Tag: 2021 News

Limin Gao filed an Application for Adjudication, alleging a psyche injury while employed by Chevron from May 2, 2014 to July 2, 2015.

The matter proceeded to trial on March 10, 2020. Gao provided in-person testimony, both direct and on cross-examination, flying in from her current residence in Ontario, Canada in order to do so.

Because the trial could not be completed in one session, the trial was continued to June 9, 2020, with in-person testimony contemplated from several defense witnesses.

In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, WCAB District Offices stopped conducting in-person trials as of March 16, 2020. Beginning May 4, 2020, WCAB District Offices began to hear trials on the case-in-chief remotely, via phone link.

On May 7, 2020, the State of California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, issued Executive Order N-63-20 which essentially suspended the requirement that a witness testify in person under certain conditions and circumstances.

As the June 9, 20201 trial date approached, the parties made clear they had very different ideas about how the case should proceed. Applicant favored proceeding via remote testimony, while defendant objected, requesting a continuance until in-person testimony could be elicited from its three rebuttal witnesses.

The WCJ issued the Order Continuing September 1, 2020 Trial, stating that due process required continuing the trial to allow for in-person testimony from defendant’s witnesses, because applicant had previously given in-person testimony. Limin Gao Petitioned for Removal to have the WCAB rule on the legality of the WCJ order continuing the hearing. The panel reversed and remanded in the significant panel decision of Limin Gao v Chevron Corporation.

The WCAB ruled that “each case must be resolved according to its own particular circumstances, and it would therefore be inappropriate to institute a blanket rule that it is per se unreasonable to continue a case to allow for in-person testimony.”

“However, in consideration of Executive Order N-63-20, the purposes of the workers’ compensation system, and current conditions, the default position should be that trials proceed remotely, in the absence of some clear reason why the facts of a specific case require a continuance. Moreover, as the party seeking the continuance, the burden should be on defendant in this case to demonstrate why a continuance is required.”

Distribution of the COVID vaccines, which in California is done in several phases and prioritizes first doses for health care workers and people at risk of becoming severely ill from the virus, has lagged other jurisdictions by a considerable margin.

Nationwide, about 6.7 million Americans have received a vaccine dose according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC has projected that close to 90 million people will be vaccinated by March, still under one third of Americans and far less than the 70% officials say is needed to reach herd immunity.

In California, vaccine rollout has been beset by a number of issues that bring into focus challenges that come with such a gargantuan effort.California has received just over 2 million vaccine doses but only administered about 652,000 of them as of Jan. 8.

Vaccine doses are also lower than anticipated, with officials estimating they won’t have enough doses to immunize “most” residents of its 58 counties until the summer.

Lags are also tied to ultra-low temperature storage requirements for the Pfizer vaccine, a shortage of vaccination sites and staff to administer doses and a delay in setting up systems to track who is immunized and where they live.

The Golden State has the nation’s highest total of people infected with Covid-19, with more than 2.5 million cases. As of Jan. 7, health departments statewide have reported 73,862 positive cases among health care workers and 276 deaths.

California recently told local health departments and providers to expand vaccine eligibility by offering doses to community health and testing site workers, public health field staff and dental clinic and pharmacy personnel.

More than 586,000 health care workers in California have received the first dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, according to state data.

The new guidance also says once demand has subsided from the first priority group, doses should be allocated to people age 75 and older, childcare workers, staff in emergency response and food service and educators.

Los Angeles County, where about 1 in 5 people being tested for Covid-19 are currently testing positive, is the largest from a cluster of Southern California counties that has received about 256,000 doses from the state, the largest quantity of any region. The area includes Orange, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.

Still, there aren’t enough vaccine doses currently available to immunize even half of the county population by spring, Dr. Paul Simon, chief science officer at LA County’s Department of Public Health, said Friday.

The county said in a statement Friday it opened 19 vaccination sites this week and will open 75 more by next week.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis in March, the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) has worked hard to ensure the continuity of its services to the workers’ compensation community. District offices continue to hear all cases either via teleconference or by video.

In an additional measure to keep DWC and the workers’ compensation community safe, DWC has not accepted any walk-in documents or walk-through documents since March. Documents have only been accepted via e-filing, JET filing or by mail during this time. Recently, DWC issued a Newsline further encouraging the workers’ compensation community to file documents by e-filing or JET filing due to the limited availability of staff in our district offices.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) recently issued an en banc decision suspending Regulation Section 10789(c) on walk-throughs. This change allows DWC, effective January 11, to now offer a “walk-through alternative” in the Lifesize video conferencing platform. Instructions on using that platform may be found on the DWC website.

District offices will be available for walk-throughs Monday through Friday, from 2 to 4 p.m. only. Walk-throughs will be available only for a Compromise and Release, or Stipulation with Request for Award at this time. To be heard, the documents must be filed at least 24 hours ahead of the walk-through appearance, by either JET filing or e-filing. Documents filed by U.S. mail must be available to the judge in EAMS prior to the walk-through.

DWC has previously posted instructions on how to e-file settlement documents. The walk-through procedure will be handled via the Lifesize virtual courtroom which will be available for each office. A list of links for each office may be found here. The link for each virtual walk-through courtroom will not change. It should be noted that a judge will handle as many walk-throughs as are feasible for the day. The order in which a judge will hear the walk-throughs will be up to the judge handling that day’s matters. We encourage parties to file proposed orders to assist the judge with handling the matter more expeditiously.

DWC understands that parties may want to walk-through other documents. However, at this time walk-throughs are limited to only a Compromise and Release or Stipulation with Request for Award. Limits will be based on both availability and pursuant to the DWC/WCAB Policy and Procedural Manual section 1.25.

DWC will be monitoring the impact of this program and will look to expand hours and documents allowed in the future based on staffing availability.

Exceltox, a California diagnostic laboratory located in Irvine California, has agreed to pay $357,584 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by submitting or causing to be submitted claims for genetic tests to Medicare without valid physician oversight..

Between September 2015 to November 2015, Exceltox used the services of contractor Seth Rehfuss, of Somerset, New Jersey, who persuaded groups of senior citizens in senior housing complexes to submit to genetic testing, despite applicable Medicare rules requiring proper orders from a treating physician for such tests.

Exceltox, in turn, submitted claims for payment to Medicare for Rehfuss’ genetic tests performed without valid physician oversight.

Rehfuss previously pleaded guilty in Trenton federal court to a superseding information charging him with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and was sentenced in May 2019 to 50 months in prison.

Exceltox was also connected with the prosecution of a Bakersfield physician in 2019, Jason Helliwell, who was at the time on probation by the state medical board for negligent patient care and sex with patients, faced criminal allegations of billing fraud.

Helliwell and two others were charged Sept. 4 2019, in a 31-count criminal complaint alleging a fraudulent medical billing scheme, according to the complaint filed by the Kern County District Attorney’s Office.

The complaint alleges that Helliwell, 47, conspired with Brandon Williams, 40, a sales representative for Irvine-based Exceltox toxicology lab, and Tamara Head, 53, owner of Rosedale Medical Billing Solution, to charge insurance companies for medically unnecessary treatment. The alleged fraud in the complaint dates back to 2010 and occurred as recently as 2016.

The schemes alleged in the DA’s complaint and investigative reports involve Helliwell ordering unnecessary blood and urine tests for patients for which Head is accused of fraudulently charging insurance companies. Helliwell received kickbacks from Williams, whose lab performed some of the testing, for the samples.

Reports state that Helliwell would collect urine samples from patients for lead and mercury testing and would “surreptitiously” order additional testing for illicit drugs without the patient’s knowledge.

Helliwell was given $20 to $25 per patient sample by the toxicology lab, former employees told an investigator, and the lab also paid for a personal medical assistant for Helliwell, according to reports.

Helliwell also ordered testing on an in-house blood allergy machine for patients who didn’t complain of allergy symptoms, the reports said.

Emails obtained between Helliwell and Head indicated the two worked together to bill insurance companies for services not provided to patients, to bill under other doctor’s names and to manipulate billing to receive higher reimbursements, the reports said.

The discovery was made as part of a joint investigation with the California Department of Insurance, according to Kern County Deputy District Attorney Joseph Kinzel.

Courthouse News reports that the pharmaceutical industry’s effort to block California’s requirement that drug companies publicly notify and explain major price increases has stalled, with a federal judge ruling the landmark transparency law does not violate the First Amendment.

Siding with the state, a U.S. District Judge rejected an industry group’s arguments that the 2017 bill infringes drugmakers’ free speech and regulates interstate commerce. Noting the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) willingly bypassed discovery and pushed for summary judgment, the court found the group’s case plainly underdeveloped and unfit for market.

“There are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether providing advance notice of certain increases in a prescription drug’s wholesale acquisition cost results in either direct or extraterritorial regulation,” the judge explained while denying the group’s facial challenge. “Ultimately, PhRMA has not met its burden in showing that Senate Bill 17 violates the dormant Commerce Clause on its face.”

Hoping to force the industry to explain sudden increases to Californians, a bipartisan group of lawmakers approved the transparency bill in 2017. Then-Governor Jerry Brown quickly signed the bill, saying the public deserved more information on medication costs with “pharmaceutical profits soaring.”

Supported by an influential coalition of California unions and health care groups, SB 17 requires drug companies to give the state and insurers at least 60 days’ notice before planned price increases of more than 16% over a two-year period. It also forces insurance companies to file yearly reports with state regulators outlining the impact of medicine costs on health care premiums.

Additional reporting requirements include annual reports to regulators by health plans and insurers with specified information related to the proportion of the premium dollar spent on prescription drugs, the year-over-year increase in net costs and member costs, the 25 most frequently prescribed medications, most costly drugs by total plan spending, and drugs with the highest year over year increase in net cost.

The law also tasks regulators with compiling the information into a consumer-friendly report showing the overall impact of drug costs on health care premiums.

Shortly after its passage, the industry responded with its lawsuit in the Eastern District of California, arguing the state was picking on drug manufacturers and ignoring the underlying reasons for spiking costs.

In court, the group contended the advance-notice requirement effectively triggers a “60-day nationwide price freeze” by preventing manufacturers from increase a drug’s wholesale acquisition cost or list price. It also claimed SB 17 interferes with Medicaid reimbursement schemes enacted in other states.

“That is unconstitutional,” the group claimed in court papers. “The Commerce Clause does not permit a single state to ‘project its legislation into other states by regulating the price to be paid for drugs in those states.’”

Following the defeat, the group’s public affairs director hinted an appeal was likely.

“Our position remains that SB 17 is unconstitutional. We will continue to make that case,” said Nick McGee in an email.