Wayne Gandy spent 15 years - from 1994 to 2009 - as a professional football player with the National Football League (NFL). He played with the Los Angeles Rams (LA Rams) during the 1994 season, his first with the NFL. He played the next three years with the St. Louis Rams (STL Rams) under the contract he had signed in California with the LA Rams, but he never again played for a California team. He played for the Pittsburgh Steelers (Steelers) from April 1999 to February 2003, the New Orleans Saints (Saints) from March 2003 to April 2006, and finally, petitioner Atlanta Falcons (Falcons) from April 2006 until his retirement in February 2009. Six years after he retired, Gandy filed a claim in California for workers’ compensation, claiming a cumulative injury to multiple body parts. In June 2019, Gandy’s claim went to trial on three issues: (1) whether California has jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim; (2) whether jurisdiction should be exercised in light of the choice of law and forum selection clauses in Gandy’s contracts with the Falcons and the Saints (McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23); and (3) whether Gandy’s claim against the Falcons was barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. The workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) who heard Gandy’s claim issued an opinion determining the Falcons were exempted from liability under California workers’ compensation law pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d). The WCJ’s opinion also determined Gandy was exempted from coverage under the same provisions. The WCAB issued an opinion and decision after reconsideration, that rescinded the WCJ’s order and found the WCAB had jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim. The WCAB took the position, in line with its previous decision in Hansell v. Arizona Diamondbacks (2022) 87 Cal.Comp.Cases 602, that it has jurisdiction under section 3600.5(a) over any athlete who ever signed a contract in California or with a California team, regardless of subdivisions (c) or (d), and it therefore had jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim because, during his first season in the NFL, he signed a contract with a California team. The WCAB also determined any choice of law/forum selection clause(s) should not be enforced. The WCAB opinion deferred deciding whether Gandy’s claim for compensation was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in section 5405. After an appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the Falcons are exempted under sections 3600.5(c) and (d). The WCAB’s opinion and decision after reconsideration was therefore annulled and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion in the published case of Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. -G064622 (October 2025). In 2013, the Legislature added sections 3600.5(c) and 3600.5(d) to section 3600.5, to explicitly address a specific subset of workers’ compensation claims: cumulative injury claims by professional athletes. (Stats. 2013, ch. 653, § 1.) Section 3600.5(c) reads, in pertinent part: “With respect to an occupational disease or cumulative injury, a professional athlete who has been hired outside of this state and his or her employer shall be exempted from the provisions of this division while the professional athlete is temporarily within this state doing work for his or her employer if” the employer provides workers’ compensation or its equivalent for the athlete under the laws of another state and that compensation covers the athlete’s employment in this state. (Id., subd. (c)(1).) In such a case, “the benefits under the workers’ compensation insurance or similar laws of the other state, and other remedies under those laws, shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer for any . . . cumulative injury . . . .” (Id., subd. (c)(2), italics added.) A professional athlete is “temporarily within” California if he or she “performs less than 20 percent of his or her duty days in California” “during the 365 consecutive days immediately preceding” the last day of work for that employer within California. (Id., subd. (c)(3).) Gandy’s last day of work for the Falcons in California was a November 30, 2008 game against the San Diego Chargers. In the 365 days preceding that date, Gandy’s total duty days included four games and at least 250 practice days. None of the practices and only one of the games was in California - less than 20 percent of Gandy’s duty days during the relevant period. The Falcons are therefore exempt under the terms of section 3600.5(c). But the Court of Appeal then noted "But that is not the end of the inquiry. As the WCAB recognized, Gandy was, in fact, hired as a professional football player in California (albeit by the LA Rams, not by the Falcons) at one point early in his 15-year NFL career. Therefore, section 3600.5(c) raises a question: what happens when a professional athlete is hired both by California and non-California teams over the course of his or her career and suffers a cumulative injury or occupational disease arising from that career?" "Section 3600.5(d) provides a clear answer. It specifies that both a professional athlete claiming a cumulative injury and his or her employer are exempted when “all of the professional athlete’s employers in his or her last year of work as a professional athlete are exempt from this division pursuant to subdivision (c) or any other law, unless both the following conditions are satisfied”: (1) “[t]he professional athlete has, over the course of his or her professional athletic career, worked for two or more seasons for a California- based team” or “worked 20 percent or more of his or her duty days either in California or for a California-based team” and (2) the professional athlete has “worked for fewer than seven seasons for any team or teams other than a California-based team or teams.” (§ 3600.5, subd. (d)(1).)" "In other words, if all the employers in the last year of an athlete’s career are exempt - under section 3600.5(c) or otherwise - the athlete’s career is not governed by California worker’s compensation law unless the athlete satisfies two conditions: (1) he or she spent either two or more seasons or 20 percent of his or her total career working in California or for a California- based team; and (2) he or she spent fewer than seven total seasons working for any non-California team or teams." "Gandy fails both tests. He was employed for 15 seasons, only one of which was in California with a California based team, and he worked fewer than 20 percent of his duty days in California or for a California-based team. Therefore, section 3600.5(d) exempts both Gandy and the Falcons from California worker’s compensation law." Looking at section 3600.5, the WCAB opinion found an ambiguity between section 3600.5(a) - which provides coverage for California employees injured while working outside of California - and sections 3600.5(c) and (d), which set forth exemptions from coverage for cumulative injuries suffered by professional athletes. Specifically, the WCAB opinion concluded: “the phrase ‘a professional athlete who has been hired outside of this state’ in section 3600.5, subdivision (c) is ambiguous as applied to a claim like [Gandy’s], where the applicant has California contracts of hire, but not with the particular employer that is asserted to be exempt pursuant to the subdivision.” After examining the legislative history relating to sections 3600.5(c) and (d), the WCAB determined “the Legislature did not intend for [sections 3600.5(c) and (d)] to apply to athletes who have been hired in California by at least one employer during the cumulative trauma injury period.” The Court of Appeal ruled that the "WCAB’s interpretation is fundamentally flawed." To this the Court of Appeal said "The overriding problem with the WCAB’s interpretation is that it renders superfluous the plain language of section 3600.5(d), which specifically addresses professional athletes who ultimately suffer a cumulative injury after having been hired by one or more California-based teams at some point in their career." "Moreover, even if sections 3600.5(a), (c), and (d) were in conflict (and we do not find they are), sections 3600.5(c) and (d), as the later and more specific enactments, would take precedence over the earlier and more general section 3600.5(a)." ...

On October 6, 2025, in Los Angeles Superior Court, a jury found J&J liable for the death of Mae Moore, an 88-year-old California woman who died in 2021 from mesothelioma, a rare cancer strongly linked to asbestos exposure. Moore's family alleged that decades of using J&J's talcum-based baby powder and Shower-to-Shower products exposed her to asbestos-contaminated talcum, which the company knowingly concealed. This verdict marks one of the largest single-plaintiff awards in the ongoing talc litigation. The verdict awarded $16 million in compensatory damages (for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss to the family). $950 million in punitive damages (intended to punish J&J for alleged reckless behavior and deter future misconduct). The total jury verdict was $966 million. The jury determined that J&J was negligent in manufacturing and marketing its talc products, failed to warn consumers about asbestos risks, and that the products were defective. They rejected J&J's defenses, including claims that its testing showed no asbestos and that scientific consensus supports the safety of its talc. The case was the latest in a series of individual trials after federal courts rejected J&J's multiple attempts to settle thousands of talc claims via bankruptcy filings (the third rejection occurred earlier in 2025). Mesothelioma cases like this represent a smaller subset of the broader litigation, which primarily involves ovarian cancer claims. J&J has vehemently denied liability, stating that its talc products "do not contain asbestos and do not cause cancer," citing decades of independent scientific evaluations and regulatory tests. Erik Haas, J&J's Worldwide Vice President of Litigation, called the verdict "egregious and unconstitutional," accusing plaintiffs' lawyers of relying on "junk science." The company announced it will immediately appeal, potentially arguing that punitive damages exceed constitutional limits (U.S. Supreme Court guidelines suggest they should not exceed 9 times compensatory damages, which could reduce the award to around $144 million). J&J has successfully appealed or won some prior talc cases, including a recent South Carolina mesothelioma trial. J&J faces over 67,000 lawsuits nationwide alleging its talc products caused cancers like mesothelioma and ovarian cancer due to asbestos contamination. The company discontinued talc-based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020 (switching to cornstarch) and globally in 2023 amid declining sales and scrutiny. Other notable California verdicts include: - - August 2024: $417 million ($70M compensatory + $347M punitive) to a woman with ovarian cancer (Echeverria case). - - July 2023: $18.8 million to a man with mesothelioma (Valadez case). 2019: $29.4 million to a woman with mesothelioma (Leavitt case). - - In 2024, J&J also paid $700 million to settle a separate multi-state investigation into misleading safety claims about talc. Despite these losses, J&J maintains its products are safe and has won several trials.This litigation highlights ongoing debates in science and law: While some studies link genital talc use to ovarian cancer risk and asbestos in talc to mesothelioma, major health bodies like the FDA and WHO have not conclusively banned cosmetic talc, emphasizing the need for more research ...

The SIBTF is funded through a payroll surcharge levied on all employers, based on a percentage of the premium paid by insured employers, and based on a percentage of indemnity paid during the most recent year for self-insured employers. In 2023, noting rapid increases in the volume of applications and payments for SIBTF benefits, DIR contracted with RAND to "conduct a comprehensive study of the SIBTF." This report, published in June 2024, identified startling trends concerning the long-term liabilities of the SIBTF and its resulting financial instability. Insured employers pay roughly $1.4 billion in permanent disability payments. Self-insured employers – private and public – likely add another $500 million to $1 billion. Together, total annual permanent disability payouts under the standard workers’ compensation system likely total about $2 billion. SIBTF, once a relatively small program, now pays more permanent disability payments ($2 billion to $3 billion) than the state’s core workers’ compensation program. AB 1329 was passed by the legislature with the stated purpose of reforming the SIBTF to reduce costs and the expected deficits in funding. Among other reforms AB1329 would specify that medical-legal evidence in an SIBTF claim proceeding can only be obtained through the QME process, and would require the AD to create and maintain a database of QME physicians with the necessary training and expertise to evaluate SIBTF claims from which to empanel QMEs for these purposes. Unfortunately, Gavin Newsom vetoed the proposed law. His veto letter provided the following reasons to the legislature. "I am returning Assembly Bill 1329 without my signature. This bill would make assorted changes to the Subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF), a World War II-era program created to protect disabled veterans entering the workforce. Proposed changes include incorporating a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) process, excluding certain medical conditions from the definition of pre-existing disabilities, and adding a statute of limitations on claims." "I commend the author for identifying the SIBTF as needing significant reform. Over the past decade, SIBTF has expanded significantly beyond its original purpose. The number of claims has sky rocketed, leading to an unsustainable future for the program. The Deportment of Industrial Relations estimates that, without comprehensive reform, the annual assessment paid by all employers will increase from $372 million in FY 2021-22 to $1.5 billion in FY 2029-30. As the Legislative Analyst's Office noted in a July 2025 report, workers submitting SIBTF claims today could see processing delays of up to ten years unless we take comprehensive action. Notably, other states, facing similar pressures, have chosen to eliminate their programs rather than reform them. This situation is dire and the state must act immediately." "Unfortunately, AB 1329 does not contain the comprehensive reforms necessary to save SIBTF. While some of the changes, such as the proposed QME process and the statute of limitations, are important, other changes take the program in the wrong direction. For example, including the impact on the "activities of daily living" in the determination of a prior disability contradicts the concept that the prior disability must be labor-disabling. This change would increase SIBTF claims and liabilities." "To ensure this program continues to serve workers as intended, comprehensive SIBTF reform must be pursued next year. I am directing the Department of Industrial Relations and its Division of Workers' Compensation to develop a proposal for comprehensive reform to include in January's 2026-27 budget proposal. I look forward to working with the Legislature to ensure this program continues to serve California workers." ...

Plaintiff Carlos Villalobos was employed by Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc., a temporary staffing services company that supplies labor and staffing to its customers. Simplified Staffing placed plaintiff with Maersk Warehouse and Distribution Services, where he worked first as a materials handler and later as a forklift operator. Simplified describes Maersk as “a warehousing and logistics company that warehouses goods in California that originate outside California and processes logistics for customers all over the United States.” Plaintiff filed a class action alleging multiple wage and hour claims under the Labor Code, and an unfair competition claim, against defendant Maersk, Inc. The first amended complaint identified Maersk, Inc., Damco Distribution Services Inc. (now known as Maersk Warehouse and Distribution Services USA LLC), and Simplified Labor Staffing as plaintiff’s employers. Plaintiff also filed a separate representative action against Maersk, Inc. for civil penalties under PAGA on behalf of himself and other current and former employees. The two cases were later consolidated. The parties to the arbitration agreement are plaintiff and Simplified Labor Solutions. The arbitration agreement in this case consists of two separate documents: a May 11, 2020 “Employee Agreement to Arbitrate” (the employee agreement) and a “Notice to Employees About Our Mutual Arbitration Policy” (the arbitration policy), both requiring binding arbitration of all disputes with the company that relate in any way to plaintiff’s employment. The three defendants filed a joint motion to compel arbitration. The trial court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. First, the court addressed defendants’ contention that the parties delegated resolution of enforcement issues to the arbitrator. The court found there was not a clear and unmistakable agreement to delegate enforceability issues to the arbitrator, citing cases holding (among other points) that in the employment context, an agreement incorporating by reference an arbitration organization’s standardized rules did not meet the clear and unmistakable test. The trial court then turned to the substance of plaintiff’s opposition to arbitration, ultimately concluding plaintiff “was among a class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” and the FAA did not apply to the agreement; “[t]he California Arbitration Act (CAA) and other provisions of California law apply instead.” Third, the court found that under Labor Code section 229, if a cause of action seeks to collect due and unpaid wages pursuant to sections 200 through 244, the action may be maintained in court despite an agreement to arbitrate. Thus plaintiff could maintain in court his claim for nonpayment of minimum wages; his other claims (missed meal and rest breaks, overtime, and so on) were outside the purview of section 229. Fourth, the trial court agreed with plaintiff that Labor Code section 229 also shielded from arbitration his claim for waiting time penalties, to the extent that claim was based on failure to pay minimum wages. (The court observed that “[a]s a practical matter, . . . without first deciding whether Defendants failed to pay [plaintiff] minimum wages (non-arbitrable Count 1), the arbitrator cannot possibly decide whether Defendants ought to be penalized for the failure to timely pay [plaintiff] minimum wages.”) Fifth, the court concluded that under California law, no part of plaintiff’s PAGA claim was arbitrable, stating that “[s]tate law rules that are preempted by the FAA are nevertheless good law in cases that do not involve the FAA.” Thus, the court denied defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his minimum wage claim, his waiting penalties claim to the extent it is based on his minimum wage claim, and the PAGA action. The court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s other wage and hour claims and his unfair competition claim (counts 2-6, 7 (in part) & 8). The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the non- individual PAGA claims, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the putative class claims, and granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling in its entirety in the published case of Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc. -B333556 (October 2025). “Under California law, it is presumed the judge will decide arbitrability, unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence the parties intended the arbitrator to decide arbitrability.” (Dennison v. Rosland Capital LLC (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 204, 209.) This is a well-established principle of arbitration law, applied in both state and federal cases. (E.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944 (First Options) [“Courts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is ‘clea[r] and unmistakabl[e]’ evidence that they did so.”].) "Here we hold, in the context of a mandatory arbitration agreement between an employer and an hourly worker, that the incorporation of the rules of an arbitration provider – without expressly specifying in the parties’ agreement that under those rules the arbitrator will decide the scope and validity of the arbitration agreement – is not clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to have those issues decided by the arbitrator. Absent unusual circumstances, an employer who intends to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator must express that intent in the arbitration agreement itself. Anything less is not clear and unmistakable evidence that both parties understood and intended that the arbitrator would decide arbitrability questions." ...

The California Department of Insurance issued enforcement actions today against Tesla Insurance Services, Inc. and Tesla Insurance Company (Tesla Companies), plus State National Insurance Company (State National), in order to protect consumers after the companies allegedly repeatedly failed in their legal obligations to adequately handle hundreds of California automobile policyholder claims. Tesla Insurance Services, Inc. is an appointed agent for State National, an admitted insurer in California. Unless these issues are resolved in favor of policyholders beforehand, the companies will be ordered to a hearing before an administrative law judge to determine whether they will be able to maintain their ability to transact insurance business in California as well as face significant monetary penalties. The actions allege that, despite being repeatedly warned by the Department of Insurance, the Tesla Companies and State National instead chose to abandon their responsibility to consumers and persist with their non-compliant claims-handling practices, placing profits above people and flouting the law with impunity. After allegedly continuing to receive a significant number of consumer complaints related to the handling of their automobile policyholder claims beginning in 2022, the Department of Insurance repeatedly warned the Tesla Companies and State National of the significant harm to their policyholders -- largely Tesla drivers -- unless immediate corrective actions were taken. Throughout numerous meetings with, correspondence between, and reports to the Department of Insurance, the companies repeatedly committed to improvements, but allegedly the number of justified consumer complaints and violations continued to mount. The Department’s accusations are based on the companies’ ongoing systemic failures and willful unfair claims settlement practices including, but not limited to, the following alleged violations: - - Egregious delays in responding to policyholder claims in all steps of the claims handling process, causing financial harm, out-of-pocket expenses, potential third-party liability exposure, and distress to policyholders - - Unreasonable denials and delays in fully paying valid claims to consumers - - Failure to conduct thorough, fair, and objective investigations of claims, thus denying consumers the insurance benefits they expect - - Failure to advise policyholders of their rights to have their claims denials reviewed by the Department – a major consumer protection in California to make sure insurers are held accountable by their regulator The companies have 15 days to respond to the Department’s Accusations and Notices.The companies face monetary penalties up to $5,000 for each unlawful, unfair, or deceptive act, or up to $10,000 for each such act determined to be willful. In approximately the first quarter of 2022, Tesla Insurance Holdings, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesla, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, acquired control of Balboa Insurance Company, including its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tesla Property & Casualty, Inc. (formerly known as Meritplan Insurance Company) and Tesla General Insurance, Inc. (formerly known as Newport Insurance Company). In approximately the first quarter of 2022, Balboa Insurance Company’s name was changed to Tesla Insurance Company, NAIC number 24813. As of today (three days after the action was filed), there has not been any public statement, press release, or response from Tesla, Elon Musk, or the Tesla Companies addressing these specific accusations. Searches across news sources, Tesla's investor relations page, and X (formerly Twitter) posts from official Tesla/Musk accounts yielded no results indicating a reply ...

On October 6, 2025, the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet announced that the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to three immunologists: Mary E. Brunkow and Fred Ramsdell from the United States, and Shimon Sakaguchi from Japan. The trio shares the prize of 11 million Swedish kronor (approximately $1 million USD) equally for their groundbreaking discoveries on "peripheral immune tolerance" - a mechanism that keeps the immune system from mistakenly attacking the body's own healthy tissues, thereby preventing autoimmune diseases. - - Mary E. Brunkow (born 1961) is a senior program manager at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington. She earned her Ph.D. from Princeton University and has focused on genetic research related to immune regulation. - - Fred Ramsdell (born 1960) is a scientific advisor at Sonoma Biotherapeutics in San Francisco, California. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles (1987) and has worked extensively on T-cell biology. - - Shimon Sakaguchi (born 1951) is a Distinguished Professor at the Immunology Frontier Research Center, Osaka University, Japan. He received his M.D. (1976) and Ph.D. (1983) from Kyoto University and is renowned for his work on T-cell suppression. These researchers, working independently in the 1990s and early 2000s, challenged the long-held scientific consensus that immune tolerance (the ability to ignore self-tissues) occurred only in the thymus during T-cell development - a process known as "central tolerance." Instead, their work revealed a critical "peripheral" layer of control in the rest of the body. Their contributions center on regulatory T cells (Tregs), a subset of immune cells that act like vigilant "security guards," patrolling the body to suppress overzealous immune responses against harmless or self-antigens. In essence, the laureates showed that without functional Tregs and *Foxp3*, the immune system loses its brakes, leading to chaos. This peripheral tolerance complements central mechanisms, creating a multi-layered defense. This work has transformed immunology from a descriptive field into one ripe for therapeutic innovation. Autoimmune diseases affect over 50 million people in the U.S. alone, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, and lupus - conditions where the immune system turns traitor. By elucidating Treg biology, the laureates enabled strategies to "retrain" the immune system: Broader implications include the following: - - Autoimmune Treatments: Drugs that boost Treg function (e.g., low-dose IL-2 therapies) are in trials to dampen inflammation without broad immunosuppression. - - Cancer Immunotherapy: Tregs can sometimes shield tumors from attack; inhibiting them enhances checkpoint inhibitors like PD-1 blockers, improving outcomes in melanoma and lung cancer. - - Organ Transplants: Treg infusions help prevent rejection by promoting tolerance to foreign tissues, reducing reliance on lifelong drugs. Several therapies inspired by this research are now in advanced clinical trials, with real-world approvals on the horizon. As the Nobel Committee noted, these insights explain "why not all individuals develop serious autoimmune diseases despite genetic risks," offering hope for personalized medicine. The announcement has sparked widespread excitement in the scientific community, with early reactions highlighting its potential to address unmet needs in chronic diseases ...

Jennifer Chase filed an application alleging a continuous trauma injury to multiple orthopedic body parts, sustained from November 30, 2016 through January 10, 2019 for the orthopedic injuries - later amended to include psyche injuries - while employed by defendant as a regional sales manager for Southern Implants of North America. She sought reconsideration of the Findings & Award (“F&A”) issued on June 20, 2025 by the WCJ who found that she did not sustain a psychiatric injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration and issued a Notice of Intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500.00 jointly and severally against applicant’s attorneys Ghitterman, Ghitterman & Feld and Anton Diffenderfer (CAL BAR #). A final decision on the merits of the petition was deferred pending resolution of the issue of sanctions in the case of Jennifer Chase v Southern Implants of North America -ADJ12865802 (September 2025). The WCAB noted in its Opinion that with the exception of Hegglin, each of the citations it quoted as having been made by applicant attorneys were " flawed in significant ways, and in two cases, the citations appear to entirely fabricated." The Opinion went on to specify that "In rough order of egregiousness, the proper citation for the 1975 case Patterson v. WCAB is 53 Cal.App.3d 916; the Petition’s given citation, 40 Cal.App.3d 936, is not a real citation, but corresponds most closely to a completely unrelated criminal case from 1974, People v. Orlosky (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 935." "Next, the Petition’s purported citation to Tyner v. WCAB (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1744 instead corresponds to Wright v. W.C.A.B, a decision relating to an entirely different issue. It appears that the Petition is attempting to cite to Tyler v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 924." "Finally, and of greatest concern, the citations to Maislin v. WCAB (2022) 87 Cal. Comp. Cases 765 (writ den.) and Rios v. City of West Sacramento (2013) 2013 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626 (WCAB panel decision) appear to be entirely fabricated. The cite given in the Petition for Maislin most closely corresponds to McCullar v. SMC Contracting, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1005 [87 Cal. Comp. Cases 758], an unrelated civil case involving the independent contractor doctrine. Based on our review, no case under the name Maislin has been filed in the California workers’ compensation system since electronic records began, nor do we have any record of a writ by that name ever having been filed or denied by the Court of Appeal. Finally, the quotation attributed to Maislin in the Petition does not appear to correspond to any real case." "The citation to Rios v. City of West Sacramento (2013) 2013 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626 (WCAB panel decision) appears similarly nonexistent. The provided citation is actually to Santino v. Strategic Alliance Staffing Servs. (2013) 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626, an unrelated case, nor does the caption Rios v. City of West Sacramento appear to correspond to any real case." "All of these flawed citations are concerning, but we are particularly perturbed by the apparent conjuration from thin air of Maislin and Rios – two cases which, as far as we can tell, simply do not exist. It is difficult to comprehend how such apparently fake citations could make their way into a pleading filed under penalty of perjury, without having been caught and corrected prior to filing with the normal exercise of due diligence." "Here, although it seems apparent that the citations in question fall afoul of WCAB Rule 10421, Business and Professions Code section 6068, and Rule 3.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, we are left in the dark as to motive and method – in other words, how such citations were included in the Petition in the first place, and why. To that end, the operative question before us is not so much how the Petition was drafted in a strictly mechanical sense – for example, whether artificial intelligence (AI) was involved – as how it came to be signed and submitted under penalty of perjury by a licensed attorney." "We will therefore issue a Notice of Intention (“NIT”) to impose sanctions, in order to provide applicant’s attorney an opportunity to respond to our concerns and explain what occurred. We anticipate that the response will explain how these errors came to be included in the Petition and why they were not caught and corrected prior to filing, along with any other information that applicant’s attorneys deem relevant in assessing whether sanctions should be imposed." ...

Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), one of the largest event staffing companies in the United States, has agreed to overhaul its hiring practices under a settlement resolving claims that it illegally denied a job to a qualified California applicant based on his conviction history. CSC, which staffs major events including the Super Bowl, presidential inaugurations, and papal visits, employs nearly 59,000 workers across the country and about 10,000 in California alone. The company’s reforms will bring its hiring policies into compliance with California’s Fair Chance Act (Gov’t Code § 12952) and are expected to impact tens of thousands of current and future workers nationwide. The settlement stems from a complaint filed by a California resident referred to by the pseudonym James to protect his privacy. James interviewed successfully for an event staff position, received a conditional offer, and completed onboarding. He voluntarily disclosed a past conviction he received long ago during a bout of homelessness - information he was told would not affect his employment. After receiving his background check days later, CSC quietly changed his hiring status to “rejected,” without explanation, legal notice, or any opportunity to respond. James claimed this conduct violated California’s Fair Chance Act In effect since 2018. The Fair Chance Act bars most employers from asking about conviction history until after a job offer is made. It also requires individualized assessments that consider the nature of the offense, time passed, and relevance to the job. Employers must provide written notice of any adverse employment decision and give applicants a meaningful chance to submit evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances. CSC failed to do any of this. According to the Legal Aid at Work settlement announcement, the "case reflects a larger pattern of illegal hiring practices that disproportionately and systemically harm Black and Brown workers and justice-impacted communities. As the Legislature recognized in passing the Fair Chance Act, '[r]oughly seven million Californians, or nearly one in three adults, have an arrest or conviction record that can significantly undermine their efforts to obtain gainful employment.' Nationally, formerly incarcerated people face unemployment at nearly five times the rate of the general public - levels higher than during the Great Depression." “This case is about dignity, fairness, and the right to be judged for your potential - not your past,” said Molly Lao, Staff Attorney at Legal Aid at Work. As part of the settlement, CSC has agreed to comprehensive reforms designed to bring its California hiring practices into full compliance with the Fair Chance Act and related civil rights laws. These include eliminating the use of automated decision matrices, ending requests for applicants to self-disclose criminal history, and revising all background check policies to require individualized assessments and legally compliant notice procedures. CSC will provide updated policies to the California Civil Rights Department for review and will deliver detailed annual reports on hiring outcomes for applicants with conviction histories. The company will also implement two years of mandatory Fair Chance Act training for all California hiring personnel and provide verification and training materials to the California Civil Rights Department. “These reforms are more than policy changes - they’re a path to opportunity for tens of thousands of workers,” said Lao. “This case has changed my life,” said James. “I’m glad that others who apply to CSC won’t have to go through what I did, and that we all can start building a future.” ...

In 2024, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 399, codified as California Labor Code § 1137, which became effective January 1, 2025. It was enacted in response to the Legislature’s concern about “captive audience meetings” held by employers during which employers share their opinions on political or religious matters unrelated to the employees’ job duties. California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurant Association and the Western Growers Association filed a legal action last December over the enactment of Senate Bill 399, arguing that it violates the rights of employers under the First Amendment and that the state law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs contend that SB 399 unlawfully regulates non-coercive speech of employers through implementing a “sweeping” limitation on speaking to employees about religious and political matters. In particular, Plaintiffs are concerned about the inclusion of “the decision to join or support any . . .labor organization” within the list of topics included within the definition of “political matters.” Plaintiffs argue that in enacting such a statute, the Legislature has placed its thumb on the scale in favor of labor. Defendants and the Amici argue that Plaintiffs are distorting the description of SB 399 in defining it as a law that regulates non-coercive speech of employer. Rather, SB 399 is an anti-retaliation law that does not prohibit employers from speaking on matters of religious or political issues but prevents employers from punishing employees with adverse employment action who do not wish to attend such meetings. The Amici argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief. Particularly, they contend that Plaintiffs cannot bring a pre-enforcement challenge because they have not adequately alleged a “concrete plan” to violate SB 399. After hearing oral argument, a federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction on September 30, 2025 as requested by the plaintiffs, to block enforcement of the 2024 state law placing limits on employer communications with workers on a variety of issues, including possible union representation. The Court found that Plaintiffs have adequately stated an injury in fact for purposes of a pre-enforcement injury. The Court also concluded that it is likely that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on their arguments that SB 399 is preempted by the NLRA, and also found that the Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits on their First Amendment argument. “We are pleased the court agreed with the key issues in this case,” said CalChamber President & CEO Jennifer Barrera. “SB 399 sought to wrongly limit the speech of employers across California while also exposing companies of all sizes to new legal liabilities if their leaders communicate important political and legal updates that impact the workplace.” CalChamber’s co-plaintiffs also issued statements on the ruling. “The Eastern District Court ruling is encouraging, because it recognizes the overstep of SB 399,” said Jot Condie, President & CEO of the California Restaurant Association. “This law would put employers in the impossible position of deciding what is ‘political’ and what is not and goes beyond regulating the so called ‘captive audience’ meetings already regulated at the Federal level.” “This decision affirms what we have said from the beginning: SB 399 tramples on federal labor law and the First Amendment,” said Dave Puglia, President & CEO of the Western Growers Association. “By enjoining this unconstitutional law, the court has preserved the right of agricultural and all California employers to communicate openly with their employees without the State tipping the scales in union organizing campaigns. We are proud to stand with our coalition partners in defending these fundamental rights.” Senate Bill 399 was identified by CalChamber as a ‘Job Killer’ during the 2024 legislative session, the only proposal on the organization’s list of problematic bills that was signed into law ...

As more states adopt heat safety standards, a new study from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) found that California’s 2005 heat standard led to fewer work-related injuries on hot days. “Policymakers at the local, state, and federal levels are debating heat safety standards. These findings offer measurable evidence of how California’s policy reduced injury rates during extreme heat and offer relevant data to inform the national conversation about worker protection,” said Ramona Tanabe, president and CEO of WCRI. The study, Impact of California’s Heat Standard on Workers’ Compensation Outcomes, measured how California’s heat standard impacted the frequency of injuries in occupations with substantial exposure to outdoor heat, like construction, agriculture, and transportation. The heat standard requires employers to provide water, shade, rest breaks, acclimatization plans, and emergency response protocols during excessive heat. The study also answers the following questions: - - How large is the impact of the heat standard on injury frequency in industries with outdoor heat exposure? - - Does the impact of the heat standard increase with higher temperatures? - - Does the impact of the heat standard vary for younger versus older workers? Previous WCRI research found that excessive heat not only causes heat-related illnesses such as heat exhaustion but also impairs judgment and perception, increasing the risk of accidents such as being struck by machinery. Heat-related illnesses are 11 to 18 times more frequent on days above 95°F compared with days between 75 and 80°F, yet they represent 20 to 25 percent of all injuries attributable to heat. The report is free for WCRI members and available for purchase by nonmembers at www.wcrinet.org. It was authored by Olesya Fomenko, Melissa McInerney, and Sebastian Negrusa ...

Jaime Ortiz filed two applications for adjudication of his claims. In Case No. ADJ9313543, applicant sustained injury to his bilateral knees and right shoulder while employed as an auto body worker by defendant City Auto Body from February 8, 2005 to May 12, 2005. In Case No. ADJ3093632, applicant sustained injury to his left knee while similarly employed by defendant City Auto Body on May 5, 2005. Both cases were resolved by Compromise and Release approved on February 18, 2014. The parties proceeded to lien trial and placed in issue the liens of Reinherz Chiropractic, Tariq Mirza, M.D. and Mario Corzo Interpreting. The parties also framed related issues of, in relevant part, the reasonableness and necessity of treatment, liability for services, value of services, the “24-visit cap,” and defendant’s assertions that the interpreters were not certified. The WCJ allowed the lien of Reinherz Chiropractic in an amount corresponding to 24 chiropractic visits prior to applicant’s June 1, 2006 surgery, and an additional 24 visits thereafter. The WCJ further determined that Dr. Mirza had not met the evidentiary burden of establishing that the provided services were medically reasonable and necessary, and disallowed the lien. The WCJ also found no evidence tat interpreter Mr. Corzo was certified or provisionally certified to act as an interpreter and thus disallowed the interpreting lien. All three lien claimants Petitioned for Reconsideration. The WCAB panel affirmed the F&O except that the issue of whether Mr. Mario Corzo was certified or provisionally certified to provide interpreting services was deferred and returned to the WCAB for further proceedings in the panel decision of Ortiz v City Auto Body -ADJ3093632 -ADJ9313543 (September 2024). Lien claimants’ joint Petition avers that notwithstanding the 24-visits maximum allowed under LC § 4604.5(c)(3), applicant in this instance “complained of injury to both knees,” and that “[a]t the very least, each knee should have been entitled to further treatment, in excess of the 24-visit cap.” Petitioner avers that applicant’s June 1, 2006 surgery provided an exception to the 24-visit cap, and that applicant continued to experience ongoing knee pain after the surgery. In response to this argument the WCAB panel wrote "Petitioners offer no persuasive legal argument as to why the WCJ’s application of section 4604.5 was in error. While Petitioners contend that the therapeutic allowances otherwise afforded under section 4604.5 are insufficient in light of the factual circumstances of this case, Petitioners offer no legal challenge to the validity or applicability of section 4604.5 in the first instance. Moreover, the WCJ has observed that the record lacks substantive evidence pertaining to a second knee surgery as alleged by petitioners. Accordingly, and in the absence of a colorable legal challenge to the application of section 4604.5 to the facts of this case, we decline to disturb the WCJ’s decision with respect to the lien of Reinherz Chiropractic." "Because the Petition offers no new legal or factual basis for a finding of medical necessity pursuant to section 4604.5, we decline to disturb the WCJ’s regarding the lien of Dr. Mirza." Finally, Petitioners challenge the WCJ’s application of the “Interpreter Services Regulations” to determine that Mr. Corzo was not regularly or provisionally certified at the time the interpreting services were rendered, and that Mr. Corzo’s lien is “not enforceable” as a result. The WCAB previously addressed the issue of interpreter services in connection with medical treatment in Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders (2011) 76 Cal.Comp.Cases 228, 243 (Appeals Bd. en banc),3 wherein we held that in order “to recover its charges for interpreter services, the interpreter lien claimant has the burden of proving, among other things, that the services it provided were reasonably required, that the services were actually provided, that the interpreter was qualified to provide the services, and that the fees charged were reasonable.” An interpreter lien claimant must also prove that the interpreter was qualified to provide the billed services. (Lab. Code, § 5705; Zenith Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Capi), 138 Cal.App.4th 373 [71 Cal. Comp. Cases 374]; Stokes v. Patton State Hospital(2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 996 (Significant Panel Decision). A “qualified interpreter” means a “certified” or “provisionally certified” interpreter pursuant to AD Rule 9795.1(f) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9795.1(f)), or, for purposes of section 4600, a “qualified interpreter” means an interpreter certified or deemed certified pursuant to the Government Code. Here, the WCJ has determined that “there is no evidence that Mr. Corzo was certified or provisionally certified … [p]rovisionally certified means an interpreter otherwise qualified to perform interpreter services does so when a certified interpreter cannot be present or by agreement of the parties.” However, it was not clear from this record whether the WCJ fully applied the analysis described in Guitron, supra, including a determination of whether Mr. Corzo was provisionally certified, i.e., “certified for interpreting at medical examinations or deemed certified for medical examinations by virtue of being certified for court or administrative hearing interpreting, or, if a certified interpreter is unavailable, the interpreter is provisionally certified by agreement of the parties or selected for provisional use by the treating physician.” For that reason the matter was referred back to the WCJ for further proceedings to clarify this issue ...

Karynn S. Kelly worked at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. While there, she sustained injuries to her spine, and she retained Boxer & Gerson, LLP represent her in her workers’ compensation cases. Kelly sued Boxer in October 2023, alleging various causes of action related to its representation. In an amended complaint, she alleged (1) breach of contract (failing to exercise the legal skill and expertise of competent attorneys); (2) professional negligence (failing to develop and implement case management strategies - including failing to negotiate a settlement with Lawrence Lab - or file a complaint against the medical examiner, and allowing the statute of limitations to expire on her claims); (3) unfair business practices (failing to take reasonable steps to prevent abuse from the examiner from occurring and concealing the abuse to maintain its public image); (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) fraud. The underlying facts she alleged supporting her case were categorized as follows: - - Pressuring an Unfavorable Settlement: Boxer allegedly pressured Kelly to accept a settlement offer that required her to resign from her position at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and forgo expected retirement benefits, rather than vigorously representing her interests. - - Failure to Address Inappropriate Conduct by a Medical Examiner: Boxer referred Kelly to a medical examiner who, during a December 2014 exam, allegedly engaged in inappropriate behavior (kissing her and fondling her breasts). Despite Kelly informing Boxer of this conduct in January 2015 and requesting a different examiner, Boxer allegedly disregarded her objections and required her to return to the same examiner in October 2015, where further inappropriate behavior allegedly occurred (kissing her hand and disclosing personal information). Boxer allegedly continued to rely on this examiner’s report, which concluded her January 2014 injury was not work-related, despite knowing about the misconduct. - - Failure to Communicate and Attend Hearings: Between September 2017 and November 2019, Boxer allegedly failed to maintain communication with Kelly, did not attend her hearings or trials, and forced her to represent herself despite their attorney-client relationship. - - Allowing Statute of Limitations to Expire: Boxer allegedly neglected to pursue Kelly’s workers’ compensation claims, allowing the statute of limitations on those claims to expire, which barred her from recovering compensation for her work-related injuries. The trial court sustained Boxer’s demurrer to Kelly’s first amended complaint, dismissing her legal malpractice claims on the grounds that they were barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.6(a). She filed her lawsuit in October 2023, well after the alleged wrongful acts occurred (primarily between 2014 and 2019) and after the termination of Boxer’s representation in November 2019. The trial court rejected Kelly’s argument for tolling the statute of limitations under section 340.6(a)(4), finding that her psychiatric medications and post-traumatic stress disorder did not excuse her delay in filing the complaint. The trial court also sustained the demurrer as to the fraud claim because Kelly failed to allege sufficient facts to support each element. Kelly does not challenge that decision on appeal. Representing herself, Kelly appealed and contends the limitations period must be tolled because mental and physical disabilities restricted her ability to commence the action. (CCP § 340.6, subd. (a)(4)) The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the trial court in the unpublished case of Kelly v Boxer & Gerson LLP -A171946 (September 2025). "It is undisputed that CCP § 340.6(a) year statute of limitation governs Kelly’s claims for breach of contract, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair business practices. The claims necessarily arise from Boxer allegedly violating its professional obligations while providing services to Kelly." "On the other hand, the trial court erred by finding section 340.6 (a)(4) - tolling due to a disability restricting the ability to commence a legal action - inapplicable." "Such a disability may exist where a person is incapable of caring for their property, transacting business, or understanding the nature or effects of their actions (Alcott Rehabilitation Hospital v. Superior Court (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 94, 101), and it must concretely affect the plaintiff’s ability to sue." "Kelly sufficiently alleged her mental and physical disabilities and that they restricted her ability to file her complaint. Her permanent physical disabilities - after multiple spinal injuries requiring five surgeries — require two different daily medications affecting her ability to remain focused on critical matters. Specifically, they render her unable to personally provide for her care or finances, as well as to understand the need to file a complaint." "These episodes have lasted on a weekly and monthly basis for years, spanning 2013 through 2024. Kelly’s medical care giver reiterated these limitations, noting her physical and mental illnesses require opioid and psychotropic medications, resulting in her inability to remain alert, process information, or attend to her personal hygiene." "Kelly’s adult son has been caring for her since 2013, including managing all aspects of her personal care and finances; he notes she suffers from auditory and visual hallucinations. During those periods, she is afraid to leave her bedroom, groom herself, or take any medications to minimize her mental crises." "We find nothing in the case law - and Boxer does not cite anything - mandating such further explanation. In sum, we conclude the trial court erred by failing to toll the statute of limitations." ...

The U.S. commercial auto insurance line continues to burden the overall property and casualty (P/C) industry, accounting for more than $10 billion in net underwriting losses over the past two years, according to a new AM Best report. The Best’s Market Segment Report, “Stuck in Reverse: Commercial Auto Losses Keep Mounting,” states that the segment’s rising loss severity, increasing claims costs and adverse prior-year loss reserve development continue to produce net calendar year underwriting losses for commercial auto insurers. The commercial auto insurance sector has now generated an underwriting loss for the 14th consecutive year. In fact, the losses are getting worse: total underwriting losses in 2024 were $4.9 billion dollars. Over the past 11 years, the average underwriting loss has been a little over $2.9 billion annually. “One bright spot to note is that during the past decade, insurers have trimmed about six percentage points off their underwriting expense ratio for commercial auto insurance,” said Christopher Graham, senior industry analyst, AM Best. “While commercial auto insurers are not recognized as often as personal auto insurers for adopting and leveraging technology through their operations, commercial auto insurers have nevertheless made some strides in improving their efficiency.” According to the report, the difference between auto liability and physical damage results has been stark and diverging. The underwriting expense ratio is relatively similar for the two coverages, with both improving by approximately three percentage points of improvements compared with the expense ratios six to seven years ago. The difference in the net loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE) ratio for the coverage parts, however, has typically been significant and far higher for liability coverage. The distinction between compulsory liability coverage and optional physical damage coverage may lead to insureds finding physical damage coverage not worth the cost. “Even if insureds find benefits in physical damage coverage, they may opt for higher deductibles to pay less for coverage,” Graham said. The report also notes that despite significant rate increases, commercial auto insurers have not been able to offset rising loss severity driven by inflation, rising replacement costs due to technological advancements and rising labor costs related to repairs. “Adverse loss development has been a constant drain on commercial auto results and is getting worse,” said David Blades, associate director, AM Best. To access the full copy of this market segment report, please visit http://www3.ambest.com/bestweek/purchase.asp?record_code=358186 ...

UPS driver Shelma Reyna Guerrero was crushed to death while loading packages inside a cargo trailer at the UPS driver facility on Atlas Road in Richmond, California. Guerrero was working alone on September 21 inside the trailer around 4:15 p.m. when an avalanche of packages fell onto her. She was discovered later by a co-worker who immediately called emergency services. At approximately 4:16 p.m., Richmond Police Department officers responded to reports of an industrial accident in the 1600 block of Atlas Road in Richmond. The preliminary investigation indicates that an employee of the package delivery company was loading packages into a cargo trailer when several packages fell onto her. The Guerrero was alone inside the trailer at the time. A co-worker later discovered her and immediately called for emergency responders. Despite life-saving efforts by first responders, the victim succumbed to their injuries at the scene. This incident is being investigated as an industrial accident. On September 23, 2025, Cal/OSHA announced an investigation into the workplace fatality, with up to six months to review evidence and issue citations related to safety violations (e.g., package restraint and solo work protocols). “We are deeply saddened by the passing of one of our team members,” the company said. “Our thoughts are with their family, friends and colleagues during this difficult time” UPS said in a statement to media sources. It also said it is fully cooperating with the authorities to get to the bottom of what happened. Family members have launched a GoFundMe page to help cover funeral expenses. Esmeralda Ocampo, cousin of Guerrero, stated in the fundraiser that a machine malfunction caused the accident. “She was healthy, had no prior health issues,” Ocampo reportedly said to the Richmond Herald. Guerrero reportedly leaves behind five children ...

A U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California decision ruling that Grimmway Farms - purportedly the largest grower, producer, and shipper of carrots in the world - engaged in a pattern or practice of disability discrimination against farmworkers. The ruling comes after the State of California Civil Rights Department (CRD) filed a lawsuit against the farm in 2021. As a result of the decision, the case can now move forward to trial on potential monetary damages and other forms of relief for affected workers. The plaintiff, California's Civil Rights Department (CRD), sued defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc.(Case No. 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). CRD alleges patterns or practices of disability discrimination against a group of over 600 employees referred to Grimmway's "Interactive Process Section" (for handling disability accommodations). Claims include disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, unlawful interference, and failure to prevent discrimination/retaliation. According to CRD, while some employees were able to use workers’ compensation benefits, as soon as those benefits expired, they faced a choice: take unpaid leave or get back to work without accommodations. As a result, hundreds of workers were allegedly deprived of their rights and many were effectively terminated. “This decision is a major victory for disability rights and the rights of farmworkers across California,” said CRD Director Kevin Kish. “The court has ruled loud and clear that forcing injured workers into unpaid leave is disability discrimination. Here in California, farmworkers have rights, they are protected, and we will not shy away from fighting on their behalf.” In a more than 50-page decision on cross motions for summary judgment, the federal court found that Grimmway Farms engaged in systemic disability discrimination by automatically placing disabled workers on unpaid leave when other reasonable accommodations were available. The court also ruled that CRD may pursue relief on a group-wide basis. The case proceeds to trial on the issues unresolved by the cross summary judgment motions as follows: - - ADA-based claim 1 (discrimination) re: unpaid leave. - - ADA/FEHA claims 2-3 (accommodation/interactive process) re: unpaid leave, assistive technology, and reassignment. - - ADA/FEHA claims 1-3 re: assistive technology and reassignment. - - Claims 4-5 (retaliation/interference). - - Claims 6-7 (failure to prevent discrimination/retaliation), except sexual harassment prevention. - - Defendant's remaining affirmative defenses (e.g., good faith, no discrimination). - - Punitive damages (disputed). According to a report by kvpr (NPR Network) Grimmway Farms representatives disagreed with the Civil Rights Division’s complaint and said the matter is not yet fully resolved. “We firmly disagree with CRD’s characterizations of the court’s pre-trial decisions, noting that many of the motions were resolved in Grimmway’s favor,” Officials wrote to KVPR. “The allegations do not reflect the principles or values that guide our company, and we will respectfully see the matter through trial and the proper legal process.” ...

In a recent study, researchers at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine found that a UC San Diego Health telemedicine clinic for high-risk patients to be seen immediately after leaving the hospital resulted in less readmissions. The study results, published in the Sept. 23, 2025 online edition of JMIR Medical Informatics, found the overall 30-day readmission rate for patients seen in the virtual transition of care clinic (VToC) was 14.9%, compared to 20.1% for the benchmark group. "With our virtual transition of care clinic, we are providing patients with the right care, at the right place, at the right time. With the convenience of meeting virtually, we’re able to reach patients much more efficiently," said Sarah Horman, MD, lead author of the study and professor of medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine. Across the nation, hospital readmissions pose a significant burden on patients, health care providers and medical systems, with an estimated annual cost of $17 billion. To address this challenge, a team of physicians and executive leadership at UC San Diego Health implemented the virtual clinic to support clinical management and specialty care navigation for patients being discharged in the health system. Launched in 2021, the virtual transition of care clinic is supported by 12 hospitalists, two medical assistants, one pharmacist and an on-demand interpreter service. Visits were occasionally converted to telephone encounters when patients faced technical challenges. During the study, a standardized hand-off was routed to the patient’s primary care provider and relevant specialists that summarized the reason for hospitalization, follow-up care and timing recommendations. For patients that experienced issues post-discharge, expedited calls were made from the virtual care team to the patient’s primary care provider to ensure the patient was seen in-person quicker. "When telemedicine first began, there was concern it would further increase health disparities, especially in vulnerable patient groups. However, through our research, we have found the opposite as the virtual clinic reaches patients more effectively," said Horman, hospitalist and affiliate faculty at the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Center for Health Innovation at UC San Diego Health. According to Horman, the clinic addresses three main themes that are paramount in a critical care setting: access to and availability of medications, patient and caregiver understanding in the care plan, and proper navigation with primary care and/or specialty care programs. "Our goal is to hardwire this linkage in the care chain between the hospital team and primary care in order to help expedite support during that very sensitive, post-hospital period of time," said Horman. "As a result, patient outcomes are improving while they recover at home and hospitals have capacity to take care of the next patient in need of critical care." The virtual transition of care clinic and corresponding study involved more than 25,000 participants cared for at UC San Diego Health from Sept. 1, 2021 to Sept. 17, 2024. Of the participants, 2,314 were seen in the virtual clinic and 23,129 had standard follow-up care as the study’s benchmark group. The typical time a patient is seen by their primary care physician after a hospital stay is two to four weeks. Through this clinic, patients who are considered moderate or high risk in terms of health outcomes are seen within a week after discharge. "Our clinic is a one-time, virtual visit with a patient immediately after their hospital stay to ensure we’re doing all we can to mitigate risk," added Horman. The study relied on the LACE+ index to identify patients at high risk for hospital readmission or complications after discharge. LACE stands for length of stay, acuity of admission, comorbidity and emergency department visits, and considers certain factors such underlying health conditions, a patient’s age or sex and previous admissions. "The use of LACE+ underscores the importance of data-driven and patient-centric strategies in enhancing patient outcomes," said Horman. "By using this tool, we were able to target follow-up care to those most likely to benefit. This approach helped improve care transitions and reduce avoidable hospital visits." Horman adds that the results from this initiative are promising as health systems work toward improving population health, enhancing the care experience, reducing cost and advancing care equity. The virtual transition of care clinic at UC San Diego Health is ongoing and currently seeing patients cared for at Hillcrest and Jacobs Medical Centers, with plans to launch at East Campus Medical Center soon. Co-authors of the study include Milla Kviatkovsky, Edward Castillo, Patricia S. Maysent, Chad VanDenBerg, John Bell, and Christopher A. Longhurst, all at UC San Diego Health ...

On September 19, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued a presidential proclamation titled "Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers," targeting perceived abuses of the H-1B visa program, which allows temporary entry for specialty occupation workers, particularly in STEM fields. The proclamation argues that the program has been exploited by employers - especially IT outsourcing firms - to displace American workers with lower-paid foreign labor, suppressing wages, exacerbating unemployment among U.S. graduates (e.g., 6.1% for computer science majors aged 22-27), and posing national security risks by discouraging Americans from pursuing tech careers. It cites examples of major tech layoffs coinciding with H-1B approvals, such as one company laying off 15,000 while securing 5,000 visas. Key provisions include: - - Entry Restriction: Effective 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 21, 2025, H-1B petitions for workers outside the U.S. require a $100,000 payment (per the proclamation) to be approved or supplemented; without it, entries are restricted for 12 months (expiring September 21, 2026, unless extended). This applies only to new entries post-effective date and does not retroactively affect existing visa holders or approved petitions. - - Exceptions: The Secretary of Homeland Security can waive the restriction for individuals, companies, or industries in the "national interest" without security threats (e.g., critical sectors). - - Implementation: Employers must document the fee before filing; USCIS and State Department will verify and deny non-compliant petitions. Guidance prevents B-1/B-2 visa misuse for early H-1B starts before October 1, 2026. - - Further Actions: Directs the Secretary of Labor to revise prevailing wage levels upward via rulemaking; Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize high-wage, high-skilled H-1B admissions. A joint agency report on extension is due 30 days after the next H-1B lottery. The policy invokes INA sections 212(f) and 215(a) to protect U.S. economic and security interests, with no impact on current H-1B workers' status or travel, per subsequent clarifications. Effects on California Employers California, home to Silicon Valley and the Bay Area's tech ecosystem, relies heavily on H-1B visas - accounting for about 40% of all issuances annually, with firms like Google, Meta, and Apple sponsoring thousands. The $100,000 fee (a 20-50x increase from prior $2,000-$5,000 costs) is expected to impose steep financial and operational burdens, particularly on startups and mid-sized firms, while sparking panic, legal scrutiny, and talent pipeline disruptions. Here's a breakdown based on recent media analyses: - - Cost Escalation and Hiring Disruptions: The fee applies per new petition, potentially adding millions in costs for high-volume sponsors (e.g., a firm filing 1,000 H-1Bs faces $100 million). This could force California tech employers to slash foreign hires, pivot to domestic talent amid a reported 3.02% unemployment spike in computer occupations, or pass costs to workers via lower salaries - exacerbating wage suppression the policy aims to fix. Bay Area experts predict "major disruptions" to innovation, as startups - already cash-strapped - may abandon H-1B recruitment altogether. - - Panic and Immediate Chaos: The announcement triggered a "fast and furious" rush of H-1B workers abroad to reenter the U.S. before September 21, with flights booked en masse and aborted international trips. Tech giants like Microsoft and Amazon (with major California footprints) urged employees to stay put, fearing reentry denials despite clarifications. Immigration attorneys reported "aborted takeoffs" and confusion, delaying projects and straining HR teams. - - Disproportionate Hit to Startups and SMEs: Silicon Valley startups, which sponsor ~20% of H-1Bs but lack big-firm resources, fear being "put in a bind" and "shut out" of global talent, hindering growth in AI, software, and biotech. One venture-backed firm estimated a 30% drop in engineering hires, potentially stalling funding rounds. - - Broader Economic and Legal Repercussions: California's Attorney General criticized the policy as having an "adverse impact" on the state's $500B+ tech economy, vowing to assess legal violations (e.g., under INA or equal protection). Business groups like the Chamber of Commerce predict lawsuits, while supporters argue it could boost U.S. worker employment by 6-11% in tech. Long-term, it risks eroding U.S. competitiveness, as foreign talent eyes alternatives like Canada. Overall, while large employers may absorb costs via the national interest waiver, smaller California firms face the brunt, with effects unfolding in the FY2026 lottery (March 2026). According to Politico the demand for H-1B visas far surpasses the number available, which Congress has capped at 65,000 annually plus an additional 20,000 for people with advanced degrees. In the 2024 fiscal year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved nearly 400,000 employment petitions, with more than 70 percent coming from India and 12 percent from China. H-1B visas are awarded via lottery ...

Rebecca Juarez, 39, and Juan Pablo Rodriguez, 31, both of Irvine were arrested on two counts of conspiracy, 21 counts of medical insurance fraud, and 21 counts of identity fraud for allegedly running an insurance fraud scheme where the couple stole more than 21 patients’ identities and submitted false insurance claims. Investigators with the California Department of Insurance began an investigation after several Orange County residents reported the unauthorized use of their personal information to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department when they noted charges on their explanation of benefits provided by their health insurers for medical testing and treatment they never received. The investigation revealed that Juarez, on behalf of Rodriguez, unlawfully accessed the computerized medical records system of a Mission Viejo medical practice where she worked. Juarez allegedly stole the personally identifying information of over 21 patients, which she then shared with Rodriguez who had access to a San Jose medical practice’s billing system. Rodriguez created false medical records for medical testing including COVID tests that were never performed. Rodriguez submitted those records through the San Jose medical practice’s insurance billing system resulting in the submission of fraudulent insurance claims. Investigators determined that the unauthorized billing charges were submitted to various medical insurers between August and November 2023. The total estimated intended loss to the insurance companies exceeded $10,000. On September 16, 2025, both Rodriguez and Juarez were arraigned on a criminal complaint filed in the Orange County Superior Court, and granted conditional releases. The couple are due back in court December 3, 2025. The Orange County District Attorney’s Office is prosecuting this case ...

The case Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH and West Publishing Corporation v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 25-2153, is an interlocutory appeal pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. West Publishing Corporation, a subsidiary of Thomson Reuters, is a leading provider of legal research tools, notably the Westlaw database. It holds a significant share of the U.S. legal research market, estimated at 40-50% based on industry reports and its dominance alongside competitors like LexisNexis. The company serves millions of legal professionals, offering access to over 28 million case headnotes, statutes, and other legal materials. Exact revenue and employee figures are not publicly disclosed, but Thomson Reuters' broader legal division reported $7.2 billion in revenue for 2024, with Westlaw as a core component. Its market strength stems from comprehensive content, proprietary annotations, and integration with legal workflows. In 2014, Ross Intelligence Inc., built ROSS the world’s first AI legal search engine that allowed the public to ask a question in plain English and returned ranked excerpts from judicial opinions as answers. As part of training this engine, Ross paid for 25,000 legal memoranda. Each memo featured one question and four to six answers. As Ross claims it later learned, the questions in those memoranda were developed from a small fraction of Westlaw’s millions of headnotes - what Ross claims are verbatim or close-to-verbatim quotes from uncopyrightable judicial opinions. Ross is no longer actively operating as a company. It ceased operations in 2021 amid the ongoing copyright litigation with Thomson Reuters, which drained its resources, and is now considered a deadpooled entity. The company raised approximately $8.82 million in funding prior to shutdown but has had no reported revival or new activities since. Its website remains online with outdated "About Us" content from its founding era, but no indications of current functionality. The recent 2025 court ruling and appellate briefing are handled through legal proceedings, not business operations. This interlocutory appeal stems from a 2020 copyright infringement lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (No. 1:20-cv-00613). At its core, the dispute involves allegations that Ross Intelligence unlawfully scraped and copied thousands of proprietary "headnotes" (concise summaries of legal points from court opinions) from Thomson Reuters' Westlaw database to train its AI-powered legal research tool, which aimed to compete with Westlaw. Ross countered that its actions constituted fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, arguing the headnotes were not sufficiently original to be copyrightable and that the use was transformative for AI training. On February 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly granted partial summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters on direct copyright infringement for 2,243 specific headnotes, finding Ross had willfully copied them. The court rejected Ross's fair use defense after weighing the four statutory factors: Purpose and Character of Use (Factor 1) - Nature of the Copyrighted Work (Factor 2) - Amount and Substantiality (Factor 3) - Effect on the Potential Market (Factor 4). Overall, the court concluded fair use did not apply, denied Ross's cross-motions, and rejected ancillary defenses like merger doctrine and copyright misuse. This marked one of the first rulings rejecting fair use for AI training on copyrighted materials. Ross was certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) due to the substantial legal questions involved. The Third Circuit docket opened on June 24, 2025, however briefing was delayed multiple times at Ross's request, with the opening brief due September 22, 2025. In its September 22, 2025, opening brief (filed in both sealed and redacted versions), Ross urges reversal, calling the district ruling the "first to examine fair use in the context of AI training materials" and arguing it contains "critical errors." Key Ross arguments include: - - Headnotes Not Copyrightable: They are near-verbatim quotes from uncopyrightable judicial opinions, lacking originality under precedents like Banks v. Manchester (1888) and Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020), which prohibit monopolizing the law. Protecting them would violate the merger doctrine. - - Transformative Use: Ross's AI training created a "spectacularly transformative" tool for semantic search, advancing technology without superseding Westlaw's market - citing Authors Guild v. Google (2015) and Google v. Oracle (2021) for intermediate copying in innovation. - - Minimal Amount Used: Only ~0.08% of headnotes (25,000 out of 28+ million) were involved, transformed into numerical data without retaining expressive content. - - No Market Harm: No evidence of substitution; Westlaw doesn't license headnotes for AI or sell them separately, and any impact is from lawful competition, not copyright infringement. - - Broader Implications: Affirming would stifle AI progress, harming public access to justice and U.S. innovation, as evidenced by Ross's shutdown due to litigation costs. Thomson Reuters' response brief is due later, per the briefing schedule. No oral argument date has been set, and the case is actively monitored for its potential to shape fair use doctrine in AI copyright disputes. The district court proceedings are stayed pending appeal. While no other companies have been directly sued yet, emerging players without exclusive licenses from incumbents like Thomson Reuters or LexisNexis could be vulnerable if their models ingest similar proprietary data ...

UC Davis Health gastroenterology researchers have received a $2.8 million grant from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to study the mechanisms of cell therapy using an AI-based digital pathology tool. The four-year study will further investigate regenerative therapies, particularly using stem cells, to help treat chronic inflammatory conditions. It will also focus on how AI can assist pathologists in scoring damaged and affected tissue more quantitatively. “We’re excited to be advancing cell-based therapies while also developing new tools to more precisely measure and assess tissue damage,” said Maneesh Dave, professor of gastroenterology and principal investigator of the study. “By deepening our understanding of these treatments, we hope to pave the way for novel therapies that could transform how chronic inflammatory conditions are managed.” In earlier studies, Dave and his team investigated the therapeutic effects and mechanisms of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as treatments for Crohn’s disease. Their research revealed that MSCs promote sustained tissue healing through a two-stage process. As part of the new grant, Dave will collaborate with Satish Viswanath at Emory University to develop an innovative tool called the Inflammation Digital Pathology Tool. This AI-powered platform aims to revolutionize how researchers analyze tissue samples in studies of intestinal inflammation. The team is leveraging a collection of digitized histopathology slides from mouse models, including those used in MSC research and other studies of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). These slides, scanned at ultra-high resolution, form a growing database of over 700 samples, with plans to expand to more than 1,000. Traditionally, pathologists look at tissue slides and estimate how much of the area is affected. While this has long been considered the gold standard for assessing disease and treatment response, it is a time-consuming and subjective process that relies heavily on human judgement. To ensure accuracy, the team is working closely with a veterinary pathologist to validate the AI’s findings and refine the system. The hope is that the tool will not only match human-level precision but also uncover subtle patterns that the human eye may miss. Additional collaborators on the grant include Richard Levenson, professor of pathology and Laboratory Medicine; William Murphy, distinguished professor of immunology; and Pedro Ruivo, health sciences clinical assistant professor ...