With opioid overdose deaths increasing during the pandemic, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced its 20th Take Back Day scheduled for April 24.

At its last Take Back Day in October, DEA collected a record-high amount of expired, unused prescription medications, with the public turning in close to 500 tons of unwanted drugs.

Over the 10-year span of Take Back Day, DEA has brought in more than 6,800 tons of prescription drugs. With studies indicating a majority of abused prescription drugs come from family and friends, including from home medicine cabinets, clearing out unused medicine is essential.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. has seen an increase in overdose deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, with 83,544 Americans overdosing during the 12-month period ending July 1, 2020, the most ever recorded in a 12-month period. The increase in drug overdose deaths appeared to begin prior to the COVID-19 health emergency, but accelerated significantly during the first months of the pandemic.

The public can drop off potentially dangerous prescription medications at collection sites which will adhere to local COVID-19 guidelines and regulations in order to maintain the safety of all participants and local law enforcement.

DEA and its partners will collect tablets, capsules, patches, and other solid forms of prescription drugs. Liquids (including intravenous solutions), syringes and other sharps, and illegal drugs will not be accepted. DEA will continue to accept vaping devices and cartridges at its drop off locations provided lithium batteries are removed.

Helping people dispose of potentially harmful prescription drugs is just one way DEA is working to reduce addiction and stem overdose deaths.

Learn more about the event at https://takebackday.dea.gov/, or by calling 800-882-9539.

Dina Barron-Ramirez and her husband, Jaime Ramirez, contracted with AT&T to have a home security system installed in their residence.

Jamey Maddas, an electrician employed by Endeavor Telecom, an AT&T subcontractor, was dispatched to the Ramirez home to complete the installation.

During the installation work, as he was descending the stairs from the second to the first floor, when he fell and fractured his leg. After falling, Maddas saw the carpet runner had separated at a seam and detached from some of the stairs. He was not sure what caused his fall, however, he assumed it was due to the carpet runner.

As there was no dispute that Maddas was injured in the course and scope of his employment with Endeavor, he recovered worker’s compensation benefits for his medical expenses and wage loss.

Two years later, after settling his worker’s compensation case, he sued Homeowners claiming the accident was caused by a loose carpet runner, which made the staircase unreasonably dangerous. His form complaint alleges a cause of action for premises liability based on “loose carpet on the stairway.”

The homeowners moved for nonsuit at the end of Maddas’s case-in-chief on the grounds there was no substantial evidence to support a finding that they knew or should have known of a concealed preexisting hazardous condition on the stairs. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal in the unpublished case of Maddas v. Ramirez.

The Privette rule (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689) holds that as a general rule, the hirer of an independent contractor is not liable for on-the-job injuries to the independent contractor’s employees.

One of Privette’s underpinnings is the availability of workers’ compensation benefits to the injured employee. ” ‘[I]t would be unfair to impose liability on the hiring person when the liability of the contractor, the one primarily responsible for the worker’s on-the-job injuries, is limited to providing worker’s compensation coverage.’ “

Thus, “principally because of the availability of workers’ compensation,” a “useful way” to view these cases “is in terms of delegation.” (Id. at p. 671.) The hirer delegates to the independent contractor the duty to provide the contractor’s employees with a safe working environment. (Ibid.)

The evidence was undisputed that Homeowners were not carpet experts and had never installed carpet themselves. They hired a professional carpet installer to do so in 2004 as part of the carpet’s purchase price. After installation, the carpet covering each stair tread lay perfectly flat and did not move.

National Emphasis Programs (NEPs) are temporary programs that focus OSHA’s resources on particular hazards and high-hazard industries.

Existing and potential new emphasis programs are evaluated using inspection data, injury and illness data, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reports, peer-reviewed literature, analysis of inspection findings, and other available information sources.

On March 12, 2021, OSHA announced policies and procedures for implementing a National Emphasis Program to ensure that employees in high-hazard industries or work tasks are protected from the hazard of contracting COVID-19.

The newest NEP augments OSHA’s efforts addressing unprogrammed COVID-19-related activities, e.g., complaints, referrals, and severe incident reports, by adding a component to target specific high-hazard industries or activities where this hazard is prevalent.

The NEP targets establishments that have workers with increased potential exposure to this hazard, and that puts the largest number of workers at serious risk.

In addition, this NEP includes an added focus to ensure that workers are protected from retaliation, and are accomplishing this by preventing retaliation where possible, distributing anti-retaliation information during inspections, and outreach opportunities, as well as promptly referring allegations of retaliation to the Whistleblower Protection Program.

Also on March 12, 2021, OSHA issued an “Updated Interim Enforcement Response Plan for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)” (ERP).

The ERP “provides new instructions and guidance to Area Offices and Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHOs) for handling COVID-19 related complaints, referrals, and severe illness reports.” It summarizes the NEP and details how CSHOs are to conduct inspections, and it makes on-site inspections the default method, with remote-only inspections to be conducted only with approval of the area director for CSHO safety reasons.

NCCI is tracking legislation to establish or extend workers compensation presumptions for COVID-19 for certain workers.

In 2020, nine states enacted COVID-19 presumption legislation (Alaska, California, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.) Many of the COVID-19 workers compensation presumptions are temporary in nature.

This year several of the states that enacted COVID-19 presumption legislation in 2020 are taking additional action to extend and/or expand those presumptions. For example:

– – Vermont enacted legislation (S 9) extending the workers compensation COVID-19 presumption provisions for an employee receiving a positive diagnosis or test between April 2020 and “30 days following the termination of the state of emergency.”
– – Illinois recently enacted legislation (HB 4276) extending the COVID-19 presumption provisions through June 30, 2021
– – Alaska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are considering legislation to extend their presumptions, expand the types of workers covered under their presumptions, and/or apply their presumptions retroactively

In 2021, additional states, including Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, are considering establishing new workers compensation presumptions for COVID-19 for certain workers.

And new trends are emerging. While many of the bills monitored in 2020 focused on establishing presumptions that were applicable primarily to first responders and/or healthcare workers, several of the current legislative proposals establish presumptions for additional categories of workers. For example:

– – Legislation in Maryland, Minnesota, and Texas would establish presumptions for teachers/school employees
– – Legislation in Montana and Texas would establish presumptions for nurses (as a separate category from healthcare workers)
– – Legislation in Connecticut and Iowa would establish presumptions applicable to all employees in the state In 2021, several states have proposed legislation to create workers compensation presumptions of compensability that could be applicable beyond the current COVID-19 pandemic.
– – To date, at least 12 states (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington) have introduced legislation that would establish workers compensation presumptions for infectious diseases and pandemics.
– – While several of these bills specifically mention COVID-19, these proposals also contain terms such as “contagious disease,” “COVID-19 or similar disease,” or “other future qualifying pandemic.” This could mean that the presumption would still be applicable even after the current COVID-19 pandemic ends.
– – Many of these proposals do not include sunset provisions or expiration dates, so they may not be temporary in nature.

Some states have introduced legislation addressing the impact of COVID-19 on the workers compensation exclusive remedy:

– – Hawaii introduced legislation (HB 1224/SB 1415) that proposed an exception to the workers compensation exclusive remedy when an employee, whose employer failed to maintain adequate workplace protections against exposure to COVID-19, contracts the virus
– – The Hawaii legislation also created a presumption that COVID-19 is proximately caused by an employer’s failure to maintain adequate workplace protections. (The Hawaii bills did not make a procedural legislative deadline and are unlikely to advance this legislative session.)
– – Other states, including Arkansas and West Virginia, have also introduced legislation addressing COVID-19 and the exclusive remedy, providing that workers compensation is the exclusive remedy for COVID-19 claims.

A Hawthorne man was sentenced to 212 years in federal prison for intentionally driving his ex-wife and two disabled sons off a wharf at the Port of Los Angeles into the ocean – drowning the boys who were trapped in the car – to collect on accidental death insurance policies he had taken out on their lives.

Ali F. Elmezayen, 45, was sentenced by United States District Judge John F. Walter, who, in imposing the maximum sentence allowed by law, noted Elmezayen’s “evil and diabolical scheme” as well as the “vicious and callous nature of his crimes.”

“He is the ultimate phony and a skillful liar – and is nothing more than a greedy and brutal killer,” Judge Walter said. “The only regret that the defendant has is that he got caught.”

Judge Walter also ordered Elmezayen to pay $261,751 in restitution to the insurance companies that he defrauded.

After a nine-day trial in October 2019, a federal jury found Elmezayen guilty of four counts of mail fraud, four counts of wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and five counts of money laundering.

Elmezayen obtained more than $3 million of life and accidental death insurance policies on himself and his family bought from eight different insurance companies . He paid premiums in excess of $6,000 per year for these policies – even though he reported income of less than $30,000 per year on his tax returns. Elmezayen began purchasing the insurance policies the same year he exited a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.

After purchasing the policies, Elmezayen repeatedly called the insurance companies – sometimes pretending to be his ex-wife in whose name he had obtained some of the policies – to verify that the policies were active and that they would pay benefits if his ex-wife died in an accident. Elmezayen also called at least two of the insurance companies to confirm they would not investigate claims made two years after the policies were purchased. These telephone calls were recorded and were played for the jury.

On April 9, 2015, 12 days after the two-year contestability period on the last of his insurance policies expired, Elmezayen drove a car with his ex-wife and two youngest children off a wharf at the Port of Los Angeles. The site of the crash was a loading dock and worksite for commercial fishermen.

Elmezayen swam out the open driver’s side window of the car. Elmezayen’s ex-wife, who did not know how to swim, escaped the vehicle and survived when a nearby fisherman threw her a flotation device. Two of the couple’s three sons, who were 8 and 13 and who were both severely autistic, were strapped into the car and drowned. The couple’s third son was away at camp at the time and was not in the car at the time his father drove it into the water.

Elmezayen then collected more than $260,000 in insurance proceeds from Mutual of Omaha Life Insurance and American General Life Insurance on the accidental death insurance policies he had taken out on the children’s lives. He used part of the insurance proceeds to purchase real estate in Egypt as well as a boat.

Following the crash, Elmezayen repeatedly lied to law enforcement officers and insurance companies. He also lied in subsequent civil litigation he filed concerning the crash – about the extent of the insurance he had purchased on his family, and specifically about whether he had insured his disabled children’s lives. He also attempted to persuade witnesses to lie to law enforcement and say he had given the insurance proceeds to charity.

He now also faces murder charges in a Los Angeles Superior Court.