The Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, has cited employers Smelly Mel’s Plumbing and Sewer Rat Plumbing a total of $529,640 in proposed penalties for violating safety regulations that resulted in serious injuries to a construction worker during a trench collapse in San Mateo on August 1, 2024.

Cal/OSHA, a division of the Department of Industrial Relations, found a total of 16 violations, evenly split between both businesses. Among these citations were two willful, serious accident-related violations – meaning the businesses were aware of the safety hazards, had prior warning, and still failed to take corrective action.

On August 1st, 2024, a crew was handling a sewer line project at a private residence in San Mateo. The job took a near-deadly turn when the walls of the trench collapsed, burying a worker under the debris and causing serious injuries that required hospitalization.

The citations issued include violations for improper protective systems, inadequate training, and failure to inspect the trench and surrounding conditions including:

– – Inspection Failure: Employers did not ensure that a competent person conducted daily inspections of the trench, adjacent areas, and protective systems that could have detected hazardous conditions such as cave-ins.
– – Lack of safe exit routes: Both employers failed to provide the construction workers a ladder or other safe means of exiting the trench that was approximately 9 feet and 3 inches in depth.
– – No adequate protective systems in trench: Neither employer provided adequate protective systems, such as shoring, shielding, sloping, or benching to the trench to prevent its collapse.
– – Failure to protect workers from falling debris: Neither employer protected their workers from excavated materials or equipment that could pose a hazard by falling or rolling into the trench.
– – Foot Protection: The employer failed to ensure that their workers had proper foot protection, which exposed at least one worker to foot injuries when using a jackhammer.
– – Insufficient emergency medical provisions: The employers did not have an appropriate number of trained persons to render first aid at the jobsite.
– – Permit Requirements: The employers failed to notify the division prior to the start of the annual permit-required activity of constructing an excavation over 5-feet in depth.
– – Injury and Illness Prevention Program: The employers failed to conduct a toolbox safety meeting at the jobsite with the crew for the duration of the project.

Employers have the right to appeal any Cal/OSHA citation and notification of penalty by filing an appeal with the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board within 15 working days from the receipt of notification.

Cal/OSHA Chief Debra Lee said “Trench collapses remain one of the most serious hazards in construction, and employers must take all necessary steps to protect their employees. These citations serve as a reminder that businesses must prioritize worker safety, especially during high-risk operations to avoid tragic accidents.”

Rafael Castro, a veteran of the U.S. Navy and a former employee of the Veterans Health Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, and his wife, Miriam Castro, pleaded guilty in federal court to defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) out of more than $130,000.

According to their plea agreements, between September 2018 and April 2024, the Castros lied to obtain caregiver benefits from the Caregiver Support Program, a VA program that provides caregiver support for injured veterans. Rafael Castro admitted that he lied about needing high-level assistance for daily activities, including dressing and undressing himself, personal hygiene, and grooming.

According to plea documents, Rafael Castro defrauded the VA into awarding him assistance that paid the primary caregiver – his wife – an amount equivalent to a full-time home health aide’s 40-hour per-week payment.

According to plea documents, for years, Miriam Castro received monthly payments to be a full-time caregiver for Rafael Castro while her husband worked as a full-time federal employee. From July 2015 to June 2023, Rafael Castro worked for the Veterans Health Administration, and from June 2023 to April 2024, he worked for the Internal Revenue Service. Even though he was employed by the federal government, Rafael Castro falsely told VA representatives at least six times that he was unemployed.

For example, during a 2023 interview, Rafael Castro falsely claimed that he had last worked in 2018 and that his wife was his full-time caregiver. According to their plea agreements, while Rafael Castro was engaged in the fraud scheme, he received several promotions, all while he continued to claim he was unemployed. In their respective plea agreements, Rafael Castro and Miriam Castro admitted that they participated in the multi-year scheme to defraud the VA.

“This case is an excellent example of the importance of internal inspections within government programs,” said U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath. “Without the intervention from the Inspector General’s Office, this fraud might have continued indefinitely.”

“These guilty pleas demonstrate that those involved in defrauding VA, including government employees, will be held accountable,” said Special Agent in Charge Anthony Heddell with the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General’s Western Field Office. “The VA OIG will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to ensure the integrity of VA’s benefits programs and services.”

“Violations of federal law, particularly those committed by IRS employees will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Acting Special Agent in Charge Brandon Knarr stated. “TIGTA will continue to work closely with the United States Attorney’s Office and our law enforcement partners to identify, investigate and hold those individuals responsible for their illegal activities.”

Sentencing is scheduled for April 25, 2025, at 9 a.m. before U.S. District Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Chang.

Yukio Taira began working for Honeywell International, Inc. in November 2011. On May 14, 2015, Taira was on a flight to a trade show in Georgia when he suffered a “catastrophic stroke.” The flight was diverted and Taira was taken by ambulance to a hospital.

On June 29, 2015, Taira filed two applications for workers’ compensation benefits. One case listed a specific date of injury (May 14, 2015) – the date of his stroke. The other case listed an injury date of November 1, 2011, through May 14, 2015, the entire duration of Taira’s employment with Honeywell.

On September 11, 2018, Taira entered into a partial settlement agreement of $1,125,000 regarding both workers’ compensation cases. In October 2023, he settled the remaining issues in his cases for an additional $6 million, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board approved that settlement.

On September 6, 2018, Taira filed a lawsuit alleging that Honeywell violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by failing to provide him an accommodation for his disability (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (m))1 and failing to engage in the interactive process (§ 12940, subd. (n)). The third amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, alleges FEHA claims against Honeywell for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation (§ 12940, subd. (m)) and failure to engage in the interactive process (§ 12940, subd. (n)).

On June 16, 2022, Honeywell filed its motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Because the undisputed evidence establishes that Taira never requested a reasonable accommodation, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in the unpublished case of Taira v. Honeywell International -B328410 (February 2025).

At issue in this appeal is only the question of whether Honeywell failed to reasonably accommodate Taira’s assumed disability.

“‘[I]t is important to distinguish between an employer’s knowledge of an employee’s disability versus an employer’s knowledge of any limitations experienced by the employee as a result of the disability.’” (Scotch, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1013.) Thus, FEHA “requires an employer to accommodate only a ‘known physical . . . disability.’” (Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1252.) “‘“Vague or conclusory statements revealing an unspecified incapacity are not sufficient to put an employer on notice of its obligations under the [FEHA].”’” (Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1167 (Featherstone).)

And, “the employee must request an accommodation.” (Gelfo, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 54.) “‘“Where the disability, resulting limitations, and necessary reasonable accommodations, are not open, obvious, and apparent to the employer,”’” the employee bears the burden “‘“to specifically identify the disability and resulting limitations, and to suggest the reasonable accommodations.”’” (Doe v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 721,738–739; see also Spitzer v. Good Guys, Inc. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1378; Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1222 (Raine).)

In other words, “[a]n employee cannot demand clairvoyance of his employer. [Citation.] ‘“[T]he employee can’t expect the employer to read his mind and know he secretly wanted a particular accommodation and sue the employer for not providing it. . . .”’ ‘It is an employee’s responsibility to understand his or her own physical or mental condition well enough to present the employer at the earliest opportunity with a concise list of restrictions which must be met to accommodate the employee.’ [Citation.]” (King v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 426, 443 (King).)

There is no evidence that Taira informed Honeywell of specific work restrictions as a result of his disability or that he requested a reasonable accommodation. (See, e.g., Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 327, 349 [affirming summary judgment to the employer because although it learned of the plaintiff’s symptoms, “those symptoms did not interfere with the performance of his job”]; King, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 444 [given the plaintiff’s apparent ability to get the job done, “it was incumbent upon him to produce clear and unambiguous doctor’s orders restricting the hours he could work”].) Thus, Taira’s claim under section 12940, subdivision (m), fails.

For the same reason, Taira’s claim under section 12940, subdivision (n), fails. It is undisputed that Taira did not identify a specific, available reasonable accommodation while working at Honeywell. Absent this evidence, Honeywell is entitled to judgment.

The fact that Taira may have reported his medical symptoms to both Ocello and a member of the human resources team does not change the conclusion. While he may have made such reports, he did not request a reasonable accommodation for those symptoms. There was nothing “open, obvious, and apparent” to Honeywell about what limitations were required for those symptoms.

And his complaint about understaffing does not constitute a reasonable request to accommodate a disability. (See, e.g., Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at pp. 975–976.)

Prior to beginning his employment with Technology Credit Union (TCU) in 2020, Thomas Vo signed an employment arbitration agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, both parties agreed “to submit to mandatory binding arbitration any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to Employee’s employment with the Company.”

While employed with TCU, Vo contracted COVID-19 and developed long-term health issues, which persisted throughout his employment. Vo was eventually terminated and brought suit against TCU, alleging (1) harassment in violation of FEHA; (2) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

TCU moved to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.21 and stay all proceedings. Vo opposed the motion to compel and argued the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The trial court, relying in part on Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360 (Aixtron), found the arbitration agreement unconscionable due to the arbitrator’s inability to compel prehearing third party discovery.

The Court of Appeal reversed in the published case of Vo v. Technology Credit Union -H051619 (February 2025).

TCU contends that the discovery clause does not render the agreement substantively unconscionable when evaluated under the discovery factors established in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478 (Ramirez).

The Court of Appeal on its own motion took judicial notice of the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures, effective July 1, 2014 (JAMS Rules). (Evid. Code, § 459.) JAMS Rule 17 controls prehearing exchange of information.

Rule 17(b) allows each party to take one deposition of an opposing party or individual under the control of the opposing party. (Ibid.) Any issues regarding the time, location, and duration of the deposition must be determined by the arbitrator. (Ibid.) It then states: “[t]he necessity of additional depositions shall be determined by the [a]rbitrator based upon the reasonable need for the requested information, the availability of other discovery options and the burdensomeness of the request on the opposing [p]arties and the witness.” (Ibid.)

Rule 17(d) gives the arbitrator the authority to decide all “dispute[s] . . . regarding discovery issues.” (Ibid.) The arbitrator may appoint a special master to help resolve a discovery dispute. (Ibid.)

Vo contends that the discovery provision renders the agreement substantively unconscionable because: (1) the agreement covers witness intensive employment claims, (2) the discovery terms completely bar third party discovery by excluding reference to the CAA and thereby eliminate an arbitrator’s authority to order prehearing third party discovery under Aixtron, (3) third party discovery is available in conventional litigation, (4) the bar on third party discovery advantages employers as plaintiffs cannot obtain information from relevant witnesses who work for the employer and other third party entities, and (5) an arbitrator has no authority to order additional discovery due to Aixtron. He also maintains that the JAMS Rules cannot allow for third party discovery because third parties do not contractually consent to such terms.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with Vo and the trial court and noted that “This language could have been more precise but does not limit expanded discovery to parties to the arbitration agreement or those under their control and does not preclude an arbitrator from making nonparty discovery available to the parties.” And it went on to say “the Supreme Court recently clarified that we should not construe discovery provisions defining the scope of an arbitrator’s authority “in . . . a limited way” and instead should select an interpretation that renders an agreement valid. (Ramirez, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 506-507.) We thus disapprove of Aixtron to the extent it interpreted the scope of an arbitrator’s authority narrowly.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the agreement allows Vo access to third party discovery that may be necessary to adequately arbitrate his FEHA claims. The trial court’s order denying Technology Credit Union’s motion to compel arbitration was reversed. The trial court was directed to enter a new order granting Technology Credit Union’s motion and staying the litigation pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.4.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration just approved Journavx (suzetrigine) 50 milligram oral tablets, a first-in-class non-opioid analgesic, to treat moderate to severe acute pain in adults. Journavx reduces pain by targeting a pain-signaling pathway involving sodium channels in the peripheral nervous system, before pain signals reach the brain.  

Journavx is the first drug to be approved in this new class of pain management medicines.

Pain is a common medical problem and relief of pain is an important therapeutic goal. Acute pain is short-term pain that is typically in response to some form of tissue injury, such as trauma or surgery. Acute pain is often treated with analgesics that may or may not contain opioids.

The FDA has long supported development of non-opioid pain treatment. As part of the FDA Overdose Prevention Framework, the agency has issued draft guidance aimed at encouraging development of non-opioid analgesics for acute pain and awarded cooperative grants to support the development and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute pain conditions.  

“Today’s approval is an important public health milestone in acute pain management,” said Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, J.D., M.D., acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “A new non-opioid analgesic therapeutic class for acute pain offers an opportunity to mitigate certain risks associated with using an opioid for pain and provides patients with another treatment option. This action and the agency’s designations to expedite the drug’s development and review underscore FDA’s commitment to approving safe and effective alternatives to opioids for pain management.”

The efficacy of Journavx was evaluated in two randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trials of acute surgical pain, one following abdominoplasty and the other following bunionectomy. In addition to receiving the randomized treatment, all participants in the trials with inadequate pain control were permitted to use ibuprofen as needed for “rescue” pain medication. Both trials demonstrated a statistically significant superior reduction in pain with Journavx compared to placebo.

The safety profile of Journavx is primarily based on data from the pooled, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trials in 874 participants with moderate to severe acute pain following abdominoplasty and bunionectomy, with supportive safety data from one single-arm, open-label study in 256 participants with moderate to severe acute pain in a range of acute pain conditions.

The most common adverse reactions in study participants who received Journavx were itching, muscle spasms, increased blood level of creatine phosphokinase, and rash. Journavx is contraindicated for concomitant use with strong CYP3A inhibitors. Additionally, patients should avoid food or drink containing grapefruit when taking Journavx.

The application received Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track and Priority Review designations by the FDA.

There are several other promising non-opioid pain treatments currently in the pipeline seeking FDA approval such as:

– – Esketamine: Originally approved for treatment-resistant depression, esketamine is being explored for its potential in managing chronic pain.
– – Cannabidiol (CBD): Various formulations of CBD are being studied for their analgesic properties, particularly for chronic pain conditions.
– – Tanezumab: A monoclonal antibody that targets nerve growth factor (NGF), tanezumab is being evaluated for chronic pain conditions such as osteoarthritis.
– – Zynrelef (Bupivacaine and Meloxicam): This combination drug is designed to provide extended pain relief for surgical patients without the use of opioids.

These treatments represent a growing trend towards developing safer, non-addictive alternatives to traditional opioid painkillers. It’s an exciting time in pain management research!