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 Its website remains online with outdated "About Us" content from its founding era, but no indications of current functionality.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 ...

Starbucks employees in California, along with those in Illinois and Colorado, have initiated legal action against the company over its updated dress code policy, which took effect on May 12, 2025. The core allegation is that the policy imposes unreimbursed financial burdens on workers for required attire and related items, violating state labor laws that mandate reimbursement for necessary job-related expenses. While full class-action lawsuits have been filed in Illinois and Colorado, California workers have so far filed formal complaints with the state's Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). If the LWDA declines to pursue penalties, the California employees plan to file a class-action lawsuit here as well. The actions are backed by Starbucks Workers United, the union organizing efforts at the chain. Starbucks announced the policy update in April 2025 as part of its "Back to Starbucks" initiative, aiming to "simplify" the dress code for a "more consistent coffeehouse experience" and clearer guidance for employees (whom the company calls "partners"). Key requirements include: - - Solid black short- or long-sleeved crewneck, collared, or button-up shirts worn under the signature green apron. - - Khaki, black, or blue denim bottoms (e.g., pants or skirts), or black dresses meeting specific fit criteria. - - Closed-toe, non-slip shoes (no Crocs or similar casual footwear). - - Removal of visible facial piercings (e.g., one plaintiff sought $10 reimbursement for removing a nose piercing). The previous dress code, in place since 2016, was more flexible, allowing patterned shirts in various colors and looser enforcement. Under the new rules, non-compliant employees cannot start their shifts and may face disciplinary action, including verbal warnings, write-ups, or termination. Starbucks provided two free branded black t-shirts to employees ahead of the rollout but has not reimbursed other costs, such as pants, shoes, or piercing removal. The change sparked backlash, including a strike involving over 1,000 workers at 75 U.S. stores in May 2025, and has been criticized by Starbucks Workers United (a union representing employees at about 640 of the company's 10,000 U.S. stores) for not being subject to collective bargaining, despite ongoing unionization efforts since 2021 with no contracts yet finalized. On September 18, 2025, California Starbucks workers filed formal complaints with the state's Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), alleging violations of California Labor Code Section 2802, which mandates employer reimbursement for necessary work-related expenses. If the LWDA does not pursue penalties against Starbucks, the workers plan to escalate to a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all affected California employees, regardless of union status. The complainant in this case is Brooke Allen, a barista in Davis, California, who spent $60.09 on compliant waterproof shoes after her Crocs were deemed unacceptable, plus $86.95 on black shirts and jeans to meet the standards. Allen requested reimbursement but was denied, and she has voiced frustration over the financial strain on low-wage workers (many earning around minimum wage and living paycheck to paycheck), as well as the loss of personal expression allowed under the old policy. The complaints seek back pay for unreimbursed costs, penalties, and attorney fees. The company has not directly addressed the filings but issued a statement emphasizing the policy's benefits: lower employee turnover (at record lows, half the industry average) and more desired shifts for workers. It reiterated that "partners received two shirts at no cost" and highlighted broader benefits like average $30/hour in pay and perks (free college, healthcare, paid leave). Starbucks frames the change as customer- and employee-friendly, without acknowledging reimbursement demands ...

The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Consumer, Environmental, and Worker Protection Division secured a court order of restitution against Ferooz Nangeyali and Alexandra Nangeyali, the co-owners of Alfa Private Security in Union City. Defendant Ferooz Nangeyali pleaded guilty to felony wage theft and insurance premium fraud. In September of 2021, the California Department of Insurance opened an investigation into workers’ compensation insurance fraud and employee wage theft committed by the owners of Alfa Private Security, an armed security company operating in the Bay Area. The 4-year joint investigation with the California Department of Insurance and the California Labor Commissioner’s Office, in conjunction with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, involved an extensive review of Alfa’s workers’ compensation policies, its financial records, and interviews of former employees who claimed they were not lawfully compensated for working regular and overtime hours. The resolution in this case is the result of a successful collaboration between the California Department of Insurance, the California Labor Commissioner’s Office, and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. “We are grateful for the assistance of the California Labor Commissioner’s Office and the Department of Insurance. Through our joint efforts, over $200,000 will be returned to dozens of workers who were cheated out of their hard-earned income,” said DA Jones Dickson. “The resolution of this case is a major win for the employees who were victimized by greedy individuals looking to profit at the physical and emotional expense of others,” said Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. “I would like to thank the Alameda District Attorney’s Office and the California Labor Commissioner’s Office for their hard work and dedication on this case, as they partnered with my detectives to put a stop to the egregious actions of these individuals. Together, we are sending a clear message that insurance fraud is a crime and punishable in a court of law.” California Labor Commissioner Lilia Garcia-Brower applauded the outcome of this investigation. “Wage theft and insurance fraud not only create unfair competition, they also rob workers of the pay and protections they deserve. By working closely with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office and other enforcement partners, we are holding violators accountable and safeguarding the rights of workers across California,” said Garcia-Brower. The prosecution has located 37 of the 81 individuals identified as victims of wage theft. The court ordered that the defendants pay restitution of $210,652 to those defrauded workers, and to repay $80,872 to the State Compensation Insurance Fund, reflecting their loss based on ongoing criminal misrepresentations by defendant Ferooz Nangeyali and his wife, Alejandra. Ferooz Nangeyali and Alejandra Nangeyali are scheduled to return to court for further proceedings on November 4, 2025, in Department 11 of the René C. Davidson Courthouse in Oakland. Mrs. Alejandra Nangeyali is responsible, along with her husband, for full restitution to all victims, and will have her charges dismissed in a year if the victims are repaid and she is of good conduct. If you were an employee of Alfa Security and believe you are owed back wages, please contact the Alameda County District Attorney’s office at Ask.CEPD@acgov.org or by calling 510-383-8600 ...

In January 2019, Diana Bronshteyn, whom a doctor had diagnosed with fibromyalgia, sued the California Department of Consumer Affairs under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, section 12900 et seq. She sued for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, disability discrimination, and failure to prevent discrimination. The case was a long shot. Jean Hyams, one of Bronshteyn’s lead attorneys, admitted to a “significant risk that the jury might be swayed by the fact that the [Department] permitted [Bronshteyn] to take a long leave of absence and, on paper at least, offered her all of the accommodations she had previously requested.” From her work in disability rights, Hyams was aware that “women with fibromyalgia are often stigmatized and stereotyped as exaggerating or making up their symptoms.” Hyams also conceded the doctor’s notes Bronshteyn relied on in requesting leave were “ambiguous,” which compounded the risk in taking the case. The Department fought the case hard from the start. The Department refused to discuss settlement. Many of plaintiffs motions were unsuccessfully opposed. The Department moved for summary adjudication. The court denied the motion in July 2021. Discovery was contentious. Both sides propounded multiple sets of written discovery requests, and both sides filed multiple ex parte applications and motions to compel further responses and documents. In June 2022, Bronshteyn made a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to compromise for $600,000 and for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Department rejected the section 998 offer and did not counter. Trial by jury went for six weeks in the summer of 2022. It too was contentious. The jury found for Bronshteyn on all counts. Its verdict was $3,324,262 in damages. This sum is more than five times greater than Bronshteyn’s section 998 offer. The Department filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court denied the motion. The Department moved for a new trial. The court denied the motion. The Department appealed the verdict. It lost. (See Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs (May 12, 2025, B325678) [nonpub. opn.] (Bronshteyn I).) This was in 2025. By now the case was more than six years old. Bronshteyn moved for statutory attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party under the Act, pursuant to section 12965, subdivision (c)(6). Her counsel requested a lodestar amount of $2,987,583.11, reflecting the number of hours they worked on the case, multiplied by the requested hourly rates: $1,000 for Wendy Musell; $1,100 for Jean Hyams; $1,200 for Leslie Levy; $1,100 for Sharon Vinick; $1,050 for Darci Burrell; $900 for Maraka Willits; $425 for Brittany Wightman; $350 for bar-certified law students; and $225 for paralegal and legal assistants. Bronshteyn’s attorneys noted they had put more than 3000 hours into the case. They submitted contemporaneous and precise timesheets recorded in six-minute intervals, with breakdowns by day and person. They also filed detailed declarations describing their litigation backgrounds, past fee awards, the work on Bronshteyn’s case, the division of labor, and their efforts to limit duplication. Counsel voluntarily applied a five percent reduction to account for clerical work and travel time. There was a contentious battle between the parties over the amount attorney fees. At the end of the day, the total fee award was $4,889,786.03. In justifying its decision to award rates at the higher end of Los Angeles rates, the court noted: “[t]he quality of lawyering was high; far beyond what the court would expect of an average lawyer - even with the years of experience the lawyers here exhibited.” The Department appealed (again). The court of appeal affirmed the trial court award of attorney fees in the published case of Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs -B329890 (Sept 2025). In affirming the trial court, the opinion noted "In this second appeal, the Department argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $4,889,786.03 in attorney fees to Bronshteyn’s counsel. As the trial court aptly observed: '[t]he fact that [the Department] did not settle the case early might or might not be good litigation strategy or bad litigation strategy . . . But the biggest thing it does is it makes it hard for [the Department] to claim that [Bronshteyn] shouldn’t have spent money litigating to try the case, which is reflected in the number of hours that [counsel] billed.' ” "We affirm the trial court’s careful and well-reasoned ruling." ...

The United States has filed a complaint under the False Claims Act in a lawsuit against Local Initiative Health Authority for Inland Empire Health Plan doing business as Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP), a California Local Initiative Health Plan based in Rancho Cucamonga. IEHP contracted with California’s Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to arrange for the provision of health care services to Riverside County and San Bernardino County residents under Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program. The government’s complaint alleges that IEHP violated the False Claims Act by making false statements to Medi-Cal and knowingly retaining overpayments. Beginning in January 2014, Medi-Cal was expanded to cover the previously uninsured “Medi-Cal Expansion” population: adults between the ages of 19 and 64 without dependent children with annual incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level. The federal government fully funded the expansion coverage for the first three years of the program. Under its contractual arrangement with DHCS, IEHP received funding to serve the Medi-Cal Expansion population. If IEHP did not spend at least 85% of those funds on “allowed medical expenses,” IEHP was required to pay back to the state the difference between 85% and what it actually spent. California, in turn, was required to return that amount to the federal government. The United States’ complaint alleges that IEHP developed schemes to misuse surplus Medi-Cal Expansion funding, falling into two broad categories: (1) sham incentive programs and (2) an extra-contractual retroactive rate increase. Through these schemes, IEHP misspent Medi-Cal Expansion funding for impermissible purposes, including spending on administrative expenses, other patient populations, and simply giving away federal funding in exchange for no value in return. The complaint further alleges that IEHP was motivated by a desire to conserve its other funding, thus enriching itself. The complaint alleges that, to make the spending appear legitimate, IEHP deceived the state by making false statements - which it knew would be relayed to the federal government - about the nature, timing, and purpose of its payments to providers. For example, IEHP internally admitted it was giving providers “free money” but asserted to DHCS that the payments were part of a metric-based incentive program rewarding providers with good performance. IEHP also disguised payments for consultants and technology services as incentive payments by funneling those payments through providers and backdated spending to fall during earlier time periods. According to the United States’ complaint, those payments allegedly were not “allowed medical expenses” permissible under the contract between DHCS and IEHP. The United States’ pursuit of this lawsuit illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services, at 800 HHS TIPS (800-447-8477). This case is being handled by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, in coordination with the California Department of Justice and with valuable assistance from HHS-OIG and DHCS. The United States is represented in this matter by Assistant United States Attorneys S. Desmond Jui and Jack D. Ross of the Civil Division’s Civil Fraud Section and Justice Department Fraud Section Trial Attorney Mary Beth Hickcox-Howard ...

Although large language models (LLMs) have performed well on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and at answering medical-related questions in studies, there was currently no benchmark testing how well LLMs can function as agents by performing tasks that a doctor would normally do, such as ordering medications, inside a real-world clinical system where data input can be messy. Thus a team of Stanford University researchers recently developed benchmarks for measuring the accuracy and effectiveness of AI agents to assist physicians and published their findings in the New England Journal of Medicine AI. While the researchers note the enormous potential of this new technology to transform medicine, the tech ethos of moving fast and breaking things doesn’t work in healthcare. Ensuring that these tools are capable of doing these tasks is vital, and then they can be used as tools that augment the care clinicians provide every day. “Working on this project convinced me that AI won’t replace doctors anytime soon,” said Kameron Black, co-author on the new benchmark paper and a Clinical Informatics Fellow at Stanford Health Care. “It’s more likely to augment our clinical workforce.” Black is one of a multidisciplinary team of physicians, computer scientists, and researchers from across Stanford University who worked on the new study, MedAgentBench: A Virtual EHR Environment to Benchmark Medical LLM Agents. Unlike chatbots or LLMs, AI agents can work autonomously, performing complex, multistep tasks with minimal supervision. AI agents integrate multimodal data inputs, process information, and then utilize external tools to accomplish tasks, Black explained. While previous tests only assessed AI’s medical knowledge through curated clinical vignettes, this research evaluates how well AI agents can perform actual clinical tasks such as retrieving patient data, ordering tests, and prescribing medications. “Chatbots say things. AI agents can do things,” said Jonathan Chen, associate professor of medicine and biomedical data science and the paper’s senior author. “This means they could theoretically directly retrieve patient information from the electronic medical record, reason about that information, and take action by directly entering in orders for tests and medications. This is a much higher bar for autonomy in the high-stakes world of medical care. We need a benchmark to establish the current state of AI capability on reproducible tasks that we can optimize toward.” The study tested this by evaluating whether AI agents could utilize FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) API endpoints to navigate electronic health records. The team created a virtual electronic health record environment that contained 100 realistic patient profiles (containing 785,000 records, including labs, vitals, medications, diagnoses, procedures) to test about a dozen large language models on 300 clinical tasks developed by physicians. In initial testing, the best model, in this case, Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2, achieved a 70% success rate. “We hope this benchmark can help model developers track progress and further advance agent capabilities,” said Yixing Jiang, a Stanford PhD student and co-author of the paper. Many of the models struggled with scenarios that required nuanced reasoning, involved complex workflows, or necessitated interoperability between different healthcare systems, all issues a clinician might face regularly. “Before these agents are used, we need to know how often and what type of errors are made so we can account for these things and help prevent them in real-world deployments,” Black said. What does this mean for clinical care? Co-author James Zou and Dr. Eric Topol claim that AI is shifting from a tool to a teammate in care delivery. With MedAgentBench, the Stanford team has shown this is a much more near-term reality by showcasing several frontier LLMs in their ability to carry out many day-to-day clinical tasks that a physician would perform ...

A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) study offers some of the first comprehensive data on the use of Functional Restoration Programs (FRPs) to treat California injured workers. FRPs are multi-disciplinary programs used to treat injuries that involve chronic pain and improve patient function when the injuries do not respond adequately to traditional therapies. For its study, CWCI analyzed 635 indemnity claims that involved FRPs compiled from the utilization review (UR) systems of 6 California workers’ comp insurers. Using demographic, bill review, and medical management data, the authors compared the FRP claim sample to 270,165 non-FRP indemnity claims to determine how they differ in terms of claim characteristics, geographic region, and clinical conditions. In addition, to gain a more precise assessment of FRP vs. non-FRP treatment costs, temporary disability (TD) duration, and claim durations, the FRP claims were compared to a matched sample of 2,361 non-FRP indemnity claims that had similar clinical, demographic, and claim characteristics to those of the FRP claims. The analysis found that unlike the broader indemnity claim population, which is primarily based in Southern California, FRP claims are heavily concentrated in the Bay Area, which represented nearly half of the FRP claims, and the Central Valley, which accounted for more than a quarter of the claims. In addition, the FRP claims were far more likely to involve attorney representation (94.0%) than other indemnity claims (50.8%), and despite the MTUS guideline criteria that FRPs be used for chronic pain patients, only 42.8% involved a chronic pain diagnosis, though it is unclear whether this was due to clinical inattentiveness in coding, or because some FRP participants did not have chronic pain. FRPs typically began after extended periods of conventional treatment, with an average of 792 days between the first medical service date on the claim to the first FRP service date, during which time the injured workers averaged 37 conventional physical medicine visits. Though the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) treatment guidelines recommend that FRPs run for 4 to 6 weeks, the study found that they tend to run longer, with a median duration of 8 weeks. While that exceeds the MTUS recommended level, it was consistent with the intent of typical UR approvals for FRPs. In addition, while the MTUS does not recommend a set number of days for an FRP, most injured workers in these programs received 20 to 40 days of FRP services, which was also consistent with the number of days approved by UR. On the other hand, injured workers in FRPs averaged 3.8 days of treatment per week, which was less than the MTUS recommendation of at least 5 days per week for tertiary rehab programs, but they averaged a total of 29.1 FRP treatment days. The study’s review of 2,896 FRP-related UR decisions across 1,059 claims (2.8 decisions per claim) found that 25.3% were denied and 4.8% were modified, significantly higher than the 7.7% denial/modification rate for non-FRP medical services noted in prior Institute research. The cost data showed that FRP claims averaged $234,003, or 59.3% more than the similar non-FRP claims, as they were more expensive across all cost categories, with medical costs averaging twice as high, and indemnity costs and expenses each averaging 28% higher. Total inpatient and outpatient medical costs on FRP claims averaged $127,816, with FRP medical service costs alone averaging $59,106, or 72.6% of total outpatient payments on those claims. In contrast, inpatient and outpatient medical costs on the matched non-FRP claims averaged $64,062, with outpatient costs averaging $38,613. A key reason for the higher outpatient costs on the FRP claims was that a third of the procedure codes used to bill FRP services were not listed in the Official Medical Fee Schedule, and payments associated with unlisted codes accounted for 84.3% of total treatment costs on the FRP claim. The payment data also show that unlisted procedure codes used for bundled FRP services led to much higher payments than conventional services, averaging $1,751 per code or an estimated $350 per hour of treatment. FRP claim durations were also longer as these claims averaged 520 temporary disability (TD) days, 25.2% more than the 415-day average for the matched non-FRP claims, which helped push average indemnity costs on the FRP claims to $87,855 vs. $68,533 for the matched claims. Average claim durations measured from the first medical service date to the claim closure date were considerably longer than the average number of TD days for both the FRP claims (1,287 days) and the matched non-FRP claims (1,013 days) as TD for most injuries in California is capped at 104 weeks (728 days) within a 5-year period from the date of injury, though the average duration of the FRP claims was still 27.0% longer than for the matched non-FRP claims. CWCI has published its FRP analysis in a Report to the Industry which CWCI members and research subscribers can access under the Research tab at www.cwci.org. Others may purchase a copy from CWCI’s online store ...

A new California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) study offers some of the first comprehensive data on the use of Functional Restoration Programs (FRPs) to treat California injured workers. FRPs are multi-disciplinary programs used to treat injuries that involve chronic pain and improve patient function when the injuries do not respond adequately to traditional therapies. For its study, CWCI analyzed 635 indemnity claims that involved FRPs compiled from the utilization review (UR) systems of 6 California workers’ comp insurers. Using demographic, bill review, and medical management data, the authors compared the FRP claim sample to 270,165 non-FRP indemnity claims to determine how they differ in terms of claim characteristics, geographic region, and clinical conditions. In addition, to gain a more precise assessment of FRP vs. non-FRP treatment costs, temporary disability (TD) duration, and claim durations, the FRP claims were compared to a matched sample of 2,361 non-FRP indemnity claims that had similar clinical, demographic, and claim characteristics to those of the FRP claims. The analysis found that unlike the broader indemnity claim population, which is primarily based in Southern California, FRP claims are heavily concentrated in the Bay Area, which represented nearly half of the FRP claims, and the Central Valley, which accounted for more than a quarter of the claims. In addition, the FRP claims were far more likely to involve attorney representation (94.0%) than other indemnity claims (50.8%), and despite the MTUS guideline criteria that FRPs be used for chronic pain patients, only 42.8% involved a chronic pain diagnosis, though it is unclear whether this was due to clinical inattentiveness in coding, or because some FRP participants did not have chronic pain. FRPs typically began after extended periods of conventional treatment, with an average of 792 days between the first medical service date on the claim to the first FRP service date, during which time the injured workers averaged 37 conventional physical medicine visits. Though the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) treatment guidelines recommend that FRPs run for 4 to 6 weeks, the study found that they tend to run longer, with a median duration of 8 weeks. While that exceeds the MTUS recommended level, it was consistent with the intent of typical UR approvals for FRPs. In addition, while the MTUS does not recommend a set number of days for an FRP, most injured workers in these programs received 20 to 40 days of FRP services, which was also consistent with the number of days approved by UR. On the other hand, injured workers in FRPs averaged 3.8 days of treatment per week, which was less than the MTUS recommendation of at least 5 days per week for tertiary rehab programs, but they averaged a total of 29.1 FRP treatment days. The study’s review of 2,896 FRP-related UR decisions across 1,059 claims (2.8 decisions per claim) found that 25.3% were denied and 4.8% were modified, significantly higher than the 7.7% denial/modification rate for non-FRP medical services noted in prior Institute research. The cost data showed that FRP claims averaged $234,003, or 59.3% more than the similar non-FRP claims, as they were more expensive across all cost categories, with medical costs averaging twice as high, and indemnity costs and expenses each averaging 28% higher. Total inpatient and outpatient medical costs on FRP claims averaged $127,816, with FRP medical service costs alone averaging $59,106, or 72.6% of total outpatient payments on those claims. In contrast, inpatient and outpatient medical costs on the matched non-FRP claims averaged $64,062, with outpatient costs averaging $38,613. A key reason for the higher outpatient costs on the FRP claims was that a third of the procedure codes used to bill FRP services were not listed in the Official Medical Fee Schedule, and payments associated with unlisted codes accounted for 84.3% of total treatment costs on the FRP claim. The payment data also show that unlisted procedure codes used for bundled FRP services led to much higher payments than conventional services, averaging $1,751 per code or an estimated $350 per hour of treatment. FRP claim durations were also longer as these claims averaged 520 temporary disability (TD) days, 25.2% more than the 415-day average for the matched non-FRP claims, which helped push average indemnity costs on the FRP claims to $87,855 vs. $68,533 for the matched claims. Average claim durations measured from the first medical service date to the claim closure date were considerably longer than the average number of TD days for both the FRP claims (1,287 days) and the matched non-FRP claims (1,013 days) as TD for most injuries in California is capped at 104 weeks (728 days) within a 5-year period from the date of injury, though the average duration of the FRP claims was still 27.0% longer than for the matched non-FRP claims. CWCI has published its FRP analysis in a Report to the Industry which CWCI members and research subscribers can access under the Research tab at www.cwci.org. Others may purchase a copy from CWCI’s online store ...

Jose Luis Nazar and Land of the Free own an office building located at 640 S. San Vicente Boulevard (the San Vicente property) and an event space located at 2400 Laurel Canyon Boulevard in Los Angeles (the Laurel Canyon property) L.P. Sylvia Noland was hired hired to work as their leasing agent and sales representative. She filed a lawsuit in August 2018 asserted 25 causes of action, including violations of California’s wage and hour laws, constructive and wrongful termination and other employment law related claims. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issues as to any of those claims. Among other things, the court found the evidence was undisputed that (1) plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee, and thus the wage and hour laws did not apply to her, (2) defendants did not owe plaintiff a commission because the tenant plaintiff said she secured ultimately did not execute a lease with defendants, (3) plaintiff had not demonstrated that she was subject to any adverse employment actions that could form the basis for a retaliation action, and (4) plaintiff did not demonstrate triable issues as to her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. On July 25, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the order granting summary judgment and challenges the grant of summary judgment on several grounds. On appeal she was represented by Mostafavi Law Group and Amir Mostafav located in Los Angeles. The judgment was affirmed. Attorney Amir Mostafavi was directed to pay $10,000 in sanctions in the published case of Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. -B331918 (September 2025). Relevant excerpts from the opinion are quoted below. "Prior to oral argument in this case, on our own motion we issued an order to show cause (OSC) why this court should not sanction plaintiff’s counsel, Amir Mostafavi, for filing appellate briefs replete with fabricated quotes and citations. The OSC noted that nearly all of the quotations in appellant’s opening brief, as well as many in the reply brief, were fabricated, and it warned that sanctions might include both an award of attorney fees and costs to defendants and an award of sanctions payable to the clerk of this court." "Attorney Mostafavi filed a written response. He acknowledged that he relied on AI 'to support citation of legal issues' and that the fabricated quotes were AI-generated. He further asserted that he had not been aware that generative AI frequently fabricates or hallucinates legal sources and, thus, he did not 'manually verify [the quotations] against more reliable sources.' Mostafavi accepted responsibility for the fabrications and said he had since taken measures to educate himself so that he does not repeat such errors in the future." "Plaintiff challenges the grant of summary judgment on several grounds, none of which raises any novel questions of law or requires us to apply settled law in a unique factual context. In short, this is in most respects a straightforward appeal that, under normal circumstances, would not warrant publication." "What sets this appeal apart - and the reason we have elected to publish this opinion - is that nearly all of the legal quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, are fabricated. That is, the quotes plaintiff attributes to published cases do not appear in those cases or anywhere else. Further, many of the cases plaintiff cites do not discuss the topics for which they are cited, and a few of the cases do not exist at all. These fabricated legal authorities were created by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that plaintiff’s counsel used to draft his appellate briefs. The AI tools created fake legal authority - sometimes referred to as AI “hallucinations” - that were undetected by plaintiff’s counsel because he did not read the cases the AI tools cited." "Although the generation of fake legal authority by AI sources has been widely commented on by federal and out-of- state courts and reported by many media sources, no California court has addressed this issue. We therefore publish this opinion as a warning. Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations - whether provided by generative AI or any other source - that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified. Because plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct in this case violated a basic duty counsel owed to his client and the court, we impose a monetary sanction on counsel, direct him to serve a copy of this opinion on his client, and direct the clerk of the court to serve a copy of this opinion on the State Bar." ...

Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko announced that Gonzalo Robles Zurita (DOB 10/10/88), of Oxnard, has been charged with felony workers’ compensation insurance fraud for allegedly claiming that an arm injury he received in 2022 occurred at his place of employment. He is also charged with one felony count of attempted perjury under oath for statements made during a sworn deposition regarding the arm injury. Zurita made his first court appearance on September 11, 2025, where he pled not guilty to all charges. Zurita’s claim in 2022 that he was injured on the job resulted in the opening of a State of California worker’s compensation claim, which entitled him to compensation, medical treatment, and other worker’s rights. The State Compensation Insurance Fund paid over $20,000 based on Zurita’s allegedly fraudulent claim that his injury was workplace related. The State Compensation Insurance Fund assigned their Special Investigation Unit to conduct a criminal investigation regarding the date, time, and location where the arm injury occurred. The investigation revealed that Zurita allegedly made false or fraudulent statements and representations for the purpose of obtaining compensation. Zurita is scheduled for an early disposition conference on September 22, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in courtroom 12 and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for September 24, 2025, at 8:15 a.m. in courtroom 14. Zurita was released from custody on his own recognizance and faces a maximum of three years, six months in jail. The California Department of Insurance (CDI) estimates that workers’ compensation fraud costs $1 billion to $3 billion annually. This fraud increases the premiums that employers pay to obtain insurance, affecting legitimate businesses and all consumers in California through increased prices Senior Deputy District Attorney Joann Roth, a member of the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office Special Prosecutions Workers’ Compensation Fraud Unit, is prosecuting the case ...

The Sonoma Index-Tribune reports that California counties, including Sonoma, are struggling under skyrocketing insurance costs. It goes on to report that "Sonoma County has seen its overall liability insurance costs go up more than 500% in the past decade, according to data obtained by The Press Democrat. The county’s spending on that insurance has gone from under $3.8 million for fiscal year 2014-2015 to almost $23.8 million for 2024-2025." The Press Democrat primarily focuses on the surge in liability insurance costs for California counties (such as Sonoma County's 500% increase over the past decade, driven largely by law enforcement-related claims and a shrinking insurance market), it briefly mentions workers' compensation as one of the core insurance types local governments manage alongside property and liability coverage. A broader search for recent reports, statements from county officials, and industry analyses indicated that California's workers' compensation system is notoriously one of the most expensive in the U.S., and counties-as major public employers with high-risk roles like law enforcement, firefighting, and public works - face significant burdens. The following is a breakdown of the main issues based on recent reports (as of September 2025): California ranks as the 3rd most expensive state for workers' compensation insurance, with average rates about 178% higher than the national median. This is due to factors like high medical costs, a litigious environment, and the state's unique regulatory system (overseen by the Workers' Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California, or WCIRB, rather than the national NCCI standard). In 2025, the California Department of Insurance approved an 8.7% increase in the average advisory pure premium rate - the first meaningful rise in over a decade. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara alerted state leaders in a letter that these "growing costs" could impact businesses and public entities like counties, signaling a shift in market conditions that might lead to further hikes. Ben Adler, spokesperson for the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), has echoed sentiments from the Sonoma article by noting that insurance challenges (including workers' comp) are forcing cuts to services residents rely on, such as law enforcement and wildfire protection. In Sonoma, where the Sheriff's Office already dominates liability spending ($13.1 million in 2024-2025), workers' comp adds to the fiscal strain for high-risk deputies and correctional staff. Napa County officials have reported general insurance costs (including workers' comp) doubling in five years, with expectations of 20% annual rises. This mirrors Sonoma's experience and has prompted "tough conversations" about service reductions, as noted by Napa CEO Ryan Alsop. Public sector roles like policing, firefighting, and jail operations involve inherent risks, leading to frequent claims for injuries (e.g., back strains, assaults, or repetitive stress). Counties complain that these drive up experience modification factors (which adjust premiums based on claim history), making coverage more expensive. Fraud is a major grievance. The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office received a $339,173 grant in 2023-2024 from the California Department of Insurance to investigate workers' comp fraud, including claimant exaggeration, employer premium evasion, and medical provider schemes. Officials like DA Carla Rodriguez emphasize that fraud inflates system-wide costs, affecting honest employers like counties. Statewide, fraud investigations highlight how it increases premiums for everyone, with counties bearing the brunt as self-insured or pooled entities. Similar to workers' comp costs liability insurance costs are fueled by increasing jury awards, lengthy claim resolutions (averaging 16 months), and uncapped damages in California. Counties complain about "nuclear verdicts" and extended filing deadlines (e.g., from recent laws like those extending child abuse claim windows, though this hits schools harder). Medical treatment costs in California are among the highest nationally, with evidence-based care requirements adding to expenses. The state's no-fault system ensures benefits for most claims, but counties report disputes over benefit delivery, leading to audits and appeals via the Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC). Shared risk pools like PRISM (used by Sonoma and 54 other counties) spread costs but also mean one county's high claims can raise premiums for all, exacerbating complaints during waves of litigation. Insurers are pulling back from California due to reinsurance shortages (85% loss, per CSAC) and post-2020 shifts in public perception of high-risk jobs (e.g., after George Floyd). This leads to fewer options and higher premiums, with some counties facing 1000% spikes in related coverages. Workers' comp follows suit, as noted in Gallagher's 2025 public sector trends analysis. Small or rural counties like Lake and Mendocino (neighbors to Sonoma) echo these issues, with officials pushing for reforms like better fraud prosecution and de-escalation training to lower claims ...

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. for discriminating against passengers with disabilities, including those who use service animals and mobility devices such as stowable wheelchairs. Uber is the largest provider of ride-hailing services in the United States. The lawsuit seeks $125 million for individuals who have been subject to discrimination and previously submitted complaints to Uber or the Department. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Uber violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination based on disability by private transportation companies like Uber. The ADA also requires Uber to allow service animals to accompany individuals with disabilities in vehicles and to provide rides to, and assist, riders with stowable wheelchairs and mobility devices. The Department’s civil complaint alleges that Uber and its drivers routinely refuse to serve individuals with disabilities; impose impermissible surcharges by charging cleaning fees for service animal shedding and cancellation fees to riders whom Uber has unlawfully denied service; and refuse to reasonably modify Uber’s policies, practices, or procedures, where necessary, to avoid discriminating against riders with disabilities, including by denying individuals with mobility disabilities the option to sit in the front seat when needed. Due to Uber’s ride denials, individuals with disabilities have experienced significant delays, missed appointments, and have been left stranded in inclement weather. “Rideshare companies like Uber are prohibited from denying riders with disabilities the same access to transportation that riders without disabilities enjoy,” said U.S. Attorney Craig H. Missakian of the Northern District of California. “This complaint underscores the United States’ commitment to enforcing the ADA’s promise of equal access.” “For too long, blind riders have suffered repeated ride denials by Uber because they are traveling with a service dog,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This lawsuit seeks to end this persistent discrimination and allow riders with disabilities to use Uber. We will enforce the ADA’s guarantee that people with disabilities have equal opportunity and full participation in all aspects of American society, including transportation.” The lawsuit seeks a court order to force Uber to stop discriminating against individuals with disabilities, to modify its policies to comply with the ADA, and to train its staff and drivers on the ADA. In addition to the monetary damages to compensate aggrieved individuals subjected to Uber’s discrimination, the lawsuit demands that Uber pay a civil penalty to vindicate the public’s interest in eliminating disability discrimination. To learn more about the Civil Rights Division visit www.justice.gov/crt, and to report possible violations of federal civil rights laws go to www.civilrights.justice.gov. For more information on the ADA, please call the department’s toll-free ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (TTY 1-833-610-1264) or visit www.ada.gov ...

On July 21, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) updated its recent accomplishments, which included a section on enforcing citizens’ rights in a place of public accommodation. The DOJ noted two such litigations under Title II on its website. The more recent matter was a case that took place in California. The United States filed a federal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-04849-SK) United States v. Fathi Abdulrahim Harara, et al. (Jerusalem Coffee House). The case alleges that the defendants - Fathi Abdulrahim Harara (also known as Abdulrahim "Raheem" Harara) and Native Grounds LLC, doing business as Jerusalem Coffee House - engaged in discriminatory practices against Jewish customers at their Oakland, California, coffee shop. The suit claims violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation. The DOJ is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, including a court order to stop the alleged discrimination and remedy its effects, but not monetary damages. The Jerusalem Coffee House, located on Telegraph Avenue in North Oakland's Temescal neighborhood, opened in September 2023 as a Palestinian-inspired café serving items like coffees, teas, smoothies, and baked goods influenced by Palestinian cuisine (e.g., a "Bebsi" coffee drink and date-tahini latte). Harara, whose parents were born in Gaza, described it upon opening as a "vibrant cultural hub for Palestinian and Islamic thought" and a space "directly linked in heart and faith to liberation struggles around the world," welcoming to Palestinians, Oakland residents, and beyond. The café has hosted art exhibits, public discussions, and fundraisers related to Palestinian causes, partnering with groups like Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area and Eyewitness Palestine. The complaint details a "policy or practice" of denying Jewish individuals full access to the café's services based on their perceived race and religion. Key incidents cited include a June 2024 Incident Involving Michael Radice, a Jewish resident from Los Angeles scouting a nearby community space for a nonprofit event. He allegedly entered the café wearing a blue baseball cap with the phrase "Am Yisrael Chai" (Hebrew for "the people of Israel live") and a Star of David emblem. An employee allegedly confronted him, asking if he was a "Zionist" or "Jew" and accusing him of supporting "genocide" and "killing children" in Gaza. Harara joined, and they followed Radice outside, yelling insults like "Zionist" and "Jew." Radice was not served and left. The DOJ alleges this was the second interaction; in an earlier visit that month without the hat, Radice encountered the same employee but no issues. On October 26, 2024 there was an incident Involving Jonathan Hirsch. Hirsch, an Oakland resident, allegedly entered with his five-year-old son wearing a hat featuring a Star of David. Harara allegedly interrogated him about being a "Zionist," called the hat a "Jewish star" and "violent," accused him of supporting "genocide," and ordered them to leave, claiming they were "trespassing" and "causing a disruption." Video footage of the confrontation, which went viral, shows Harara telling Hirsch, "Get out of my business... You’re the Zionist. We don’t want you in our coffee shop." Harara called the police, falsely reporting trespassing; officers arrived but no arrests were made. Hirsch and his son were not served and left. The DOJ notes neither customer expressed political views during the visits. Additional allegations include - On October 7, 2024 (the one-year anniversary of the Hamas attacks on Israel), the café introduced drinks like "Iced In Tea Fada" (a play on "intifada," referencing Palestinian uprisings) and "Sweet Sinwar" (referencing Yahya Sinwar, the late Hamas leader who orchestrated the October 7 attacks that killed about 1,200 Israelis). The DOJ argues these actions demonstrate a pattern of discrimination, denying Jewish patrons "the full and equal enjoyment" of the café. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated, "It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers." Harara and his attorneys (Glenn Katon and Walter Riley) deny antisemitism, asserting the incidents were provoked by customers staging confrontations to target the pro-Palestinian café amid the Israel-Hamas war. They claim: - No one was actually denied service; interactions were brief and non-violent (e.g., Katon said Harara and Radice "literally shook hands"). Defense attorneys argue that the Star of David hats represent Zionism (support for Israel), not Judaism, and the café's actions were political protest against Israel's actions in Gaza, which Harara calls "genocide." He has lost relatives in the conflict. Harara spoke publicly for the first time on July 30, 2025, at a press conference at the café, surrounded by supporters including Jewish groups like the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network and Jewish Voice for Peace. He described the café as a "treasured Oakland space" for community building, including Jewish patrons, and emphasized solidarity: "Despite the violence my people have endured... my heart remains faithfully tethered to a justice greater than anything the human mind can comprehend." Supporters packed events in his defense, viewing the case as an attack on Palestinian liberation efforts. On September 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Treating the DOJ's allegations as true, the court ruled that the complaint sufficiently states a claim under Title II for a "pattern or practice" of discrimination. The case is proceeding to discovery and further proceedings ...

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed a Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings rule in July 2024, which was formally published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2024. This marked the first federal standard aimed at protecting approximately 36 million workers across general industry, construction, maritime, and agriculture sectors from heat-related hazards, with requirements triggering at a heat index of 80°F (initial controls like water, rest, and shade) and escalating at 90°F (additional measures like acclimatization and emergency response plans). The proposal builds on OSHA's National Emphasis Program on heat hazards, launched in 2022, which has already led to over 5,000 inspections. Informal public hearings took place from June 16 to July 2, 2025 on the proposed rule. The hearings were virtual, allowing broad participation. A post-hearing comment period remains open until September 30, 2025, for those who participated to submit additional evidence or briefs. The hearings drew over 50,000 written comments prior, reflecting high interest amid record heat waves. Representatives from the National Employment Law Project (NELP) and unions like the AFL-CIO argued the rule is essential for vulnerable workers, such as farmworkers, construction laborers, and warehouse employees, who face disproportionate risks from climate change-exacerbated heat. NELP's Anastasia Christman, who attended multiple sessions, noted OSHA staff appeared "engaged and asked substantive questions," praising the agency's focus on real-world implementation. Farmworker advocates and groups like the United Farm Workers highlighted how the rule could prevent thousands of heat-related illnesses annually (OSHA estimates up to 2,000 preventable deaths and 50,000 injuries yearly without it). They pushed for stronger enforcement in high-risk sectors like H-2A temporary agricultural labor, where language barriers and lack of acclimatization increase dangers. Public health witnesses cited data showing only 24% of employers currently have heat policies, with 41% of workers unaware of any protections, often leaving rest and cooling decisions to employees - potentially forcing health vs. productivity trade-offs. The U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy testified on the first day (June 15 or 16), arguing the 80°F trigger is too low for many operations and could impose undue costs on small employers without flexibility. They advocated for a more "performance-based" approach, allowing employers to tailor plans rather than follow rigid requirements. Construction industry representatives, such as from the Associated General Contractors, warned of compliance challenges in varying climates, suggesting geographic variations or higher triggers in cooler regions. They noted 16 states already have or are proposing heat rules, creating a patchwork that a federal standard might complicate. Broader business coalitions criticized the rule's scope, estimating high implementation costs (e.g., monitoring, training, and plan development) and potential litigation risks under recent Supreme Court decisions limiting agency authority (e.g., challenges via the Chevron doctrine's overturn). Some expressed surprise the hearings proceeded under the Trump administration, given its deregulation focus, but speculated the rule might be "toned down" to a less detailed version ...

President Donald J. Trump just signed a memorandum aimed at addressing misleading direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertisements. The action aligns with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s long-standing criticism of DTC drug ads, which he argues contribute to overmedicalization and mislead consumers. Kennedy has stated, “Pharmaceutical ads hooked this country on prescription drugs,” emphasizing the need for transparency to break this cycle. The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries allowing broad DTC pharmaceutical advertising. Despite widespread violations, the FDA has been increasingly lax and reactive in its enforcement approach over the last few decades. The FDA used to send more than a hundred warning letters each year, and misleading ads were rare. But over time, enforcement waned and the number of warning letters sent to pharmaceutical companies dropped to one in 2023 and zero in 2024. On the same day as the Presidential memorandum, the FDA announced it is sending approximately 100 cease-and-desist letters and thousands of warning letters to pharmaceutical companies and online pharmacies for deceptive ads. The FDA said that it will no longer tolerate such deceptive practices. Going forward, the agency will aggressively deploy its available enforcement tools. The FDA is already implementing AI and other tech-enabled tools to proactively surveil and review drug ads. A 2024 review in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research reveals that while 100% of pharmaceutical social media posts highlight drug benefits, only 33% mention potential harms. Moreover, 88% of advertisements for top-selling drugs are posted by individuals and organizations that fail to adhere to the FDA fair balance guidelines. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) defended DTC advertising, citing First Amendment protections and its role in patient awareness, but expressed willingness to engage with the policy changes. DTC advertising is a multi-billion-dollar industry, with $10.8 billion spent in 2024, including $5.15 billion on TV ads. Stricter regulations could reduce ad revenue for drugmakers and media networks, particularly if longer disclosures make TV ads less feasible. The action stops short of a full ban on DTC ads, which Kennedy had previously advocated for, likely to avoid legal challenges on First Amendment grounds, as seen in a 2019 court ruling that blocked Trump’s attempt to require price disclosures in TV ads. Past efforts to regulate DTC ads have faced court challenges, and the current action may encounter similar resistance, especially given the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine, which limits executive regulatory authority. The memorandum directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enhance transparency and accuracy in DTC pharmaceutical advertising, particularly by increasing disclosures of drug risks and side effects. It seeks to ensure ads provide a fair balance of benefits and risks, as mandated by existing regulations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The action targets both traditional media (e.g., TV) and digital platforms, including social media, where ads often lack proper disclosures. It addresses issues like undisclosed influencer promotions and online pharmacies flouting rules that larger pharmaceutical companies follow. The administration is also closing a 1997 FDA "adequate provision" loophole, which allowed companies to provide abbreviated side effect information in ads by directing consumers to external sources (e.g., websites). This change may require longer, more detailed disclosures, potentially impacting ad formats ...

Bakersfield Recovery Service, Inc. (BRS) provides substance abuse treatment to recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. In 2019, Plaintiff Steven Kruitbosch began working as an assistant corporate compliance officer at BRS. His job responsibilities required him to oversee client services, ensure all staff properly documented services, that staff were providing clients with evidence-based services, ensure facilities were operational and properly maintained, and ensure BRS adhered to contractual obligations. Plaintiff Kruitbosch also trained all staff on various aspects of their jobs. Near the end of his employment, he was tasked with overseeing construction of a new facility that BRS was designing for clients. At various times during his employment, Kruitbosch attended sexual harassment trainings that made clear even sexual harassment off the clock was a violation of BRS policy. Many of BRS’s employees, including plaintiff, are recovering addicts, and most employees, including co-worker Lisa Sanders, knew plaintiff was sober after having struggled with drug addiction. Plaintiff and other employees were open about their addiction recovery as part of their work with BRS. In October 2022, plaintiff’s long-time partner passed away. In dealing with the grief of that loss, plaintiff took leave under the California Family Rights Act beginning February 1, 2023, and was scheduled to return to work on March 7, 2023. In the week leading up to plaintiff’s return to work, Lisa Sanders began sending plaintiff multiple unsolicited nude pictures and stating she wanted to have sex with him; plaintiff firmly rejected these advances. On March 3, 2023, Sanders went to plaintiff’s home uninvited and brought a friend. Sanders indicated to plaintiff she was there to have sex with him; plaintiff instructed the women to leave him alone and to stop harassing him. Sanders again indicated she wanted to have sex with plaintiff. Sanders eventually departed plaintiff’s property, On March 7, 2023, plaintiff returned to work and immediately complained to the acting program director Stephanie Carroll about Sanders’s conduct. HR representative Kimberly Giles was also made aware that Sanders had sent plaintiff nude photos, propositioned him for sex, offered him drugs, and presented herself at his house. Carroll informed plaintiff that there was not much she could do about Sanders’s behavior ostensibly because it occurred off the worksite. Later that day, Giles posted a video on social media depicting whining dogs and stated, “‘This is a work day at thr [sic] office … lmbo.’” (Italics omitted.) Later in the week, Giles sarcastically commented to plaintiff, “‘I hope you don’t get no more pictures.’” At no point did either Carroll or Giles take any steps to separate plaintiff from Sanders or prevent future harassment; nor did BRS take any disciplinary action as to Sanders. Although Kruitbosch made efforts to avoid Sanders in the office, his distress at the prospect of interacting with her coupled with BRS’s failure to protect him in the workplace and mocking him for his complaint detracted from his work duties and made continuing his employment feel impossible. Plaintiff resigned a week later. Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint (SAC) in October 2023 alleging nine claims against BRS, and a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Sanders only: (1) hostile work environment sexual harassment in Violation of FEHA (§ 12940, subd. (j)); (2) sex/gender discrimination in violation of FEHA (§ 12940, subd. (a)); (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA (§ 12940, subd. (h)); (4) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation in violation of FEHA (§ 12940(k)); (5) whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (6) constructive termination in violation of public policy; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (against Sanders only); (8) negligent hiring, supervising, or retention; (9) failure to timely produce personnel records; and (10) failure to timely produce payroll records. BRS demurred as to all claims, except as to claims 9 and 10. The trial court sustained BRS’s demurrer without leave to amend. Following the trial court’s ruling, plaintiff dismissed his two remaining claims for failure to timely produce records and appealed with respect to BRS. The Court of Appeal reversed in part and affirmed in part in the partially published case of Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc. -F087809 (September 2025). Only the Introduction, Factual Background, parts I. and V. of the Discussion, and the Disposition are certified for publication. In the view of the Court of Appeal "although Sanders’s alleged conduct was reprehensible, it was not sufficiently work related within the ambit of FEHA, and it did not recur inside the workplace. Her underlying conduct is not imputable to BRS, and the claim is not cognizable on that basis." "Nevertheless, the sexual harassment hostile work environment claim is viable based on a theory that BRS’s response to plaintiff’s complaint about Sanders’s conduct altered plaintiff’s work environment in an objectively severe manner. Plaintiff’s claim for failure to prevent harassment, discrimination or retaliation under section 12940, subdivision (k) (§ 12940(k)) is dependent upon a viable claim for harassment, discrimination or retaliation; because plaintiff’s underlying claim for sexual harassment is viable, plaintiff’s section 12940(k) claim is also cognizable. With respect to these claims, we reverse the trial court’s ruling sustaining BRS’s demurrer." "As for the remaining claims, plaintiff did not sufficiently allege constructive termination or any other adverse employment actions necessary to support his claims for discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of public policy. Finally, plaintiff’s claim for negligent hiring, supervision or retention does not sufficiently allege BRS’s knowledge of the unfitness of its employees. With respect to these claims, we affirm the trial court’s ruling." "For purposes of clarity, plaintiff shall amend the complaint to present his allegations under the theory of hostile work environment sexual harassment, consistent with this opinion, that we have found viable. Plaintiff’s amendment may include additional allegations regarding the imputability of Carroll’s and Giles’s actions to BRS under the relevant standard." ...

In May 2019, Dr. Duke Ahn, a licensed physician, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of Business and Professions Code section 650 for receiving compensation for patient referrals. He was placed on three years’ probation, paid $80,114 in restitution and $8,000 to a victim witness fund, and successfully moved for dismissal of the case in August 2020 under Penal Code section 1385, before completing probation. In August 2022, the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) suspended Ahn from the workers’ compensation system under Labor Code section 139.21, which mandates suspension for physicians convicted of certain crimes, including fraud related to the workers’ compensation system or patient care. Ahn challenged the suspension in an administrative hearing, arguing that the dismissal under Penal Code section 1385 nullified his conviction, rendering Labor Code section 139.21 inapplicable. The administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the suspension, noting that the dismissal did not erase the guilty plea or its factual basis. Ahn filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, which was denied on December 6, 2023. The court found that Ahn’s guilty plea constituted a “conviction” under Labor Code section 139.21, subdivision (a)(4)(C), and the dismissal did not exempt him from suspension. Ahn appealed, arguing that the Penal Code section 1385 dismissal meant he was not “convicted” under Labor Code section 139.21. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the published case of Ahn v. Parisotto - B337936 (September 2025). The Court of Appeal affirmed the suspension, finding it supported by the plain language of Labor Code section 139.21. The legal issue was whether a dismissal under Penal Code section 1385 negates a guilty plea for the purposes of suspension under Labor Code section 139.21, which defines “convicted” to include a guilty plea accepted by a court. The Court of Appeal conducted a de novo review, as the issue was purely legal with no disputed facts. Labor Code section 139.21, subdivision (a)(4)(C) explicitly defines “convicted” as including a guilty plea accepted by a court, with no exceptions for subsequent dismissals. The court emphasized that the statute’s plain language does not allow for inserting exceptions not provided by the Legislature. The court distinguished cases like People v. Barro (2001) and People v. Chavez (2016, 2018), which dealt with criminal sentencing or post-probation dismissal procedures, as inapplicable to the administrative context of Labor Code section 139.21. The court noted that Labor Code section 139.21, enacted in 2016 and amended in 2018, is a specific, later-enacted statute compared to the general Penal Code section 1385 (enacted 1872). If there were a conflict, the more specific and recent statute would control. The court concluded that Ahn’s guilty plea, accepted by the court, met the definition of “convicted” under Labor Code section 139.21, and the subsequent dismissal did not negate this. Thus, the DIR’s suspension was legally supported. Key Takeaway: A guilty plea, once accepted by a court, constitutes a “conviction” under Labor Code section 139.21 for the purpose of suspending a physician from the workers’ compensation system, regardless of a subsequent dismissal under Penal Code section 1385 ...

A felony complaint has been filed by the People of the State of California against Defendant Maria Erolina Delgado (DOB: 6/17/1963) in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central Division. The complaint, brought by the California Attorney General's Division of Medi-Cal Fraud & Elder Abuse, alleges multiple counts of elder and dependent adult abuse under Penal Code sections 368(b)(1) and 368(c). The offenses are alleged to have occurred in San Diego County and other counties in California between January 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020. The criminal charges against Delgado are for alleged severe neglect of residents at J & M Happy Guest Home, a residential care facility for the elderly in San Diego County. J & M Happy Guest Home is licensed by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Community Care Licensing Division as an RCFE with a capacity of 6 beds. It is described in public directories as providing "loving and dignified care" in a home setting, with services like assistance with daily activities. The facility is not rated on state volunteer programs like Choose Well and has no publicly detailed citations or complaints in recent profiles (last updated June 10, 2025, for licensing; August 31, 2025, for citations). However, one public report from October 30, 2024, notes a fire clearance violation, resulting in an immediate civil penalty assessment. No other historical violations, complaints, or enforcement actions are publicly detailed in available sources, though state databases update quarterly. Delgado is the owner of J & M and allegedly left the facility severely understaffed, often leaving residents in bed all day in soiled diapers, sometimes for days at a time. As a result of this neglect, multiple residents suffered from bed sores, dehydration, and malnourishment. The California Department of Justice’s Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse (DMFEA) works to protect Californians by investigating and prosecuting those responsible for abuse and neglect of elderly and dependent adults and those who perpetrate fraud on the Medi-Cal program. The Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse receives 75 percent of its funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under a grant award totaling $69,244,976 for Federal fiscal year (FY) 2025. The remaining 25 percent is funded by the State of California. FY 2025 is from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025 ...

Plaintiffs Joseph Davis and Shavonda Early brought a class action lawsuit against defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange (CSAA), an automobile insurance company, claiming that automobile insurance rates became excessive during the COVID-19 pandemic when there was less driving and fewer traffic accidents. Plaintiffs alleged that, in 2020 and 2021, CSAA was the fifth largest automobile insurance company in the state and insured over one million California drivers. The complaint alleged two causes of action under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) (UCL) and a cause of action for unjust enrichment. The complaint alleged that, by not unilaterally refunding premiums, CSAA violated Insurance Code § 1861.05, subdivision (a) (section 1861.05(a)).2 This section, titled “Approval of Insurance Rates,” provides that “[n]o rate shall be approved or remain in effect which is excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory or otherwise in violation of this chapter.” CSAA filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained with leave to amend. The court interpreted section 1861.05(a)’s language that no excessive rate shall “remain in effect” as applying to the insurance commissioner’s system of approving rates, and meant to “ensure that a previously approved rate does not ‘remain in effect’ if the circumstances have changed.” The court found that the statute allowed for prospective rate reductions when rates become excessive, but not retroactive modifications of previously approved rates. In their first amended and consolidated complaint, plaintiffs reasserted the UCL claims, and reiterated that CSAA received an “unprecedented windfall” from the COVID-19 pandemic by continuing to charge preapproved rates as driving and traffic accidents decreased dramatically. At the same time, plaintiffs acknowledged that some refunds were given. They recognized that, in April 2020, the insurance commissioner issued a bulletin directing insurers to “make an initial premium” refund for the prior two months. Although CSAA gave a 20 percent refund to policyholders, plaintiffs alleged that this amount was inadequate and the approved rates for this period remained excessive. Plaintiffs also recognized that the commissioner sent additional bulletins extending the directive for refunds. Although CSAA subsequently gave a 10 percent refund for May and June 2020, plaintiffs alleged that the rates were still excessive. According to plaintiffs, in 2021 the commissioner described the premium returns by California insurance companies as “insufficient.” Plaintiffs asserted that CSAA’s failure to provide sufficient refunds violated section 1861.05(a) and was unfair and unlawful. They sought restitution for the “unearned premiums acquired from [named plaintiffs] and the Class along with CSAA’s investment returns on those unearned premiums.” CSAA again demurred, and this time the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal affirmed in the published case of Davis v. CSAA Ins. Exchange - A169729 (September 2025). The central question in this appeal is whether Insurance Code § 1861.05(a) imposes an independent obligation on insurers to refund premiums that were collected under approved rates when those rates later become purportedly excessive. Section 1861.05(a) was enacted through the passage of Proposition 103 in 1988. Its stated purpose was “to protect consumers from arbitrary insurance rates and practices, to encourage a competitive insurance marketplace, to provide for an accountable Insurance Commissioner, and to ensure that insurance is fair, available, and affordable for all Californians.” Proposition 103 was one of five competing insurance initiatives on the ballot, but the only one that passed. Proposition 103 required automobile insurance rates to be determined by applying three factors - the insured’s driving safety record, the annual number of miles driven, and the years of driving experience - and it allowed the insurance commissioner to adopt additional factors. It prohibited rates that were “unfairly discriminatory” and specified that the business of insurance was subject to California’s unfair business practice laws. Proposition 103 also designated the insurance commissioner to be an elected official, no longer appointed by the governor. In arguing that the section imposes an independent obligation on insurers to issue refunds when approved rates become excessive, plaintiffs focus on the language in the first sentence that no “excessive” rate shall “remain in effect.” Plaintiffs contend that the term “approved” and the phrase “remain in effect” in section 1861.05(a) are two distinct directives, and the latter phrase would be surplusage if the statute were interpreted to impose no obligation on insurers to unilaterally refund previously approved rates when circumstances render them excessive. After reviewing the parties arguments, and citations supporting these arguments, the Court of Appeal wrote that "we conclude that section 1861.05(a) does not impose an independent obligation on insurers to retroactively refund premiums, based on rates that were approved by the insurance commissioner, when those rates later become purportedly excessive." The judgment of the trial court was affirmed ...