State Compensation Insurance Fund announced plans to distribute an approximate $75 million dividend to its qualifying policyholders with policies that took effect between January 1 and August 26, 2020.

This dividend equals approximately 10% of the estimated annual premium reported during that period.

State Fund’s Board will consider dividends again for the remainder of the 2020 policy year later this year. While the board cannot guarantee future dividends, this mid-year declaration does not affect the possibility of a future payout for the remainder of the 2020 policy year.

Through July of this year, State Fund reported approximately $700 million in estimated annual premium and approximately $60 million in realized capital gains.

“We’re working hard to support our policyholders in every way we can during this difficult time,” said State Fund President and CEO Vern Steiner.

“Due to our strong, stable financial position and the claims outcomes we’ve seen over the past several years, we’re able to return money to policyholders and we want to let them know it’s coming as early as possible. This is money they can count on as they plan for next year amidst so much uncertainty.”

State Fund has paid out more than $5 billion in dividends to policyholders over its history – more than any other California workers’ compensation carrier.

Just last year State Fund declared an approximate $160 million dividend for 2019 policyholders.

State Fund policyholders eligible for a 2020 dividend will receive their payments after the expiration date of their individual policies.

One would think, in these days of COVID-19, that America’s doctors and patients are as reliant on our hospitals as they’ve ever been, and that they’re going to stay that way. Guess again.

Today, even as the health care system and the economy face strains from the coronavirus and its complications, scores of doctors and patients are avoiding large bureaucratic hospitals and instead flocking toward leaner and meaner models of health care.

Professional providers of all types — from surgeons to drugstore owners — are focusing on innovation. Even better, they’re now treating patients as consumers who value quality care at reasonable prices they can know in advance.

Walgreens and VillageMD, for instance, have partnered to open primary-care centers in 500 to 700 drugstores over a five-year period. These centers will provide annual check-ups, walk-in appointments, and many other services. Physician-led teams of four people will treat up to 120 patients per day at these mostly 3,300-square-foot locations.

This model is the latest iteration of a trend called decentralized care, in which patients obtain treatment through telehealth services and outpatient surgery centers and clinics — rather than by visiting hospitals.

For two decades, the late Harvard Business professor Clayton Christensen predicted that decentralization in health care would follow other industries on this path, such as travel, retail, and financial services. It was only a matter of time, said Christensen, before health care innovators improved access to services and reduced costs.

Two key factors are driving this emerging trend, as a recent Healthline.com article pointed out: 1) urgent-care clinics and expanded pharmacy services are improving the efficiency of health care delivery; and 2) more people, especially older adults, are receiving care at home.

Americans who support this free-market health trend share some of the top reasons for its popularity, including convenience and price transparency.

The media has been reporting on the trend, too. Yahoo Finance, for example, ran a piece this summer about the expected growth of urgent-care centers over the next five years.

Marivel Santos was employed by Crenshaw Manufacturing, Inc. in January 2017 as a machine operator. She was instructed by her supervisor, Jose Flores, to operate a material-forming machine utilizing a die without any protective guards or cages.

Ordinarily, Santos would have had to use both hands to operate the machine. This time, however, Flores instructed her to operate it “from the side using a bypass button.” Using the machine in this manner allowed Santos to operate the machine with her right hand, leaving her left hand free to reach into the machine to “press down the part” being cut.

On January 12, 2017, Santos was operating the machine in this fashion when her left hand was crushed underneath the die, mutilating and severely injuring it. She filed a workers’ compensation claim against Crenshaw.

She also filed a civil action for a sole cause of action against Crenshaw for violation of Labor Code 4558, which allows an action against the employer where the injury is caused by the removal of, or knowing failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press, known as the “power press” exception to the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation.

The machine in this case was an A3 gap frame press, manufactured in or around 1937 by Niagara Machine & Tool Works. Crenshaw purchased two Niagara A3 gap frame presses, along with other equipment, in late 2013 as part of an asset purchase from another business.

Crenshaw filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting Santos failed to meet the requirements of the power press exception, and argued that Niagara had never designed, provided, installed, or specified any particular guard or barrier to be used with the machine in any given context.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. However the Court of Appeal reversed in the unpublished case of Santos v Crenshaw Manufacturing.

A provision in section 4558 provides that “No liability shall arise under [section 4558] absent proof that the manufacturer designed, installed, required, or otherwise provided by specification for the attachment of the guards and conveyed knowledge of the same to the employer. Proof of conveyance of this information to the employer by the manufacturer may come from any source.”

Crenshaw argues that section 4558 requires a manufacturer to convey specific  information – in other words, to identify a particular point of operation guard.

However, the Court of Appeal noted that the case law has only established that a high degree of specificity in the manufacturer’s safety directives will suffice under section 4558. But not what is the lowest degree of specificity that would suffice?

When a defendant moves for summary judgment, ‘its declarations and evidence must either establish a complete defense to plaintiff’s action or demonstrate the absence of an essential element of plaintiff’s case. Here this standard was not met, and the summary judgment was reversed.

A report published by Politico claims that the pandemic has revealed new failings in the rickety technology that underpins public services in California, most recently leading Gov. Gavin Newsom to trumpet an erroneous decline in coronavirus infections.

The Silicon Valley state’s woes reflect a larger problem in public-sector technology that has plagued governments for years – but are coming to the fore during the nation’s coronavirus crisis.

Florida’s unemployment claims website, built by Deloitte, has faltered so badly this year that Gov. Ron DeSantis called it a “jalopy.” Other states, such as Wisconsin and New Jersey, are likewise struggling to keep pace with claims in part because they say their systems rely on decades-old programming language.

“Almost every month we are briefed on yet another incredible IT failure in state government,” said California Assemblyman David Chiu, a San Francisco Democrat. “The challenge that state government has with technology has been going on for years, if not decades.”

On top of California’s backlog of nearly 1 million unemployment claims, the state has experienced longstanding issues at the Department of Motor Vehicles – whose offices only began accepting credit card payments last year.

California’s IT problems stem in part from chronic underinvestment in new technology and mismanagement of the money it has put into upgrades. Paradoxically, California’s state services also suffer from the wealth of technological know-how in their own backyard.

The pandemic has forced various state systems into overdrive. None has been tested like the Employment Development Department, which is buckling under a tenfold increase in people filing for unemployment and having to send checks to 4.4 million residents – more than 1 in 5 workers statewide.

71 state lawmakers said in a letter to Newsom last week. The letter pointed out a litany of failures at the EDD, including taking up to six weeks to return customer service phone calls; not providing translation of documents into languages other than English; and not allowing applicants to edit their applications once submitted or upload verification documents.

A more systemic problem, lawmakers said, is the state’s overreliance on contractors who routinely come in tens of millions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.

A billion-dollar project by Accenture to revamp the state’s accounting, budgeting and procurement systems, called Fi$Cal, has been underway for the past 15 years; it was originally envisioned to take six years and cost $138 million. Last year, Newsom increased its budget by $150 million while at the same time narrowing its scope.

EDD’s latest modernization plan has been underway since 2016 and isn’t scheduled to finish until 2027. A previous attempt by EDD’s longtime contractor, Deloitte, in 2010 ended up costing twice the original estimate and “never solved basic problems,” the lawmakers said in their letter.

“Deloitte has received at least $259 million to do work on EDD’s IT system over the years, including at least two no-bid contracts during this pandemic,” they wrote. “It’s clear that despite all of the money Deloitte has been paid, it has not successfully resolved EDD’s IT challenges or modernized its system.”

Deloitte did not respond to a request for comment this week.

Discovering the “date of injury” in a continuous trauma claim is both significant, and sometimes complicated.

It is significant since the carrier for the one year prior to the “date of injury” might not be the carrier on the last date of employment. So just using the last date of employment as the date of injury might not involve the correct carriers. Benefit rates increase on January 1 of each year. Thus the date of injury might effect the rate of benefits to be paid. And finally, the statute of limitations defense is based upon the date of injury, and the date the Application for Adjudication was filed.

A recent panel decision makes the determination of date of injury less complicated since it clarifies existing law on how to determine the date of injury in a continuous trauma claim.

Imelda Sosa submitted a claim form to her employer on June 3, 2011 for a specific injury “From shoulder to neck-sometimes whole arm.” On July 7, 2011, Sosa’s primary treating physician took applicant off work for a single day on June 13, 2011 and a single day on July 7, 2011.

After a period of medical treatment, Sosa filed an Application for Adjudication of Claim on November 7, 2012.

At trial, the parties stipulated that Sosa sustained an industrial injury during the period April 8, 1997 through December 10, 2012. However, the parties also submitted the issue of “date of injury” at trial.

The School District contended that applicant did not sustain compensable temporary disability in 2011 because applicant was paid industrial accident leave under the Education Code for a single day’s absence and would not have been entitled to temporary disability under Labor Code section 4652.

The workers’ compensation administrative law judge found that Sosa sustained a cumulative trauma injury through June 13, 2011. Reconsideration was denied in the panel decision of Sosa v Brawley Union High School District.

Labor Code section 3208.1 provides that a cumulative industrial injury occurs whenever the repetitive physically traumatic activities of an employee’s occupation cause any disability or a need for medical treatment.

Pursuant to section 5500.5, liability for an injured worker’s cumulative injury is limited to those employers who employed the employee during a period of one year immediately preceding the date of injury, as determined pursuant to Labor Code section 5412, or the last date on which the employee was employed in an occupation exposing her to the hazards of the cumulative injury, whichever occurs first. (Lab. Code, § 5500.S(a).)

The date of injury for an industrial cumulative trauma injury is defined by Labor Code section 5412, as follows: “The date of injury in cases of occupational diseases or cumulative injuries is that date upon which the employee first suffered disability therefrom and either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that such disability was caused by his present or prior employment.”

As used in Labor Code section 5412, “disability” means either compensable temporary disability or permanent disability. (Chavira v. Worker’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 463 [56 Cal.Comp.Cases 631]; State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rodarte) (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 998 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 579].)

Here, applicant had knowledge of an industrial injury and suffered disability as a result of the injury on June 13, 2011. Accordingly, the WCJ correctly determined applicant’s date of injury.