U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott and Rod Ammari, Special Agent in Charge of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), Office of Investigations, Western Field Division, warned the public to be aware of scammers attempting to intercept Economic Impact Payments being delivered by the Internal Revenue Service.

U.S. Attorney Scott and SAC Ammari announced an effort to provide taxpayers with the necessary information to avoid falling victim to criminals using this pandemic as an opportunity to commit fraud. TIGTA has established a website for citizens to report IRS-related Coronavirus scams at tips.TIGTA.gov. You may also contact TIGTA’s investigative offices in Fresno at 559-458-7377 or in Sacramento at 916-974-5774.

Most eligible taxpayers will receive their payment through direct deposit into their bank account. Taxpayers that traditionally receive tax refunds via paper check, including many elderly citizens and those who do not use banking services, will receive their payments via U.S. Treasury check delivered by mail by the U.S. Postal Service.

“During this national emergency, all Californians must remain vigilant against those who are plotting ways to scam them out of their COVID-19 economic impact payments,” said U.S. Attorney Scott. “It is critical that suspicious calls and efforts are immediately reported to law enforcement.”

“TIGTA is the agency responsible for protecting the integrity of Federal tax administration, including attempts to impersonate the IRS to defraud taxpayers,” said Special Agent in Charge Ammari. “We are committed to working with our law enforcement partners to investigate and bring to justice any individual or organization that engages in criminal activity and exploits this national crisis as a means to commit fraud.”

U.S. Attorney Scott and SAC Ammari offered the following tips on how to identify and report attempted scams involving the Economic Impact Payments:

— The IRS will not call you, text you, or email you to prompt you for more information as a prerequisite to getting an Economic Impact Payment.
— To check on the status of your Economic Impact Payment, please visit www.IRS.gov and click on “Get My Payment.” Only use the website www.IRS.gov. Do not use any other websites or services that claim to be able to process your Economic Impact Payment or act as an intermediary between you and the IRS. Similarly, do not click on any links in e-mails that purport to take you to the IRS website. The best practice is to manually type “www.IRS.gov” into your web browser.
— Anyone who calls you claiming to be from the IRS and offering to process your Economic Impact Payment is impersonating the IRS. Do not share any personal or financial information with these scammers.
— Do not share your personal information with anyone, whether claiming to be from the IRS or some other business or government agency, offering to assist you with your Economic Impact Payment. Payments will be delivered by the IRS through direct deposit or via U.S. Treasury check delivered by mail by the U.S. Postal Service.
— Do not share your online banking username or password with anyone. The IRS does not need your online banking username and password in order to send your Economic Impact Payment.

After your Economic Impact Payment has been sent, the IRS will send you a letter confirming your payment. If you receive this letter, but you have not received your Economic Impact Payment, please report the missing payment to TIGTA through our website at tips.TIGTA.gov. You will also need to report the missing payment separately to the IRS.

Hundreds of lawsuits stemming from the coronavirus pandemic are rapidly amassing in state and federal courts, the first wave of litigation challenging decisions made early during the crisis by corporations, insurance companies and governments.

According to the report published by SFGATE, claims have been filed against hospitals and senior-living facilities, airlines and cruise lines, fitness chains and the entertainment industry – 771 as of Friday, according to a database compiled by Hunton Andrews Kurth, an international law firm tracking cases that emerge from the pandemic.

Complaints reach across industries and state lines. Some seek significant monetary damages. Others ask for a judge to correct actions alleged to be harmful or in violation of contractual agreements.

In New York more than 250 lawsuits have been filed – the most of anywhere in the nation by far. Among them, is a set of lawsuits brought by a nurse’s union against the state and two hospitals. They say officials failed to appropriately protect hospital workers with sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensure a safe workspace for those at higher risk of contracting the illness.

A similar suit was brought by a union representing state employees in Alaska.

Families who’ve lost loved ones at a senior-living residence in Atlanta have accused the facility of failing to protect its residents, alleging it allowed events and group meals to continue even as family visits were curtailed.

Jodi Gill, a criminal justice professor at Penn State University, is the named plaintiff in a class-action suit brought against Pennsylvania’s health department for what she says is its failure to properly monitor the state’s nursing homes, including the facility – Brighton Rehabilitation and Wellness Center in Beaver, Pennsylvania – where her 81-year-old father lives. Nursing homes there have recorded 60 deaths due to the virus, according to state data.

A devout man in Washington state, home to the country’s first confirmed case of the novel coronavirus, sued its governor for setting policies that prohibit the small weekly Bible study he hosts at his home.

Other claims focus on voting rights and the potential expansion of absentee balloting. As it gets closer to the November general election, there are likely to be new petitions seeking judicial intervention, citing quandaries and concerns over access to the polls.

In California, customers have gone after a yoga studio and a massage parlor. A ski resort chain based in Denver also has been sued in the Golden State.

A number of class actions have been filed, including against Ticketmaster for its handling of canceled live events. One suit alleges the box office behemoth, and its parent company Live Nation, “sought to force their customers to bear the brunt of their own shortsightedness,” according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Disrupted travel accounts for several claims. The nation’s major airlines – now on life support, dependent on billions in government relief funds – have been sued over policies preventing customers from obtaining cash refunds for travel that never transpired because of the pandemic.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has indicated he intends to address protections for businesses when the Senate reconvenes next week. “Our response,” McConnell said, “must not be slowed, weakened, or exploited to set up the biggest trial lawyer bonanza in history.”

Michael Murdoch was employed as a millwright for Siemens Industry on a construction project at SFO. He was working on a baggage conveyor belt cutting a metal side guard. The conveyor began moving unexpectedly, pulling Murdoch into an opening, where he remained stuck until he was able to pull himself out.

In May 2012, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against respondent Brock Solutions for negligence and loss of consortium. The complaint alleged that Brock was the subcontractor responsible for “the design, installation, and programming of the computerized system” that controlled the baggage conveyor system Murdoch was working on when he was injured.

The case was tried in 2014. The jury determined Brock and Siemens were negligent, and their negligence was a substantial factor in plaintiffs’ injuries. The jury awarded plaintiffs $3,895,220, comprised of $2,395,220 in economic damages and $1,500,000 in non-economic damages. The jury allocated 80 percent of the fault to Murdoch, 10 percent to Brock, and 10 percent to Siemens. The court reduced the economic damages by Murdoch’s percentage of fault, and offset settlement payments and workers’ comtpensation benefits Murdoch received before trial.

Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, arguing the jury’s apportionment of fault was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, concluding Brock’s liability “was significant and in excess of the 10% that the jury apportioned.” Brock appealed and plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal. In Murdoch I, this court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for a new trial.

Following a second trial, the jury found that Brock was negligent, but that the negligence was not a substantial factor in causing Murdoch’s injury. In July 2018, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Brock. Murdoch appealed, but the judgment was affirmed in the unpublished case of Murdoch v Brock Solutions.

During the second trial, Murdoch testified that he agreed “the most important rule for anybody working on top of energized equipment is lockout, tagout.” He admitted he had failed to lockout the conveyor belt on the day of the accident at SFO because he thought a Bass Electric employee had done so.

The trial court did not err in permitting a retrial on damages. In their motion for a new trial following the 2014 verdict, plaintiffs requested a new trial rather than a trial only on liability. The August 2014 court order granting the motion did not limit the new trial to the liability issue. Neither did the March 2017 decision of this court affirming the trial court limit the issues on retrial. On April 4, 2018, the eve of the April 9 scheduled trial, plaintiffs unsuccessfully moved in limine to limit the retrial to liability only.

Plaintiffs argue the trial court abused its discretion in allowing evidence regarding Murdoch’s workers compensation benefits, which, they argue, “was offered to argue that Mr. Murdoch’s injuries were not serious based upon his failure to obtain medical care from collateral sources.”

However, plaintiffs cite to no portion of the hearing on the motions in limine where they argued that, if the trial court allowed retrial on damages, the court should exclude evidence regarding Murdoch’s workers compensation benefits due to the collateral source rule.

The Trump administration has tightened restrictions on the use of ethanol in hand sanitizer, citing safety concerns and forcing some suppliers to halt sales at a time of soaring demand, according to sources and documents seen by Reuters.

The crackdown is meant to protect consumers from potentially dangerous impurities in hand sanitizer, but could worsen shortages at a time when households, hospitals and nursing homes need sanitizer to fight the coronavirus pandemic.

The restrictions have dealt a blow to ethanol producers. The industry has invested millions of dollars since last month to ramp up the output of corn-based alcohol sanitizer to offset slumping fuel demand.

Ethanol production has fallen to a record low of 537,000 barrels per day and halved from month-ago levels as gasoline demand has slumped. Fuel demand has dropped by roughly 30% worldwide due to stay-at-home orders.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on April 15 issued limits on certain chemicals permitted in alcohol-based hand sanitizer, updating temporary guidance it adopted last month as the health crisis deepened and more manufacturers registered to produce hand sanitizer.

Since then, the FDA has notified several ethanol companies that their product does not meet safety standards, forcing them to halt production and cancel supply agreements, according to a source familiar with the matter. The source requested anonymity to speak candidly about the situation.

In one case, the FDA said it had found significant levels of the carcinogen acetaldehyde in ethanol supplied by a company for use in hand sanitizer, according to a recent email exchange seen by Reuters.

“FDA has reviewed your ethanol data and determined that it is not acceptable as an ingredient under the Agency’s temporary hand sanitizer policies,” it wrote.

The FDA told Reuters it decided to update the guidance after reviewing ingredient data supplied by ethanol companies and fielding multiple questions from companies seeking clarification about its temporary production policies.

The agency said in a statement it was committed to “working with manufacturers, compounders, state boards of pharmacy and the public to increase the supply of alcohol-based hand sanitizer available to Americans.”

The FDA did not immediately respond to a request for details on the number of ethanol companies it had notified for failing to meet its April 15 guidance. Its move has drawn criticism from suppliers who say it should further ease its safety standards to ensure hand sanitizer is widely available during the coronavirus outbreak.