The Monterey County District Attorney announced that Marco Polo DeLaRosa Zesati, a 37-year-old Castroville resident and owner of “World Class Properties, LLC,” pled no contest to contracting without a license and failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance. He was sentenced to 40 days in county jail, 3 years court probation, and a $1,000 fine.

The Contractor State Licensing Board (“CSLB”) opened an investigation of Zesati in March 2018.

CSLB investigators observed four persons painting and plastering a property owned by Zesati. They determined that he was acting in the capacity of a general B contractor, by undertaking a project of owner builder without the required contractor license, a violation of Business and Professions Code section 7028(a).

Zesati also utilized labor of at least four persons without providing workers’ compensation insurance, a violation of Labor Code section 3700.5.

The CSLB allows an owner to act without a general contractor in charge of a project under the following terms:

For Home Improvements:

– – The work site must be your principal residence that you have occupied for 12 months prior to completion of the work;
– – The work must be performed prior to the sale of the home; and
– – You cannot take advantage of the contractor license exemption on more than two structures during any three-year period.

For construction of new single-family residences:

– – You are limited to selling four or fewer residential structures in one calendar year; and
– – The work necessary to complete the project(s) must be performed by licensed subcontractors.

The case was referred to the District Attorney’s Workers’ Compensation Fraud Unit..

Under California criminal law, business owners need to be aware that California law requires all employers to secure workers’ compensation insurance for their employees. Workers’ compensation insurance ensures employees injured on the job have adequate medical coverage and other benefits. Persons have information about suspected workers’ compensation fraud are encouraged to contact the District Attorney’s office at 831-755-3224.

Amazon and the National Safety Council have created a five-year, $12 million partnership to find innovative solutions to prevent the most common workplace injury: musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).

MSDs are an under-recognized yet omnipresent safety challenge that affect nearly one-quarter of the world’s population. In the U.S., businesses experienced more than 265,000 MSD injuries involving days away from work in 2019.

MSDs are complex and result from a combination of forceful exertion, repetitive movement and awkward or static posture. The subset of MSDs often referred to as repetitive motion injuries are chronic and result from exposures to risk factors over the course of weeks, months or years. The goal of the partnership is to take a proactive approach to prevent these injuries before they ever occur.

Built on the principles of data and innovation, the partnership will aim to prevent MSDs by engaging key stakeholders, conducting research, inventing new technology and processes, and scaling the results. Amazon’s $12 million contribution is the largest corporate contribution in the Council’s history. The partnership will include five key components:

Advisory Council: Establish an international advisory council of experts, corporations, researchers, practitioners and innovators in the public and private sectors. The advisory council will work together to review the most promising approaches to MSD prevention, shape development of the partnership components and engage external parties on MSD prevention.

Innovative Research: Conduct research utilizing next-generation artificial intelligence, natural language processing and machine learning tools to explore current and future MSD innovation and trends. This research will live in an open-source platform for all industries to explore and glean insights.

Small Business and University Grants: Provide grants for small- to medium-sized businesses, universities and university students. These grants will fund research and innovation that help companies of all sizes achieve impact.

Innovation Challenges: Incubate and foster innovative and practical solutions to address MSDs through Innovation Challenge competitions. These competitions will bring together experts to collaborate, iterate and share techniques and ideas.

Industry Call to Action – The MSD Pledge: Amazon and NSC will share solutions discovered throughout the partnership to inspire change through the creation of The MSD Pledge and a call on other companies to also join the effort to:

– – Track proactive indicators of injuries to ensure proper risk mitigation, and implement prevention strategies based on data.
– – Implement an MSD prevention program that includes educating employees about injury prevention.
– – Embrace and drive forward innovative solutions to reduce MSDs and share best practices with other organizations worldwide.

For further updates on this initiative, you may sign up on the National Safety Council website.

The United States has filed a complaint under the False Claims Act against a Vacaville company alleging one of its owners and seven skilled nursing facilities systematically paid money to referring physicians to induce those physicians to make patient referrals, in knowing and willful violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

The complaint in intervention, which was filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles late Monday, names as defendants Paksn Inc.; Prema Thekkek, one of its owners; and seven skilled nursing facilities owned by Thekkek and/or operated by Paksn.

The United States alleges that the defendants entered into medical directorship agreements with certain physicians that purported to provide compensation for administrative services, but in reality, were vehicles for the payment of kickbacks to induce the physicians to refer patients to the seven facilities.

The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering or paying anything of value to encourage the referral of items or services covered by federal health care programs.

Those seven facilities are four facilities in Hayward – Bay Point Healthcare Center, Gateway Care & Rehabilitation Center, Hayward Convalescent Hospital, and Hilltop Care & Rehabilitation Center – as well as Martinez Convalescent Hospital, Park Central Care & Rehabilitation Hospital in Fremont, and Yuba Skilled Nursing Center.

The United States specifically alleges that the defendants hired certain physicians who promised in advance to refer a large number of patients to the nursing facilities, paid physicians in proportion to the number of expected referrals, and terminated physicians who did not refer enough patients.

On one occasion, a Paksn employee told Thekkek that two physicians were being hired because “they are promising at least 10 patients for $2000 per month.” On another, Thekkek complained that if Paksn’s employees did not pay medical directors promptly every month, “[t]hese doctors will not give us patients.” On a third occasion, a Paksn employee told Thekkek that because “lately there are no real referrals” from one of the medical directors, “i am planning to say goodbye to him.”

This case was initially filed in December 2015 by Trilochan Singh, who was previously employed as Paksn’s vice president of operations and chief operating officer, under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act. Those provisions authorize private parties to sue on behalf of the United States for false claims and share in any recovery. The Act permits the United States to intervene and take over the lawsuit, as it has done here in part. Those who violate the Act are subject to treble damages and applicable penalties.

The case is captioned United States of America ex rel. Trilochan Singh v. Paksn, Inc., et al., CV15-9064.

Bulkley & Associates, LLC is a Hopkins County, Texas, company that transports refrigerated goods interstate.

In 2015, a Bulkley truck driver fell off a truck and was injured while delivering goods to a customer in Salinas, California.

Defendant Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health of the State of California, cited Bulkley and assessed penalties for three violations of California health and safety law: (1) failing to timely report an injury to California authorities, (2) failing to develop an injury-prevention program compliant with California law, and (3) failing to require foot protection in accordance with California law.

Bulkley pursued administrative appeals in California, disputing the Department’s authority to require Bulkley to comply with California law. Bulkley lost and has since filed two lawsuits challenging the Department’s authority.

Bulkley I began in 2018, when Bulkley filed a petition for mandamus in Hopkins County court, seeking judicial review of the California administrative appeal that Bulkley lost. The Department removed the petition to federal court, and promptly moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Bulkley argued that the Texas court had personal jurisdiction because Bulkley is a Texas resident and because the California law authorizing judicial review of agency action directs litigants to the county court where they reside.

Bulkley also argued that the Department had minimum contacts with Texas because the citations “penalized Bulkley for its work rules and procedures, which were created and implemented in Texas.” They did not prevail in Bulkley I.

After Bulkley I and before Bulkley II, in August 2019, the Department sent Bulkley a letter to collect the unpaid penalties of $6,180, informing Bulkley that the Department would pursue a judgment in California court if Bulkley failed to pay. On September 9, 2019, the Department sent Bulkley another letter, referencing violations of California law “observed during the inspection completed on 09/04/2015 [at] the place of employment” “maintained by” Bulkley and located in Salinas, California.

Bulkley sought and obtained injunctive relief in Hopkins County court (commencing Bulkley II, the current case), pointing to the September 9, 2019 letter as proof that the Department had possibly inspected Bulkley in Texas and was threatening to do so again.

The Department again removed the action to federal court and again moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court again concluded the Department lacked minimum contacts and dismissed Bulkley’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in the case of Bulkley & Associates, L.L.C., v Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health of the State of California.

The Department did not establish minimum contacts solely by way of sending the September 2019 letter. And the possibility that the Department has inspected or will inspect Bulkley in Texas does not establish minimum contacts. It does not matter if the Department’s letter instructed Bulkley to remedy violations of California law, which Bulkley could only do by changing its policies in Texas.

Carmen Torres sustained an admitted injury from a slip and fall accident in 2011 while working for the Santa Barbara Community College District.

She had dual employment at the time of her injury as a bilingual GED instructor at Santa Barbara Community College, and a teacher’s aide working for the Santa Barbara Unified School District as a bilingual assistant in special education classes. Applicant stopped working at both jobs after her industrial injury.

She testified that she last worked in 2011, and has retired, due to her industrial injury, and in part due to her need to help her daughter who has special needs, though she emphasized that caring for her daughter was not her primary motivation. She testified that she devotes four to five hours per day to her daughter. She now receives a pension.

Her treating physician returned her to work with restrictions, but the restrictions could not be accommodated. She has had no treatment since 2017. No doctor told her she could not return to gainful employment. She sought to return to employment as a translator, but could not type documents due to pain in her shoulders, low back, hands and wrists.

The WCJ awarded applicant 52% permanent disability. The rating added the right and left shoulder disability and combined them with the remaining disability.

The WCJ explained that in finding applicant was not permanently totally disabled, he found persuasive applicant’s testimony concerning the activities she performs for her daughter, indicating her ability to perform activities including driving, meal preparation, cleaning and laundry. He found applicant’s claim for permanent total disability not supported by the evidence. The WCAB agreed in the panel decision of Torres v Santa Barbara Community College District.

On reconsideration, Torres argued that this record justifies a finding that she is permanently totally disabled, without apportionment, based on a vocational rebuttal of the scheduled rating of her impairments. Secondly, she contends that her rating should be based on the addition of her impairments, rather than use of the CVC, because of a lack of overlapping disability in her injured body parts.

The panel affirmed the WCJ’s conclusion that applicant did not establish through vocational evidence that she has rebutted the scheduled rating of her permanent disability. And also concurred with the WCJ’s conclusion that applicant has not established a medical basis for rating her impairments, other than her shoulder disabilities, using the additive method recognized in Athens Administrators v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Kite) (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 213 (writ den).,rather than using the CVC.

Impairments may be added if substantial medical evidence supports a physician’s opinion that adding them will result in a more accurate rating of the applicant’s level of disability than the rating resulting from the use of the CVC. A physician’s opinion on the most accurate rating method should be followed if he provides a reasonably articulated medical basis for doing so. (De La Cerda v. Martin Selko & Co. (2017) 83 Cal. Comp. Cases 567 (writ den.).)

Applicant has not cited any medical reports that concluded that use of the CVC to combine her other impairments would not accurately reflect applicant’s overall disability. Dr. Gjerdrum testified that only the shoulder disability should be added, and that applicant’s neck and back disability should be combined. A WCJ cannot make the determination to add disability in the absence of a physician’s opinion that adding them will result in a more accurate rating of the applicant’s level of disability.