The Internal Revenue Service just announced that the standard mileage rate for business miles will decrease to 56.0 cents per mile as of January 1, 2021, down 1.5 cents from the rate of 57.5 cents per mile for 2020.

As a result, the California Workers’ Compensation Institute reports that effective for travel on or after January 1, 2021, the rate that California workers’ compensation claims administrators pay injured workers for travel related to medical care or evaluation of their injuries will also decrease to 56.0 cents per mile.

The new workers’ compensation medical mileage rate will apply for 2021 travel dates, regardless of the date of injury on the claim, but for 2020 travel dates claims administrators should continue to pay 57.5 cents per mile.

California Labor Code §4600 (e)(2), working in conjunction with Government Code §19820 and Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) regulations, requires claims administrators to reimburse injured workers for such expenses at the rate adopted by the Director of the DPA for non-represented (excluded) state employees, which is tied to the IRS published mileage rate.

In its December 22 news release the IRS announced that as of January 1, 2021, the standard mileage rate will drop to 56.0 cents per business mile driven.

The IRS bases the standard mileage rate on an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile, which includes the cost of gasoline and depreciation.

There have been multiple mileage rate changes over the past decade, so the California Division of Workers’ Compensation has posted downloadable mileage-expense forms on the forms section of its website (DWC Forms (ca.gov) which show applicable rates based on travel date.

A new form with the 2021 rate will be posted shortly, but should not be used until reimbursements are made for 2021 travel.

Given the upcoming holidays, however, claims organizations should alert their staff and programmers as soon as possible that the medical mileage rate will decrease to 56.0 cents per mile for travel on or after January 1, 2021.

In November, gig companies including Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart helped pass California’s Proposition 22, effectively writing their own labor law. Now the companies plan to bring similar legislation elsewhere.

Last month, the companies launched a group called the App-Based Work Alliance to support their agenda. Industry-supported bills in the works in New York state and Illinois would, like the California ballot measure, deny gig workers status as employees, and the workers’ compensation, paid family leave, sick pay, unemployment insurance, and minimum wage guarantees that come with it.

But the bills could give gig workers the right to form something resembling a union, allowing workers to bargain with multiple employers to create wage floors and standards. US workers in trucking, auto manufacturing, and grocery stores have participated in types of industry-wide bargaining, though the arrangement is more common in Europe.

The California Proposition 22, was written by gig companies, who then poured $205 million into supporting it, the most expensive campaign in the state’s history. Proposition 22 is near-irreversible – the law needs a “supermajority” of seven-eighths of the state’s legislature to be changed.

At the same time, gig companies invested in bringing the Proposition 22 fight elsewhere. Lyft stood up a political action committee called Illinoisans for Independent Work that spent at least $660,000 on ad buys and political contributions in local elections. In August, Uber released a white paper laying out its plans for “Independent Contractor+,” a new employment category it hopes to promote across the country.

Now New York, a less-than-traditional gig market in many ways, is set to be among the first states where a post-Proposition 22 battle might play out.

A constellation of gig companies and allies introduced the New York Coalition for Independent Work, which describes its mission as “protecting self-employed, app-based contractors’ independence and flexibility while also working to provide them with needed benefits.” But the state’s relatively labor-friendly climate means that gig companies will have to tread carefully – and that a pitched battle is likely ahead.

In statements, spokespeople for Uber, Instacart, and DoorDash said the companies would work with legislators to protect flexible work schedules for their gig workers, something they have said would be impossible if they were forced to treat the workers as employees.

DoorDash vice president of communications and policy Liz Jarvis-Shean said the company wants to work with state and federal lawmakers “to help create a new portable, proportional, and flexible framework that embraces today’s modern workforce.” Uber spokesperson Matthew Wing said the company supports state laws to require “all gig economy companies – including ours – to provide new benefits and protections to all independent workers.”

Back in California, drivers say plenty of organizing can happen without official bargaining rights or recognition from the gig companies. Moore, the Rideshare Drivers United organizer, says her organization is now focused on recouping unemployment insurance for drivers for the months before Proposition 22 went into effect, when, she says, drivers legally should have been treated as employees. “We’re not going away,” she says.

Randy Rosen M.D., an Orange County surgeon and jail inmate accused in a $29 million insurance fraud scheme who is facing decades behind bars, was temporarily set free ahead of the weekend after testing positive for coronavirus to the criticism of local officials.

Rosen, who was involved in a civil federal lawsuit involving a health care fraud scheme at a Long Beach hospital that was settled in 2017, was was indicted in this new case along with co-defendant Liza Vismanos

Vismanos owns the Wellness Wave surgical center in Beverly Hills and the Lotus Labs medical laboratory in Los Alamitos. Rosen/Vismanos entered into a fraud scheme specifically targeting patients from addiction recovery rehabs to bill their private medical insurance carriers primarily for two types of procedures; a non-FDA approved Naltrexone implant and Cortisone injections.

Rosen and Visamanos were first arrested back on June 30 on a combined 144 counts including money laundering, submitting fraudulent insurance claims and withholding material facts on insurance claims.

CBS Los Angeles reports that District Attorney Todd Spitzer called the release of 57-year-old Rosen – who is being monitored by an electronic bracelet – unfair.

Rosen’s attorney argued before a judge that Rosen “is at substantial risk of poor outcome (of the coronavirus) because of his multiple co-morbidities for his current COVID-19 infection which requires medical follow-up.”

Rosen faces a maximum sentence of 84 years in state prison if convicted as charged, while Visamanos faces 36 years.

After Rosen’s positive COVID-19 test, he has been released, and now Spitzer is calling him a flight risk and questioned whether he would leave the country.

“If I knew I had an out for 30 days and money available and the means to get the heck of out this country, quite frankly I think I’d probably take the opportunity,” Spitzer said. “Whether we see him back again is the big question.”

Governor, Gavin Newsom, declared a state of emergency in response to the spread of the novel coronavirus, and issued Executive Order N-33-20 which required all Californians to stay home with certain limited exceptions.

The DWC temporarily closed the district offices for filing to protect the health and safety of staff and the community. The district offices reopened for filing effective April 13, 2020, but limited filings to e-filing via the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS), JET filing or by mail. The DWC has continued to conduct hearings via teleconference or video, but does not currently permit filing of walk-through documents.

The California Department of Public Health issued a Regional Stay At Home Order applicable based on a region’s intensive care unit (ICU) capacity on December 3.

And as a result, the WCAB in it’s December 15, en bank decision, ordered suspension of WCAB Rule 10789(c) regarding the required timeframes for assignment of walk-through cases.This suspension is applicable to all district offices in the State.

This rule states that certain documents “may be submitted on a walk-through basis” including the following: (1) Compromise and Releases; (2) Stipulations with Request for Award; (3) Petitions for attorney’s fees for representation of the applicant at a deposition; (4) Petitions to compel attendance at a medical examination or deposition; and (5) Petitions for Costs pursuant to rule 10545.

The rule also provides that “Each district office shall have a designee of the presiding workers’ compensation judge available to assign walk-through cases from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on court days.”

The order of suspension of WCAB Rule 10789(c) will provide the district offices with the ability to schedule timeframes for walk-through of documents as appropriate for their capacity under these circumstances.

WCAB Rule 10789(a) is permissive and the documents that may be submitted on a walk-through basis may therefore be further restricted by the district offices at the discretion of the presiding workers’ compensation judges.

The presiding workers’ compensation judge has full responsibility for assignment of cases to the workers’ compensation judges in each district office. This includes the authority to decline to assign a document submitted on a walk-through basis.

The presiding workers’ compensation judges are empowered to prioritize which documents may be assigned on a walk-through basis to expedite resolution of claims and to account for limited capacity in their respective offices in determining whether to permit a document to be assigned as a walk-through.

This order will remain in effect until further notice.

The U.S. Supreme Court published its decision in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. The question presented was whether ERISA preempts Arkansas Act 900, an Arkansas law that regulates the price at which pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) reimburse pharmacies for the cost of drugs covered by prescription drug plans.

PCMA, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which represents some of the largest PBMs in the country, challenged Arkansas Act 900 by arguing that the Act is preempted by ERISA. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, ruling that Act 900 was not preempted by ERISA.

The Opinion reasoned that Arkansas Act 900’s requirements were too far away from ERISA and ERISA plans to have an “impermissible connection” with ERISA plans, even though the law has an indirect effect on what ERISA plans pay for prescription drugs. “State regulations that merely increase the costs or alter incentives for ERISA plans without forcing plans to adopt any particular scheme of substantive coverage are not preempted by ERISA,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, citing earlier Supreme Court opinions.

The Court’s Opinion is a strict preemption analysis and does not cite to, or reference, the many amicus briefs filed in the case or the political debate surrounding Arkansas Act 900, other than to reiterate the express legislative intent in enacting Arkansas Act 900.

PBMs typically use a “maximum allowable cost” list to determine how much pharmacies should be reimbursed. Trade groups for rural and independent pharmacies have argued that PBM’s strategies in reimbursement rates of maximum allowable costs are unfair and can be lower than the pharmacies’ cost to purchase the drug.

Conversely, other trade groups in support of PCMA, state that PBMs have expertise in ensuring efficiency and cost reduction, and that drug prices are largely established by drug manufacturers.

According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, Inc. (AHIP), PBMs provide incentives to pharmacies to offer low-cost generic drugs and to be more efficient with their drug purchasing. AHIP also claims that PBMs have the expertise in pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution systems, and that the compliance costs of managing different state regulations make work in this area prohibitively expensive.

The Court’s Opinion may lead to further state regulation of PBMs.

A statement from PCMA expressed disappointment and urged states to proceed cautiously: “We are disappointed in the Court’s decision that will result in the unraveling of federal protections under . . . ERISA,” and “As states across the country consider this outcome, we would encourage they proceed with caution and avoid any regulations around prescription drug benefits that will result in higher health care cost for consumers and employers.”