Tag: 2024 News

The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) is the primary national trade association for home, auto, and business insurers. APCIA promotes and protects the viability of private competition for the benefit of consumers and insurers, with a legacy dating back 150 years. APCIA members represent all sizes, structures, and regions—protecting families, communities, and businesses in the U.S. and across the globe.

The APCIA just announced special award winners among the 2024 Class of Emerging Leaders during the Emerging Leaders Conference in San Antonio, Texas. This year, 13 individuals were recognized among a class of 201 insurance professionals with an award for their exceptional work and outstanding impact in 2023.

“I am thrilled to congratulate the exceptional industry leaders who were honored with awards at this year’s Emerging Leaders Conference,” said David A. Sampson, president and CEO of APCIA. “It is a privilege for APCIA to recognize the industry’s top talent and provide meaningful opportunities for networking and professional development. I also want to congratulate the entire 2024 Class of Emerging Leaders for being nominated and selected to participate in this prestigious conference.”

The awards announced during the 2024 Emerging Leaders Conference include: Business Excellence Award; Business Impact Award; Business Leadership Award; Exceptional Philanthropic Impact Award; Innovation Leadership Award; Leadership Award; Outstanding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Leadership Award; and Talent Leadership Award.

“This year’s winners reflect the innovation and collaboration of the industry’s best and brightest future leaders,” said Marguerite Tortorello, managing director of the Insurance Careers Movement. “The diverse categories of awards also demonstrate the significant impact the winners are having across their organization and in their community through their leadership.”

“The stellar 2024 Class of Emerging Leaders included rising stars from 80 different companies,” said Jessica Hanson Hanna, APCIA’s senior vice president of public affairs. “The incredible participation in this elite conference demonstrates a true commitment among the industry to recognize and cultivate talent. I want to congratulate the award winners for their special and well-deserved recognition.”

Class of 2024 Emerging Leaders Award Winners

– – Business Excellence Award: Michelle Page, The Hartford
– – Business Impact Award: Mukund Nair, CSAA Insurance Group and Kenji Swepson, Everest
– – Business Leadership Award: Joe Alessi, Universal Shield Insurance Group, Enjonli Hutchison, Amerisure Insurance and Craig Woodworth, Argo Group
– – Exceptional Philanthropic Impact Award: Megan Williams, Auto Club Group
– – Innovation Leadership Award: Wendy Coffing, Great American Insurance Group, Jonathan Macenski, Ally Insurance, and Glen Norton, Illinois Casualty Company
– – Outstanding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Leadership Award: Shameem Awan, Amica Mutual Group and Sandra Polanco, Zurich North America
– – Talent Leadership Award: Jon O’Camb, ERIE Insurance Group.

The Emerging Leaders Conference provides candid insights by industry executives, networking, and tools and resources for emerging leaders to succeed in this fast-changing world. After the Emerging Leaders Conference, the rising stars will join their fellow alumni in serving as ambassadors for the industry and in helping expand career opportunities in insurance.

The Association of Independent Judicial Interpreters of California (AIJIC) is a nonprofit trade association that represents the voice of independent court interpreters in California in matters that have, or could have, a significant impact on the independent interpreting profession in the private sector.Its principal office located in Studio City, Los Angeles County, California.

One Call Corporation dba One Call, One Call Care management, and/or One Call Care Transport & Translate is a corporation registered with the Florida Secretary of State, with its principal office located in Jacksonville, California. ONE CALL provides care coordination services to the workers’ compensation industry, which services include providing interpreters. Interpretation services which are provided nationwide.

On January 31, 2024, AIJIC sued One Call in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The lawsuit stems from allegations of multiple cases of identity theft of court interpreters’ names and credentials in Workers Compensation depositions.

The AIJIC lawsuit was brought pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code sections17200 et seq., to enjoin defendants from unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices and false advertising.

The plaintiffs allege One Call employs individuals and businesses that are impersonating certified court interpreters in California worker’s compensation cases, resulting in harm to workers alleging industrial injuries who cannot proficiently speak or understand English, However AIJIC alleges that One Call “has publicly disseminated untrue or misleading statements and advertising as regards the company’s ability to provide certified interpreters for worker’s compensation cases.”

AIJIC also alleges on “numerous occasions, individuals employed by defendants appeared in California worker’s compensation cases, and these individuals have falsely impersonated certified California interpreters. Some of these individuals have falsely impersonated certified California interpreters in more than one instance.” And that “defendants not only impersonated others, but these individuals also were not certified to interpret in California for worker’s compensation proceedings.”

The lawsuit goes on to allege that “On or about December 1, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to ONE CALL to inform it that California certified interpreters were being impersonated by unknown individuals employed through ONE CALL at Zoom depositions based in California. This letter, which was supported by sworn declarations from court reporters and impersonated interpreters, identified nine specific instances where impersonations had occurred in 2021 and 2022.”

“ONE CALL responded by stating it would no longer do business with the individuals or contractors who had provided interpreters for the Zoom depositions addressed in the December 1, 2022 letter. ONE CALL, however, refused to identify any of the individuals or contractors by name.”

However AIJIC continues to allege that “ONE CALL again employed one of the individuals previously involved in impersonating certified California interpreters. On this occasion, the individual appeared for a pre- deposition meeting with a worker and his attorney. On or about July 14, 2023, Plaintiff notified ONE CALL of this impersonation and asked that the impersonator’s true name be provided. ONE CALL did not respond to Plaintiff’s request.”

“Since July 14, 2023, individuals employed through ONE CALL and/or DOE defendants have continued to appear in California worker’s compensation cases, and these individuals have falsely impersonated others in their official capacity as certified California interpreters. In some instances, these individuals also have provided fake Judicial Council of California badges bearing the names of the certified court interpreters they were impersonating “

Plaintiff seeks “an accounting of all defendants for any and all profits derived by defendants from their business acts and practices in violation of the UCL” among other relief.;

One Call will have 30 days from the date they are served with this lawsuit to respond, and the parties will then conduct discovery followed by law and motion activities.

This lawsuit has now had nationwide attention in the media including Bloomberg Law and the Daily Journal in California.

A seven-person jury in Syracuse, New York returned a verdict to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The jury awarded $1.675 million to Shelley Valentino, a deaf individual, who unsuccessfully applied for two positions in McLane’s warehouse located in Lysander, N.Y., for which she was fully qualified. The facility employs approximately 650 people and distributes products to retail businesses throughout the Northeast.

On March 12, 2018, Valentino applied online for two open positions with Defendant: Warehouse Selector II and Warehouse Selector IV. Her application indicated two prior work experiences: working as a hostess and busser at Plainville Restaurant between August 2007 and July 2008, and as a filing and data entry clerk between January and October 2003. Her resume indicated that she received her GED in 2005, a certification in medical billing and coding in 2011, and an associate degree in health information technology in 2016. Valentino’s application nowhere indicates that she has any disability or requires any accommodation.

McLane contacted her the same day she applied for the two jobs, and left a message. She then returned McLane’s call using a Telecommunications Relay Service, which uses an operator to facilitate calls for people with hearing and speech disabilities. After being contacted via the Relay Service, McLane did not return her call and rejected her application the next day. McLane filled the positions with individuals who are not hearing impaired. The reason given in the applicant tracking system was that Valentino did not meet the company’s preferred qualifications.

McLane received a total of 208 applications for the Warehouse Selector II position and hired 15 individuals. Similarly, they received 209 applications for the Warehouse Selector IV position and hired eight individuals.

The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (EEOC v. McLane/Eastern, Inc. d/b/a McLane Northeast, Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-01628-BKS-ML) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC sought back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for the applicant, as well as injunctive relief designed to remedy and prevent future disability discrimination in the hiring process.

In January 2023, the court heard a motion for summary judgment filed by McLane, who pointed out that courts regularly dismiss ADA disability discrimination claims where the plaintiff cannot establish that the employer had knowledge of the plaintiff’s disability, on the ground that such a plaintiff cannot establish the causation element of a prima facie case. An employer “cannot be liable under the ADA for firing an employee when it indisputably had no knowledge of the disability,” because an employer cannot take an adverse action with respect to an employee or applicant “because of a disability unless it knows of the disability.”

“[A] plaintiff alleging discrimination on account of his protected status must offer evidence that a decision-maker was personally aware of his protected status to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” Murray v. Cerebral Palsy Ass’ns of N.Y., Inc., No. 16-cv-662, 2018 WL 264112, at *7, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213553, at *19-20 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2018) ( other citations omitted).

McLane argued that the evidence “plainly demonstrates” that it had no knowledge of Valentino’s deafness when her applications were rejected, because (1) Defendant’s Human Resources Manager, Anne Orr – the decisionmaker -testified that she did not know Valentino is deaf until Valentino filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in August 2018; (2) the other three members of the Human Resources Department testified that they were not aware of Valentino’s disability at the relevant time, did not speak to Valentino on the phone or recall a TRS call, and played no role in the hiring process; and (3) Valentino herself never expressly informed Defendant of her disability and does not know for sure whether the TRS operator did so.

The Court denied the motion for summary judgment, concluding that there is evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Defendant had knowledge of Valentino’s disability at the time it decided not to interview or hire her in March 2018, based on the transcript of the March 12 Telecommunications Relay Service, that someone in McLane’s HR department received.

After a 3 ½-day trial, the jury found, following just two hours of deliberation, that McLane Northeast violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by first refusing to interview Valentino, once the company learned that the candidate was disabled. Then the company further violated the ADA by refusing to hire the candidate for the two entry-level warehouse jobs that she applied for, the EEOC.

The jury awarded Valentino $25,000 in back pay, $150,000 in emotional distress damages, and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

Caitlin Brown, one of the EEOC trial attorneys who litigated the case, said, “The jury clearly understood that what McLane did here was wrong ” Deaf applicants, and all applicants with disabilities, deserve a fair chance to get jobs to enable them to support themselves and their families.”

Lien claimant San Diego Imaging, Inc., dba California Imaging Solutions filed a lien for services rendered to Applicant Jose Abrego who claimed injuries while he was employed by Tri-State Employment who was insured by Lumbermen’s Underwriting.

It was undisputed that all dates of service of the lien were initially paid, in part, by Lumbermen’s Underwriting. When Lumbermen’s went into liquidation and CIGA took over the case, California Imaging re-submitted its bill of its alleged balance to CIGA.

A lien trial was set on August 14, 2023, and September 20, 2023 regarding the sole issue of the alleged balance of California Imaging’s lien.

California Imaging attempted to prove its claim for the balance of it’s lien with an unauthenticated, partial market survey. The Market Survey Analysis was identified as Lien Claimant Exhibit 10 at trial and objected to by Defendant for lack of foundation and as non-substantial evidence. It was however admitted into evidence over the Defendant’s objection.

California Imaging argued that it should be paid its lien balance, based solely on an in-house created Market Rate Analysis. In this case, Lumbermen’s paid the lien claimant’s bills in excess of the current fee schedule, which fee schedule was operative shortly thereafter on July 1, 2015. Lien claimant acknowledges receiving the EOB/EOR(s) statements for its invoices, within its objections to Lumbermen’s thereto.

California Imaging attached an Affidavit of Yvette Padilla to its Market Rate Analysis. Ms. Padilla is identified in California Imaging’s Petition for Reconsideration as its Collection Supervisor. The Affidavit of Ms. Padilla states that, “On January 30, 2020, I compiled the following report by retrieving data from California Imaging Solutions internal database. For convenience only the first 5 pages of the report are included, and the rest of the report is available upon request.” Thus, the Market Rate Analysis was an unauthenticated, incomplete document.

Also, California Imaging submitted its invoices, which did not include dates of service and detail multiple charges, fees and costs which were unexplained and incomprehensible. “Further, without a witness to authenticate its documentary evidence, Defendant is denied its due process right of cross-examination.”

On November 2, 2023 the WCJ found that lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proving that (1) it is entitled to an additional monetary payment from CIGA; and (2) its lien was reasonable and necessary. and ordered that lien claimant take nothing.

Reconsideration was denied, for the reasons stated in the WCJ Report, in the panel decision of Jose Abrego v Tri-State Employment -ADJ8995855-ADJ10748640-ADJ10749649 (January, 2024).

The court in Ashely Colamonico v. Secure Transportation (2019 Cal.Wrk.Comp.LEXIS 111; 84 Cal.Comp.Cases 1059)(en banc)) states that, “a lien claimant is required to establish that: 1) a contested claim existed at the time the expenses were incurred; 2) the expenses were incurred for the purpose of proving or disproving the contested claim; and 3) the expenses were reasonable and necessary at the time they were incurred.”

Pursuant to Labor Code §4620(a); §4621(a), the lien claimant must prove the medical-legal expense was reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred [See §§3205.5, 5705; Colamonico, supra; Torres v. AJC Sandblasting (2012) 77 Cal.Comp.Cases 1113, 1115 [2012 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 160] (Appeals Board en banc).

Any award, order or decision of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record (Labor Code §5952(d); Lamb v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274,280 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]. It is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion – It must be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value (Braewood Convalescent Hospital v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Bolton) (1983) 34 Cal.3d 159,164 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 566].

California Imaging’s Market Analysis was not substantial evidence, in light of the entire record. This is the only document that lien claimant relied upon to substantiate its alleged balance of $3,840.29. The lien claimant did not prove that its balance was reasonable or necessary.

UCSF Health has signed a definitive agreement with Dignity Health to acquire Saint Francis Memorial Hospital and St. Mary’s Medical Center, along with associated outpatient clinics in San Francisco. The organization hopes to close the transaction in spring 2024.

Building on decades of collaboration between the organizations, the acquisition ensures that two of San Francisco’s longest-serving community hospitals – and the unique services they provide – remain accessible to San Franciscans.

“St. Mary’s and Saint Francis have a proud history of providing comprehensive health care in San Francisco,” said Suresh Gunasekaran, president and chief executive officer of UCSF Health. “This is an opportunity to honor that legacy, expanding access and enhancing care for our neighbors while reinforcing UCSF Health’s deep commitment to our hometown.”

UCSF Health has committed to maintaining Saint Francis and St. Mary’s existing services, ensuring patients have convenient local access for their primary and specialty care needs. UCSF Health has also committed to retention of the employees of both hospitals. Preserving these historic hospitals will keep patients connected with their care providers and maintain vital services like the Bothin Burn Center, the Gender Institute, the McAuley Adolescent Psychiatric Unit, and the Sister Mary Philippa Health Center at a time when communities are losing health care options.

“Saint Francis Memorial Hospital and St. Mary’s Medical Center have cared for the most vulnerable among us and offered specialized services not available at any other local care sites,” said Dr. Richard Podolin, cardiologist and chair, Dignity Health St. Mary’s Medical Center Community Board. “The transition of ownership and investment by UCSF Health will ensure these hospitals carry this legacy forward, providing access to high-quality, patient-centered care and services to all San Franciscans.”

Saint Francis and St. Mary’s will retain their open medical staffs, a departure from the faculty-based structure at UCSF Health’s other hospitals. Ensuring local doctors can continue to practice at each location preserves critical, longstanding patient-provider relationships and supports San Francisco’s diverse medical community.

In recognition of their long history of caring for San Franciscans and deep roots in the community, and as the newest addition to the UCSF Health system, the two hospitals’ new names will be UCSF Health Saint Francis Hospital and UCSF Health St. Mary’s Hospital.

UCSF Health plans to build on the strengths of the hospitals, including their dedicated community physicians and employed staff, by expanding key services such as cardiology and surgery in the first year. Initial plans also include bolstering hospital medicine programs and both emergency departments to better support care providers and improve patients’ experience.

Shelby Decosta, president of the UCSF Health Affiliates Network, a longtime UCSF Health leader and Dignity Health alum, will have executive oversight over the two hospitals.

Moving beyond the complex specialty care it is known for, UCSF Health is making a meaningful shift toward incorporating convenient and comprehensive community-based care into its health system. These investments will also open unused bed space in both hospitals for patients who need primary and specialty care in San Francisco.

In the near term, increasing staffing and resources at Saint Francis and St. Mary’s will allow more patients across San Francisco to be seen at the currently under-utilized hospitals and will help UCSF Health see more patients with complex health conditions at its other sites, including the new hospital at Parnassus Heights opening in 2030.

Bringing Saint Francis and St. Mary’s into the health system also expands access to UCSF Health’s internationally renowned experts and highly specialized, innovative care. Connecting both hospitals’ community-based care with the clinical excellence of UCSF Health’s academic medical center will help enhance already strong patient outcomes, quality and safety.

Consistently ranked as one of the top hospitals in the United States, UCSF Medical Center was named to the Honor Roll of the nation’s best hospitals by U.S. News & World Report for 2023-2024. The medical center was also listed among the country’s top 10 hospitals in seven specialties: neurology/neurosurgery, geriatric care, psychiatry, cancer, autoimmune disorders, pulmonology/lung surgery, and ophthalmology.