A man pleaded guilty in a federal court in Los Angeles to leading a long-running scheme in which dozens of medical doctors’ personal information was stolen and then used to create fraudulent e-prescribing accounts, which his accomplices then used to issue thousands of fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances. Benjamin Jamal Washington, 25, of Hyattsville, Maryland, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Washington remains in federal custody. According to his plea agreement, from September 2020 to May 2023, Washington and his co-conspirators obtained personal identifying information (PII) belonging to dozens of doctors, including their names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, National Provider Identification number, and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Registration Numbers. After obtaining this information, the co-conspirators impersonated the victims by obtaining fake drivers’ licenses in their names. They also paid corrupt telephone company employees to perform illegal subscriber identity module (SIM) swaps – fraudulently inducing a phone carrier to reassign a cell phone number from the legitimate subscriber to a phone controlled by the co-conspirators – to gain access to the physicians’ phone numbers. Washington and his co-conspirators then used the fraudulent drivers’ licenses and the stolen phone numbers to open fraudulent e-prescribing accounts in the physicians’ names. At least one co-conspirator spoke with a pharmacy technician to understand the patterns and practices of physicians submitting e-prescriptions so Washington and his co-conspirators could avoid detection and issue more fraudulent prescriptions. Once the co-conspirators opened the fraudulent e-prescribing accounts, Washington and others used the accounts to submit at least 5,600 fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances, including illegal prescriptions of oxycodone and promethazine with codeine. The co-conspirators then traveled to pharmacies across the United States, including pharmacies within the Los Angeles and Orange county area, to pick up the illegally prescribed controlled substances, which they sold for a significant profit. Washington has a criminal history in Maryland, including arrests for robbery-related probation violations in 2022 and 2024, as well as an escape from pre-trial release in St. Mary's County in September 2022 after tampering with his GPS monitor. United States District Judge Wesley L. Hsu scheduled a January 13, 2026, sentencing hearing, at which time Washington will face a statutory maximum sentence of 42 years in federal prison, including a mandatory two-year consecutive prison sentence for the aggravated identity theft count ...

A man pleaded guilty in a federal court in Los Angeles to leading a long-running scheme in which dozens of medical doctors’ personal information was stolen and then used to create fraudulent e-prescribing accounts, which his accomplices then used to issue thousands of fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances. Benjamin Jamal Washington, 25, of Hyattsville, Maryland, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Washington remains in federal custody. According to his plea agreement, from September 2020 to May 2023, Washington and his co-conspirators obtained personal identifying information (PII) belonging to dozens of doctors, including their names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, National Provider Identification number, and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Registration Numbers. After obtaining this information, the co-conspirators impersonated the victims by obtaining fake drivers’ licenses in their names. They also paid corrupt telephone company employees to perform illegal subscriber identity module (SIM) swaps – fraudulently inducing a phone carrier to reassign a cell phone number from the legitimate subscriber to a phone controlled by the co-conspirators – to gain access to the physicians’ phone numbers. Washington and his co-conspirators then used the fraudulent drivers’ licenses and the stolen phone numbers to open fraudulent e-prescribing accounts in the physicians’ names. At least one co-conspirator spoke with a pharmacy technician to understand the patterns and practices of physicians submitting e-prescriptions so Washington and his co-conspirators could avoid detection and issue more fraudulent prescriptions. Once the co-conspirators opened the fraudulent e-prescribing accounts, Washington and others used the accounts to submit at least 5,600 fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances, including illegal prescriptions of oxycodone and promethazine with codeine. The co-conspirators then traveled to pharmacies across the United States, including pharmacies within the Los Angeles and Orange county area, to pick up the illegally prescribed controlled substances, which they sold for a significant profit. Washington has a criminal history in Maryland, including arrests for robbery-related probation violations in 2022 and 2024, as well as an escape from pre-trial release in St. Mary's County in September 2022 after tampering with his GPS monitor. United States District Judge Wesley L. Hsu scheduled a January 13, 2026, sentencing hearing, at which time Washington will face a statutory maximum sentence of 42 years in federal prison, including a mandatory two-year consecutive prison sentence for the aggravated identity theft count ...

The Alamitos Bay Yacht Club in Long Beach hired Brian Ranger as a maintenance worker. He helped the club with its fleet by painting, cleaning, maintaining, repairing, unloading, and mooring vessels. One day, Ranger used a hoist to lower a club boat into navigable waters. He stepped from the dock onto its bow, fell, was hurt, and applied for workers’ compensation. Then he sued the club in state court on federal claims of negligence and unseaworthiness. The trial court sustained the club’s final demurrer to the second amended complaint. The trial court ruled there was no admiralty jurisdiction. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court decision to dismiss the case in the published case of Ranger v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club - 95 Cal. App. 5th 240, 313 Cal. Rptr. 3d (September 2023). The opinion concluded that “In sum, California’s workers’ compensation law is Ranger’s exclusive remedy. Congress in 1984 decreed this state law aptly covers his situation. A core part of the state workers’ compensation bargain is that injured workers get speedy and predictable relief irrespective of fault. In return, workers are barred from suing their employers in tort. The trial court correctly dismissed Ranger’s tort suit against his employer.” The California Supreme Court reversed in Ranger II v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club 17 Cal.5th 532 (February 2025). It ruled the Longshore Act’s exclusion of club workers from the act’s coverage meant only that the state, rather than the federal, workers’ compensation system applies, but did not otherwise deprive workers of their federal right to pursue available tort remedies under general maritime law. (Ranger, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 548.) The state's top court wrote "To the extent the Court of Appeal's opinion suggests that California's workers' compensation scheme in itself displaces general maritime remedies and constitutes Ranger's exclusive remedy, we disagree. It is true that California's workers' compensation system provides 'a comprehensive statutory scheme governing compensation given to California employees for injuries incurred in the course and scope of their employment." (Charles J. Vacanti, M.D., Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2001) 24 Cal.4th 800, 810 [102 Cal.Rptr.2d 562, 14 P.3d 234].) Under Labor Code section 3602, the workers' compensation remedy "provides an injured employee's "exclusive" remedy against an employer for compensable work-related injuries.' (King, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 1046.) We conclude, though, that the exclusive-remedy provision does not displace federal law in this case." The California Supreme Court remanded the case to back to the Court of Appeal to consider: 1) whether federal jurisdiction exists; 2) whether Ranger can assert the tort of unseaworthiness; and 3) whether Ranger can assert a negligence claim against his vessel- owning employer. On remand the California Court of Appeal in the unpublished case of Ranger III v. Alamitos Bay Yacht Club -B315302 (September 2025) answered these three questions. In answering the first question, the Court of Appeal began with the step analysis in Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (1995) 513 U.S. 527 and reviewed and applied case law following that decision and held that admiralty jurisdiction applies to Ranger’s claim. The review next turned to the Club’s contention that, even if Ranger’s claim is within admiralty jurisdiction, he cannot bring a claim for unseaworthiness because this claim can only be brought by Jones Act seamen. After reviewing case law beginning with Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, (1946) 328 U.S. 85 and following, the Court of Appeal ruled that this "argument is incorrect. Ranger has an unseaworthiness claim." The Court of Appeal then moved to the third question. "We turn finally to the Club’s faulty contention that Ranger cannot bring a claim against it for negligence as a vessel owner because it is also his employer." The Club’s argument fails because it is founded in the Longshore Act, which does not cover Ranger." "The fact that the Longshore Act only prohibits workers engaged in certain types of service to the vessel from bringing a negligence claim suggests that even covered workers not engaged in those services can sometimes appropriately sue the vessel owner for negligence. The Club has not established Ranger cannot sue the Club for negligence as the vessel owner." ...

AstraZeneca is suing Hawaii over a state statute that requires pharmaceutical companies to offer discounted “340B” drugs to contract pharmacies. The company claims the statute is preempted by federal law and that federal appeals courts have made it clear that federal statute regulating such drugs does not require manufacturers to provide discounted drugs to “unlimited” contract pharmacies. Hawaii is in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction covers the western United States, including the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Thus if this case is appealed, the outcome of the appeal will likely to some degree apply here in California, at least as to the preemption issue. The 340B Drug Pricing Program, established under Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. § 256b), requires pharmaceutical manufacturers participating in Medicaid to offer discounted outpatient drugs to qualifying "covered entities" such as safety-net hospitals, community health centers, and certain clinics serving low-income or underserved populations. These entities can contract with external pharmacies (known as "contract pharmacies") to dispense the discounted drugs to their patients, but the federal statute itself does not explicitly mandate that manufacturers provide these discounts through an unlimited number of such pharmacies. Over the past few years, disputes have arisen as some manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, have imposed restrictions on contract pharmacy arrangements, citing concerns over program integrity, duplicate discounts, and diversion of drugs to ineligible patients. Federal appeals courts have largely sided with manufacturers on this point, ruling that the 340B statute does not prohibit such restrictions. In response, several states have enacted laws to protect access to 340B discounts via contract pharmacies, effectively requiring manufacturers to honor unlimited arrangements. Hawaii joined this trend on May 30, 2025, when Governor Josh Green signed Act 143 (also known as Senate Bill 3202) into law, with an effective date of July 1, 2025. The AstraZeneca complaint cites the Third Circuit's decision in Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC v. HHS (58 F.4th 696, 706 (3d Cir. 2023)), which held that restrictions on contract pharmacy discounts "do[es] not violate Section 340B" and enjoined HHS from enforcing a contrary interpretation. Similarly, the D.C. Circuit in Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Johnson (102 F.4th 452, 459 (D.C. Cir. 2024)) rejected the idea that Section 340B prohibits manufacturers from imposing "any conditions" on discounts involving contract pharmacies. AstraZeneca notes that Hawaii submitted amicus briefs in both cases supporting unlimited access, but the courts ruled against that position. Should this case be favorable to drug makers, and be successfully affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it will become binding on California unless the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case. It is therefore a case of interest to those states who are included in 9th Circuit jurisdiction ...

Yvette Fortier Bline a former correctional deputy at the Tehama County Sheriff's Office in California, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against the County and Tehama County District Attorney Matthew D. Rogers, Tehama County Sheriff Dave Kain, Tehama County Under Sheriff Jeff Garrett and District Attorney's Office investigator, Defendant Eric Clay, The lawsuit alleges she accepted a position in the Tehama County Sherriffs Office in September 2008. After approximately two years of employment, she became a Correctional Deputy. Bline successfully completed required training, including P.O.S.T. Certification, to serve as a Correctional Officer at the Tehama County Jail. In February 2017, during a 12-hour training that was fairly physically intense, Bline injured her right shoulder and neck region. Bline developed numbness and tingling in both hands following her injuries, and claimed to have developed a torn meniscus as a result to the training. She filed a workers compensation claim and was provided benefits and medical treatment. Bline was approved for neck surgery for the injuries she sustained from the previous training incident. The spinal injuries were later included in a cumulative Workers' Compensation claim in January 7, 2023 following her spine fusion. Joseph Ambrose, D.C., performed a Qualified Medical Evaluation on July 7, 2022. He diagnosed lumbar disc protrusion with bilateral radiculopathy; lumbar myoligamentous sprain/strain; patellofemoral syndrome, bilateral; sacroiliac sprain/strain, chondromalacia patella; and meniscus tears in both knees. He attributed this to the continuous trauma of 13 years of employment with the County. She continued to receive medical care following his report. And disputes arose between the parties over authorization for some of the recommended care. The complaint alleges that Bline's "medical costs had risen to approximately a half a million dollars by the summer of 2023 for her cumulative trauma sustained during her 13 years employment working with Tehama County. Because Plaintiffs medical costs and benefits, and the costs incurred due to Plaintiffs on the job injuries at Tehama County were expensive and as of January 23, 2023, and were escalating, Defendants' allegedly decided to form a scheme to falsely accuse Plaintiff of Insurance Fraud to retaliate against her for exercising her statutory right to seek redress through the California Workers' Compensation benefits system by procuring unlawful search warrants to gather evidence to try to convince a trier of fact that Plaintiff performed actions that, in their opinion, were evidence of malingering." She was ultimately charged with two counts of insurance fraud under California Penal Code Section 550(a). She claims her reputation in the community was damaged by press releases such as an article published by the Tri-County News which was based on the press release from the District Attorney's Office. The first sentence stated: "A Tehama County Sheriffs correctional deputy is being accused of workers' compensation fraud in excess of $500,000." Another press release was published by the Red Bluff Daily News on August 30, 2023, the day Bline was arrested. After Bline was arrested, she alleges she was placed on an ankle monitor during the pendency of charges, subjected to warrantless searches of her home and property, restricted in her travel, and deprived of her county salary, employment benefits, and liberty. The prosecution was eventually terminated in her favor. After a preliminary hearing involving several prosecution witnesses Judge Laura Woods told the prosecutor: "So, Ms. Frost you have completely failed to even remotely meet your burden. As we know, a burden of proof at a preliminary hearing is incredibly low. And you haven't even met that." The court then informed the prosecutor that: "Quite frankly, I think you can tell that I'm a little irritated and annoyed and angry that I have spent all these hours, that she has been charged with a felony, that she spent the night in jail based on these charges. It's absolutely unconscionable to me." The judge continued to express her dismay: "I've been doing this for a long time. I was a prosecutor, and I was a defense attorney, and I've never seen a case like this. I cannot believe this. You should be embarrassed. The S.O. should be embarrassed. And I say that having known all these guys for 25 years This is absolutely unacceptable. And I just can't believe it. I'm probably making inappropriate comments, but this is outrageous to me. And quite frankly, I'm angry that I had to sit here and listen to this. And I didn't even spend the night in jail. And I didn't have to hire a defense attorney." "So, I think you guys need to go back to your office and really rethink what is happening. This is ridiculous. I have known Eric Clay for a long time. I don't have any problem telling him this is unbelievable. So-I would tell Under Sheriff Garrett that, and I would tell Sheriff Kain that as well." Bline's federal lawsuit makes claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conspiracy to violate her civil rights, specifically breaches of her First Amendment rights (retaliation for protected activity), Fourth Amendment rights (unlawful seizure and searches), and Fourteenth Amendment rights (due process violations through fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution) ...

At two years after diagnosis of COVID-19, employees who experience long COVID symptoms have substantially reduced work productivity, reports a study in the August issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Led by Hiten Naik, MD, SM, of The University of British Columbia and the Post-COVID-19 Interdisciplinary Clinical Care Network, Vancouver, the online survey study included 908 employed patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021. Of these, 165 patients were classified as having long COVID, defined as continued symptoms three months after an initial positive COVID-19 test. Work productivity loss and work performance impairment were assessed using validated questionnaires. About 75% of participants with ongoing long COVID symptoms reported any productivity loss within the last three months, compared to 47% of those without long COVID. After adjustment for other characteristics, employees in the long COVID group were about three times more likely to report lost productivity. Average paid productivity loss over three months was about 62 hours, including 33 hours of absenteeism and 29 hours of presenteeism (decreased productivity at work). Long COVID was also associated with high unpaid productivity loss, including activities such as caregiving and household chores: about 37 hours, on average. About 73% of participants with long COVID reported impaired work performance within the past week, compared to 39% of those without long COVID symptoms. On adjusted analysis, employees with long COVID were four times more likely to have work performance impairment. Based on average hourly wage, the economic impact of total productivity loss was estimated at nearly $14,000 CAD over a year. Long COVID has been described as a "global public health crisis," affecting over 400 million people worldwide. Although studies have shown that long COVID can impair health and occupational functioning, the overall impact on work productivity loss has been unclear. Long COVID is "associated with substantial productivity loss, even two years after the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and even in individuals who have returned to work," Dr. Naik and coauthors conclude. "Clinicians, health systems, and employers should understand that long COVID can have long-lasting impacts on occupational functioning and requires long-term support." ...

On March 6, 2025, Walgreens announced that it agreed to be acquired by private equity firm, Sycamore. The proposed transaction, which involves over 450 California Walgreens stores. Howevever a settlement was reached under Assembly Bill 853 (AB 853), which requires notice and review by the Attorney General of transactions involving retail pharmacies and grocery stores in order to assess impact on access and labor. AB 853 was authored by former Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego) and went into effect on October 8, 2023. The settlement is subject to court approval. Walgreens is the last nationwide and statewide independent pharmacy chain - that is, a chain not owned by one of the Big Three Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), which are CVS Caremark, Optum Rx, and Express Scripts. The proposed transaction between Walgreens and Sycamore includes, but is not limited to, the following Walgreens stores in California: six in Bakersfield, 11 in Fresno, five in Huntington Beach, 13 in Los Angeles, eight in Modesto, five in Riverside, seven in Sacramento, seven in San Diego, 26 in San Francisco, 10 in San Jose, and seven in Stockton. The California Attorney General announced a settlement with Walgreens Co. and its succeeding owner, Sycamore Partners Management, L.P. (Sycamore), that would operate as an injunction and protect competition, patients, and pharmacy-related workers. Under the settlement, Walgreens and Sycamore agree to the following conditions for the next seven years: - - Use best efforts to maintain all California Walgreens stores remaining as of the date of the agreement, as well as all required licenses. - - Provide 90-day notice of sale or closure of any remaining Walgreens stores. - - Prohibition from reselling any of the Walgreens stores in California to any of the Big Three PBMs. - - Prohibition from using any dividend recapitalization or other distribution of profits where such a dividend recapitalization or other distribution of profits would reasonably be likely to materially impair the operations of Walgreens. - - Use best efforts to continue participation in Medi-Cal and Medicare. - - Use best efforts to provide financial assistance to patients. - - Ensure best efforts regarding compliance with state staffing levels. - - Maintain a hiring list for all employees from stores that close going forward for preferential hiring at other Walgreens stores. - - Use commercially reasonable efforts to pay retirement contributions if collective bargaining agreements require such payments. - - Use commercially reasonable efforts to abstain from contesting unemployment for individuals who are laid off as a result of the sale or closure of Walgreens stores if no nearby Walgreens store offers employment. - - Use commercially reasonable efforts to bargain with any unions in good faith. - - Comply with nondiscrimination rules in the provision of healthcare services. This settlement is the second reached by the California Attorney General under AB 853. The first settlement was with Rite Aid and was announced on August 19, 2024. In addition, on April 14, 2025, the California Attorney General joined a bipartisan coalition of 39 attorneys general in urging the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to enact a law that prohibits PBMs, their parent companies, or affiliates from owning or operating pharmacies. Created in the late 1960s to process claims for drug companies, PBMs were supposed to help consumers access low-cost pharmaceutical care through negotiated volume-pricing discounts, generic substitution, manufacturer rebates, and other tools. However, PBMs have overtaken the market and now wield outsized power to reap massive profits at the expense of consumers and local community pharmacies ...

Well-known Fresno restaurant owner Robert “Bobby” Salazar, 63, has been arrested on a federal complaint for arson of commercial property and arson in furtherance of a felony for directing a motorcycle gang member to set fire to an underperforming restaurant property, U.S. Attorney Eric Grant announced. Salazar pleaded not guilty Thursday during a federal court appearance. Prosecutors also filed additional charges after investigators discovered five firearms at his home, including four with serial numbers removed and one ghost gun. According to court documents, on April 2, 2024, a fire broke out at the vacant Bobby Salazar’s restaurant on Blackstone Avenue in Fresno. Fire investigators determined that the cause of the fire was arson, with partially burned gas cans located inside the restaurant and extensive fire damage to the interior: According to court documents, agents learned that the person who set the fire was the president of the local Screamin’ Demons Motorcycle Club. Salazar allegedly hired the motorcycle gang member to start the fire and then claimed to his insurance company that he had nothing to do with the arson. He was ultimately paid out at least $980,739 for his insurance claim. If convicted, Salazar faces a mandatory minimum of five years in prison and maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison for commercial arson, as well as 10 years in prison mandatorily consecutive for arson in furtherance of a felony. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Fresno Fire Department, with assistance from the Fresno Police Department, the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Robert L. Veneman-Hughes and Brittany M. Gunter are prosecuting the case ...

A Burbank man has pleaded guilty to evading the payment of more than $11.2 million in federal taxes by using a shill to illegally collect Medicare reimbursement payments made to his blood-testing company, and to fraudulently obtaining nearly $100,000 in taxpayer-funded COVID-19 business relief, the Justice Department announced today. Armen Muradyan, 60, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, one count of wire fraud, and one count of tax evasion. According to his plea agreement, Muradyan owned and operated a Burbank-based blood testing laboratory called Genex Laboratories Inc. Medicare and bank records show that Medicare paid millions of dollars in reimbursements to Genex for blood testing. The reimbursements were wired to bank accounts in the name of an individual identified in court documents as “L.S.” – Muradyan’s long-time friend to whom Muradyan had offered to pay $2,000 per month to pretend to be Genex’s owner. Muradyan told L.S. that he needed him to submit Medicare enrollment papers to Medicare on Genex’s behalf because Medicare had banned Muradyan from submitting claims. L.S. and Muradyan opened bank accounts for Genex in L.S.’s name, but which Muradyan controlled. L.S. neither owned nor operated Genex and visited the company’s Burbank office to collect his $2,000 monthly payment and to sometimes sign documents at Muradyan’s direction. Muradyan used the proceeds from the health care fraud conspiracy to pay the mortgage on a property he owned. For the tax years of 2015 through 2020, Muradyan instructed L.S. to report Genex’s financial activity on L.S.’s personal income tax returns using documents that L.S. provided to his own tax preparer. The documents purportedly showed that Genex had minimal net profit or was operating at a loss, meaning the company had little or no income tax liability. For the same period, Muradyan submitted income tax returns that reported none of Genex’s financial activity as his own and that he averaged an income of $40,000 per year. In fact, Muradyan personally received and used millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements to support his own expensive lifestyle. Muradyan also did not file tax returns for the years 2021 through 2023. In total, Muradyan’s unreported federal taxable income was approximately $23,915,762, resulting in a total federal income tax due and owing by him of approximately $11,236,357. In July 2020, Muradyan wired a false and fraudulent application for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) that was funded by federal taxpayers. On the application, Muradyan falsely stated that GenMed employed multiple people and generated $800,000 in income for the year 2019. In fact, Muradyan knew GenMed employed no one and generated zero income for that year. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) wired $99,900 to a bank account Muradyan controlled. He then used the money for personal expenses not permitted under the terms of the EIDL. Muradyan admitted he acted with the intent to deceive and cheat the SBA. United States District Judge John A. Kronstadt scheduled a December 11 sentencing hearing, at which time Muradyan will face a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison for the wire fraud count, up to 10 years in federal prison for the health care fraud conspiracy count, and up to five years in federal prison for the tax evasion count. Muradyan remains free on $2.6 million bond. IRS Criminal Investigation, the FBI, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General investigated this matter. Assistant United States Attorney Mark Aveis of the Major Frauds Section and Trial Attorney Mahana K. Weidler of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division are prosecuting this case. Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at (866) 720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form ...

A Los Angeles-area lawyer was found guilty by a jury of receiving a $2.1 million bribe while serving as an officer of Nigeria’s state-owned oil company in connection with negotiating favorable drilling rights for a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned oil company. Paulinus Iheanacho Okoronkwo, 58, a.k.a. “Pollie,” of Valencia, who practiced immigration, family, and personal injury law out of an office in Koreatown, was found guilty of three counts of transactional money laundering, one count of tax evasion, and one count of obstruction of justice. According to evidence presented at a four-day trial, Okoronkwo, who is a dual citizen of the United States and Nigeria, was a foreign official who served as the general manager of the upstream division of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. (NNPC), a state-owned company through which Nigeria’s government developed that nation’s fossil fuel and natural gas reserves, including through partnerships with foreign oil companies. In this role, Okoronkwo owed a fiduciary duty to the Nigerian government and was a public official. In October 2015, Addax Petroleum, a Switzerland-based subsidiary of Sinopec, a Chinese state-owned petroleum, gas, and petrochemical conglomerate, wired a payment of $2,105,263 to an Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA) in the name of Okoronkwo’s Los Angeles law firm, purportedly for his work as a consultant who negotiated and completed a settlement agreement with the NNPC with respect to Addax’s drilling rights in Nigeria. According to the indictment, Addax calculated that it stood to lose billions of dollars if its favorable drilling rights were not secured. The engagement letter that Addax signed that month with Okoronkwo’s law office – with a fake address in Lagos, Nigeria – was a ruse intended to conceal the fact that its payment to Okoronkwo was a bribe in exchange for his influence in securing more favorable financial terms relating to its crude oil drilling in Nigeria. To conceal the illegal bribery scheme, Addax falsely characterized the $2.1 million payment as a payment for legal services, lied to an auditor about the payment, and fired executives who questioned the payment’s propriety. To create the false impression that the bribe payment constituted client funds, Okoronkwo received the payment in his law firm’s IOLTA. In November 2017, Okoronkwo used $983,200 of the illegally obtained funds to make a down payment on a house in Valencia. Okoronkwo omitted the $2.1 million bribe payment from his 2015 federal income tax return. He also obstructed justice in June 2022 when he lied to federal investigators when he told them he did not use any of the $2.1 million to purchase a house and that the money represented client funds rather than income to his law office. United States District Judge John F. Walter scheduled a December 1 sentencing hearing, at which time Okoronkwo will face a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for each illegal monetary transactions count, up to 10 years in federal prison for the obstruction of justice count, and up to five years in federal prison for the tax evasion count. Okoronkwo is free on $50,000 bond. The FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation investigated this matter. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided assistance. Assistant United States Attorneys Alexander B. Schwab, Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, Nisha Chandran of the Major Frauds Section, and Alexander Su of the Asset Forfeiture and Recovery Section are prosecuting this case ...

Former Tesla HR execs Linda Peloquin, Adam Chow, Tiara Paulino, Sharnique Martin, Gregory Vass and Ozell Murray just filed a lawsuit against Tesla Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Case 3:25-cv-06690-AMO. The lawsuit concerns the automaker’s Fremont, California, facility that has been at the center of several previous discrimination lawsuits. These former Tesla HR professionals alleged that they were either fired or effectively forced to resign after attempting to surface other employees’ race discrimination and retaliation complaints at the company’s Fremont, California, plant. According to the Peloquin complaint, one of Tesla’s HR managers, Nicole Burgers, was a “common denominator” in the various claims made by the plaintiffs. They alleged that the manager, the overall HR manager for the entire Fremont facility, “had an irrational fixation on fostering the delusion that the environment and culture at Tesla is one of tolerance and innovation, rather than racism and retaliation.” Allegations continue to say that "Much of Tesla’s workplace toxicity stems from its rapid sales growth and manufacturing demand, and the breakneck pace at which it hired employees to work in its plants and overall operation. Since its introduction in 2020, Tesla’s “Model Y,” for instance, has become the Company’s top-selling vehicle line - and, by most estimates, one of the top-selling electric vehicles in the world. Thus, there was, and remains, constant pressure to keep the Model Y’s sales trajectory high." "Yet, as a consequence of this desire to produce vehicles at such a rapid pace, the Company has failed to cultivate a healthy working environment at the Fremont facility, and instead fostered one that is beset with racism, sexism, cronyism, and outright physical violence." Plaintiffs claim "even employees that had been terminated for instances of workplace violence were loopholed back in via temp agencies. That meant, then, that oftentimes the employee who had been previously victimized had to actually resume working with their attacker and tormentor." "In fact, that Senior Security Manager himself was attacked and suffered a serious injury when he attempted to stop a loopholed employee - one who had been returned to work after being terminated for cause - after that employee came back aboard and attacked another worker." At some point plaintiffs allege that Tesla "turned its ire on the HR professionals that had merely investigated and substantiated the bases of the complaints. So, oddly, in most instances it was the HR official that wound up being penalized and pushed out for substantiating the alleged wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoer themselves. Consequently, a dizzying number of HR professionals - the Plaintiffs here: Peloquin, Chow, Paulino, Martin, and Vass, among them - have either been outright fired for substantiating complaints of discrimination and retaliation, or resigned because they saw a termination coming and did not want that type of disciplinary stain on their job history. Details of the complaint allege "A common denominator in many of these terminations is a HR Manager named Nicole Burgers. By all accounts, Burgers has had an irrational fixation on fostering the delusion that the environment and culture at Tesla is one of tolerance and innovation, rather than racism and retaliation. By all accounts, given that Burgers was the overall HR manager for the entire Fremont facility, she believed that she would be held accountable for further instances of racism and misconduct at the Fremont location - particularly in light of the pending State, Federal, and private litigation against the Company. Thus, rather than undertake to change the culture and environment that fostered those types of instances of racism, Burgers instead undertook to weed out the HR professionals beneath her that merely investigated and substantiated the occurrence of that type of depravity." Page 24 of the 159 page complaint continues to provide details by writing "Karen Draper was one of the first dominos to fall in what became a long line of retaliatory terminations by Burgers and her Texas-based counterparts - Allie Arebalo, Bert Somsin, Jenifer Romero, and Leah Allen - or, instances where other HR professionals simply resigned under protest because they knew Burgers had begun to target them ...

Adolfo M. Corona was a judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County in California. He assumed office in 2003. He left office on May 1, 2024. Corona was appointed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2003. His legal career included working as an attorney at Dowling Aaron & Keeler Inc. in Fresno from 1986 to 2003 and serving as a judge pro tem for the Fresno County Superior Court from 1992 to 2003. He was also a member of the Central Valley Chapter of La Raza Lawyers Association. At the time of his retirement, he was presiding over juvenile court cases. State charges were first filed against Corona in September 2024 following a state grand jury indictment by the Fresno County District Attorney. Prosecutors charged him on one count of felony sexual penetration by force, fear, or duress and one count of misdemeanor sexual battery, stemming from an alleged assault on a court employee on March 14, 2024, at the Fresno County Superior Court. He pleaded not guilty, was released on $70,000 bail, and is represented by attorneys Michael Aed and Margarita Martinez-Baly. The two renowned local defense attorneys have represented the likes of Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula. Aed reportedly would not answer questions about the timing of the judge’s resignation, weeks after the alleged incident. “He is entitled to counsel of his choice. This case came out of the blue without any pre-warning. He made certain decisions at the beginning of the case. He expects a vigorous and complete defense, and we intend to give him that,” Aed reportedly said. Now in August 2025, the U.S. Justice Department announced that a federal grand jury in Fresno returned a five-count indictment charging 66 year old Corona with federal offenses for sexually assaulting a court employee (Victim 1), making false statements to cover up the assault, and with obstructing the investigation into allegations that he sexually assaulted another court employee (Victim 2) in his chambers. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Eric Grant of the Eastern District of California, and Special Agent in Charge Siddhartha Patel of the FBI Sacramento Field Office made the announcement regarding the new federal case. The indictment alleges that on March 14, 2024, Corona, while serving as a California Superior Court Judge, led Victim 1 into a courthouse stairwell where he sexually assaulted her. The indictment further alleges that Corona, during separate interviews with the FBI and court administrators, made false statements about the circumstances of his assault on Victim 1. Additionally, the indictment alleges that Corona obstructed the investigation into allegations that he sexually assaulted Victim 2. Corona was alone with Victim 2 in his chambers for approximately two hours on Dec. 5, 2023, and she was later found alone in the judge’s chambers after being passed out. The indictment charges that Corona falsely told the FBI that he left Victim 2 alone in his chambers while he drove to pick up a motorcycle. Corona allegedly attempted to persuade a motorcycle dealership employee to change company records to falsely reflect that he had picked up his motorcycle in order to corroborate his alibi. If convicted, Corona faces a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison on the sexual assault charge and 20 years on each of the obstruction charges. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This case is the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office. Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Escobar for the Eastern District of California and Special Litigation Counsel Michael J. Songer of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section are prosecuting the case. Anyone with information about this investigation is encouraged to contact their local FBI office, call 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324), or submit a tip to tips.fbi.gov ...

Elon Musk's social media company, X Corp, has reached a tentative settlement in a lawsuit filed by former employees who claimed they were owed $500 million in severance pay. The lawsuit, filed as a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 23-03461, McMillian et al. v. Musk et al.), was initiated in July 2023 by former Twitter employees Courtney McMillian (former head of total rewards, overseeing employee benefits) and Ronald Cooper (former operations manager). They alleged that Twitter's 2019 severance plan, established under the company's previous ownership, entitled laid-off employees to substantial payouts: two months of base pay plus one week for each year of service for most workers, and up to six months for senior employees like McMillian. Following Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in October 2022 and the subsequent rebranding to X, approximately 6,000 employees were terminated as part of cost-cutting measures. The plaintiffs claimed that X Corp. violated this plan by offering at most one month of severance pay, with many receiving nothing, resulting in an estimated $500 million in owed benefits. On July 9, 2024, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson dismissed the case without prejudice. The core of her ruling centered on the inapplicability of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which governs employee benefit plans and provides federal jurisdiction for such disputes. Judge Thompson determined that Twitter's severance arrangement did not qualify as an ERISA-governed plan because it lacked an "ongoing administrative scheme. However, Judge Thompson allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint to pursue alternative claims not reliant on ERISA, such as potential state law breach-of-contract allegations. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 24-5045, McMillian v. Musk) shortly after the district court's decision. In their appeal, the former employees argued that Twitter's severance policy did indeed qualify as an ERISA plan because it involved ongoing benefit payments, even if administered without individualized discretion. They received support from the U.S. Department of Labor, which filed an amicus brief endorsing this view, emphasizing that ERISA coverage applies to plans paying benefits on a continuing basis regardless of administrative complexity. In response, Musk and X Corp. filed a brief on January 9, 2025, urging the Ninth Circuit to affirm the dismissal. Their key arguments included: - - No formal ERISA plan existed, as the employees failed to produce official plan documents (e.g., summary plan descriptions) or evidence of widespread communications to workers about the severance terms prior to Musk's acquisition. - - References to a "severance matrix" (a confidential document allegedly taken by McMillian) and general corporate statements at most indicated offers of simple lump-sum payments, which do not constitute an ERISA-governed scheme requiring ongoing administration. - - This lack of a qualifying plan was "fatal" to the class action, as it undermined the basis for federal jurisdiction. Oral arguments were scheduled for September 17, 2025, in San Francisco. However, as of August 21, 2025, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement, the financial terms of which were not disclosed. In a joint court filing, both sides requested a postponement of the hearing to finalize the deal, which would resolve the class action and compensate the affected former employees. The Ninth Circuit granted the delay on August 22, 2025, effectively pausing the appeal process. This settlement does not impact other ongoing related lawsuits, such as those in Delaware and California courts involving different claims or plaintiffs. In summary, the appeal remains unresolved on the merits due to the impending settlement, marking a potential end to this specific dispute without a full appellate ruling on the ERISA question. Other related lawsuits, including one by former executives like ex-CEO Parag Agrawal, remain pending. This settlement aims to resolve the dispute over severance pay for the affected former employees ...

Construction continues to be one of the most dangerous industries, with workers constantly exposed to physically demanding and repetitive activities. Exoskeletons are emerging as ergonomic interventions that amplify human strength and agility while reducing muscle fatigue and discomfort. However, like any robotic technology, exoskeletons may have unintended consequences. While studies have examined the health and safety risks of exoskeletons in construction, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding their ethical and social risks. Issues related to privacy concerns, exoskeletons’ design, and discrimination, among many others, are housed in the ethical risks, and social risks often include questions regarding exoskeletons’ affordability, accessibility and impact on social identity and communication, among others. A new study just published by The Center for Construction Research and Training addresses that gap by investigating the ethical and social risks associated with exoskeleton use in construction, assessing their impact on workers' health and safety and exploring how they can be designed to minimize these risks. This study further developed a comprehensive and practical worker-centric guide aimed at advancing the safe and ethical implementation of exoskeletons in the construction industry. This research leverages a systematic literature review, a Delphi technique (consisting of three rounds of surveys), and a focus group discussion to achieve the research objectives. The study developed a practical, worker-centric guide that examines exoskeleton preferences for construction trades, ethical and social risks of exoskeletons, the impacts of these risks on construction workers’ health and safety, the impact of these risks on the implementation of exoskeletons in the construction industry, and strategies to mitigate these identified ethical and social risks. The study further highlights barriers to implementing the identified strategies. 1. Ethical and Social Risks: A total of 34 ethical and social risks were identified from the literature review. Out of the 34, 18 were verified by experts in the construction industry and used in this study. These risks are categorized under design, autonomy, dehumanization, stigmatization, vulnerability, affordability, and accessibility. 2. Risk Criticality: Experts rated the identified risks on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being not critical, 2 less critical, 3 moderately critical, 4 very critical, and 5 extremely critical). Results show inaccessibility and unaffordability are examples of Very Critical risks, and stigmatization and loss of identity are examples of Less Critical risks. 3. Exoskeleton Suitability: Passive exoskeletons are suitable for repetitive overhead work and awkward postures, while active exoskeletons are better for heavy lifting. Back-support exoskeletons are most suitable for trades such as plumbers and carpenters, while full-body exoskeletons suit laborers. 4. Risk Impact on Workers’ Health and Safety: The findings revealed that ethical and social risks related to design, autonomy, privacy, unauthorized access, dependency, exoskeleton weight, and overdependence pose significant health and safety concerns to workers. 5. Mitigating Strategies: Seventy strategies to mitigate identified ethical and social risks were proposed and evaluated. 6. Barriers to proposed strategies: Fifteen barriers to effective risk mitigation were identified. 7. Worker-Centric Guide: A comprehensive guide was developed to facilitate the implementation of exoskeletons such that the ethical and social risks are minimized. CPWR - The Center for Construction Research and Training is a nonprofit dedicated to reducing occupational injuries, illnesses and fatalities in the construction industry. A copy of the 74 page document can be downloaded without charge by using this link ...

A new study from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) examines the key factors associated with high-cost workers’ compensation claims involving back and shoulder injuries, where medical expenses exceed $65,000 within 36 months of injury. “In a previous WCRI study, we identified factors that increase the likelihood of high medical payments by looking at all injury types together,” said Sebastian Negrusa, WCRI’s vice president of research. “This new study refines that analysis by focusing on back and shoulder injuries to better understand what contributes to higher claim costs.” The study looks at four back conditions (neurologic back pain; disc disorders; degenerative back conditions; and sprains, strains, and non-specific pain) and three shoulder injuries (rotator cuff disorders, frozen shoulders, and shoulder osteoarthritis). Key questions the study explores include the following: - - How prevalent are high-cost claims for these injuries, and how do they compare in terms of medical costs and duration of temporary disability - - What characterizes high-cost claims versus other claims within each injury category? - - What factors are associated with elevated medical payments? - - How do degenerative conditions and comorbidities influence treatment choices and affect costs? The analysis is based on about 194,000 workers’ compensation claims with more than seven days of lost time, from 32 states. These claims involve injuries that occurred between October 1, 2015, and March 31, 2019, with detailed treatment and billing data tracked for up to 36 months after the injury, through March 31, 2022. The full report, Patterns and Trends of High-Cost Claims Involving Back and Shoulder Injuries, is authored by Dongchun Wang, Kathryn L. Mueller, and Randall D. Lea. It is available to WCRI members and can be purchased by nonmembers at www.wcrinet.org ...

Assemblymember John Harabedian (D–Pasadena), in partnership with the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, held a press conference on Monday, August 25th, calling on the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to take immediate action to protect wildfire survivors and ensure insurance companies comply with state law. “Our responsibility is clear: to protect survivors, give them the time and resources to rebuild their home and their lives, and ensure they can do so with security and peace of mind. That’s why I am leading this effort - calling on the California Department of Insurance to act swiftly and decisively, enforce the law, expedite claims, and provide every protection available - so families can recover with dignity and hope for the future,” said Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena). Assemblymember Harabedian underscored the urgency of reforms to: - - Expedite the State Farm Market Conduct Exam - - Guarantee smoke coverage under the FAIR Plan - - Enforce California law to keep families housed - - Require transparency in loss estimates - - Make CDI’s complaint process transparent The press conference also highlighted AB 238 (Mortgage Forbearance), legislation authored by Assemblymember Harabedian that allows disaster-impacted homeowners to pause mortgage payments for up to one year while they recover and rebuild. “We paid our premiums faithfully for decades, trusting insurers to protect us. Now they’re using illegal delays and denials to profit from our pain. Families are maxing out credit cards, draining savings, and living in contaminated homes. We call on the California Department of Insurance to stand with survivors, not with the insurers breaking the law” said Joy Chen, Co-Founder and CEO, Eaton Fire Survivors Network. “For months, I have been leading the call to launch an investigation into the hundreds of insurance complaints by Eaton Fire victims. These residents should not be pushed aside during their greatest time of need,” said Senator Sasha Renée Pérez. “Insurance companies should not be allowed to raise rates before we get answers into how they are treating their policyholders following this disaster. I will continue to fight alongside my constituents for the fair and timely resolution of their insurance claims.” “The Eaton and Palisades fires have caused devastation in the lives of hundreds of California families. While we cannot undo what nature has done, we can attempt to ease the pain of those suffering from nature’s wrath,” said Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin. “AB 238 minimizes the financial impact through temporary mortgage relief and AB 493 assures victims that banks are required to pay interest on money deposited as a result of insurance payouts. In addition to these legislative efforts, we need the Department of Insurance to step up and enforce the law to protect victims from further harm caused by insurers. Those of us representing fire-impacted communities are committed and will continue to address these issues as they arise. Thank you, Assemblymember Harabedian, for being a voice for these victims when they need it most.” “The Eaton Fire devastated residents in my district and exposed glaring issues in the insurance market,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger. “Too many continue to face undue claims delays, underpayments, and denials that compound their hardship and loss. Continued vigilance in oversight and enforcement are vital, and new reforms are needed from our state regulators and legislature. I applaud Assemblymember Harabedian’s leadership and partnership to pass critical legislation on this important issue.” “Behind every delayed insurance claim is a family forced to wait in limbo. Survivors of the Eaton Fire deserve to be treated as people, not numbers. We’re asking the Department of Insurance to stand with Altadena and NOT with insurers to deliver justice for those who’ve already lost so much” said Altadena Town Council Chair Victoria Knapp. These reforms, together with AB 238, are intended to unlock billions in delayed insurance payouts and deliver immediate relief to wildfire survivors across California. Watch the full press conference here ...

Laurance Iloff lived and worked in an unincorporated area of Humboldt County known as Bridgeville, on property owned by Bridgeville Properties, Inc. and managed by Cynthia LaPaille. Iloff’s employers rented out the property, which includes small houses, cabins, and other structures. For several years, Iloff performed maintenance on Bridgeville’s structures, grounds, and water system, and LaPaille provided him instructions, directions, and approvals in relation to this work. Under an informal arrangement, Iloff’s employers allowed him to live rent-free in one of the houses but did not provide him any other benefits or compensation for his services. After his employers terminated this arrangement, Iloff filed claims against them with the Labor Commissioner, initiating a process for adjudicating wage claims informally known as “the Berman process.” The employers argued that Iloff was an independent contractor, but the Labor Commissioner determined that he was an employee and as such, was entitled to unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, and interest. The employers appealed, seeking de novo review of the Labor Commissioner’s ruling in the superior court. In response, Iloff — now represented by an attorney from the Labor Commissioner’s office — filed a notice of claims. In this notice, Iloff reasserted the wage claims he had raised before the Labor Commissioner and added new claims, including a claim for penalties under the Paid Sick Leave law. Following a bench trial, the superior court found that Iloff was an employee. Applying the framework set out in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, the court reasoned that Iloff was properly classified as an employee, rather than an independent contractor, because he was not “free from [the employers’] control and direction” and he performed work that was within the “usual course” of their business. (Id. at p. 964.) The court ruled that Iloff was entitled to unpaid wages, penalties, and interest. On the two issues addressed by the California Supreme Court in this case, the superior court ruled in favor of the employers. First, the court ruled that Iloff was not entitled to liquidated damages because his employers had acted in “good faith” in not paying him and had “reasonable grounds for believing” they were complying with the law governing minimum wages. (§ 1194.2, subd. (b).) The court based this ruling on its findings that the employers and Iloff intended and expected Iloff to perform his services in exchange for free rent and that neither he nor the employers understood or believed, at any time before his termination, that he would be paid wages or treated as an employee. Second, the court rejected Iloff’s claim for penalties under the Paid Sick Leave law, concluding that the statute did not authorize Iloff to seek those penalties in the context of the employers’ Berman appeal. (§§ 246, subd. (i), 248.5, subds. (a) & (b).) Iloff appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part, affirming the trial court’s judgment in the employers’ favor on the liquidated damages and Paid Sick Leave law issues. (Seviour-Iloff v. LaPaille (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 427, 447–451 (Seviour-Iloff).) The Supreme Court granted review to address these two issues. This case addresses two issues concerning the rights of California workers whose employers fail to pay them the minimum wage or provide them paid sick leave benefits. The first issue relates to the good faith defense to the default rule that employees who prove minimum wage violations are entitled to liquidated damages. (Labor Code, § 1194.2.) The Supreme Court held that to establish the good faith defense, an employer must show that it made a reasonable attempt to determine the requirements of the law governing minimum wages; proof that the employer was ignorant of the law is insufficient. The second issue relates to the process for raising claims under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (§ 245 et seq.; the “Paid Sick Leave law”). Specifically, we must determine whether a court may consider a Paid Sick Leave law claim that an employee raises in the context of their employer’s appeal to the superior court of a Labor Commissioner ruling. (§ 98.2, subd. (a).) We hold that a court may do so. The Court of Appeal reached the opposite conclusion on both issues, thus the Supreme Court reversed in the published case of Iloff v. LaPaille - S275848 (August 2025) ...

American Psychiatric Centers, Inc., doing business under the name Comprehensive Psychiatric Services (CPS), has agreed to pay $2.75 million to resolve allegations that CPS violated the False Claims Act by submitting false claims to government healthcare payors for certain psychotherapy services. CPS, which is headquartered in Walnut Creek, Calif., provides behavioral medicine services for individuals and families in the State of California. Since at least 2015, CPS and its healthcare providers have submitted claims to government payors using Current Procedural Terminology codes 90833 and 90836, which are “add-on” codes to be used when psychotherapy services are performed in conjunction with an evaluation and management visit, and which require specific documentation. The settlement announced today resolves the government’s allegations that, from Jan. 1, 2015, through Dec. 31, 2022, CPS submitted fraudulent claims using these add-on codes in instances where its healthcare providers either had not provided the services described by those codes or had failed to sufficiently document that such services had been provided. CPS will pay $2,615,569.32 to the United States and $134,430.68 to the State of California. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelsey Helland handled this matter for the government, with the assistance of Garland He. The investigation and settlement resulted from a coordinated effort by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, HHS-OIG, DCIS, VA OIG, OPM OIG, and the California Department of Justice, Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse. The investigation and resolution of this matter 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 HHS at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477). The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability ...

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and its 33 member companies reached a $2.8 billion settlement in October 2024 to resolve a 12-year antitrust lawsuit filed by healthcare providers, including hospitals, physicians, and other professionals. Preliminary approval was granted on December 4, 2024, by Judge R. David Proctor, with final approval on August 19, 2025. The lawsuit, In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2406), began in 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Providers alleged that BCBSA and its affiliates violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by engaging in anticompetitive practices, specifically by dividing the U.S. into exclusive "service areas" and agreeing not to compete in those regions, which suppressed competition, increased insurance costs, and reduced provider reimbursements. They also claimed price-fixing through the BlueCard program, which processes claims for out-of-network patients. BCBSA denied the allegations but agreed to the settlement to avoid further litigation costs and risks. The settlement, the largest antitrust agreement in U.S. healthcare history, includes a $2.8 billion fund and operational reforms to enhance transparency and efficiency in the BlueCard program, such as faster claims processing, a cloud-based platform, and prompt payment guarantees. Eligible providers who treated Blue Plan patients from July 24, 2008, to October 4, 2024, could file claims until July 29, 2025, though nearly 6,500 providers opted out to pursue separate lawsuits. A court document indicated that nearly 6,500 provider organizations chose to opt out of the settlement. These providers include a range of healthcare entities such as hospital systems, physician groups, clinics, and other healthcare facilities across the United States. Notable organizations that opted out include the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Geisinger, MedStar, CommonSpirit, Bon Secours Mercy Health, Temple University Health, and physician staffing firm TeamHealth. Providers who opted out likely did so to preserve their right to pursue individual lawsuits against BCBS, believing they could achieve greater financial recovery or address specific grievances through separate legal action. The settlement required providers to release claims against BCBS for the same antitrust issues (e.g., market allocation and price-fixing through exclusive service areas and the BlueCard program). Opting out allows these providers to file their own claims, potentially seeking higher damages than what they would receive from the settlement’s $2.8 billion fund, where 92% is allocated to healthcare facilities and only 8% ($160 million after fees) to professionals like individual practitioners. Many of the providers who opted out filed new lawsuits in federal courts in states like Pennsylvania, California, and Illinois. For example, a group led by Temple Health and Penn State Health filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These lawsuits echo the original allegations, claiming BCBS’s anticompetitive practices, such as colluding to limit competition and underpaying providers, violated antitrust laws. The plaintiffs argue that BCBS’s actions resulted in payments far lower than what they would have received in a competitive market. California providers who reportedly opted out include: - - Providence St. Joseph Health: A large nonprofit health system with extensive operations in California (e.g., hospitals in Los Angeles, Orange County, and Northern California). They opted out to seek potentially larger recoveries, including treble damages under antitrust law. - - The Regents of the University of California (UC Health): The governing body for the University of California's health system, which operates major academic medical centers and hospitals across the state (e.g., UCLA Health, UCSF Health). They cited concerns over the settlement's release of future claims and the potential for higher individual damages. - - NorthBay Healthcare Corporation: A community-based health system headquartered in Fairfield, California, serving Solano County with hospitals and clinics. They opted out due to dissatisfaction with the settlement's monetary allocation (e.g., only 8% for professionals after fees) and to preserve litigation rights. - - CommonSpirit Health: While headquartered in Chicago, this system has a major presence in California through its Dignity Health division (operating dozens of hospitals statewide, including in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Southern California). They opted out for similar reasons, focusing on allegations of BCBS's "take-it-or-leave-it" contracting and reimbursement penalties ...

Business Group on Health is the leading non-profit organization representing employers’ perspectives on optimizing workforce strategy through innovative health, benefits and well-being solutions and on health policy issues. According to a new report it published this week, for the 2nd year in a row, health care costs sharply outpace projections, largely due to prescription drugs, chronic and complex conditions, persistent delivery system flaws. Employers will need to act with greater urgency and willingness to be bold as they head into 2026 after a second year of actual health care costs sharply outpacing projections, according to Business Group on Health’s 2026 Employer Health Care Strategy Survey, released today in Washington, D.C. Employers predict that health care cost trend increases for 2026 will come in at a median of 9%, offset to 7.6% with plan design changes. These somber forecasts come as more employees use GLP-1s for obesity, receive cancer diagnoses and use mental health services, the survey showed. On a compounded basis, costs in 2026 are likely to be 62% higher than 2017 levels. “In this challenging environment, employers remain firmly committed to an ongoing investment in employee health and well-being,” said Ellen Kelsay, president and CEO of Business Group on Health. “Yet they will need to make bold and strategic moves to contain costs, sometimes disrupting health care models along the way.” Kelsay added, “For instance, we will see them rigorously evaluating benefit offerings, vendor performance and patient outcomes. We will also see more employers exploring non-traditional health plan and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) models. And as employers urge workforces to use health plan resources and navigation tools to find high-value care, we’ll see more people using primary care and getting recommended screenings and immunizations.” Employer respondents said other interrelated priorities for the coming year were affordability for both their businesses and workforces; a greater reliance on utilization management and weight management programs in concert with GLP-1s to ensure optimal outcomes in obesity treatment; and assessment of mental health access and appropriateness of care. The Business Group on Health survey gathered data on key topics related to employer-sponsored health care for the coming year. A total of 121 employers across varied industries, who together cover 11.6 million people, completed the survey between June and July 2025. Expensive obesity medications play a significant role in overall health care cost increases, and they will continue to be a challenge. Fully 79% of employers have seen an uptick in the use of GLP-1s, while an additional 15% anticipate seeing such an increase in the future. In addition, the percent of employers covering GLP-1s for conditions other than diabetes will stagnate as employers try to stabilize their health care costs, while more of those that cover these medications for weight loss will require utilization management, prescriptions from specific providers, participation in a weight management program and higher expectations from vendor partners to deliver sustainable, cost-effective financial models for this class of medications. A systemic overhaul of the pharmacy supply chain is essential to address pharmaceutical costs for both employers and employees. While most employers use plan design approaches and other strategies offered by their PBMs, pharmacy cost pressures also have resulted from rising prices, a robust pipeline of expensive therapies and cost-shifting from proposed changes to Medicare and Medicaid. In 2024, nearly a quarter of all employer health care spend (24%) went to pharmacy expenses. Further, employers see no relief on the horizon, with a forecast of an 11% to 12% increase in pharmacy costs heading into 2026. This cannot be remedied by plan design changes, and employers need to explore PBM models that champion transparency and rely less on rebates. Cancer is the top condition driving employer health care costs for the fourth year in a row, made worse by a growing prevalence of cancer diagnoses and the escalating costs of treatment. Accordingly, employers will have a greater focus on cancer prevention and screening coverage, including alternatives to colonoscopies, expanding coverage of breast cancer screenings and removing age restrictions on preventive care coverage. Employers also recognize that access to high-value treatments is essential, with about half offering a cancer COE in 2026, and another 23% considering doing so by 2028. Most employers have seen an increase in the use in mental health services, making it an emerging cost driver. As employers continue to seek ways to expand access to mental health services, they want to ensure that offerings are high-quality and appropriate. Fully 73% of employers reported an increase in mental health and substance use disorder services, while another 17% anticipate a future increase ...