Tag: 2019 News

64 year old Bruce Richard Senator,, was arrested in September 2006 after authorities read transcripts of emails and signed court affidavits where he complained that a wide conspiracy among judges and other government employees resulted in his workers compensation benefits being denied.

“I acquiesce to the use of force to punish the state of California for engaging in atrocities, violence and terrorism,: Senator wrote in one affidavit signed on July 4, 2006. … “The game is over. You lose.”

Deputy District Attorney Andre Manssourian argued that workers compensation judges William Whitely and Norman Delaterre – who handled Senator’s workers’ compensation case at one time or another – felt personally threatened by Senator and suffered “sustained fear.”

The Stanton California resident, who served as his own attorney during a two-week criminal jury trial in 2007, was convicted.

He fought that conviction, and the subsequent incarceration through the court system at least up until July 2017, when the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeal denied his appeal of the denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

In a 2013 Order to Show Cause RE: Vexatious Litigant, it was alleged that he had initiated approximately 26 civil actions in the Central District of California since 1999. “None of these actions has resulted in a judgment favorable to plaintiff. Moreover, many of them were dismissed as patently frivolous or for failure to state a claim.”

He has now again been accused of threatening five Orange County Superior Court judges. He pleaded not guilty to the charges last week in Orange County Superior court.

The nature of how the alleged threat was conveyed was not immediately known.

Some of the first of several trials against opioid drugmakers and distributors were set for trial this year to determine how juries would react to the charges. Others remain under the supervision of the federal court system.

It was assumed that the defendants would not budge on settlement. That assumption has proven to be wrong as now drug distributor McKesson Corp has agreed to pay $37 million to resolve a lawsuit by the state of West Virginia seeking to hold it responsible for contributing to the opioid epidemic, the state’s attorney general said on Thursday. The West Virginia accord may set an industry-favoring benchmark for other claims.

The McKesson settlement comes more than a month after Purdue agreed to pay $270 million to resolve the Oklahoma attorney general’s lawsuit alleging the drug maker of fueling the opioid crisis in the state. Oklahoma is pushing ahead with a May trial against Johnson & Johnson and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., which are accused of fueling a wave of overdoses tied to opioid painkillers.

The settlement was the largest that a distributor has struck with a state in the litigation. West Virginia in 2017 settled similar cases against rival distributors Cardinal Health Inc and AmerisourceBergen Corp for $20 million and $16 million, respectively.

McKesson did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement. “McKesson is committed to working with others to end this national crisis … and is pleased that the settlement provides funding toward initiatives intended to address the opioid epidemic,” the company said in a statement.

Opioids, including prescription painkillers, heroin and fentanyl, were involved in a record 47,600 overdose deaths in 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The epidemic has prompted lawsuits by state and local governments accusing drug manufacturers like Purdue Pharma of deceptively marketing opioids and distributors like McKesson of failing to detect the diversion of the drugs for illicit purposes.

McKesson in January 2017 agreed to pay $150 million to resolve a federal investigation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration into whether it failed to report suspicious orders of addictive painkillers.

Gordon and Rees reported that effective April 1, the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) is equipped to accept electronic payments for Medicare conditional payment reimbursements.

Answers to common inquiries were subsequently released by CMS on April 12, 2019 called “Electronic Payments on the Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Portal (MSPRP) and Commercial Repayment Center Portal (CRCP) Frequently Asked Questions and Answers.” Such functionality was originally referenced in the Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers (SMART) Act of 2012.

In the alert, CMS specifically indicated that to make an electronic payment through the MSPRP, one does not need a new or updated user access. The option is available to any user on any matter to which the user already has access.

Payments are not required to be made through the MSPRP. Payers may continue to remit a paper check to satisfy Medicare conditional payment demands. However, any refund issued by the Medicare recovery contractor will still be made via paper check and will not be made electronically, to date.

In order to make an electronic payment through the MSPRP, the matter to which you wish to apply payment must be in “demand” status. There is no option to remit payment electronically unless the amount has been demanded.

Therefore, if payment is desired to be made on a Conditional Payment Notice instead of a Demand for Reimbursement, a written check still must be mailed to the CRC/BCRC for application to the claim.

Furthermore, CMS clarifies that when paying online, this does not mean that the full demand amount must be paid. If a Redetermination Request has been submitted on a portion of the conditional payments being asserted, a user can still submit a partial electronic payment.

Finally, CMS reported that the electronic payments utilize Pay.gov to secure the transaction, where payments can be made utilizing a savings/check account, debit card, or PayPal linked to a bank account. Credit cards, however, are not being accepted for payment at present. Also, the limit for each payment method is posted, as well.

Once payment has been made. a confirmation of payment will be posted to the MSPRP on the Payment Status page. Additionally, an Electronic Payment History status will list the status of all electronic payments, as well as the amount and payment date.

In summary, the new electronic payment system appears to streamline the payment process significantly, with much quicker application times and updates to the portal.

The U.S. Justice Department has joined a pair of whistleblower lawsuits alleging a drugmaker now owned by Mallinckrodt Plc improperly promoted an expensive multiple sclerosis treatment and paid kickbacks to doctors who prescribed the drug.

Reuters reports that the lawsuits, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, claimed Questcor Pharmaceuticals, which Mallinckrodt acquired in 2014, defrauded government healthcare programs by illegally marketing H.P. Acthar Gel. Last year, Acthar represented 35 percent of Mallinckrodt’s $3.2 billion in net sales.

Mallinckrodt in a statement said it disagrees with the allegations and has been in “advanced settlement talks with the government over the past several months.”

The lawsuits were filed in 2012 and 2013 by former Questcor employees Charles Strunck and Scott Clark under the False Claims Act, which allows whistleblowers to sue companies on the government’s behalf to recover taxpayer money paid out based on fraudulent claims.

The lawsuits are filed under seal so the government can investigate their claims. The Justice Department following an investigation may intervene in the cases, which is typically a major boost for them.

In his complaint, Strunck alleged Questcor in an effort to boost sales paid doctors illegal kickbacks in the form of bribes, speaker fees and consulting deals in exchange for promoting and prescribing Acthar.

His lawsuit also alleged that Questcor’s sales staff used deceptive and misleading marketing tactics to promote Acthar for uses and treatment regimens not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The Justice Department in court filings in both lawsuits made public on March 11 said it was intervening in the cases and planned to file its own complaint within 90 days. The lawsuits were then unsealed.

Mallinckrodt in January 2017 agreed to pay $100 million to resolve claims that Questcor violated antitrust laws by sharply increasing the price of Acthar while ensuring that no rival medicine appeared on the market.

The California Chamber of Commerce has released its annual Job Killer list, which includes 28 bills that would harm California’s economic growth and job creation should they become law. “These bills represent some of the worst policy proposals affecting California employers and our economy currently being considered by Legislature,” said CalChamber President Allan Zaremberg. Of the 28 bills on this list, those of most concern to employers include:

— AB 51 (Gonzalez; D-San Diego) Ban on Arbitration Agreements – Significantly expands employment litigation and increases costs for employers and employees by banning arbitration agreements made as a condition of employment, which is likely preempted under the Federal Arbitration Act and will only delay the resolution of claims.
— AB 628 (Bonta; D-Oakland) Uncapped New Leave of Absence for Employees and Their Family Members – Significantly expands the definition of sexual harassment under the Labor Code, which is different than the definition in the Government Code, leading to inconsistent implementation of anti-harassment policies, confusion, and litigation. Also, provides an unprecedented, uncapped leave of absence for victims of sexual harassment and their “family members” which is broadly defined.
— AB 673 (Carrillo; D-Los Angeles) Unfair Expansion of Penalties Against an Employer for Alleged Wage Violation – Unfairly exposes an employer to being penalized twice for the same violation, by allowing both an employee and the Labor Commissioner to recover the same civil penalties through civil litigation.
— AB 882 (McCarty; D-Sacramento) Limitation on Ability to Maintain a Safe Workplace. Significantly undermines an employer’s ability to maintain a safe, drug-free workplace, by prohibiting an employer from discharging an employee who has tested positive for a drug that is being used for medical purposes.
— AB 1468 (McCarty; D-Sacramento/Gallagher; R-Yuba City) Targeted Tax on Opioids – Unfairly imposes an excise tax on opioid distributors in California, which will increase their costs and force them to adopt measures that include reducing workforce and increasing drug prices for ill patients who need these medications the most, in order to fund drug prevention and rehabilitation programs that will benefit all of California.
— SB 37 (Skinner; D-Berkeley) Staggering Corporate Tax Hike – For certain companies, SB 37 would raise California’s corporate tax rate – already one of the highest in the nation – up to a staggering 22.26%, which amounts to an increase of about 150% and which will undoubtedly discourage companies from locating or further investing in the state.
— SB 135 (Jackson; D-Santa Barbara) Substantial Expansion of California Family Rights Act – Significantly harms small employers in California with as few as 5 employees by requiring these employers to provide 12 weeks of a protected leave of absence each year, in addition to existing leaves of absences already required, as well as potentially requiring larger employers to provide 10 months of protected leave, with the exposure to costly litigation for any alleged violation.
— SB 567 (Caballero; D-Salinas) Expands Costly Presumption of Injury – Significantly increases workers’ compensation costs for public and private hospitals by presuming certain diseases and injuries are caused by the workplace and establishes an extremely concerning precedent for expanding presumptions into the private sector.

CalChamber will periodically release job killer watch updates as legislation changes. Reporters are encouraged to track the current status of the job killer bills