’s request - known as an “assessment” - for the funding necessary to continue meeting its obligations to Californians. The fee will be divided among insurers based on their market share. The $1 billion assessment is the largest since the FAIR Plan was created in 1968, and the first time since the 1994 Northridge earthquake. State regulations allow insurers to pass along as much as half the cost of the assessment to customers, in the form of higher charges. Insurers must absorb the other half. Additional key actions include: - - Directing the FAIR Plan to hire additional staff needed to process and pay claims fairly, fully, and quickly. - - Requiring the FAIR Plan to utilize all available funds, including reserves and reinsurance funds. - - Protecting consumers from bearing the full cost of an assessment, with insurance companies responsible for half the assessment under an agreement reached last year. Subject to the Commissioner’s prior approval under Proposition 103, insurance companies may issue a temporary supplemental fee as a percentage of the policy premium and cannot pass assessment costs on to consumers in future rates. - - Maintaining a healthy FAIR Plan reserve fund for future claims as the summer wildfire season approaches. - - Requiring the FAIR Plan to comply with all laws applicable to other insurance companies, including advance payments for living expenses and personal property without the need for an inventory. Commissioner Lara claims he finalized the Sustainable Insurance Strategy in 2024 - the largest insurance reform in 30 years - aimed at increasing the issuance of regular insurance policies in higher-risk areas and reducing reliance on the FAIR Plan. Further underscoring the need for this reform, the most recent FAIR Plan assessments followed the 1993 Kinneloa Fire in Altadena and the Old Topanga Fire in Malibu and Topanga, which affected some of the same areas as the 2025 fires - claiming three lives and destroying nearly 550 structures in those devastating incidents. Previous insurance commissioners approved $260 million, or approximately $563 million in today’s dollars, in assessments for those fires and for the fires following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Commissioner Lara expects to file the Department’s Report of Examination for an ongoing financial examination of the FAIR Plan, including its compliance with recommendations from the Department’s 2022 Operational Assessment Report in coming months. The report called for significant changes in the FAIR Plan’s governance, operations, underwriting and claims handling, risk management, customer service, and financial planning strategies and policies. Using FAIR Plan data from the Property Insurance Plans Service Office (PIPSO), the AM Best Commentary titled, “California Wildfires: Multiple Credit Negative Impacts for Insurers,” reveals that the number of California FAIR Plan policies rose by 276 percent from 2018 through 2024 (based on fiscal years ending September 30). And the premium attributable to these policies jumped to $1.4 billion in 2024, up more than 15-times higher than the $87.2 million recorded for the California FAIR plan in 2018 ...

A new proposed law was introduced on February 10, 2025, AB 489, that is aimed to protect Californians from AI systems that misrepresent “themselves” as health professionals. Specifically, the bill will provide regulators the authority to enforce title protections against those who develop or deploy AI systems that claim to be a licensed or certified health professional. This legislation, sponsored by SEIU California and the California Medical Association, comes after multiple stories of individuals developing unhealthy relationships with AI chatbots and these same chatbots being found to pose as licensed practitioners. Additionally, the Bill author claims AI is taking the health field by storm, with some companies pushing staff to use Generative AI to respond to patients and others developing for-hire "AI nurses." This bill ensures consumers are clear about who they are or are not talking to. This bill would make provisions of law that prohibit the use of specified terms, letters, or phrases to falsely indicate or imply possession of a license or certificate to practice a health care profession, as defined, enforceable against an entity who develops or deploys artificial intelligence technology that uses one or more of those terms, letters, or phrases in its advertising or functionality. The bill would prohibit the use by AI technology of certain terms, letters, or phrases that indicate or imply that the advice or care being provided through AI is being provided by a natural person with the appropriated health care license or certificate. This bill would make a violation of these provisions subject to the jurisdiction of the appropriate health care profession board, and would make each use of a prohibited term, letter, or phrase punishable as a separate violation ...

Dario Morales Dominguez was employed by Shield Platinum Protection LLC when he claimed industrial injuries as a result of a cumulative trauma during the period January 1, 2020 through September 1, 2020 to multiple parts of body. His claim was resolved by Compromise and Release and WCJ Joy issued an Order approving the C&R on May 12, 2022. On December 15, 2022, lien claimant ABC International (ABC) filed a lien for interpreting services rendered to applicant as a result of his claimed injuries. After several lien conferences, the case was set for lien trial on April 24, 2024 before WCJ Joy. At the lien trial of April 24, 2024, the WCJ continued the matter to another trial date, and issued the following comments and Order on the Minutes: - - “[P]arties appear unable to resolve lien and as of this dispo, LC’s exhibits are pending population in EAMS. - - WCJ has concerns re: Defendant and CCR 10880(a)(3)1. Defendant’s claim adjuster and adjuster’s supervisor are to appear in person at next trial to discuss. IT IS SO ORDERED.” The Defendant Petitioned Removal of the case to the WCAB in response to the Order issued by the workers compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on April 24, 2024. In that petition the Defendant argued that no good cause exists to compel the personal appearance of the adjuster and the adjuster's supervisor at an in person trial. The WCAB granted removal, and rescinded the Order of the WCJ to appear in person, and substitute a new order stating that the claims adjuster and the adjuster’s supervisor must be available by virtual or telephonic appearance at the upcoming trial of this matter in the case of Morales-Dominguez v Shield Platinum Protection LLC -ADJ14175141 (February 2025). The Petitioner claimed that that an order to appear in person constitutes an undue burden on the adjuster, as it causes a practical hardship, and prevents them from handling other cases that would be impacted by a physical appearance. Petitioner further contended that no monies are due lien claimant as there are unresolved legal issues that prevent settlement, but that the claims adjuster is available either telephonically or by other electronic means, and defendant has complied with WCAB Rule 10880(a). In response, the WCAB panel noted that "The WCJ has broad authority to issue orders to ensure proper adjudication of each claim, including “any interim, interlocutory and final orders, findings, decisions and awards as may be necessary to the full adjudication of the case.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10330.) This may include Orders that a party appear at a given hearing, should same be warranted." "While the WCJ retains the authority to order the adjuster to appear in person for a hearing for good cause if the circumstances warrant it, consideration should be given as to the subject or the nature of the hearing, as well as the dispute, the relief sought, the utility of the adjuster appearing in person versus appearing by phone, and the practical hardship and burden of having to appear in person, factoring in the distance and nature of the travel required. (Derrick Burford v. Cook Concrete Prods., (board panel decision) 2016 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 1, 8.)" "Here, while the WCJ may wish to bring the parties together and discuss settlement options or inquire further as to issues in dispute prior to commencing trial, we find an Order for both the adjuster and supervisor to appear in person for that purpose excessive. That same goal may be accomplished by an Order for the adjuster and supervisor to appear at trial by either virtual or telephonic means." ...

The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) has issued a Notice of Public Hearing for proposed evidence-based update and adoption to the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS), which can be found at California Code of Regulations, title 8, update to section 9792.24.2 and adoption of section 9792.24.8. The proposed evidence-based updates and adoption to the MTUS incorporate by reference the latest published guidelines from the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) for the following: - - Proposed Amendment to Section 9792.24.2. Chronic Pain Guidelines. (ACOEM December 19, 2024) - - Proposed Adoption of Section 9792.24.8 Cannabis Guideline (ACOEM January 28, 2025) The proposed evidence-based update and adoption to the MTUS regulations are exempt from Labor Code sections 5307.3 and 5307.4 and the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. DWC is required under Labor Code section 5307.27 to have a 30-day public comment period, hold a public hearing, and respond to all the comments received during the public comment period prior to publishing the order adopting the update online. Members of the public may review and comment on the proposed updates. Written comments must be submitted no later than March 14, 2025. Members of the public may attend the virtual and conference call public hearing - - Time: March 14, 2025 10 a.m. Pacific Time (US and Canada) - - Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://dir-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/86193231447 Of interest is the Summary of Recommendations seen on page 1 of the proposed Cannabis Guideline (ACOEM January 28, 2025). The Guideline reported that adverse effects of the use of Cannabis are "common." It continued for the next several pages to list perhaps more than 100 of them. It goes on to elaborate on each topic. Unsurprisingly, the weight of this evidence supported this overall recommendation: - - Cannabinoids for Chronic Pain - Not Recommended - Evidence C - - Cannabinoids for Acute Pain - Not Recommended - Evidence C - - Cannabinoids for Chronic Pain - Moderately Not Recommended - Evidence B - - Cannabinoids for Safety-Critical Workers - Not Recommended - Evidence C ...

The Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, has cited employers Smelly Mel’s Plumbing and Sewer Rat Plumbing a total of $529,640 in proposed penalties for violating safety regulations that resulted in serious injuries to a construction worker during a trench collapse in San Mateo on August 1, 2024. Cal/OSHA, a division of the Department of Industrial Relations, found a total of 16 violations, evenly split between both businesses. Among these citations were two willful, serious accident-related violations - meaning the businesses were aware of the safety hazards, had prior warning, and still failed to take corrective action. On August 1st, 2024, a crew was handling a sewer line project at a private residence in San Mateo. The job took a near-deadly turn when the walls of the trench collapsed, burying a worker under the debris and causing serious injuries that required hospitalization. The citations issued include violations for improper protective systems, inadequate training, and failure to inspect the trench and surrounding conditions including: - - Inspection Failure: Employers did not ensure that a competent person conducted daily inspections of the trench, adjacent areas, and protective systems that could have detected hazardous conditions such as cave-ins. - - Lack of safe exit routes: Both employers failed to provide the construction workers a ladder or other safe means of exiting the trench that was approximately 9 feet and 3 inches in depth. - - No adequate protective systems in trench: Neither employer provided adequate protective systems, such as shoring, shielding, sloping, or benching to the trench to prevent its collapse. - - Failure to protect workers from falling debris: Neither employer protected their workers from excavated materials or equipment that could pose a hazard by falling or rolling into the trench. - - Foot Protection: The employer failed to ensure that their workers had proper foot protection, which exposed at least one worker to foot injuries when using a jackhammer. - - Insufficient emergency medical provisions: The employers did not have an appropriate number of trained persons to render first aid at the jobsite. - - Permit Requirements: The employers failed to notify the division prior to the start of the annual permit-required activity of constructing an excavation over 5-feet in depth. - - Injury and Illness Prevention Program: The employers failed to conduct a toolbox safety meeting at the jobsite with the crew for the duration of the project. Employers have the right to appeal any Cal/OSHA citation and notification of penalty by filing an appeal with the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board within 15 working days from the receipt of notification. Cal/OSHA Chief Debra Lee said “Trench collapses remain one of the most serious hazards in construction, and employers must take all necessary steps to protect their employees. These citations serve as a reminder that businesses must prioritize worker safety, especially during high-risk operations to avoid tragic accidents.” ...

A California man pleaded guilty to health care fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering in connection with a years-long scheme to defraud Medicare of more than $17 million through sham hospice companies and his home health care company. According to court documents, Petros Fichidzhyan, 43, of Granada Hills, engaged in a scheme with others to operate a series of sham hospice companies. Fichidzhyan, along with co-schemers, impersonated the identities of foreign nationals to use as the purported owners of the hospices - including using the identities to open bank accounts and sign property leases - and submitted false and fraudulent claims to Medicare for hospice services that were not medically necessary and not provided. In submitting the false claims, Fichidzhyan and his co-schemers also misappropriated the identifying information of doctors, claiming to Medicare that the doctors had determined hospice services were necessary, when in fact the purported recipients of these hospice services were not terminally ill and had never requested nor received care from the sham hospices. As a result of the scheme, Medicare paid the sham hospices nearly $16 million. Fichidzhyan personally received nearly $7 million of the proceeds from the fraud scheme, including more than $5.3 million in transfers to his personal and business bank accounts, which were laundered through a dozen shell and third-party bank accounts. Fichidzhyan additionally admitted to wrongfully obtaining more than $1 million for his home health care agency through the fraudulent use of a doctor’s name and identifying information in certifying Medicare beneficiaries for home health care, which he attempted to cover up by paying the doctor $11,000. Fichidzhyan pleaded guilty to health care fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering. He is scheduled to be sentenced on April 14 and faces a mandatory penalty of two years in prison on the aggravated identity theft charge, a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on the health care fraud charge, and a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on the money laundering charge. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. Today’s guilty plea is the most recent conviction in the Justice Department’s ongoing effort to combat hospice fraud in the greater Los Angeles area. Last year, a doctor was convicted at trial for his role in a scheme to bill Medicare for hospice services patients did not need, and two other defendants were sentenced for their roles in a hospice fraud scheme ...

Rafael Castro, a veteran of the U.S. Navy and a former employee of the Veterans Health Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, and his wife, Miriam Castro, pleaded guilty in federal court to defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) out of more than $130,000. According to their plea agreements, between September 2018 and April 2024, the Castros lied to obtain caregiver benefits from the Caregiver Support Program, a VA program that provides caregiver support for injured veterans. Rafael Castro admitted that he lied about needing high-level assistance for daily activities, including dressing and undressing himself, personal hygiene, and grooming. According to plea documents, Rafael Castro defrauded the VA into awarding him assistance that paid the primary caregiver - his wife - an amount equivalent to a full-time home health aide’s 40-hour per-week payment. According to plea documents, for years, Miriam Castro received monthly payments to be a full-time caregiver for Rafael Castro while her husband worked as a full-time federal employee. From July 2015 to June 2023, Rafael Castro worked for the Veterans Health Administration, and from June 2023 to April 2024, he worked for the Internal Revenue Service. Even though he was employed by the federal government, Rafael Castro falsely told VA representatives at least six times that he was unemployed. For example, during a 2023 interview, Rafael Castro falsely claimed that he had last worked in 2018 and that his wife was his full-time caregiver. According to their plea agreements, while Rafael Castro was engaged in the fraud scheme, he received several promotions, all while he continued to claim he was unemployed. In their respective plea agreements, Rafael Castro and Miriam Castro admitted that they participated in the multi-year scheme to defraud the VA. “This case is an excellent example of the importance of internal inspections within government programs,” said U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath. “Without the intervention from the Inspector General’s Office, this fraud might have continued indefinitely.” “These guilty pleas demonstrate that those involved in defrauding VA, including government employees, will be held accountable,” said Special Agent in Charge Anthony Heddell with the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General’s Western Field Office. “The VA OIG will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to ensure the integrity of VA’s benefits programs and services.” “Violations of federal law, particularly those committed by IRS employees will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Acting Special Agent in Charge Brandon Knarr stated. “TIGTA will continue to work closely with the United States Attorney’s Office and our law enforcement partners to identify, investigate and hold those individuals responsible for their illegal activities.” Sentencing is scheduled for April 25, 2025, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Chang ...

AI-powered tractography is a cutting-edge technique that leverages artificial intelligence to enhance the visualization of nerve pathways in the brain. This method is particularly useful for planning complex neurosurgical procedures. Tractography is an imaging technique that calculates the course of nerve pathways (also known as nerve fibers or tracts) based on specialized MRI scans. These pathways are crucial for various brain functions, including movement, speech, and thought. Traditional tractography methods rely on mathematical models to infer the location of these pathways from MRI data. However, these methods often involve uncertainties, especially when the brain has been altered due to disease or surgery. Tractography, the process of reconstructing streamlines that represent neural fiber pathways within the human brain from diffusion MRI (dMRI), has gained significant attention in recent years. It is primarily used for scientific studies and surgical planning. TractSeg is a widely used example of this, automatically reconstructing specific fiber bundles with high precision. Modern AI methods, such as machine learning, can recognize patterns in MRI data and generate more accurate reconstructions of nerve pathways. One widely used AI method is called TractSeg, which was originally trained on healthy brains. Researchers have tested whether TractSeg can also work for epilepsy patients who have undergone a hemispherotomy - a surgical procedure that disconnects the two hemispheres of the brain. While TractSeg performed well in many cases, it also produced unexpected errors, such as reconstructing nerve pathways that should no longer exist due to the surgery-a phenomenon known as "hallucination." Additionally, some remaining pathways were either incompletely captured or entirely missing from the reconstruction2. To address these issues, a research team from the Lamarr Institute and the University of Bonn has developed the new hybrid method that combines the advantages of AI with the data fidelity of traditional techniques. This approach ensures that only existing nerve connections are reconstructed, eliminating the issue of "hallucinations" where AI might reconstruct pathways that no longer exist due to surgery. Despite its good overall generalization, TractSeg failed to reconstruct some bundles, due to disconnected bundle masks, or because the start or end regions did not overlap the bundle mask. Researchers concluded by saying "Although the results are promising, we advise caution and manual quality control when dealing with complex and severely pathological cases. We expect that fully automated and reliable generalization to pathologies that were not seen during training will remain a challenge for the current generation of deep learning based approaches." ...

Yukio Taira began working for Honeywell International, Inc. in November 2011. On May 14, 2015, Taira was on a flight to a trade show in Georgia when he suffered a “catastrophic stroke.” The flight was diverted and Taira was taken by ambulance to a hospital. On June 29, 2015, Taira filed two applications for workers’ compensation benefits. One case listed a specific date of injury (May 14, 2015) - the date of his stroke. The other case listed an injury date of November 1, 2011, through May 14, 2015, the entire duration of Taira’s employment with Honeywell. On September 11, 2018, Taira entered into a partial settlement agreement of $1,125,000 regarding both workers’ compensation cases. In October 2023, he settled the remaining issues in his cases for an additional $6 million, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board approved that settlement. On September 6, 2018, Taira filed a lawsuit alleging that Honeywell violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by failing to provide him an accommodation for his disability (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (m))1 and failing to engage in the interactive process (§ 12940, subd. (n)). The third amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, alleges FEHA claims against Honeywell for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation (§ 12940, subd. (m)) and failure to engage in the interactive process (§ 12940, subd. (n)). On June 16, 2022, Honeywell filed its motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Because the undisputed evidence establishes that Taira never requested a reasonable accommodation, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in the unpublished case of Taira v. Honeywell International -B328410 (February 2025). At issue in this appeal is only the question of whether Honeywell failed to reasonably accommodate Taira’s assumed disability. “‘[I]t is important to distinguish between an employer’s knowledge of an employee’s disability versus an employer’s knowledge of any limitations experienced by the employee as a result of the disability.’” (Scotch, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1013.) Thus, FEHA “requires an employer to accommodate only a ‘known physical . . . disability.’” (Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1252.) “‘“Vague or conclusory statements revealing an unspecified incapacity are not sufficient to put an employer on notice of its obligations under the [FEHA].”’” (Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1167 (Featherstone).) And, “the employee must request an accommodation.” (Gelfo, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 54.) “‘“Where the disability, resulting limitations, and necessary reasonable accommodations, are not open, obvious, and apparent to the employer,”’” the employee bears the burden “‘“to specifically identify the disability and resulting limitations, and to suggest the reasonable accommodations.”’” (Doe v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 721,738–739; see also Spitzer v. Good Guys, Inc. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1378; Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1222 (Raine).) In other words, “[a]n employee cannot demand clairvoyance of his employer. [Citation.] ‘“[T]he employee can’t expect the employer to read his mind and know he secretly wanted a particular accommodation and sue the employer for not providing it. . . .”’ ‘It is an employee’s responsibility to understand his or her own physical or mental condition well enough to present the employer at the earliest opportunity with a concise list of restrictions which must be met to accommodate the employee.’ [Citation.]” (King v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 426, 443 (King).) There is no evidence that Taira informed Honeywell of specific work restrictions as a result of his disability or that he requested a reasonable accommodation. (See, e.g., Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 327, 349 [affirming summary judgment to the employer because although it learned of the plaintiff’s symptoms, “those symptoms did not interfere with the performance of his job”]; King, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 444 [given the plaintiff’s apparent ability to get the job done, “it was incumbent upon him to produce clear and unambiguous doctor’s orders restricting the hours he could work”].) Thus, Taira’s claim under section 12940, subdivision (m), fails. For the same reason, Taira’s claim under section 12940, subdivision (n), fails. It is undisputed that Taira did not identify a specific, available reasonable accommodation while working at Honeywell. Absent this evidence, Honeywell is entitled to judgment. The fact that Taira may have reported his medical symptoms to both Ocello and a member of the human resources team does not change the conclusion. While he may have made such reports, he did not request a reasonable accommodation for those symptoms. There was nothing “open, obvious, and apparent” to Honeywell about what limitations were required for those symptoms. And his complaint about understaffing does not constitute a reasonable request to accommodate a disability. (See, e.g., Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at pp. 975–976.) ...

In response to the ongoing wildfire recovery efforts, the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has posted guidance for employers and workers on how to proceed rapidly and safely as they navigate the risks associated with fire debris removal and cleanup. Even after fires are extinguished, hazardous conditions persist. Employers involved in recovery operations within fire-damaged areas must assess these risks, address unsafe conditions, and ensure proper training is provided to all workers. DIR is committed to protecting workers on the frontlines of disaster recovery, ensuring their safety and health as they help restore what has been lost. DIR offers extensive information about worker health including a wildfire cleanup training tool in English and Spanish. Additional resources include information on: Health and safety protections: - - Physical hazards: Information is available regarding the risks of structural collapse or contact with live utilities. - - Hazard Communication: Informing and training workers about chemical hazards from burned buildings, such as fire retardants, lead or asbestos, and other hazardous materials. - - Cleanup, Debris Removal, and Restoration: Cal/OSHA provides guidance to employers and workers regarding proper training and equipment for safely handling debris during the cleanup of contaminated areas. Cleanup of fire damaged sites and debris removal must be done in accordance with title 8 section 5192 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response. Wage and retaliation protections: Workers have special rights during emergency conditions, including safety, evacuation, communication – such as access to cell phones – time off, and pay, including potential disability benefits. The Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO) educates employers and workers about these rights, supporting compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The LCO provides information on workers’ rights with respect to: Protections During Emergency Conditions: Information on workers’ rights in hazardous situations, including safety measures and employer responsibilities. - - Retaliation Protections: Safeguards for workers engaging in protected activities, such as raising health and safety concerns, refusing unsafe work, or serving as volunteer firefighters. - - Immigration-Related Retaliation: Protections against employer retaliation based on a worker’s immigration status. - - Wage and Overtime Regulations: Guidance on wages, overtime laws, and employer obligations. - - Public Works: Information on labor laws specific to public works projects and prevailing wage requirements. - - Filing Wage and Retaliation Claims: Instructions on how workers can file claims for unpaid wages or retaliation. - - Reporting Labor Law Violations: Steps for workers to report labor law violations and seek enforcement action. Workers in California are protected regardless of immigration status. Workers who have questions about safety and health in the workplace can call 833-579-0927 to speak with a live bilingual Cal/OSHA representative between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Workers who have questions about labor laws enforced by the LCO can call 1-833-LCO-INFO (833-526-4636) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Complaints about workplace safety and health hazards can be filed confidentially with Cal/OSHA district offices ...

Prior to beginning his employment with Technology Credit Union (TCU) in 2020, Thomas Vo signed an employment arbitration agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, both parties agreed “to submit to mandatory binding arbitration any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to Employee’s employment with the Company.” While employed with TCU, Vo contracted COVID-19 and developed long-term health issues, which persisted throughout his employment. Vo was eventually terminated and brought suit against TCU, alleging (1) harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy. TCU moved to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.21 and stay all proceedings. Vo opposed the motion to compel and argued the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The trial court, relying in part on Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360 (Aixtron), found the arbitration agreement unconscionable due to the arbitrator’s inability to compel prehearing third party discovery. The Court of Appeal reversed in the published case of Vo v. Technology Credit Union -H051619 (February 2025). TCU contends that the discovery clause does not render the agreement substantively unconscionable when evaluated under the discovery factors established in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478 (Ramirez). The Court of Appeal on its own motion took judicial notice of the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures, effective July 1, 2014 (JAMS Rules). (Evid. Code, § 459.) JAMS Rule 17 controls prehearing exchange of information. Rule 17(b) allows each party to take one deposition of an opposing party or individual under the control of the opposing party. (Ibid.) Any issues regarding the time, location, and duration of the deposition must be determined by the arbitrator. (Ibid.) It then states: “[t]he necessity of additional depositions shall be determined by the [a]rbitrator based upon the reasonable need for the requested information, the availability of other discovery options and the burdensomeness of the request on the opposing [p]arties and the witness.” (Ibid.) Rule 17(d) gives the arbitrator the authority to decide all “dispute[s] . . . regarding discovery issues.” (Ibid.) The arbitrator may appoint a special master to help resolve a discovery dispute. (Ibid.) Vo contends that the discovery provision renders the agreement substantively unconscionable because: (1) the agreement covers witness intensive employment claims, (2) the discovery terms completely bar third party discovery by excluding reference to the CAA and thereby eliminate an arbitrator’s authority to order prehearing third party discovery under Aixtron, (3) third party discovery is available in conventional litigation, (4) the bar on third party discovery advantages employers as plaintiffs cannot obtain information from relevant witnesses who work for the employer and other third party entities, and (5) an arbitrator has no authority to order additional discovery due to Aixtron. He also maintains that the JAMS Rules cannot allow for third party discovery because third parties do not contractually consent to such terms. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Vo and the trial court and noted that "This language could have been more precise but does not limit expanded discovery to parties to the arbitration agreement or those under their control and does not preclude an arbitrator from making nonparty discovery available to the parties." And it went on to say "the Supreme Court recently clarified that we should not construe discovery provisions defining the scope of an arbitrator’s authority “in . . . a limited way” and instead should select an interpretation that renders an agreement valid. (Ramirez, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 506-507.) We thus disapprove of Aixtron to the extent it interpreted the scope of an arbitrator’s authority narrowly. The Court of Appeal concluded that the agreement allows Vo access to third party discovery that may be necessary to adequately arbitrate his FEHA claims. The trial court’s order denying Technology Credit Union’s motion to compel arbitration was reversed. The trial court was directed to enter a new order granting Technology Credit Union’s motion and staying the litigation pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.4 ...

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) is advising employers that most of its COVID-19 Prevention Non-Emergency Standards ended in February 2025. Cal/OSHA’s regulations took effect February 3, 2023, and remained in effect for two years, except for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements, which remain in effect until 2026. Although there is no longer a specific set of regulatory requirements relating to COVID-19 prevention in the workplace, employers in California must still:  Maintain a safe and healthful place of employment as required by Labor Code section 6400. Establish, implement, and maintain an effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) as required by Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 3203.  Identify, evaluate, and correct any unsafe or unhealthy conditions, work practices, or work procedures associated with COVID-19 if they identify COVID-19 as a workplace hazard at their place of employment.  COVID-19 reporting and recordkeeping requirements (Title 8 Subsection 3205(j)) remain in effect until February 3, 2026. The requirements specify that the employer: Keep a record of and track all COVID-19 cases with the employee's name, contact information, occupation, location where the employee worked, the date of the last day at the workplace, and the date of the positive COVID-19 test and/or COVID-19 diagnosis. These records must be retained for two years beyond the period in which the record is necessary to meet the requirements of this section.   Provide information on COVID-19 cases to the local health department with jurisdiction over the workplace, CDPH, Cal/OSHA, and NIOSH immediately upon request, and when required by law. More information is available on Cal/OSHA’s webpage under Archived COVID-19 Guidance and Resources. Employers with Questions on Requirements May Contact: InfoCons@dir.ca.gov, or call your local Cal/OSHA Consultation Office ...