Tag: 2025 News

The SIBTF is funded through a payroll surcharge levied on all employers, based on a percentage of the premium paid by insured employers, and based on a percentage of indemnity paid during the most recent year for self-insured employers. In 2023, noting rapid increases in the volume of applications and payments for SIBTF benefits, DIR contracted with RAND to “conduct a comprehensive study of the SIBTF.” This report, published in June 2024, identified startling trends concerning the long-term liabilities of the SIBTF and its resulting financial instability.

Insured employers pay roughly $1.4 billion in permanent disability payments. Self-insured employers – private and public – likely add another $500 million to $1 billion. Together, total annual permanent disability payouts under the standard workers’ compensation system likely total about $2 billion. SIBTF, once a relatively small program, now pays more permanent disability payments ($2 billion to $3 billion) than the state’s core workers’ compensation program.

AB 1329 was passed by the legislature with the stated purpose of reforming the SIBTF to reduce costs and the expected deficits in funding. Among other reforms AB1329 would specify that medical-legal evidence in an SIBTF claim proceeding can only be obtained through the QME process, and would require the AD to create and maintain a database of QME physicians with the necessary training and expertise to evaluate SIBTF claims from which to empanel QMEs for these purposes. Unfortunately, Gavin Newsom vetoed the proposed law. His veto letter provided the following reasons to the legislature.

“I am returning Assembly Bill 1329 without my signature. This bill would make assorted changes to the Subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF), a World War II-era program created to protect disabled veterans entering the workforce. Proposed changes include incorporating a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) process, excluding certain medical conditions from the definition of pre-existing disabilities, and adding a statute of limitations on claims.”

“I commend the author for identifying the SIBTF as needing significant reform. Over the past decade, SIBTF has expanded significantly beyond its original purpose. The number of claims has sky rocketed, leading to an unsustainable future for the program. The Deportment of Industrial Relations estimates that, without comprehensive reform, the annual assessment paid by all employers will increase from $372 million in FY 2021-22 to $1.5 billion in FY 2029-30. As the Legislative Analyst’s Office noted in a July 2025 report, workers submitting SIBTF claims today could see processing delays of up to ten years unless we take comprehensive action. Notably, other states, facing similar pressures, have chosen to eliminate their programs rather than reform them. This situation is dire and the state must act immediately.”

“Unfortunately, AB 1329 does not contain the comprehensive reforms necessary to save SIBTF. While some of the changes, such as the proposed QME process and the statute of limitations, are important, other changes take the program in the wrong direction. For example, including the impact on the “activities of daily living” in the determination of a prior disability contradicts the concept that the prior disability must be labor-disabling. This change would increase SIBTF claims and liabilities.”

“To ensure this program continues to serve workers as intended, comprehensive SIBTF reform must be pursued next year. I am directing the Department of Industrial Relations and its Division of Workers’ Compensation to develop a proposal for comprehensive reform to include in January’s 2026-27 budget proposal. I look forward to working with the Legislature to ensure this program continues to serve California workers.”

The California Department of Insurance issued enforcement actions today against Tesla Insurance Services, Inc. and Tesla Insurance Company (Tesla Companies), plus State National Insurance Company (State National), in order to protect consumers after the companies allegedly repeatedly failed in their legal obligations to adequately handle hundreds of California automobile policyholder claims. Tesla Insurance Services, Inc. is an appointed agent for State National, an admitted insurer in California.

Unless these issues are resolved in favor of policyholders beforehand, the companies will be ordered to a hearing before an administrative law judge to determine whether they will be able to maintain their ability to transact insurance business in California as well as face significant monetary penalties.

The actions allege that, despite being repeatedly warned by the Department of Insurance, the Tesla Companies and State National instead chose to abandon their responsibility to consumers and persist with their non-compliant claims-handling practices, placing profits above people and flouting the law with impunity.

After allegedly continuing to receive a significant number of consumer complaints related to the handling of their automobile policyholder claims beginning in 2022, the Department of Insurance repeatedly warned the Tesla Companies and State National of the significant harm to their policyholders — largely Tesla drivers — unless immediate corrective actions were taken.

Throughout numerous meetings with, correspondence between, and reports to the Department of Insurance, the companies repeatedly committed to improvements, but allegedly the number of justified consumer complaints and violations continued to mount.

The Department’s accusations are based on the companies’ ongoing systemic failures and willful unfair claims settlement practices including, but not limited to, the following alleged violations:

– – Egregious delays in responding to policyholder claims in all steps of the claims handling process, causing financial harm, out-of-pocket expenses, potential third-party liability exposure, and distress to policyholders
– – Unreasonable denials and delays in fully paying valid claims to consumers
– – Failure to conduct thorough, fair, and objective investigations of claims, thus denying consumers the insurance benefits they expect
– – Failure to advise policyholders of their rights to have their claims denials reviewed by the Department – a major consumer protection in California to make sure insurers are held accountable by their regulator

The companies have 15 days to respond to the Department’s Accusations and Notices.The companies face monetary penalties up to $5,000 for each unlawful, unfair, or deceptive act, or up to $10,000 for each such act determined to be willful.

In approximately the first quarter of 2022, Tesla Insurance Holdings, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesla, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, acquired control of Balboa Insurance Company, including its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tesla Property & Casualty, Inc. (formerly known as Meritplan Insurance Company) and Tesla General Insurance, Inc. (formerly known as Newport Insurance Company). In approximately the first quarter of 2022, Balboa Insurance Company’s name was changed to Tesla Insurance Company, NAIC number 24813.

As of today (three days after the action was filed), there has not been any public statement, press release, or response from Tesla, Elon Musk, or the Tesla Companies addressing these specific accusations. Searches across news sources, Tesla’s investor relations page, and X (formerly Twitter) posts from official Tesla/Musk accounts yielded no results indicating a reply.

Jennifer Chase filed an application alleging a continuous trauma injury to multiple orthopedic body parts, sustained from November 30, 2016 through January 10, 2019 for the orthopedic injuries – later amended to include psyche injuries – while employed by defendant as a regional sales manager for Southern Implants of North America.

She sought reconsideration of the Findings & Award (“F&A”) issued on June 20, 2025 by the WCJ who found that she did not sustain a psychiatric injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

The WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration and issued a Notice of Intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500.00 jointly and severally against applicant’s attorneys Ghitterman, Ghitterman & Feld and Anton Diffenderfer (CAL BAR #229171). A final decision on the merits of the petition was deferred pending resolution of the issue of sanctions in the case of Jennifer Chase v Southern Implants of North America -ADJ12865802 (September 2025).

The WCAB noted in its Opinion that with the exception of Hegglin, each of the citations it quoted as having been made by applicant attorneys were ” flawed in significant ways, and in two cases, the citations appear to entirely fabricated.”

The Opinion went on to specify that “In rough order of egregiousness, the proper citation for the 1975 case Patterson v. WCAB is 53 Cal.App.3d 916; the Petition’s given citation, 40 Cal.App.3d 936, is not a real citation, but corresponds most closely to a completely unrelated criminal case from 1974, People v. Orlosky (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 935.”

“Next, the Petition’s purported citation to Tyner v. WCAB (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1744 instead corresponds to Wright v. W.C.A.B, a decision relating to an entirely different issue. It appears that the Petition is attempting to cite to Tyler v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 924.”

“Finally, and of greatest concern, the citations to Maislin v. WCAB (2022) 87 Cal. Comp. Cases 765 (writ den.) and Rios v. City of West Sacramento (2013) 2013 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626 (WCAB panel decision) appear to be entirely fabricated. The cite given in the Petition for Maislin most closely corresponds to McCullar v. SMC Contracting, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1005 [87 Cal. Comp. Cases 758], an unrelated civil case involving the independent contractor doctrine. Based on our review, no case under the name Maislin has been filed in the California workers’ compensation system since electronic records began, nor do we have any record of a writ by that name ever having been filed or denied by the Court of Appeal. Finally, the quotation attributed to Maislin in the Petition does not appear to correspond to any real case.”

“The citation to Rios v. City of West Sacramento (2013) 2013 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626 (WCAB panel decision) appears similarly nonexistent. The provided citation is actually to Santino v. Strategic Alliance Staffing Servs. (2013) 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626, an unrelated case, nor does the caption Rios v. City of West Sacramento appear to correspond to any real case.”

“All of these flawed citations are concerning, but we are particularly perturbed by the apparent conjuration from thin air of Maislin and Rios – two cases which, as far as we can tell, simply do not exist. It is difficult to comprehend how such apparently fake citations could make their way into a pleading filed under penalty of perjury, without having been caught and corrected prior to filing with the normal exercise of due diligence.”

“Here, although it seems apparent that the citations in question fall afoul of WCAB Rule 10421, Business and Professions Code section 6068, and Rule 3.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, we are left in the dark as to motive and method – in other words, how such citations were included in the Petition in the first place, and why. To that end, the operative question before us is not so much how the Petition was drafted in a strictly mechanical sense – for example, whether artificial intelligence (AI) was involved – as how it came to be signed and submitted under penalty of perjury by a licensed attorney.”

“We will therefore issue a Notice of Intention (“NIT”) to impose sanctions, in order to provide applicant’s attorney an opportunity to respond to our concerns and explain what occurred. We anticipate that the response will explain how these errors came to be included in the Petition and why they were not caught and corrected prior to filing, along with any other information that applicant’s attorneys deem relevant in assessing whether sanctions should be imposed.”

In 2024, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 399, codified as California Labor Code § 1137, which became effective January 1, 2025. It was enacted in response to the Legislature’s concern about “captive audience meetings” held by employers during which employers share their opinions on political or religious matters unrelated to the employees’ job duties.

California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurant Association and the Western Growers Association filed a legal action last December over the enactment of  Senate Bill 399, arguing that it violates the rights of employers under the First Amendment and that the state law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.

Plaintiffs contend that SB 399 unlawfully regulates non-coercive speech of employers through implementing a “sweeping” limitation on speaking to employees about religious and political matters. In particular, Plaintiffs are concerned about the inclusion of “the decision to join or support any . . .labor organization” within the list of topics included within the definition of “political matters.” Plaintiffs argue that in enacting such a statute, the Legislature has placed its thumb on the scale in favor of labor.

Defendants and the Amici argue that Plaintiffs are distorting the description of SB 399 in defining it as a law that regulates non-coercive speech of employer. Rather, SB 399 is an anti-retaliation law that does not prohibit employers from speaking on matters of religious or political issues but prevents employers from punishing employees with adverse employment action who do not wish to attend such meetings.

The Amici argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief. Particularly, they contend that Plaintiffs cannot bring a pre-enforcement challenge because they have not adequately alleged a “concrete plan” to violate SB 399.

After hearing oral argument, a federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction on September 30, 2025 as requested by the plaintiffs, to block enforcement of the 2024 state law placing limits on employer communications with workers on a variety of issues, including possible union representation.

The Court found that Plaintiffs have adequately stated an injury in fact for purposes of a pre-enforcement injury. The Court also concluded that it is likely that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on their arguments that SB 399 is preempted by the NLRA, and also found that the Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits on their First Amendment argument.

“We are pleased the court agreed with the key issues in this case,” said CalChamber President & CEO Jennifer Barrera. “SB 399 sought to wrongly limit the speech of employers across California while also exposing companies of all sizes to new legal liabilities if their leaders communicate important political and legal updates that impact the workplace.”

CalChamber’s co-plaintiffs also issued statements on the ruling. “The Eastern District Court ruling is encouraging, because it recognizes the overstep of SB 399,” said Jot Condie, President & CEO of the California Restaurant Association. “This law would put employers in the impossible position of deciding what is ‘political’ and what is not and goes beyond regulating the so called ‘captive audience’ meetings already regulated at the Federal level.”

“This decision affirms what we have said from the beginning: SB 399 tramples on federal labor law and the First Amendment,” said Dave Puglia, President & CEO of the Western Growers Association. “By enjoining this unconstitutional law, the court has preserved the right of agricultural and all California employers to communicate openly with their employees without the State tipping the scales in union organizing campaigns. We are proud to stand with our coalition partners in defending these fundamental rights.”

Senate Bill 399 was identified by CalChamber as a ‘Job Killer’ during the 2024 legislative session, the only proposal on the organization’s list of problematic bills that was signed into law.

Jaime Ortiz filed two applications for adjudication of his claims. In Case No. ADJ9313543, applicant sustained injury to his bilateral knees and right shoulder while employed as an auto body worker by defendant City Auto Body from February 8, 2005 to May 12, 2005. In Case No. ADJ3093632, applicant sustained injury to his left knee while similarly employed by defendant City Auto Body on May 5, 2005. Both cases were resolved by Compromise and Release approved on February 18, 2014.

The parties proceeded to lien trial and placed in issue the liens of Reinherz Chiropractic, Tariq Mirza, M.D. and Mario Corzo Interpreting. The parties also framed related issues of, in relevant part, the reasonableness and necessity of treatment, liability for services, value of services, the “24-visit cap,” and defendant’s assertions that the interpreters were not certified.

The WCJ allowed the lien of Reinherz Chiropractic in an amount corresponding to 24 chiropractic visits prior to applicant’s June 1, 2006 surgery, and an additional 24 visits thereafter. The WCJ further determined that Dr. Mirza had not met the evidentiary burden of establishing that the provided services were medically reasonable and necessary, and disallowed the lien. The WCJ also found no evidence tat interpreter Mr. Corzo was certified or provisionally certified to act as an interpreter and thus disallowed the interpreting lien.

All three lien claimants Petitioned for Reconsideration. The WCAB panel affirmed the F&O except that the issue of whether Mr. Mario Corzo was certified or provisionally certified to provide interpreting services was deferred and returned to the WCAB for further proceedings in the panel decision of Ortiz v City Auto Body -ADJ3093632 -ADJ9313543 (September 2024).

Lien claimants’ joint Petition avers that notwithstanding the 24-visits maximum allowed under LC §  4604.5(c)(3), applicant in this instance “complained of injury to both knees,” and that “[a]t the very least, each knee should have been entitled to further treatment, in excess of the 24-visit cap.”

Petitioner avers that applicant’s June 1, 2006 surgery provided an exception to the 24-visit cap, and that applicant continued to experience ongoing knee pain after the surgery.

In response to this argument the WCAB panel wrote “Petitioners offer no persuasive legal argument as to why the WCJ’s application of section 4604.5 was in error. While Petitioners contend that the therapeutic allowances otherwise afforded under section 4604.5 are insufficient in light of the factual circumstances of this case, Petitioners offer no legal challenge to the validity or applicability of section 4604.5 in the first instance. Moreover, the WCJ has observed that the record lacks substantive evidence pertaining to a second knee surgery as alleged by petitioners. Accordingly, and in the absence of a colorable legal challenge to the application of section 4604.5 to the facts of this case, we decline to disturb the WCJ’s decision with respect to the lien of Reinherz Chiropractic.“

“Because the Petition offers no new legal or factual basis for a finding of medical necessity pursuant to section 4604.5, we decline to disturb the WCJ’s regarding the lien of Dr. Mirza.”

Finally, Petitioners challenge the WCJ’s application of the “Interpreter Services Regulations” to determine that Mr. Corzo was not regularly or provisionally certified at the time the interpreting services were rendered, and that Mr. Corzo’s lien is “not enforceable” as a result.

The WCAB previously addressed the issue of interpreter services in connection with medical treatment in Guitron v. Santa Fe Extruders (2011) 76 Cal.Comp.Cases 228, 243 (Appeals Bd. en banc),3 wherein we held that in order “to recover its charges for interpreter services, the interpreter lien claimant has the burden of proving, among other things, that the services it provided were reasonably required, that the services were actually provided, that the interpreter was qualified to provide the services, and that the fees charged were reasonable.”

An interpreter lien claimant must also prove that the interpreter was qualified to provide the billed services. (Lab. Code, § 5705; Zenith Ins. Co. v. WCAB (Capi), 138 Cal.App.4th 373 [71 Cal. Comp. Cases 374];  Stokes v. Patton State Hospital(2007) 72 Cal. Comp. Cases 996 (Significant Panel Decision). A “qualified interpreter” means a “certified” or “provisionally certified” interpreter pursuant to AD Rule 9795.1(f) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9795.1(f)), or, for purposes of section 4600, a “qualified interpreter” means an interpreter certified or deemed certified pursuant to the Government Code.

Here, the WCJ has determined that “there is no evidence that Mr. Corzo was certified or provisionally certified … [p]rovisionally certified means an interpreter otherwise qualified to perform interpreter services does so when a certified interpreter cannot be present or by agreement of the parties.”

However, it was not clear from this record whether the WCJ fully applied the analysis described in Guitron, supra, including a determination of whether Mr. Corzo was provisionally certified, i.e., “certified for interpreting at medical examinations or deemed certified for medical examinations by virtue of being certified for court or administrative hearing interpreting, or, if a certified interpreter is unavailable, the interpreter is provisionally certified by agreement of the parties or selected for provisional use by the treating physician.” For that reason the matter was referred back to the WCJ for further proceedings to clarify this issue.