One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law on July 4, 2025, as Public Law 119-21, among other provisions, introduces two key provisions of immediate concern to employers, "No Tax on Tips" (Sec. 70201) and "No Tax on Overtime" (Sec. 70202) - effective for tax years 2025 through 2028. The IRS has released FS-2025-03 with interim guidance on the changes, but more detailed guidance is expected in the coming months. Employers face new administrative and reporting burdens to support employees claiming these deductions. Failure to comply could result in penalties for inaccurate information returns or withholding errors. By acting promptly, employers can minimize disruptions and avoid penalties (e.g., up to $270 per inaccurate W-2). The following are just some of the concerns and solutions voiced by the business community and their advisors so far, since passage of OBBBA. Employers, particularly in industries like hospitality, retail, construction, and manufacturing, should prepare for increased administrative complexity. The provisions are retroactive to January 1, 2025, but the IRS has promised transition relief for 2025 to ease the burden. The IRS will publish a list of qualifying tipped occupations by October 2, 2025. Review this to confirm employee eligibility. Expect updated withholding tables, forms (e.g., potential new boxes on W-2 for tips/occupation or overtime), and publications (e.g., Pub. 15 for withholding). The IRS has indicated further guidance on reporting and anti-abuse rules is forthcoming. For 2025, use a "reasonable method" (to be specified by the IRS) to approximate and separately account for tips and overtime if full tracking isn't feasible. Integrate software updates to track and report tips (including occupation) and qualified overtime separately. This may require new fields in payroll systems for FLSA overtime premiums. Review employee classifications under FLSA to ensure accurate overtime qualification - misclassification could lead to disputes or audits. Adjust for the expanded FICA tip credit if in beauty services; calculate and claim it on Form 8846 to offset payroll taxes. Employers must now separately report the total amount of cash tips (including charged tips and tip-sharing arrangements) and the recipient's occupation on information returns (e.g., Form W-2 for employees or Form 1099 for non-employees) filed with the IRS or Social Security Administration (SSA). This must also be included on statements furnished to workers. Only "qualified tips" (voluntary payments from customers, not mandatory service charges or negotiated fees) in occupations customarily receiving tips qualify. The law extends the existing FICA tip credit (under IRC Section 45B) to beauty service establishments (e.g., barbering, hair care, nail care, esthetics, and spa treatments), previously limited to food and beverage industries. This allows eligible employers to claim a credit for their share of Social Security taxes paid on employee cash tips. Employers should maintain detailed records of tips to prevent reclassification abuse (e.g., labeling wages as tips). The IRS may issue regulations to address potential misuse. Note that these provisions do not affect state taxes or overtime laws (e.g., California's daily overtime rules), so maintain separate compliance with unique state tax and payroll laws. The provisions expire after 2028, so plan for potential reversions in reporting and withholding. Also note that these tips and suggestions are taken from various information sources across the country, and may or may not accurately reflect the new employer obligations as they interpreted by the accounting and tax law industry. This report is not provided as a substitute for legal or accounting advice. It should only be considered as topics of interest that need further inquiry by employers should they have concern about any one of these tips ...

Prostate biopsies are usually performed under ultrasound guidance and involve collecting 12 to 16 samples. However, these biopsy samples provide only limited glimpses into a much larger and more complex landscape. The scattered samples provide limited insight, leading to a miss rate of up to 52 percent of clinically significant cancers. Effective prostate cancer treatment relies on early detection of cancer before it has spread outside the prostate. To help improve the success rate of finding prostate cancers during routine biopsy, Mirabela Rusu, PhD, Assistant Professor, Stanford Medicine Department of Radiology (IBIIS division), developed an artificial intelligence tool called ProCUSNet that analyzes the ultrasound images already acquired during the biopsy procedure. The ProCUSNet model was trained on over 2,200 prostate cancer patients, using 3D volumes reconstructed from 2D B-mode images captured during routine transrectal ultrasound procedures. Unlike previous research that required raw or investigational imaging, this approach focused on real-world data already available in clinical settings. The current version takes approximately 10 seconds to analyze a 3D ultrasound volume and was developed using data from a specific ultrasound system. Broader validation across different devices and practice settings will be necessary. Future studies will also explore faster integration, prospective clinical trials, and adaptation to other ultrasound modalities. Dr. Rusu said “What makes ProCUSNet unique is its ability to localize areas of cancer on standard ultrasound images using deep learning. We’re not asking clinicians to change how they perform biopsies. Instead, we’re enhancing the value of the data they already collect with a tool that’s fast and practical for use in the real world.” The findings, recently published in European Urology Oncology, show that ProCUSNet can help clinicians detect high-grade prostate cancers. The algorithm was able to detect 82% of clinically significant cancers and identify 44% more lesions than human readers interpreting the same ultrasound images. The researchers also showed that ProCUSNet was also able to detect cancers missed by standard systematic biopsy. Among patients who went on to have surgery, nearly 30% had high-grade tumors that were not captured through conventional sampling. ProCUSNet successfully flagged many of these otherwise undetected lesions. The potential clinical impact of this approach is substantial. As the majority of prostate biopsies worldwide continue to rely solely on conventional ultrasound, tools such as ProCUSNet may offer a practical means to improve diagnostic precision and consistency ...

Skyler A. Womack was a dependent adult with physical and developmental disabilities. In January 2020, he was admitted as an inpatient at a 24-hour skilled nursing facility called Asistencia Villa Rehabilitation and Care Center in Redlands, then operated by Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. Skyler died on October 29, 2020, while still residing at Asistencia. Following his death, Skyler’s parents and heirs, plaintiffs Jonie A. Holland and Wayne D. Womack, filed suit against Silverscreen. Plaintiffs’ complaint asserted four causes of action: (1) dependent adult abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welfare and Institutions Code, section 15600 et seq. (Elder Abuse Act); (2) negligence; (3) violation of residents’ rights under Health and Safety Code, section 1430, subdivision (b); and (4) wrongful death. Plaintiffs alleged that Silverscreen failed to protect Skyler from “multiple falls with injury, and infections which caused him pain and suffering and were substantial factors in his untimely demise.” Plaintiffs also alleged that Silverscreen failed to “employ an adequate number of qualified personnel to carry out all of the functions of the facility”; failed to “keep[] its facility in good repair at all times”; failed to “correct deficiencies issued by the State of California’s Department of Public Health”; and failed to “provid[e] [Skyler] with good nutrition and necessary fluids for hydration.” On admission to Asistencia, Skyler had signed a “Resident-Facility Arbitration Agreement.” The agreement provided for arbitration of malpractice claims, adhering to statutory language and formatting requirements for medical services contracts covering disputes as to the “professional negligence of a health care provider.” (§ 1295(a).) It stated that “any dispute as to medical malpractice, that is as to whether any medical services rendered under this contract were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered, will be determined by submission to arbitration.” (Quoting § 1295(a).) The agreement further provided — in its own language — that the agreement was “binding on all parties, including the Resident’s representatives, executors, family members, and heirs.” Based on this agreement and the Supreme Court decision in Ruiz v. Podolsky (2010) 50 Cal.4th 838 (Ruiz), Silverscreen filed a motion to compel arbitration of each of the four causes of action asserted in the complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the petition. They argued that Ruiz did not apply because their wrongful death claim was based on Silverscreen’s “neglect,” as that term is defined under the Elder Abuse Act, and not its “professional negligence.” The trial court granted Silverscreen’s motion to compel arbitration of the three survivor claims but denied the motion as to plaintiffs’ individual claim for wrongful death. Following the lead of the Court of Appeal in Avila v. Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 835, 843 (Avila), the trial court explained that although “[t]he complaint includes allegations that could be categorized as professional negligence as well as elder abuse,” plaintiffs “ ‘chose to plead a cause of action under the [Elder Abuse Act], and they did so successfully. The fact that they could have also pleaded a claim for medical malpractice, had they wished to do so, is irrelevant. Accordingly, . . . plaintiffs’ claim is not one within the ambit of section 1295, and therefore, Ruiz’s holding does not apply.’ ” (Quoting Avila, at p. 843.) The Court of Appeal reversed. (Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1125 (Holland).) The Court of Appeal acknowledged several appellate cases, including Avila, in which courts refused to compel arbitration of wrongful death claims predicated on allegations of neglect by nursing homes and similar residential care facilities. (Holland, supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at p. 1134). The Court of Appeal agreed with these cases insofar as they “confined Ruiz’s holding to wrongful death claims predicated on medical malpractice or professional negligence,” but it disagreed with the cases to the extent they might suggest that plaintiffs’ claim here falls outside Ruiz. (Holland, at p. 1134; see id. at pp. 1134–1135.). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal in the case of Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. -S285429.PDF (August 2025). In Ruiz the Supreme Court identified an exception for certain wrongful death claims based on medical malpractice. If a patient agreed to arbitrate medical malpractice disputes in compliance with the arbitration provision of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) (codified as Code Civ. Proc., § 1295), the patient-provider agreement may bind the patient’s heirs in a wrongful death action, even if the heirs themselves never agreed to arbitration. (Ruiz, at pp. 849–850.). The question before the Supreme Court here concerns the application of Ruiz in a recurring context. Plaintiffs sued a 24-hour skilled nursing facility, alleging that the facility’s neglect caused their son’s death. Before his death, plaintiffs’ son had signed an agreement to arbitrate medical malpractice disputes against the facility. Parting company with appellate courts that had taken different approaches to the issue, the Court of Appeal in this case held that the patient-provider agreement binds plaintiffs because their wrongful death claim based on the nursing facility’s neglect is necessarily a claim about the manner in which a health care provider rendered its professional services. The Supreme Court concluded that "the Court of Appeal’s decision in this case extends Ruiz past statutory bounds. Ruiz does not apply to every type of wrongful death claim that might be brought against a health care provider - particularly a provider that, like the skilled nursing facility in this case, provides both medical care and day-to-day custodial care of dependent adults. Under Ruiz, plaintiffs’ claim must be submitted to arbitration only if they are raising a dispute about medical malpractice as that term is defined in MICRA’s arbitration provision - that is, a dispute “ ‘as to whether any medical services . . . were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered.’ ” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1295, subd. (a) (§ 1295(a)).) Ruiz does not require plaintiffs to arbitrate their disputes about a facility’s neglect of a resident’s basic welfare and safety needs." "To the extent the plaintiffs’ complaint in this case fails to detail whether they are alleging deficiencies in the nursing facility’s rendering of medical services or instead in its provision of custodial care, we conclude that they should be permitted to amend their complaint to specify." "We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings." ...

Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 648 into law, and, as a non-urgency measure, takes effect on January 1, 2026. SB 648 primarily amends Section 351 of the California Labor Code, reaffirming and expanding enforcement of employee gratuity pay (tips) protections. Under prior law, employers were already prohibited from taking, collecting, or deducting tips from employees' wages, but enforcement relied heavily on private lawsuits or limited administrative actions. This left workers vulnerable to "tip theft," where employers might withhold or misappropriate tips, particularly in industries like hospitality and service. The bill's purpose, as outlined in its legislative digest, is to strengthen protections by empowering the state's Labor Commissioner (through the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or DLSE) to more actively investigate and penalize violations. This enhances compliance, deters misconduct, and provides a more accessible enforcement mechanism for workers without requiring them to pursue costly civil litigation. The rationale stems from ongoing concerns about wage theft in tipped industries, aiming to ensure tips remain the sole property of employees and are not used to offset employer costs like credit card fees. According to the Legislative Analyst "some of the lowest paid workers are at risk of having their livelihoods stolen by unscrupulous employers through various violations of law including by taking their tips." "According to a 2008 study which surveyed 4,387 workers in low-wage industries in the three largest U.S. cities - Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, 12 percent of tipped workers in the sample experienced “tip stealing” during the previous work week." Unlike under federal regulations, in California an employer cannot use an employee's tips as a credit towards its obligation to pay the minimum wage. California law requires that employees receive the minimum wage plus any tips left for them by patrons of the employer's business. Although existing law directs the Department of Industrial Relations to enforce the provisions of existing law regarding gratuities, the Labor Commissioner lacks citation authority to recover gratuities taken or withheld from workers. The only option available to the Labor Commissioner to recover stolen gratuities is through filing of an action in court. Given the limited resources available at the Labor Commissioner’s office, granting the LC the ability to issue citations to recover owed gratuities would go a long way in helping workers. This bill would do just that by authorizing the Labor Commissioner to investigate and issue a citation or file a civil action for gratuities taken or withheld in violation of existing law. SB 648 was supported by the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO. There was no opposition noted in Legislative Analyst,s report ...

Tyson Perez filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim on August 24, 2022, alleging a cumulative trauma injury while working as a professional baseball player for the Houston Astros from June 1, 2011, to June 25, 2022. He later filed an Amended Application joining the Chicago Dogs as a party defendant. The Chicago Dogs and its carrier, Liberty Mutual, filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed seeking adjudication on the sole issue of personal jurisdiction. The matter was set for a trial on personal jurisdiction over the Chicago Dogs at the Mandatory Settlement Conference on May 23, 2024. The Pre-Trial statement listed the applicant, Tyson Perez, and also Trish Zuro, the Chief Operating Officer of the Chicago Dogs as witnesses, among other individuals. On June 11, 2024, the undersigned served all parties with an affidavit from Trish Zuro. At trial, the Chicago Dogs offered a witness statement into evidence. Counsel for the Applicant and Co-Defendant, Houston Astros, objected to the witness statement of Trish Zuro because it was not served before the close of discovery and because admitting the written statement into evidence would deprive the parties of their due process to cross-examine the witness. The applicant attorney and co-defendant objected to the testimony and the admission of the affidavit at the Trial date, and after 8 months when the affidavit was previously served to the parties and more than 8 months when the parties were notified on the Pre-Trial Conference statement that Ms. Zuro was listed as a witness. The witness was to rebut the applicant’s contentions of minimum contacts of the team with California.The WCJ denied Chicago Dogs’ request to permit witness Trish Zuro to testify by telephone. The Findings and Order, dated May 13, 2025, found that the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Chicago Dogs for the Applicant’s alleged cumulative trauma injury claim. The WCJ did not permit Trish Zuro to testify by telephone because the Chicago Dogs did not file a petition before the trial, showing good cause for why she should be allowed to testify remotely. Per CCR 10618(a), “If a witness intends to testify electronically, a petition showing good cause shall be filed pursuant to rule 10510 by the witness or by the party offering the witness's testimony before the hearing, and shall identify the witness and contain the witness's full legal name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number. There was no such petition requesting remote appearance filed in this matter. Chicago Dogs filed a Petition for Reconsideration, appealing the trial court’s decision not to allow the witness statement into evidence and not allow the witness to testify remotely. Reconsideration was granted in the En Banc decision of Tyson Perez v Chicago Dogs -ADJ16597333 (August 2025). The issue was the interpretation and application of WCAB Rule 10817(a), which states in relevant part that: “If a witness intends to testify electronically, a petition showing good cause shall be filed pursuant to rule 10510 by the witness or by the party offering the witness’s testimony before the hearing, and shall identify the witness and contain the witness’s full legal name . . . .” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10817(a).) "As a matter of due process, all parties to a workers’ compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805]." A fair hearing includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses; introduce and inspect exhibits; and to offer evidence in rebuttal. In 1890, the California Supreme Court opined: “The principal purpose of vesting the court with the discretionary power to correct ‘a mistake in any other respect’ is to enable it to mold and direct its proceedings so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits, when it can be done without injustice to either party, whether the obstruction to such a disposition of cases be a mistake of fact or a mistake as to the law, although it may be that the court should require a stronger showing to justify relief from the effect of a mistake of law than of a mistake of fact.” (Ward v. Clay (1890) 82 Cal.502, 23 P.50, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 591. "Therefore, based on these principles, interpretation of our rules must necessarily incorporate California’s public policy in favor of adjudication of claims on their merits, rather than on the technical sufficiency of the pleadings." Thus the WCAB concluded "Therefore, based on these principles, interpretation of our rules must necessarily incorporate California’s public policy in favor of adjudication of claims on their merits, rather than on the technical sufficiency of the pleadings." Thus the WCAB concluded that "In considering the application of WCAB Rule 10817(c), we preliminarily conclude that a request on the record for electronic witness testimony at the beginning of the hearing, with an opportunity for any party to respond, satisfies the petition requirement and is sufficient to adjudicate the issue of electronic testimony. Moreover, we preliminarily conclude that the due process right to a fair hearing and a determination based on the merits is good cause to allow the electronic testimony of the witness. Therefore, when a witness is unable to appear in person, as a matter of due process, a request to testify electronically should be readily permitted." "Accordingly, we grant defendant’s Petition for Reconsideration, and order that a final decision after reconsideration is deferred pending further review of the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration and further consideration of the entire record in light of the applicable statutory and decisional law." ...

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was first adopted in 1975 as part of the original enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Beginning in 1993 the Rule was interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in three landmark decisions that are now know as the "Daubert Trilogy." The Rule requires a high level of scrutiny of scientific evidence in a "Daubert" hearing before a federal trial commences. This Daubert standard is mandatory in all federal trial courts. And approximately 42 states have adopted the Daubert standard or a substantially similar standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in their state courts, either fully or with modifications. California state courts have not. Instead, California uses the "Fry" standard which is far more lenient. And in California experts who rely on controversial science in forming an opinion may testify, and the controversy applies for the "weight" of the evidence rather than admissibility, compared to the Daubert standard which makes controversial scientific evidence inadmissible. Large corporate defendants who are sued in California may be entitled to remove the case to federal court under some circumstances such as diversity jurisdiction. Often, their reason for doing so it to take advantage of the mandated use of Rule 702. This new published 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Favor of Monsanto in one of its "Roundup" toxic injury cases is a clear example of why employers may move to have California state cases removed to federal courts when they meet the requirements to do so. From 1990 to 2015, Peter Engilis, Jr. routinely hand- sprayed Roundup several times per month at each of his three homes in Florida. In 2014, he was diagnosed with a blood cancer known as chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), which is a type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). In November 2019, Engilis filed a lawsuit against Roundup manufacturer Monsanto in the Middle District of Florida, invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction and asserting claims under Florida state law that were premised on the allegation that exposure to Roundup caused him to develop CLL. The case was subsequently transferred to a multidistrict litigation proceeding in the Northern District of California, in which thousands of cancer victims have alleged that Roundup caused their NHL. In a “toxic tort claim for physical injuries,” a plaintiff must “show that he was exposed to chemicals that could have caused the physical injuries he complains about (general causation), and that his exposure did in fact result in those injuries (specific causation).” Golden v. CH2M Hill Hanford Grp., 528 F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2008). To demonstrate that Roundup caused Engilis’s cancer, Engilis relied on the expert opinion of board-certified oncologist Dr. Andrew Schneider. Dr. Schneider submitted an expert report offering opinions on both general causation and specific causation. Monsanto moved to exclude Dr. Schneider’s opinion. At the hearing on the motion to exclude, Monsanto’s counsel extensively cross-examined Dr. Schneider about his basis for ruling out Engilis’s obesity as a potential cause of Engilis’s cancer. In response, Dr. Schneider sought to defend his assertion that Engilis was not obese. But after conceding that he had not examined Engilis and could not say whether Engilis was obese or not, Dr. Schneider testified that, regardless of whether Engilis was obese, he did not view obesity as a potential cause of NHL. During follow-on questioning, he stated that although some medical literature reports an association between obesity and the development of NHL, his clinical experience led him to believe that obesity does not contribute to NHL. After the hearing, the district court issued an order excluding Dr. Schneider’s specific causation opinion. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in the published case of Engilis et al v Monsanto 3:19-cv-07859- VC (August 2025). The admissibility of expert testimony is controlled by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. That Rule provides that, “before admitting expert testimony, the district court must perform a gatekeeping role to ensure that the [proffered] testimony is both relevant and reliable.” The parties parties dispute the significance of the 2023 amendment to Rule 702 and the effect of that amendment on existing precedent. Thus the Court of Appeals reviewed the current precedent starting with the "Daubert Trilogy" which refers to three landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that established the modern standard for admitting scientific expert testimony in federal courts. These cases clarified the admissibility of expert evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 702, replacing the earlier Frye standard. In 2000, Rule 702 was amended for the first time to codify the holdings of the Daubert trilogy, and to resolve conflicts that had arisen within the courts about the meaning of that trilogy. The Rule was amended again in December 2023 to expressly require a proponent of expert testimony to “clarify and emphasize” that proffered expert testimony must meet the admissibility requirements of Rule 702 by a preponderance of the evidence. Before the amendment, “many courts” had erroneously held “that the critical questions of the sufficiency of an expert’s basis, and the application of the expert’s methodology, are questions of weight and not admissibility.” "Here, the district court properly concluded that Engilis failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Schneider’s conclusion was based on sufficient facts or data." ...

SpineFrontier, Inc., founded in 2006 by Dr. Kingsley R. Chin, is a Massachusetts-based medical device company. SpineFrontier faced a multi-year investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) starting in 2016, initiated by whistleblower allegations under the False Claims Act. The civil case, settled in November 2023, alleged that SpineFrontier paid kickbacks to spine surgeons consulting with the company. SpineFrontier products, such as doughnut-shaped plastic cages, titanium screws, and other spinal implants, are used by spine surgeons across the United States, including in surgeries reimbursed by federal health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are active in California. In addition to the civil cases, in 2021, SpineFrontier, Dr. Chin, and CFO Aditya Humad were indicted on criminal charges including conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute and money laundering. Dr. Chin pleaded guilty in May 2025 to one count of making false statements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. The false statements involved misreporting a $4,750 payment to a surgeon as “consulting” fees, despite no actual consulting work being performed. Money laundering charges were dismissed in December 2024, and all criminal charges against Dr. Chin and SpineFrontier were dismissed by May 2025, except for a guilty plea to one count of false statements to CMS. Dr. Kingsley R. Chin was sentenced on August 7th by U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani to one year of supervised release with the first six months to be served in home confinement. He was also ordered to pay a fine of $9,500, in addition to $40,000 he personally agreed to pay as part of a related civil settlement, and $855,000 his wholly-owned company, KICVentures, agreed to pay as part of the same settlement. KICVentures is a private equity firm led by Dr. Kingsley R. Chin. It focuses on advancing outpatient spine surgery through the Less Exposure Spine Surgery (LESS) philosophy. The firm manages a portfolio of spine technology companies aimed at improving patient outcomes and empowering physician-led innovation. Pursuant to the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, device manufacturers, like SpineFrontier, are required to report any payments or transfers of value to physicians, including spine surgeons. CMS maintains a database, via the Open Payments website, which makes all such payments or transfers of value publicly accessible. SpineFrontier offered surgeons the opportunity to engage in purported consulting on product development. Specifically, Chin directed his employees to report the payment of fees paid to a surgeon as consulting fees that were not compensation for actual consulting work. Chin caused his employees to report a payment of $4,750 on Jan. 19, 2016, to the surgeon as a “consulting” payment, even though Chin knew that the surgeon had not performed actual consulting work for the payment. He also knew that he and SpineFrontier were required to accurately report any payments or transfers of value to the surgeon. United States Attorney Leah B. Foley; Roberto Coviello, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General; Ted E. Docks, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Division; Christopher Algieri, Special Agent in Charge of the Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, Northeast Field Office; and Ketty Larco-Ward, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Boston Division made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Abraham R. George, Christopher R. Looney and Mackenzie A. Queenin prosecuted the case ...

Eric Benjamin “Ben” Halem, 37, of Porter Ranch, a former full-time Los Angeles Police Department officer and current LAPD reserve officer, and his brother, Jacob Halem, 32, of Tarzana, were arraigned in May 2025 on felony insurance fraud charges following an investigation by the California Department of Insurance. The investigation found the brothers allegedly filed a fraudulent auto insurance claim in an attempt to obtain benefits they were not entitled to receive. The Department of Insurance began its investigation after receiving a fraud referral alleging Eric Halem falsely reported a crash involving his 2020 Bentley Continental GT, stating his brother Jacob Halem had borrowed the vehicle and was involved in a solo-collision on January 5, 2023. However, the investigation revealed that the luxury vehicle had actually been rented out through Eric Halem’s exotic car rental company, Drive LA, and crashed by the renter three days earlier. Upon learning that the rental driver’s claim had been denied, Eric Halem allegedly filed a fraudulent claim with his insurance company on his personal policy, misrepresenting the accident details. He claimed that his brother, Jacob Halem, had been driving the vehicle at the time of the crash. On August 11, 2025 the Los Angeles District Attorney announced that felony charges have been filed against Halem and three other men in connection with a violent home invasion and kidnapping for ransom in Koreatown last December. Also charged in the case are Luis Banuelos (dob 5/25/97) of Jurupa Valley in Riverside County, Pierre Louis (dob 12/8/98) of Attleboro, Mass. and Mishael Mann (dob 7/31/05) of Los Angeles. Each defendant faces counts of kidnapping for ransom, first-degree residential robbery, and home invasion robbery in concert. Mann and Halem are being held on no bail, and Louis and Banuelos are each being held on $1.3 million bail. On Dec. 28, 2024, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Halem and Mann allegedly entered an apartment in Koreatown, where they handcuffed two victims, transferred money from the victims’ cryptocurrency account, and stole cash and jewelry before fleeing. Banuelos and Louis are accused of serving as getaway drivers who waited outside the location ...

Dana Hohenshelt sued his employer, Golden State Foods Corporation, in Los Angeles County Superior Court in November 2020. Hohenshelt alleged discriminatory retaliation, failure to prevent harassment, and Labor Code violations stemming from his reports of workplace sexual harassment and subsequent termination in April 2020. Hohenshelt had signed a pre-dispute arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), requiring binding arbitration for employment claims. Golden State was responsible for paying arbitration fees and costs. The trial court compelled arbitration in August 2021 via JAMS. Arbitration proceeded for about a year. In July and August 2022, the arbitrator issued invoices totaling over $44,000 to Golden State, due upon receipt. Golden State paid late (after 30 days), citing inadvertence due to the arbitrator's unavailability notice and counsel's paternity leave. Hohenshelt moved to withdraw from arbitration and lift the court stay under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.98 (part of the California Arbitration Act, or CAA), claiming Golden State's late payment constituted a material breach. The trial court denied the motion, interpreting the statute to allow payment within 30 days of a later deadline set by the arbitrator. The Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Eight) reversed, holding the payment was untimely and § 1281.98 was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. It directed the trial court to lift the stay.. The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision in the published case of Hohenshelt v. Superior Court -S284498 (August 2025). Under California law, employer must pay arbitration fees "within 30 days after the due date" (invoices are due upon receipt unless parties agree otherwise). Late payment constitutes a "material breach," default, and waiver of the right to compel arbitration. The employee may withdraw or continue arbitration (if the provider agrees). The breaching party must pay the other's reasonable expenses (mandatory); courts may impose additional sanctions unless justified. The Legislature enacted section 1281.98 in 2019 (Senate Bill 707) to deter employers/companies from strategically delaying arbitrations by withholding fees, affirming federal cases like Brown v. Dillard's, Inc. (9th Cir. 2005) and Sink v. Aden Enterprises, Inc. (9th Cir. 2003), which treated willful nonpayment as material breach. The FAA requires arbitration agreements to be enforced like other contracts (no special rules disfavoring arbitration). Section 1281.98's default 30-day rule (modifiable by parties) promotes arbitration's goals of speed and efficiency without deviating from general contract law (e.g., time can be "of the essence" in urgent contexts; willful breaches discharge duties). The Supreme Court rejected prior appellate interpretations treating section 1281.98 as a "bright-line" rule automatically forfeiting arbitration rights for any late payment (e.g., regardless of inadvertence). For example Gallo v. Wood Ranch USA, Inc. (2022) interpreting section 1281.98 rigidly. Instead, it harmonized the statute with longstanding contract law principles (Civ. Code §§ 3275, 1511; Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b)), which allow relief from forfeiture for non-willful, non-fraudulent, or non-grossly negligent breaches if the breaching party compensates the other. The Legislature aimed to deter strategic nonpayment (per legislative history and cases like Brown and Sink), not penalize good-faith errors. This avoids preemption concerns by aligning with general contract defenses. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's directive to lift the stay and remanded for the trial court to assess if Golden State's delay was excusable (e.g., good faith mistake) and if Hohenshelt suffered compensable harm ...

OSHA hosts Safe + Sound Week every August.This nationwide event raises awareness about workplace safety and health programs. These invaluable programs are vital to help prevent injuries, illnesses and fatalities among workers who are exposed to hazards in the workplace or on jobsites. Safe + Sound Week gives employers and employees alike a chance to share ideas, make positive changes and celebrate achievements. Employees who complete an event during Safe + Sound Week can download a certificate of recognition and a participant web badge that honors their commitment to safety. Why Are Safety and Health Programs in the Workplace Important? Safety and health programs are designed to help ensure a safe workplace by proactively addressing hazards before they cause serious injuries, illnesses or fatalities. Rather than reacting to a problem that has already occurred, successful safety and health programs stop preventable accidents in their tracks by identifying and fixing hazards and providing safety training and equipment for workers. How Can You Get Involved? Safe + Sound is a nationwide event intended to raise awareness and encourage businesses to think proactively about safety. Getting involved is easy, and participation might look a little different for every organization. From hosting a public event, luncheon or training session to creating a presentation or video, the goals of Safe + Sound are simple: - - Raise awareness about the value of safety and health programs in the workplace - - Strengthen management leadership - - Improve worker participation - - Find and fix hazards to ensure workers go home safe every day OSHA said that participating in Safe + Sound Week will help a company and its workers reap lasting benefits throughout the year: - - Implement a new safety and health program - - Review and improve existing safety and health programs - - Renew your commitment to safety to workers, customers, partners, and the community Need help getting started? For fun ideas and customizable tools you can download, click to learn how to plan and promote your events ...

A Los Angeles County Fire Department captain has been charged with fraudulently claiming long-term disability insurance for a work injury that could not have occurred because he was not at work. 45 year old Thomas Merryman was charged in case 25CJCF04929 with one felony count of insurance fraud, one felony count of false personation and two felony counts of forgery. Merryman is accused of fraudulently claiming long-term disability benefits from Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company by submitting forged paperwork from a physician and another Los Angeles County Fire Department captain. Merryman allegedly defrauded the insurance company of more than $25,000. News sources report that Merryman retired on March 1. The complaint was filed for a warrant on Aug. 8, and his arraignment is scheduled for Sept. 9 at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in downtown Los Angeles. Authorities say Merryman currently resides in Georgetown, Texas. If convicted as charged, Merryman faces a maximum sentence of five years in state prison. The case is being prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Arunas Sodonis of the Healthcare Fraud Division and was investigated by the District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation. The charges filed in this case are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. “Fake disability claims will not be tolerated under my watch, especially by first responders charged with keeping our county safe,” Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said. “False healthcare claims raise insurance premiums and make it more difficult for people with legitimate work injuries to claim benefits. My message to public servants who abuse the system is clear: We are watching you. Prosecutors and investigators in my office are working closely with the Los Angeles County Fire Department and other agencies to root out fraud.” ...

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded the UC Davis Department of Radiology a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering R01 Research Project Grant with a budget of $2.5 million for four years. The funding will advance a groundbreaking medical imaging technique that could significantly improve how doctors detect and understand cancer and bone and heart disease. The innovation combines two powerful technologies — PET (Positron Emission Tomography) and dual-energy CT (Computed Tomography) — in a way that’s never been done before. CT scans provide detailed images of the body’s internal structures. PET scans highlight areas where cells are very active. PET/CT scans are already widely used together to detect cancer and monitor how it spreads. However, traditional CT scans in PET/CT use a single energy level, which limits their ability to tell different types of tissues apart. The new method, called PET-enabled Dual-Energy CT, changes that. It allows doctors to see not just where something is happening in the body, but also what it’s made of — without needing new machines or exposing patients to more radiation. A paper published in the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging late last year highlights the progress of the technological development. The research was previously supported by a Trailblazer R21 Award from the NIH and resources from UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center. “This is a major step forward compared to other possible solutions,” said Guobao Wang, professor of radiology and principal investigator. “We’re using the PET scan’s own data to create a second, high-energy CT image. When combined with the regular CT scan, it enables dual-energy imaging that provides a much clearer picture and more detailed information about tissue composition.” The new hybrid PET/CT dual-energy imaging technology was invented in Wang’s lab with broad applications for cancer imaging. The research employs EXPLORER, the first-of-its-kind total body PET scanner that was invented by UC Davis Health and United Imaging Healthcare, as a platform to validate the technique. The potential benefits are wide-ranging: - - Cancer imaging – it could help distinguish between healthy and cancerous tissues more accurately. - - Bone marrow scans – it could improve how doctors measure disease activity more accurately. - - Heart disease – it could provide new insights into the role of bone and bone marrow in systemic inflammation and cardiovascular risk. The method also opens new possibilities for combining PET metabolic information with CT-based tissue composition in a single scan, enhancing the ability to characterize tumors and detect treatment response. Notably, the technique can be implemented on many existing PET/CT scanners without requiring new hardware. The research team is now working to test and refine the technique. If successful, this approach could be adopted in hospitals without the need for expensive equipment upgrades — making advanced hybrid imaging more accessible to patients everywhere ...

Kaiser Permanente has been experimenting with AI in its patient portal, increasing patient engagement and experience in the process. “Care is local, but at the same time it’s virtual and it’s become a global commodity,” Khang Nguyen, MD, assistant executive medical director for care transformation at Southern California Permanente Medical Group and chief medical officer of care navigation for the Permanente Federation, told Becker’s. “So patients are really expecting artificial intelligence to support healthcare in a way that is supporting other industries, in the sense that people are able to describe what they want versus being given choices.” A new study, published in npj Digital Medicine in partnership with Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, focused on the deployment of the Kaiser Permanente Intelligent Integration (KPIN) system by the Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG), which serves 3.9 million patients. Implemented in October 2024, KPIN is an advanced patient portal system designed to enhance care navigation and patient experience. KPIN replaced older systems (Microsoft’s LUIS and VSN Query Report) and integrated natural language processing (NLP) to generate clinical alerts for high-acuity cases and recommend appropriate care pathways. It supports multiple channels, including a web-based portal, mobile app, and self-service interactive voice response (IVR) system, ensuring consistent care navigation. The system verifies patient identity and guides them through booking processes, redirecting emergencies to 911 or hospitals. October 1, 2024, to March 1, 2025, KPIN facilitated 2,960,945 digital visits, with 1,046,504 unique patients interacting with the system. Demographic data showed 36.6% of users were aged 30–49, 47.8% were female, and 38.9% were of Hispanic origin. The study evaluated KPIN’s Clinical Alert System (CAS) and Virtual Safety Net (VSN) models for detecting high-acuity symptoms (e.g., chest pain, dyspnea) and guiding care navigation. Metrics included accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and area under the curve (AUC). KPIN processed an average of 193,134 encounters daily, with a peak of 19,364. The adjusted successful booking rate was 53.8%, reflecting effective appointment scheduling. The abandonment rate was low at 0.94% (IQR: 2.7–3.1%), indicating high user engagement, attributed to a streamlined interface limiting interactions to nine per page. Patient surveys showed an 8.6 percentage point increase in positive sentiment, suggesting improved user satisfaction. The system struggles with vague "Reason for Visit" entries, which can affect care pathway accuracy. The authors of the study concluded that "KPIN’s integration into the patient portal significantly improved care navigation, clinical alert accuracy, and patient satisfaction within an integrated value-based care model, demonstrating the effectiveness of advanced digital tools in healthcare delivery." Dr. Nguyen called that the “biggest surprise” from the findings. “We all know with websites, if you want to bury anything on a website, just make it two clicks away, and then no one can ever find it,” he said. And when patients abandon the app because they can’t locate what they need, they typically contact the call center ...

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, on August 6, 2025, upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and Michigan Chamber of Commerce, challenging the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, a key component of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) signed into law in 2022. The program allows Medicare to negotiate prices for certain high-cost prescription drugs, aiming to reduce costs for beneficiaries and save the program an estimated $98.5 billion over a decade. The lawsuit, initially filed in June 2023, argued that the program violated the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as separation of powers, claiming it gave excessive authority to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and imposed unfair price controls. The U.S. Chamber sought a preliminary injunction to halt the program, but U.S. District Judge Michael Newman, a Trump appointee, denied this in September 2023, stating the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success or irreparable harm. Newman also dismissed the case in August 2024, finding that the regional chambers (Dayton, Ohio, and Michigan) lacked standing to sue on behalf of their members, as their interests were not sufficiently aligned with the pharmaceutical companies’ concerns, such as AbbVie and its subsidiary Pharmacyclics, which were involved in the suit. The judge noted that the U.S. Chamber might have standing if it filed a new suit in a different venue. The 6th Circuit, in a 12-page opinion written by Senior Judge Ronald Gilman (a Clinton appointee), affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the regional chambers lacked associational standing. The court emphasized that the Dayton Chamber’s purpose of promoting regional business was not germane to the lawsuit’s focus on the constitutionality of a federal program affecting pharmaceutical manufacturers. The court also criticized the lawsuit as a potential “stalking horse” for forum shopping, as the plaintiffs lacked a direct connection to Ohio. However, the ruling clarified that regional chambers could challenge federal laws with broader impact in some cases, and a lack of corporate headquarters in a region is not necessarily fatal to standing, though it was insufficient here due to the disconnect with the Dayton Chamber’s purpose. The decision marks the 10th court ruling in favor of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, which has faced multiple legal challenges from the pharmaceutical industry, including lawsuits from companies like AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and the trade group PhRMA. None of these challenges have succeeded in blocking the program, which has already negotiated price cuts ranging from 38% to 79% for 10 drugs, set to take effect in January 2026, with projected Medicare savings of $6 billion in the first year. Advocacy groups like Patients For Affordable Drugs hailed the ruling as a victory for over 9 million Medicare beneficiaries who will benefit from lower drug prices. The U.S. Chamber could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though no comment from them was reported immediately following the ruling. Meanwhile, other lawsuits against the program are ongoing in various federal courts, with potential appeals in the Second, Third, Fifth, and D.C. Circuits, which could lead to conflicting rulings and elevate the issue to the Supreme Court. The program’s voluntary nature - allowing drugmakers to opt out of Medicare entirely - has been a key factor in courts rejecting claims of unconstitutional price controls or takings, as participation is not mandatory. This ruling reinforces the program’s legal standing, allowing Medicare to continue negotiating drug prices, a process that began with the first 10 drugs announced in August 2023, including treatments for diabetes, blood clots, and cancer from companies like Merck, Novo Nordisk, and AbbVie. The program remains a significant policy achievement for the Biden administration, despite ongoing industry opposition ...

A Glendale woman was sentenced to 108 months in federal prison for participating in a scheme in which hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal kickbacks were paid and received for patient referrals that resulted in the submission of approximately $10.6 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare for purported hospice care. Nita Almuete Paddit Palma, 75, of Glendale, was sentenced by United States District Judge Dolly M. Gee, who also ordered her to pay $8,270,032 in restitution. At a separate hearing, Judge Gee sentenced Percy Dean Abrams, 75, of Lakewood, to three years of probation, which will include two years of home confinement. At the conclusion of a six-day trial, a federal jury in December 2024 found Palma guilty of 12 counts of health care fraud and 16 counts of paying illegal kickbacks for health care referrals. The jury also found Abrams guilty of six counts of receiving illegal kickbacks for health care referrals. Palma was excluded from Medicare, a federal health insurance program for people aged 65 and older, because of prior federal convictions for receiving illegal kickbacks. While she was excluded from Medicare, Palma purchased Magnolia Gardens Hospice through her daughter and bought C@A Hospice through her husband in 2015 and concealed her ownership interest in both hospices from Medicare. Palma then paid “marketers”, including Abrams, hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal kickbacks for patient referrals that Palma could bill to Medicare for purported hospice care. Hospice is only for those who are terminally ill and have a life expectancy of six months or less. Hospice provides comfort care to a patient instead of trying to cure the patient’s illness, and a patient forfeits certain benefits under Medicare when electing hospice. Consistent with instructions provided by Palma, Abrams falsely represented to prospective patients that they did not need to be dying to be on hospice. After collecting personal identifying information from prospective patients that were not dying, Abrams sent the information to Nita Palma so she could bill Medicare for purported hospice care. Through Magnolia Gardens Hospice and C@A Hospice, Palma caused the submission of approximately $10.6 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare beginning in 2015 for purported hospice care for patients that were not dying. Palma received approximately $6,000 each month a patient was billed to Medicare for hospice. In turn, Palma paid Abrams and other marketers up to $1,000 per month in illegal kickbacks for each patient referred to her that was billed to Medicare for hospice. Many of the patients that were billed to Medicare through Magnolia Gardens Hospice did not know they were signed up for hospice, and some patients only found out after they were denied medical coverage for services they needed. During the health care fraud scheme, Medicare requested additional documentation from Magnolia Gardens Hospice to support the purported hospice claims. In response, Palma and her husband directed employees to create fake patient charts and had those fake patient charts submitted to Medicare. Court documents allege that while awaiting trial in this matter, Palma took control of three other hospices and caused the submission of approximately $4.8 million in claims for purported hospice care. The United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General and the FBI investigated this matter. Assistant United States Attorney Roger A. Hsieh of the Major Frauds Section and Matt Coe-Odess of the Domestic Security and Immigration Crimes Section prosecuted this case ...

The California Attorney General announced a settlement with HCA Healthcare, Inc. and Health Trust Workforce Solutions, LLC (together, HCA), resolving allegations that HCA unlawfully required entry-level nurse employees to repay the cost of a mandatory training program if they did not remain employed with the company for two years. HCA is one of the nation’s largest hospital systems and has several hospitals in northern and southern California. The settlement is the result of a years-long investigation by the California attorney general and the attorneys general of Colorado and Nevada, working in partnership with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The states’ investigation found that HCA violated California employment and consumer protection laws as well as the federal consumer financial protection laws by using training repayment agreement provisions (TRAPs) in nurses’ employment contracts. These TRAPs are a form of employer-driven debt, or debt obligations incurred by individuals through employment arrangements. As a condition of employment at an HCA hospital, HCA generally requires that entry-level nurse employees complete the Specialty Training Apprenticeship for Registered Nurses (StaRN) Residency Program. The company has advertised StaRN as an avenue for entry-level RNs to get the education and training they need to land their first nursing jobs in an acute-care hospital setting, although StaRN does not provide nurses with education or training necessary for licensure as an RN. Until the Spring of 2023, HCA required that RNs hired through the StaRN program at facilities in several states, including California, sign a TRAP agreement in their new-hire paperwork. The TRAPs purported to require nurses to repay a prorated portion of the StaRN “value” if they did not work for HCA for two years. If a nurse left HCA before the end of the two-year period, then the TRAP loan was typically sent to debt collection. HCA imposed TRAPs on nurses who worked at their five hospitals in California: Good Samaritan Hospital in San Jose; Regional Medical Center in San Jose; Los Robles Regional Medical Center in Thousand Oaks; Riverside Community Hospital in Riverside; and West Hills Hospital & Medical Center in West Hills (no longer under HCA ownership). Under California’s settlement, HCA will: - - Pay approximately $83,000 to provide full restitution to California nurses who made payments on their TRAP debt to HCA. - - Be prohibited from imposing TRAPs on nurse employees and attempting to collect on the approximately $288,000 in outstanding TRAP debt incurred by California nurses who signed TRAPs with HCA. - - Pay $1,162,900 in penalties to California. HCA will pay a total of $2,900,000 in penalties under settlements filed in California, Colorado, and Nevada today. Employer-driven debt refers to debt incurred by individuals through employment arrangements. This can include arrangements where an employer provides training, equipment, or supplies to a worker, but requires the worker to reimburse the employer for these expenses if the worker leaves their job before a certain date. Employer-driven debt has grown not only in the healthcare industry but also in the trucking, aviation, and the retail and service industries, among others. However, California workers are protected by state law that restricts the use of employer-driven debt, as Attorney General Bonta highlighted in a legal alert issued in July 2023 and a consumer alert in October 2024. Workers who believe their rights have been violated are encouraged to file a complaint at oag.ca.gov/report ...

U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia has finally approved a sweeping settlement requiring the San Diego Sheriff’s Office to make major changes to jail conditions for people with disabilities. The case is Darryl Dunsmore et al. v. San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, et al.; S.D. Cal. No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL. In June 2023, the Sheriff's Office and plaintiffs reached a partial ADA settlement agreement that focused on incarcerated persons with mobility disabilities at San Diego Central Jail, as well as incarcerated persons with hearing disabilities who use sign language at all county jails. Between August 25, 2023, and November 20, 2024, the parties participated in seventeen settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner including several all-day, in-person conferences.Moreover, in coming to agreement on the ADA Settlement terms, the parties exchanged numerous draft written proposals over six months. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved the ADA Settlement as to Plaintiffs’ third claim on December 11, 2024. On December 12, 2024, the parties filed the ADA Settlement Agreement as a joint motion. The final approved settlement agreement resolves the remainder of the ADA claims. The Sheriff's Office said it has taken significant steps to increase access for persons with disabilities in county jails. This includes the creation of a dedicated Sheriff's ADA Unit, updating policies, procedures and training, construction renovations and acquiring assistive technologies such as video phones with video relay services or closed captioning. The Sheriff's Office also created a process for identifying and providing necessary accommodations to incarcerated persons with disabilities, including housing accommodations and effective communication. In addition to specific construction modifications at the Las Colinas Detention and Reentry Facility, George Bailey Detention Facility, Vista Detention Facility, Rock Mountain Detention Facility and South Bay Detention Facility, some of the other changes that will be or have already been made include: - - Informing incarcerated persons with disabilities of their ADA rights and providing effective communication during the booking and orientation process. - - Revising policies and training as necessary to ensure compliance with the ADA and the terms of the settlement agreement. - - Providing initial and annual ADA training to county jail staff and contractors. - - Identifying and tracking incarcerated persons with disabilities who report and/or have been identified as requiring disability accommodations while in custody. - - Ensuring that incarcerated persons with disabilities are properly placed in housing that is safe and appropriate for their disability. - - Providing reasonable accommodations to ensure that qualified incarcerated persons with disabilities are able to participate in all programs, services and activities while in custody. - - Practicing effective communication with incarcerated persons with disabilities. - - Making sure that incarcerated persons with disabilities who require assistive devices, health care appliances, or durable medical equipment have access to these accommodations, subject to removal for individualized safety or security reasons. - - Developing policies, procedures and training to ensure that incarcerated persons with disabilities are accommodated during evacuations and other emergencies in the jails. - - Ensuring that incarcerated persons with intellectual, learning, and developmental disabilities are identified and provided appropriate accommodations, including adequate support. - - Making sure that incarcerated persons with disabilities receive reasonable accommodations during searches, counts, application of restraint equipment and transport. - - Providing reasonable accommodations to persons with mental health disabilities, including during the discipline process. - - Developing a quality assurance and auditing program to ensure ADA compliance. As part of the settlement agreement, the County of San Diego will hire neutral experts to ensure compliance with the agreement. The ADA Settlement Agreement does not involve monetary damages and none will be awarded. The ADA Settlement Agreement allows Plaintiffs’ counsel to ask the Court to have Defendants pay for their attorneys’ fees and costs in obtaining the ADA Settlement Agreement. The Sheriff's Office operates a system of seven detention facilities throughout San Diego County with a combined average daily population of approximately 4,000 incarcerated persons. According to the ACLU the San Diego County jails have the highest death rate of any large county in California. Well over 200 people have died in Sheriff department custody since 2006. In 2018, Disability Rights California released a report highlighting the factors that contribute to the high suicide rate in San Diego County jails. These factors include over-incarceration of people with mental health needs, failure to provide adequate mental health treatment, overuse of solitary confinement, and lack of meaningful, independent jail oversight.In 2021, county jail deaths were largely attributable to suicide, overdoses, homicide and medical neglect – deaths that are often preventable with adequate policies, practices, training and supervision in place. After a comprehensive audit by California State Auditor, it reported in February 2022 that "Given the ongoing risk to the safety of incarcerated individuals, the Sheriff’s Department’s inadequate response to deaths, and the lack of effective independent oversight, we believe that the Legislature must take action to ensure that the Sheriff’s Department implements meaningful changes. Until the Sheriff’s Department makes such changes, the weaknesses in its policies and practices will continue to jeopardize the health and lives of the individuals in its custody." ...

Six people were charged today as part of a multi-agency investigation dubbed “Operation Sugar Diamond” that targeted an illegal cannabis extraction business where four people were killed in a fiery explosion at a warehouse in Irwindale in 2023 and another man died at a South El Monte facility last year. Ted Chien (dob 2/10/72) of Temple City is charged with five counts of murder with the special circumstance allegation of multiple murders. He also faces two felony counts of arson causing great bodily injury, eight felony counts of manufacturing a controlled substance and three felony counts of maintaining a place for selling or using a controlled substance. If convicted as charged, Chien faces a possible maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole or death. Chien’s partner and co-defendant Han Quan Jiao (dob 7/28/70) of Rosemead is charged in the same case with one count each of murder and arson causing great bodily injury, eight counts of manufacturing a controlled substance and three counts of maintaining a place for selling or using a controlled substance. If convicted as charged, Jiao faces up to life in prison. Xiaolong Deng (dob 9/19/88), Chengyan Xu (dob 11/23/63), Christopher Reyes (dob 12/30/94) and Frank Herrera (dob 3/30/90) each face one count each of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance. Xu was charged with two counts of manufacturing, compounding or producing a controlled substance, while the other three defendants were charged with one count of the same offense. Deng, Reyes and Herrera each face up to seven years in prison if convicted as charged, while Xu faces up to eight years and eight months. On Oct. 9, 2023, a massive blast erupted at a warehouse in the 1400 block of Arrow Highway in Irwindale, killing Yi Luo, 47, of Baldwin Park; Xin Chen, 59 of Rosemead; Guangqi Fu, 35, of Chino; and Quizhuo Liang, 35, of Monterey Park. All four worked at the warehouse that was allegedly being used for honey oil extraction by Chien and Jiao. On Nov. 18, 2024, a fire broke out at a laboratory in South El Monte that was allegedly run by the two defendants. Bordin “Tony” Sikarin, 57, of Buena Park, who also was an employee was killed. Despite the deaths of five employees, Chien and Jiao are accused of continuing their operation to illegally extract and distribute concentrated cannabis in Los Angeles County. Deng, Xu, Reyes and Herrera also worked for Chien and Jiao and are accused of producing concentrated cannabis. Herrera also allegedly transported the product within Los Angeles County, according to the criminal complaint. More than 150 law enforcement agents served search warrants at nine locations in Los Angeles County earlier this week, including a large-scale lab in La Verne that abuts the San Gabriel Mountains. The case remains under investigation by the District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Los Angeles High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, the Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (LA Impact) and the U.S. Postal Service ...

Bradley Hirdman sued Charter Communications, LLC in October 2019, asserting a single cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA based on alleged violations of sections Labor Code § 246 (failure to pay sick time at the correct rate of pay), 201 to 204 (failure to timely pay wages upon termination), and 2802 (failure to reimburse necessary work-related expenses). In September 2020, Hirdman filed his first amended complaint against Charter, asserting the same cause of action and clarifying that he sought to represent other commissioned employees in his PAGA action. In February 2023, the parties filed cross-motions for summary adjudication on the issue of Charter’s alleged failure to pay sick time at the correct rate of pay. The material facts upon which the parties based their cross-motions are undisputed. Charter employed Hirdman as a sales representative, and it classified him as exempt from overtime requirements under the outside salesperson exemption pursuant to Labor Code.§ 1171. The relevant statute, Labor Code § 246, subdivision (l), provides three methods by which employers may calculate paid sick leave. For “nonexempt employees,” employers must calculate paid sick time either “in the same manner as the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time” (§ 246, subd. (l)(1)) or “by dividing the employee’s total wages, not including overtime premium pay, by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment” (id., subd. (l)(2)). For “exempt employees,” paid sick time “shall be calculated in the same manner as the employer calculates wages for other forms of paid leave time.” (Id., subd. (l)(3).) The statute does not define “exempt employees” or “nonexempt employees." The parties asked the trial court to determine, as a matter of law, whether section 246, subdivision (l)(3) applies to employees like Hirdman who are classified as outside salespersons. Hirdman contended that employers cannot calculate paid sick leave using the method provided in Labor Code section 246, subdivision (l)(3) for outside salespersons because the meaning of “exempt employees” includes only those employees who are exempt under the administrative, executive, or professional exemptions. (Lab. Code, § 515, subd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040. In support, Hirdman relied on (1) an analysis of the bill from the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations, and (2) an October 2016 Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE) opinion letter based on that report, which concluded that employees like Hirdman and other outside salespersons paid by commissions must be paid for sick leave per Labor Code section 246, subdivision (l)(1) or (l)(2). Hirdman thus argued that Charter was required to calculate paid sick leave for its outside salespersons using one of the methods in Labor Code section 246, subdivisions (l)(1) and (l)(2), which apply to “nonexempt employees.” Charter, on the other hand, argued that section 246, subdivision (l)(3) applies to all exempt employees, not just those employees classified as exempt under the administrative, executive, or professional exemptions. According to Charter, the statutory language was plain and unambiguous, and the trial court should therefore end its inquiry there because the plain meaning of the word “exempt” controls. In other words, “exempt employees” in section 246, subdivision (l)(3) means employees like Hirdman who are exempt under any exemption, including the outside salesperson exemption. Charter thus argued that it correctly calculated paid sick leave for Hirdman and other outside salespersons. The trial court agreed with Charter and thus granted its motion for summary adjudication, ultimately entering judgment in its favor. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the published case of Hirdman v Charter Communications -D084304 (August 2025). The sole issue for determination on appeal is the meaning of the phrase “exempt employees” as used in section 246, subdivision (l)(3). "Under the facts of this case, we conclude that the statutory language is unambiguous, and “exempt employees” includes employees like Hirdman who are exempt from overtime wages." "In sum, we conclude that the trial court correctly determined that section 246, subdivision (l)(3) applies to outside salespersons like Hirdman and thus did not err in granting summary adjudication in favor of Charter." ...

The California Insurance Commissioner announced formal legal action against the California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan), the state's insurer of last resort operated by the insurance industry, for systematically denying and limiting smoke damage claims from wildfire survivors – particularly in the wake of the Palisades and Eaton Fires earlier this year. The California Department of Insurance filed an Order to Show Cause against the FAIR Plan after consumer complaints showed a pattern of denying smoke damage claims based on an arbitrary FAIR Plan-defined requirement for “permanent physical damage.” The Department’s legal filing follows hundreds of escalating consumer complaints filed with the Department against the FAIR Plan and builds on a multi-year investigation, which uncovered at least 418 violations of California’s consumer protection laws. “I’ve spoken with wildfire survivors who would rather lose their homes to flames than endure the stress and confusion of navigating smoke damage claims. This is unacceptable. This issue has persisted after every fire and has become even more urgent in the aftermath of the largest urban fires in history, the Palisades and Eaton fires. These consumers' message is clear: they need assistance, not obstacles,” said Commissioner Lara. “We will not tolerate insurance companies breaking the law and denying Californians the coverage they deserve, including the FAIR Plan.” This enforcement action is part of a broader effort led by Commissioner Lara to strengthen consumer protections through oversight, examination, and enforcement across both traditional insurance carriers and the FAIR Plan. The Department is also conducting a Market Conduct Examination of State Farm for its handling of consumers’ wildfire claims. The California FAIR Plan is operated by the insurance industry, not the state. State law requires all property insurance companies doing business in California to participate in the Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan, which provides basic fire insurance coverage when homeowners and businessowners cannot find it in the traditional market. It was first created after the Watts Riots of 1965 and resulting major wildfires. It is designed as a temporary safety net – not a long-term solution. The Department of Insurance has regulatory oversight of the FAIR Plan to ensure it complies with state law and treats policyholders fairly – the FAIR Plan is not exempt from consumer protection and claims handling requirements in California law. Commissioner Lara’s legal action cites violations of California Insurance Code section 790.03 including, but not limited to: - - Misrepresenting policy terms - - Failing to investigate claims fairly - - Denying legitimate claims without reasonable basis Commissioner Lara expects to file in the coming weeks the Department’s Report of Examination for an ongoing financial examination of the FAIR Plan, including its compliance with recommendations from the Department’s 2022 Operational Assessment Report. The 2022 report called for significant changes in the FAIR Plan’s governance, operations, underwriting and claims handling, risk management, customer service, and financial planning strategies and policies. Commissioner Lara has also created the Smoke Claims & Remediation Task Force to develop statewide standards for investigating and remediating smoke damage—a gap that has existed for decades. To date, the Department has helped recover more than $74 million for wildfire survivors through formal complaint intervention. Consumers who believe their smoke damage claim was unfairly denied or delayed are encouraged to file a complaint at insurance.ca.gov or call 800-927-HELP ...