- Lien Consolidation Orders Require Reasons & Summary of Evidenceon January 29, 2026 at 2:26 PM
Josue Barrios filed a workers' compensation claim at the Van Nuys WCAB against Nagatoshi Produce USA, Inc. and its insurer, Truck Insurance Exchange. Several medical lien claimants including Tri-County Medical Group, Inc., Tri-City Health Group, Inc., Komberg Chiropractic, and Edward Komberg, D.C. became involved as real parties in interest in the case.
Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (not originally part of Barrios's case but acting on behalf of multiple carriers) filed a Petition for Consolidation and Stay of Liens, alleging that the lien claimants had engaged in improper practices, such as unlawful patient referrals in violation of Labor Code sections 139.3, 139.32, and 3215, and issuing bills or reports with material misrepresentations under section 3820. Multiple other insurance carriers joined this petition, leading to multiple hearings, however no evidence was formally admitted at these hearings, and issues were not explicitly framed for decision.
On October 24, 2025, PWCJ Jeffrey Marrone issued an Order of Consolidation, Designation of Master File, and Notice of Hearing (Consolidation Order), consolidating hundreds of cases for discovery purposes under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10396 (Rule 10396), staying the liens, and assigning WCJ Tammy Homen as the judge for the consolidated matter.
The lien claimants petitioned to disqualify WCJ Homen, alleging bias and an undisclosed conflict because her husband, Norman Homen, is a workers' compensation attorney who had previously referred clients to the lien claimants and had social interactions with Komberg. They also sought reconsideration of the Consolidation Order, arguing it lacked factual findings, failed to show a causal connection between the consolidated cases and the allegations, and violated Rule 10396(a)(3) by not considering potential prejudice or delays. The carriers filed an answer opposing the petition, and both WCJ Homen and PWCJ Marrone submitted reports recommending denial.
In response to the disqualification petition, WCJ Homen filed a Report and Recommendation denying any conflict, stating she and her husband had no financial interest in or involvement with the lien claimants' businesses, she lacked knowledge of his referrals or clients in these cases, and mere industry interactions did not constitute bias. She noted the small size of the workers' compensation community and that she had not yet presided over any hearing or expressed opinions on the merits.
PWCJ Marrone's report on the reconsideration petition affirmed that he had considered Rule 10396's factors (e.g., common issues, complexity, prejudice, and efficiency) but provided only summary conclusions without detailed legal or factual support.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a multifaceted decision. It denied the lien claimants' Petition for Disqualification of WCJ Homen, adopting and incorporating her report. It dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration of the Consolidation Order, treating it instead as a Petition for Removal, which it granted. As its Decision After Removal, the WCAB rescinded the Consolidation Order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with its opinion in the case of Barrios v Nagatoshi Produce -SAU9000031 (January 2026).
The WCAB first addressed the disqualification petition, finding no basis under Labor Code section 5311 or Code of Civil Procedure section 641. It agreed with WCJ Homen that neither she nor her husband had a financial interest, employment relationship, or other disqualifying ties to the lien claimants. The board emphasized that assumptions about bias were insufficient without detailed facts showing enmity or an unqualified opinion on the merits, and that social or industry interactions in the small workers' compensation community could not broadly disqualify judges. The lien claimants' subjective perceptions did not meet the standard for impartiality doubts.
For the Consolidation Order, the WCAB found the order violated due process and Labor Code section 5313, which requires a summary of evidence and reasons for determinations, as supported by en banc precedent like Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (requiring opinions based on admitted evidence and substantial evidence). Although PWCJ Marrone's report attempted to cure this by summarizing common issues (e.g., referral violations and misrepresentations), it lacked specific citations to law or facts connecting the hundreds of cases to the allegations, rendering meaningful appellate review impossible.
The WCAB distinguished prior cases like Kenney v. Seguoyah, Inc. 2023 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 37, *3 (where consolidation was for a narrow, specific issue) and Harvard Surgery Center v. WCAB (Yero) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1354 (emphasizing the need for good cause), noting that vague references to statutes were insufficient to justify broad discovery without risking abuse.
- New QME Process Regulation Section 55.1 in Effect on April 1on January 29, 2026 at 2:26 PM
The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) reminds all applicants for reappointment as a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) to fully satisfy the continuing education requirements of Labor Code section 55.1. by April 1, 2026.
On February 28, 2024, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved DWC’s regulatory action which adopted new regulation § 55.1. That regulation enacted new educational requirements for Qualified Medical Evaluators seeking reappointment after April 1, 2026. The new criteria include:
The ability to hold on site educational programs virtually;
The requirement of 16 hours of continuing education for reappointment as a QME;
Minimum hour requirements for continuing education in specific areas as follows:
A minimum of 4 hours of instruction in disability impairment rating;
A minimum of 3 hours of instruction in medical-legal report writing;
A minimum of 2 hour of instruction in anti-bias training which meets the qualifications outlined in Section 11(h);
A minimum of 2 hours of instruction consisting of a review of workers' compensation case law;
A minimum of 1 hour of instruction in proper application of the medical-legal fee schedule or in QME adherence to regulatory clerical requirements.
The ability of a physician to earn a maximum of 2 hours continuing education credit by having their reports reviewed by an approved educational provider.
As of April 1, 2026 regulation § 55.1 will be fully effective. All applications for reappointment as a Qualified Medical Evaluator must fully satisfy the continuing education requirements of section 55.1. The full text of the regulation can be accessed using the Title 8 search.
A list of continuing education providers, some of whom are offering classes that have been accredited to meet the requirements of regulation 55.1, are listed on the DWC website.
QMEs seeking recertification are advised to make sure that the continuing education provider that they choose is in compliance with the requirements of regulation § 55.1.
- Fed Court Uses Rule 23(d) to Limit Arbitration Opt Out Abuseon January 28, 2026 at 3:52 PM
The plaintiffs, Bo Avery, Phoebe Rogers, Kristy Camilleri, and Jill Unverferth, alleged that TEKsystems, a professional staffing agency that places IT consultants with business clients, had misclassified them as exempt from overtime laws, failing to pay overtime wages or provide required meal and rest breaks in violation of California labor laws. The case was filed initially in California state court but was removed to federal court by TEK. Over the ensuing months, the parties engaged in extensive discovery.
In September 2023, TEK internally approved expanding its longstanding mandatory arbitration policy - previously applied only to external consultants - to include internal employees like the recruiters.
The rollout communications criticized class actions as wasteful, inefficient, and primarily benefiting attorneys, while emphasizing arbitration's efficiency. They were sent during the holiday season, contained inconsistencies about opt-out procedures and deadlines, and suggested employees consult their own attorneys at personal expense without mentioning free access to class counsel. A separate email targeted putative class members with an opt-out form specifically for remaining in the class action.
Plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 6, 2023, with briefing completing by December 14, 2023. Just five days later, on December 19, 2023, TEK rolled out a new mutual arbitration agreement to its internal employees, including putative class members. This agreement, which covered the claims in the lawsuit, was presented via email and deemed accepted through continued employment after December 31, 2023, unless employees opted out or quit.
Of 164 recipients, only 41 opted out to stay in the class. The class was certified on February 13, 2024, with notices issuing on April 16, 2024, and an opt-out deadline of June 15, 2024. On June 10, 2024 - after plaintiffs had moved for partial summary judgment and just days before the notice period closed - TEK filed a motion to compel arbitration against class members bound by the agreement.
The federal district court in the Northern District of California, denied TEK's motion to compel arbitration. It found that TEK's communications rolling out the arbitration agreement threatened the fairness of the litigation by being misleading and omitting key information, such as the availability of free consultation with class counsel and the status of the ongoing class certification process.
The court concluded that these actions subverted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's opt-out mechanism for class actions, effectively turning it into an opt-in process where inaction bound employees to arbitration and excluded them from the class. Invoking its broad authority under Rule 23(d) to manage class proceedings and ensure fairness, the district court refused to enforce the agreement. As an alternative basis, it also determined that TEK had waived its right to arbitrate by delaying the rollout for over 22 months into the litigation, engaging in a "wait-and-see" approach.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration, declining to address the waiver issue and focusing instead on the Rule 23(d) grounds in the published case of Avery v TekSystems -3:22-cv-02733-JSC (January 2026)
The panel held that district courts possess the duty and expansive authority under Rule 23(d) to oversee class actions, including the power to invalidate arbitration agreements obtained through communications that undermine the integrity of the proceedings.
The appellate court's rationale emphasized adherence to Supreme Court precedents, such as Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 US 89 - Supreme Court 1981 and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 US 165 - Supreme Court 1989 which grant district courts discretion to regulate contacts with class members and protect against abuses that could coerce or mislead them. The panel found TEK's rollout communications to be inherently threatening to fairness: they disparaged class actions repeatedly as inefficient and attorney-enriching, were timed disruptively during the holidays, included conflicting instructions on how to opt out (such as deeming acceptance via continued employment while also requesting signatures), and implied personal legal costs without disclosing class counsel's role.
These elements, combined with omissions about the lawsuit's progress, risked confusing or pressuring class members into forgoing their rights under Rule 23's opt-out framework, which presumes inclusion unless affirmatively excluded.
The court aligned its holding with similar decisions from the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, rejecting TEK's argument that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted such oversight by noting that Rule 23(d) applies neutrally to all contracts and does not disfavor arbitration. Furthermore, the arbitration agreement's delegation clause - incorporating JAMS Rule 11(b), which assigns arbitrability disputes to the arbitrator - did not preclude the district court's review, as the challenge targeted the agreement's overall enforceability under procedural fairness rules rather than a specific provision.
Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit concluded that invalidating the agreement was a narrowly tailored remedy to restore the proper opt-out process, affirming the district court's decision to safeguard the class action's integrity.
- Current Status of Non-Compete Clauses in Employment Contractson January 28, 2026 at 3:51 PM
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a final rule in April 2024 banning most non-compete agreements in employment contracts, with an effective date of September 4, 2024. However, in the case of Ryan LLC v. FTC (N.D. Tex., Case No. 3:24-cv-00986), U.S. District Judge Ada Brown issued a preliminary injunction in July 2024 blocking the rule's enforcement, and on August 20, 2024, she issued a final order setting aside the rule nationwide, declaring it unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The FTC appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Case No. 24-10951) on October 18, 2024. Briefing proceeded into early 2025, with the FTC filing its opening brief on January 2, 2025, and appellees (including Ryan LLC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) responding on February 3, 2025. The FTC then requested and received stays of the proceedings in March and July 2025, extending until September 8, 2025.
On September 5, 2025, following a change in presidential administration, the FTC filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42. The Fifth Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on September 8, 2025, terminating the case. The FTC also dismissed a related appeal in the Eleventh Circuit (Properties of the Villages v. FTC) around the same time, effectively acceding to the vacatur of the non-compete rule.
As of January 2026, the district court's order remains in effect, and the FTC's non-compete rule is not enforceable nationwide. The FTC has shifted focus to case-by-case enforcement against unfair non-competes under existing antitrust laws, rather than pursuing a blanket ban. There are no active appeals in this matter, though state laws on non-competes vary and may still restrict their use in certain jurisdictions.
California has one of the strictest policies in the U.S. against non-compete clauses in employment contracts, prioritizing employee mobility and open competition. Under Business and Professions Code Section 16600, any contract that restrains someone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business is generally void and unenforceable. This has been the longstanding rule, but recent legislation has further reinforced and expanded these protections.
In January 2024, two new laws took effect to strengthen the ban:
- - Senate Bill 699 (now codified as Business and Professions Code Section 16600.5): Declares non-compete agreements unlawful (not just void) and prohibits employers from entering into or enforcing them, even if the agreement was signed outside California or for employment outside the state. It also creates a private right of action for employees to sue for damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
- - Assembly Bill 1076 (now codified as Business and Professions Code Section 16600.1): Explicitly prohibits non-compete clauses and required employers to notify current and certain former employees (employed after January 1, 2022) by February 14, 2024, that any existing non-compete provisions are void. Failure to provide this notice can result in civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation.
While non-competes are largely prohibited in the employment context, there are narrow exceptions under California law:
- - Sale of a business: Non-competes may be enforceable when tied to the sale of a business, goodwill, or ownership interest (Business and Professions Code Sections 16601 and 16602.5).
- - Dissolution of partnerships or LLCs: Limited restrictions may apply upon dissolution or dissociation (Section 16602).These exceptions are interpreted narrowly by courts, and the agreements must be reasonable in scope, duration, and geography to be upheld.
The federal FTC's attempted nationwide ban on non-competes was struck down in 2024 and abandoned in 2025, but this does not affect California's independent prohibitions, which remain in full force. Employers are advised to review and revise contracts to ensure compliance, focusing instead on alternatives like non-solicitation clauses (which may be enforceable if narrowly tailored) or enhanced trade secret protections.
For specific situations, consulting a California employment law attorney is strongly recommended, as case law continues to evolve and this is not an authoritative and complete narrative of this law.
- The DWC Proposes New Regulation Restricting Depo Feeson January 27, 2026 at 3:30 PM
The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) has posted proposed ranges for attorney deposition fees to its online forum where members of the public may review and comment on the proposals.
In the California workers’ compensation system, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), a workers’ compensation judge, or any party to the action or proceeding may request the deposition of a witness in matter before the WCAB, pursuant to Labor Code section 5710. If either the employer or the insurance carrier requests that an injured employee be deposed, that injured employee is entitled to receive, among other benefits, “a reasonable allowance for attorney’s fees” if they are represented by an attorney.
Judges have discretion when awarding the fees, which are required to be paid by employer or its insurer. Fees are currently governed by local policy established by presiding judges in each district, which serve as a guide to the parties, but individual attorneys’ fees awards are subject to litigation before WCAB judges. Pursuant to section 5710(b)(4) the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) is charged with determining “the range of reasonable fees to be paid.”
The proposed regulation will establish the range of reasonable fees allowable for attorneys representing injured employees when employers or insurers request their depositions. The deposition shall not exceed the following amounts:
(1) An amount not to exceed $500 per hour for attorneys certified as Workers’ Compensation Specialists by the State Bar of California;
(2) An amount not to exceed $450 per hour for attorneys with five or more years of experience in Workers’ Compensation matters in the state of California;
(3) an amount not to exceed $400 per hour for attorneys with fewer than five years of experience in workers’ compensation matters in the state of California;
(4) an amount not to exceed $250 per hour for non-attorney representatives as identified pursuant to Labor Code section 10751.
Incremental Billing Requirements:
(1) Fees authorized under this section shall be billed on an incremental, time-based basis, reflecting actual time reasonably spent preparing the injured employee for deposition and attending the deposition.
(2) Billing increments shall not exceed one-tenth (0.1) of an hour.
(3) Minimum or flat fees are not permitted, and attorneys or representatives shall not bill for time not actually expended.
Fees shall not be sought or awarded for activities including, but not limited to:
(1) General file review;
(2) Travel time or travel expenses;
(3) Review of deposition transcripts;
(4) Administrative or clerical tasks.
The forum can be found online on the DWC forums web page under “current forums.” Comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. on February 13, 2026.
- BLS Reports Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries Down 3.1%on January 27, 2026 at 3:30 PM
According to a new U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report, private industry employers reported 2.5 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses in 2024, down 3.1 percent from 2023. This is the lowest number of employer-reported injuries and illnesses for this data series going back to 2003.
This reduction was largely driven by a 26.0% drop in illness cases, which totaled 148,000, including a significant 46.1% decrease in respiratory illnesses to 54,000 - the lowest level since 2019.
The overall incidence rate for total recordable cases (TRC) in private industry fell to 2.3 cases per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers, down from 2.4 in 2023, marking the lowest rate in over two decades. Injuries accounted for the majority, with an incidence rate of 2.2 per 100 FTE workers, while the illness rate decreased to 13.9 cases per 10,000 FTE workers from 19.0 in 2023, and respiratory illnesses dropped to 5.1 per 10,000 FTE workers.
Notable declines in TRC incidence rates occurred across several sectors, including information (0.7 per 100 FTE workers, down from 1.0), health care and social assistance (3.4 per 100 FTE workers, down from 3.6), retail trade, manufacturing, and real estate and rental and leasing.
No industry sector experienced an increase in its TRC rate.
For the biennial period of 2023-2024, cases involving days away from work (DAFW) totaled 1.8 million, comprising 61.5% of days away, restricted, or transferred (DART) cases, with an annualized incidence rate of 86.6 per 10,000 FTE workers and a median of 8 days away. Days of job transfer or restriction (DJTR) cases numbered 1.1 million, or 38.5% of DART cases, with an incidence rate of 54.2 per 10,000 FTE workers and a median of 15 days.
Leading causes of DART cases included overexertion, repetitive motion, and bodily conditions (946,290 cases) and contact incidents (860,050 cases), while exposure to harmful substances and environments resulted in 224,450 cases, with 87.6% requiring at least one day away from work.
Under the updated Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System (OIICS), a new category for novel coronavirus (COVID-19) cases was introduced, showing an annualized DAFW incidence rate of 5.6 per 10,000 FTE workers in private industry for 2023-2024. The highest COVID-19 rates by occupation were in healthcare support (32.4 per 10,000 FTE workers) and healthcare practitioners and technical roles (26.7 per 10,000 FTE workers).
All reported changes were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, with data for mining incorporating preliminary figures from the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
- Study Shows California's Heat Standard and Reduction in Deathson January 26, 2026 at 3:27 PM
California’s 2005 heat standard was an important first step to protect workers. Yet critics argued that the standard contained ambiguous wording that enabled employers to avoid improving working conditions, relied on vulnerable workers to demand breaks, and was not actively enforced by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
In 2010, California responded by launching a statewide initiative aimed at educating workers about their rights, improving compliance among employers, and increasing inspections and enforcement. Labor unions and worker advocates continued to argue for changes, and in 2015, California revised the standard to close loopholes related to rest, water, shade, and enforcement.
Several US states have followed California’s example. Since 2022, Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have passed new laws that mandate water, shade, and regular rest breaks for all outdoor workers on hot days. In August 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed a new standard that would require similar protections for workers throughout the United States.
A new study just published by Health Affairs compared heat-related deaths among outdoor workers in California with those in neighboring states without standards during the period 1999–20. Researchers obtained data for all 126 counties in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Oregon for the period 1999–20. They identified 6,145 heat-related deaths among outdoor workers during the study period.
Arizona had the highest cumulative number of deaths (2,546), followed by California (2,207), Nevada (1,124), and Oregon (268). The county-year with the highest number of heat-related deaths among outdoor workers was Maricopa County, Arizona, with 233 deaths in 2020. Among counties that reported heat-related deaths among outdoor workers, the mean annual death rate was 0.91 deaths per 100,000 residents. All fifty-eight counties in California were covered by a heat standard starting in 2005, whereas none of the sixty-eight counties in the neighboring states was covered by a heat standard during the study.
Results suggest that the effectiveness of California’s heat standard increased substantially over time. Researchers found no decrease associated with the policy during the initial implementation period (2005–09), but point estimates suggested a 33 percent decrease in heat-related deaths among outdoor workers after increased enforcement (2010–14) and a 51 percent decrease after California’s heat standard revisions went into effect (2015–20). Although these individual period estimates were not statistically significant, a Wald test confirmed that California’s enhanced approach from 2010 onward was associated with a statistically significant decrease in worker deaths.
"Our findings offer important lessons for other states regarding the potential promise and pitfalls of heat standards meant to protect outdoor workers. On the one hand, California’s experience suggests that heat standards can reduce heat-related deaths among outdoor workers. On the other hand, it highlights that such policies may have little impact unless they are carefully designed and effectively enforced. A review of recently implemented heat standards suggests that variation in effectiveness is likely: Although Maryland’s 2024 law closely mirrors California’s revised standard, for example, Nevada’s 2024 version lacks a trigger temperature for enforcement"
- Gallup Poll of 22K Workers Shows Increases in AI Useon January 26, 2026 at 3:27 PM
This fall, Gallup conducted a comprehensive survey of over 22,000 U.S. workers, shedding light on the evolving role of AI in the American workplace. The data revealed a quiet but steady march forward in AI adoption, with 45% of employees now using it at least a few times a year - up from 40% just a quarter earlier.
Among them, frequent users, those tapping into AI a few times a week or more, climbed to 23%, while daily devotees edged up to 10%. It's a picture of gradual integration, where AI is becoming a familiar tool rather than a daily staple for most.
Diving deeper, the survey highlighted stark differences across job types and industries. In tech-savvy fields like information systems, a whopping 76% of workers have embraced AI, turning to it for tasks that demand precision and innovation. Finance and professional services aren't far behind, with 58% and 57% adoption rates, respectively. Yet, in the trenches of frontline work - retail at 33%, healthcare at 37%, and manufacturing at 38% - AI remains more of a distant concept, perhaps overshadowed by the hands-on demands of these roles.
When it comes to organizational buy-in, about 37% of workers reported that their companies are leveraging AI to enhance productivity, efficiency, or quality. But uncertainty lingers: 40% said their organizations haven't jumped on board, and 23% simply weren't sure. This fog of awareness is thicker among individual contributors (26% unsure) compared to managers (16%) or leaders (7%), and it's even more pronounced for part-time, on-site, or non-decision-making staff, suggesting a divide between the C-suite and the shop floor.
In practice, employees are wielding AI for everyday intellectual boosts - 42% use it to consolidate information, 41% to spark ideas, and 36% to learn new skills. Chatbots and virtual assistants lead the pack, employed by over 60% of users, followed by writing and editing tools at 36%, and coding assistants at 14%. Frequent users, unsurprisingly, venture into more sophisticated territory, like data analytics (18%) or advanced coding aids (22%), painting a portrait of AI as a versatile sidekick that's adapting to individual needs.
All told, this Gallup snapshot captures AI's uneven but undeniable foothold in the workforce - a tool that's driving efficiency in some corners while leaving others untouched, all amid a backdrop of growing familiarity and lingering questions about its full potential.
- Drug Prices Up 4% as PBM Federal/State Regulations Increaseon January 22, 2026 at 1:15 PM
In early 2026, pharmaceutical companies have implemented list price increases on at least 350 branded medications in the US, up from around 250 at the same point in 2025. The median hike is approximately 4%, consistent with the prior year's average, despite ongoing political pressure from the Trump administration, which secured "most favored nation" (MFN) pricing deals with 14 major drugmakers in late 2025 to align certain US prices with those in other developed countries.
These deals primarily affect Medicaid and cash-paying patients for specific drugs treating conditions like diabetes, arthritis, and cancer, but they do not broadly prevent list price increases, as companies often maximize list prices while offering rebates to insurers and setting separate discounts for direct sales.
Key examples of 2026 price increases include:
- - Pfizer, which leads with hikes on about 80 products, including a 15% increase on its COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty, as well as rises on the cancer drug Ibrance, migraine treatment Nurtec, and COVID-19 therapy Paxlovid.
- - GSK with increases on around 20 drugs and vaccines, ranging from 2% to 8.9%.
- - Other notable hikes on vaccines for COVID-19, RSV, and shingles, plus some hospital drugs like morphine and hydromorphone (with increases exceeding 400% in certain cases).
At least five companies that signed Most Favored Nation deals - Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and GSK - proceeded with these increases anyway, highlighting that the agreements address only a fraction of the factors driving high US drug costs (where patients pay nearly three times more than in other developed nations). Industry stakeholders predict continued single-digit annual rises through the end of Trump's term, largely fueled by expensive new therapies for cancer, diabetes, obesity, and gene/cell treatments.
Currently efforts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) have accelerated at both federal and state levels, driven by bipartisan concerns over their role in inflating drug costs, reducing pharmacy access, and prioritizing profits through practices like spread pricing (where PBMs charge payers more than they reimburse pharmacies) and rebate retention.
Congress is on the verge of passing significant PBM reforms as part of a bipartisan $1.2 trillion appropriations "minibus" package released on January 20, 2026, which funds agencies like HHS through fiscal year 2026. This deal revives elements of stalled 2024-2025 proposals, including those from Senate Finance Committee leaders Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mike Crapo (R-ID), and is expected to be signed into law to avert a government shutdown. Key provisions include:
- - Medicare Part D Reforms (Effective 2028-2029): Bans PBMs from pocketing manufacturer rebates or kickbacks, requiring full pass-through to plan sponsors or patients. Delinks PBM compensation from drug prices or utilization, shifting to flat service fees to reduce incentives for favoring high-cost drugs. Reinforces "any willing pharmacy" rules to prevent exclusion of independent pharmacies from networks.
- - Medicaid Changes (Effective Immediately or 2026): Bans spread pricing entirely and mandates direct payments to pharmacies.
- - Commercial Market Requirements: Mandates rebate pass-throughs to employers and updates pharmacy network standards for fairness.
- - Enforcement and Studies: Allocates $188 million to CMS for oversight, requires a government study of PBM business models, and updates the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) survey for accurate pricing benchmarks.
- - Other Bills: The PBM Reform Act of 2025 (H.R. 4317), introduced in July 2025, remains in the "introduced" stage but influenced the appropriations package. Separate proposals like the Patients Before Monopolies Act (introduced in 2024 and reintroduced in 2025) seek to prohibit PBM-pharmacy co-ownership by major players like UnitedHealth, CVS, and Cigna, with divestiture timelines, but have not advanced beyond committee.
These reforms target the "Big Three" PBMs (CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx), which control about 80% of the market and are often vertically integrated with insurers and pharmacies. A July 2024 FTC report highlighted how these entities pay affiliated pharmacies up to 40 times more for certain drugs than competitors, exacerbating costs.
All 50 states now have PBM regulations, with 26 enacting new laws in 2025 alone, focusing on licensing, transparency, and curbing predatory practices. As of January 1, 2026, several bans and requirements are in effect:
- - Spread Pricing Bans: Implemented in states like California (via Senate Bill 41) and multiple Medicaid programs, prohibiting PBMs from retaining the difference between payer charges and pharmacy reimbursements.
- - PBM-Pharmacy Ownership Bans: Arkansas led with Act 624 in April 2025, barring PBMs from owning pharmacies; it's under federal injunction but inspired similar laws in at least five other states (e.g., Massachusetts with transparency mandates under Senate Bill 3012).
- - Transparency and Reporting: Over 23 states require real-time drug pricing disclosure and rebate reporting; 12 have prescription drug affordability boards to review costs. Illinois and others ended "predatory practices" like clawbacks.
- - Other Measures: Bans on gag clauses (preventing pharmacists from discussing cheaper options), limits on audits, and "any willing pharmacy" protections are common.
States like Arkansas and California are testing models that could influence national policy, though PBMs are litigating aggressively, with some laws delayed by courts. Projections for 2026 indicate continued state experimentation, potentially filling federal gaps.
- Staffing Company to Pay $4.1M to Resolve Misclassification Caseon January 22, 2026 at 1:15 PM
The San Francisco City Attorney announced that he reached a $4.5 million settlement with gig staffing company WorkWhile, requiring the company to pay restitution to thousands of delivery drivers. The settlement requires WorkWhile to pay $4.1 million in restitution to its delivery drivers and $400,000 in civil penalties to the City Attorney’s Office.
In June 2024, the City Attorney sued WorkWhile for depriving its gig workers of critical employment protections and benefits by misclassifying them as independent contractors instead of employees. In December 2024, the City Attorney secured a stipulated partial judgment and injunction that required WorkWhile to pay its California non-driver workers $1 million in restitution and reclassify all non-driver workers as employees. The ongoing lawsuit has so far yielded $5.5 million benefitting WorkWhile gig workers and helped bolster the City’s enforcement of labor laws.
WorkWhile is a San Francisco-based temporary staffing company. Since its founding in 2019, WorkWhile has grown rapidly, with half a million workers operating in 30 major metropolitan areas across 27 states. Through its app, WorkWhile provides client businesses with workers, hired and paid by WorkWhile directly, to fill empty shifts. WorkWhile fills shifts in many different industries, including delivery, warehouse, hospitality and food service, food production, event service, and general labor. WorkWhile’s gig workers often work alongside and perform the same functions as employees at the client businesses.
According to the City Attorney, WorkWhile has violated California law by misclassifying and treating these workers as independent contractors. As a result of this misclassification, the workers have been denied a wide range of state and local employee rights, including the right to overtime pay, paid sick leave, paid family leave, health and safety protections, and anti-retaliation protections, among others.
WorkWhile also did not provide legally required workers’ compensation insurance coverage but instead charged its workers a “Trust & Safety Fee,” which funded a substandard insurance-like product, shifting the cost of a workers’ compensation-type protection from the employer to its low-wage workers.
In June 2024, the City Attorney filed a lawsuit to stop to these illegal practices and recover restitution for workers who had been harmed. The lawsuit alleged that the misclassification of WorkWhile’s workforce violated a host of state and local labor laws and denied workers the protections, wages, and benefits guaranteed under law. In doing so, the City alleged WorkWhile gained an unfair business advantage over other law-abiding businesses, constituting a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The stipulated partial judgment, approved by the San Francisco Superior Court on January 16, 2026, requires WorkWhile to pay restitution to drivers who were misclassified and worked California shifts on or prior to September 5, 2025. The City Attorney will continue to litigate the classification of WorkWhile drivers who completed shifts after September 5, 2025.
The case is People of the State of California v. WorkWhile, et al, San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-24-615401. The stipulated partial judgment can be found here.
- Lien Consolidation Orders Require Reasons & Summary of Evidenceon January 29, 2026 at 2:26 PM
Josue Barrios filed a workers' compensation claim at the Van Nuys WCAB against Nagatoshi Produce USA, Inc. and its insurer, Truck Insurance Exchange. Several medical lien claimants including Tri-County Medical Group, Inc., Tri-City Health Group, Inc., Komberg Chiropractic, and Edward Komberg, D.C. became involved as real parties in interest in the case.
Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange (not originally part of Barrios's case but acting on behalf of multiple carriers) filed a Petition for Consolidation and Stay of Liens, alleging that the lien claimants had engaged in improper practices, such as unlawful patient referrals in violation of Labor Code sections 139.3, 139.32, and 3215, and issuing bills or reports with material misrepresentations under section 3820. Multiple other insurance carriers joined this petition, leading to multiple hearings, however no evidence was formally admitted at these hearings, and issues were not explicitly framed for decision.
On October 24, 2025, PWCJ Jeffrey Marrone issued an Order of Consolidation, Designation of Master File, and Notice of Hearing (Consolidation Order), consolidating hundreds of cases for discovery purposes under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10396 (Rule 10396), staying the liens, and assigning WCJ Tammy Homen as the judge for the consolidated matter.
The lien claimants petitioned to disqualify WCJ Homen, alleging bias and an undisclosed conflict because her husband, Norman Homen, is a workers' compensation attorney who had previously referred clients to the lien claimants and had social interactions with Komberg. They also sought reconsideration of the Consolidation Order, arguing it lacked factual findings, failed to show a causal connection between the consolidated cases and the allegations, and violated Rule 10396(a)(3) by not considering potential prejudice or delays. The carriers filed an answer opposing the petition, and both WCJ Homen and PWCJ Marrone submitted reports recommending denial.
In response to the disqualification petition, WCJ Homen filed a Report and Recommendation denying any conflict, stating she and her husband had no financial interest in or involvement with the lien claimants' businesses, she lacked knowledge of his referrals or clients in these cases, and mere industry interactions did not constitute bias. She noted the small size of the workers' compensation community and that she had not yet presided over any hearing or expressed opinions on the merits.
PWCJ Marrone's report on the reconsideration petition affirmed that he had considered Rule 10396's factors (e.g., common issues, complexity, prejudice, and efficiency) but provided only summary conclusions without detailed legal or factual support.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a multifaceted decision. It denied the lien claimants' Petition for Disqualification of WCJ Homen, adopting and incorporating her report. It dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration of the Consolidation Order, treating it instead as a Petition for Removal, which it granted. As its Decision After Removal, the WCAB rescinded the Consolidation Order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with its opinion in the case of Barrios v Nagatoshi Produce -SAU9000031 (January 2026).
The WCAB first addressed the disqualification petition, finding no basis under Labor Code section 5311 or Code of Civil Procedure section 641. It agreed with WCJ Homen that neither she nor her husband had a financial interest, employment relationship, or other disqualifying ties to the lien claimants. The board emphasized that assumptions about bias were insufficient without detailed facts showing enmity or an unqualified opinion on the merits, and that social or industry interactions in the small workers' compensation community could not broadly disqualify judges. The lien claimants' subjective perceptions did not meet the standard for impartiality doubts.
For the Consolidation Order, the WCAB found the order violated due process and Labor Code section 5313, which requires a summary of evidence and reasons for determinations, as supported by en banc precedent like Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (requiring opinions based on admitted evidence and substantial evidence). Although PWCJ Marrone's report attempted to cure this by summarizing common issues (e.g., referral violations and misrepresentations), it lacked specific citations to law or facts connecting the hundreds of cases to the allegations, rendering meaningful appellate review impossible.
The WCAB distinguished prior cases like Kenney v. Seguoyah, Inc. 2023 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 37, *3 (where consolidation was for a narrow, specific issue) and Harvard Surgery Center v. WCAB (Yero) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1354 (emphasizing the need for good cause), noting that vague references to statutes were insufficient to justify broad discovery without risking abuse.
- New QME Process Regulation Section 55.1 in Effect on April 1on January 29, 2026 at 2:26 PM
The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) reminds all applicants for reappointment as a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) to fully satisfy the continuing education requirements of Labor Code section 55.1. by April 1, 2026.
On February 28, 2024, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved DWC’s regulatory action which adopted new regulation § 55.1. That regulation enacted new educational requirements for Qualified Medical Evaluators seeking reappointment after April 1, 2026. The new criteria include:
The ability to hold on site educational programs virtually;
The requirement of 16 hours of continuing education for reappointment as a QME;
Minimum hour requirements for continuing education in specific areas as follows:
A minimum of 4 hours of instruction in disability impairment rating;
A minimum of 3 hours of instruction in medical-legal report writing;
A minimum of 2 hour of instruction in anti-bias training which meets the qualifications outlined in Section 11(h);
A minimum of 2 hours of instruction consisting of a review of workers' compensation case law;
A minimum of 1 hour of instruction in proper application of the medical-legal fee schedule or in QME adherence to regulatory clerical requirements.
The ability of a physician to earn a maximum of 2 hours continuing education credit by having their reports reviewed by an approved educational provider.
As of April 1, 2026 regulation § 55.1 will be fully effective. All applications for reappointment as a Qualified Medical Evaluator must fully satisfy the continuing education requirements of section 55.1. The full text of the regulation can be accessed using the Title 8 search.
A list of continuing education providers, some of whom are offering classes that have been accredited to meet the requirements of regulation 55.1, are listed on the DWC website.
QMEs seeking recertification are advised to make sure that the continuing education provider that they choose is in compliance with the requirements of regulation § 55.1. - Fed Court Uses Rule 23(d) to Limit Arbitration Opt Out Abuseon January 28, 2026 at 3:52 PM
The plaintiffs, Bo Avery, Phoebe Rogers, Kristy Camilleri, and Jill Unverferth, alleged that TEKsystems, a professional staffing agency that places IT consultants with business clients, had misclassified them as exempt from overtime laws, failing to pay overtime wages or provide required meal and rest breaks in violation of California labor laws. The case was filed initially in California state court but was removed to federal court by TEK. Over the ensuing months, the parties engaged in extensive discovery.
In September 2023, TEK internally approved expanding its longstanding mandatory arbitration policy - previously applied only to external consultants - to include internal employees like the recruiters.
The rollout communications criticized class actions as wasteful, inefficient, and primarily benefiting attorneys, while emphasizing arbitration's efficiency. They were sent during the holiday season, contained inconsistencies about opt-out procedures and deadlines, and suggested employees consult their own attorneys at personal expense without mentioning free access to class counsel. A separate email targeted putative class members with an opt-out form specifically for remaining in the class action.
Plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 6, 2023, with briefing completing by December 14, 2023. Just five days later, on December 19, 2023, TEK rolled out a new mutual arbitration agreement to its internal employees, including putative class members. This agreement, which covered the claims in the lawsuit, was presented via email and deemed accepted through continued employment after December 31, 2023, unless employees opted out or quit.
Of 164 recipients, only 41 opted out to stay in the class. The class was certified on February 13, 2024, with notices issuing on April 16, 2024, and an opt-out deadline of June 15, 2024. On June 10, 2024 - after plaintiffs had moved for partial summary judgment and just days before the notice period closed - TEK filed a motion to compel arbitration against class members bound by the agreement.
The federal district court in the Northern District of California, denied TEK's motion to compel arbitration. It found that TEK's communications rolling out the arbitration agreement threatened the fairness of the litigation by being misleading and omitting key information, such as the availability of free consultation with class counsel and the status of the ongoing class certification process.
The court concluded that these actions subverted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's opt-out mechanism for class actions, effectively turning it into an opt-in process where inaction bound employees to arbitration and excluded them from the class. Invoking its broad authority under Rule 23(d) to manage class proceedings and ensure fairness, the district court refused to enforce the agreement. As an alternative basis, it also determined that TEK had waived its right to arbitrate by delaying the rollout for over 22 months into the litigation, engaging in a "wait-and-see" approach.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration, declining to address the waiver issue and focusing instead on the Rule 23(d) grounds in the published case of Avery v TekSystems -3:22-cv-02733-JSC (January 2026)
The panel held that district courts possess the duty and expansive authority under Rule 23(d) to oversee class actions, including the power to invalidate arbitration agreements obtained through communications that undermine the integrity of the proceedings.
The appellate court's rationale emphasized adherence to Supreme Court precedents, such as Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 US 89 - Supreme Court 1981 and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 US 165 - Supreme Court 1989 which grant district courts discretion to regulate contacts with class members and protect against abuses that could coerce or mislead them. The panel found TEK's rollout communications to be inherently threatening to fairness: they disparaged class actions repeatedly as inefficient and attorney-enriching, were timed disruptively during the holidays, included conflicting instructions on how to opt out (such as deeming acceptance via continued employment while also requesting signatures), and implied personal legal costs without disclosing class counsel's role.
These elements, combined with omissions about the lawsuit's progress, risked confusing or pressuring class members into forgoing their rights under Rule 23's opt-out framework, which presumes inclusion unless affirmatively excluded.
The court aligned its holding with similar decisions from the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, rejecting TEK's argument that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted such oversight by noting that Rule 23(d) applies neutrally to all contracts and does not disfavor arbitration. Furthermore, the arbitration agreement's delegation clause - incorporating JAMS Rule 11(b), which assigns arbitrability disputes to the arbitrator - did not preclude the district court's review, as the challenge targeted the agreement's overall enforceability under procedural fairness rules rather than a specific provision.
Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit concluded that invalidating the agreement was a narrowly tailored remedy to restore the proper opt-out process, affirming the district court's decision to safeguard the class action's integrity. - Current Status of Non-Compete Clauses in Employment Contractson January 28, 2026 at 3:51 PM
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a final rule in April 2024 banning most non-compete agreements in employment contracts, with an effective date of September 4, 2024. However, in the case of Ryan LLC v. FTC (N.D. Tex., Case No. 3:24-cv-00986), U.S. District Judge Ada Brown issued a preliminary injunction in July 2024 blocking the rule's enforcement, and on August 20, 2024, she issued a final order setting aside the rule nationwide, declaring it unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The FTC appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Case No. 24-10951) on October 18, 2024. Briefing proceeded into early 2025, with the FTC filing its opening brief on January 2, 2025, and appellees (including Ryan LLC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) responding on February 3, 2025. The FTC then requested and received stays of the proceedings in March and July 2025, extending until September 8, 2025.
On September 5, 2025, following a change in presidential administration, the FTC filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42. The Fifth Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on September 8, 2025, terminating the case. The FTC also dismissed a related appeal in the Eleventh Circuit (Properties of the Villages v. FTC) around the same time, effectively acceding to the vacatur of the non-compete rule.
As of January 2026, the district court's order remains in effect, and the FTC's non-compete rule is not enforceable nationwide. The FTC has shifted focus to case-by-case enforcement against unfair non-competes under existing antitrust laws, rather than pursuing a blanket ban. There are no active appeals in this matter, though state laws on non-competes vary and may still restrict their use in certain jurisdictions.
California has one of the strictest policies in the U.S. against non-compete clauses in employment contracts, prioritizing employee mobility and open competition. Under Business and Professions Code Section 16600, any contract that restrains someone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business is generally void and unenforceable. This has been the longstanding rule, but recent legislation has further reinforced and expanded these protections.
In January 2024, two new laws took effect to strengthen the ban:
- - Senate Bill 699 (now codified as Business and Professions Code Section 16600.5): Declares non-compete agreements unlawful (not just void) and prohibits employers from entering into or enforcing them, even if the agreement was signed outside California or for employment outside the state. It also creates a private right of action for employees to sue for damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
- - Assembly Bill 1076 (now codified as Business and Professions Code Section 16600.1): Explicitly prohibits non-compete clauses and required employers to notify current and certain former employees (employed after January 1, 2022) by February 14, 2024, that any existing non-compete provisions are void. Failure to provide this notice can result in civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation.
While non-competes are largely prohibited in the employment context, there are narrow exceptions under California law:
- - Sale of a business: Non-competes may be enforceable when tied to the sale of a business, goodwill, or ownership interest (Business and Professions Code Sections 16601 and 16602.5).
- - Dissolution of partnerships or LLCs: Limited restrictions may apply upon dissolution or dissociation (Section 16602).These exceptions are interpreted narrowly by courts, and the agreements must be reasonable in scope, duration, and geography to be upheld.
The federal FTC's attempted nationwide ban on non-competes was struck down in 2024 and abandoned in 2025, but this does not affect California's independent prohibitions, which remain in full force. Employers are advised to review and revise contracts to ensure compliance, focusing instead on alternatives like non-solicitation clauses (which may be enforceable if narrowly tailored) or enhanced trade secret protections.
For specific situations, consulting a California employment law attorney is strongly recommended, as case law continues to evolve and this is not an authoritative and complete narrative of this law. - The DWC Proposes New Regulation Restricting Depo Feeson January 27, 2026 at 3:30 PM
The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) has posted proposed ranges for attorney deposition fees to its online forum where members of the public may review and comment on the proposals.
In the California workers’ compensation system, the Workers Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB), a workers’ compensation judge, or any party to the action or proceeding may request the deposition of a witness in matter before the WCAB, pursuant to Labor Code section 5710. If either the employer or the insurance carrier requests that an injured employee be deposed, that injured employee is entitled to receive, among other benefits, “a reasonable allowance for attorney’s fees” if they are represented by an attorney.
Judges have discretion when awarding the fees, which are required to be paid by employer or its insurer. Fees are currently governed by local policy established by presiding judges in each district, which serve as a guide to the parties, but individual attorneys’ fees awards are subject to litigation before WCAB judges. Pursuant to section 5710(b)(4) the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) is charged with determining “the range of reasonable fees to be paid.”
The proposed regulation will establish the range of reasonable fees allowable for attorneys representing injured employees when employers or insurers request their depositions. The deposition shall not exceed the following amounts:
(1) An amount not to exceed $500 per hour for attorneys certified as Workers’ Compensation Specialists by the State Bar of California;
(2) An amount not to exceed $450 per hour for attorneys with five or more years of experience in Workers’ Compensation matters in the state of California;
(3) an amount not to exceed $400 per hour for attorneys with fewer than five years of experience in workers’ compensation matters in the state of California;
(4) an amount not to exceed $250 per hour for non-attorney representatives as identified pursuant to Labor Code section 10751.
Incremental Billing Requirements:
(1) Fees authorized under this section shall be billed on an incremental, time-based basis, reflecting actual time reasonably spent preparing the injured employee for deposition and attending the deposition.
(2) Billing increments shall not exceed one-tenth (0.1) of an hour.
(3) Minimum or flat fees are not permitted, and attorneys or representatives shall not bill for time not actually expended.
Fees shall not be sought or awarded for activities including, but not limited to:
(1) General file review;
(2) Travel time or travel expenses;
(3) Review of deposition transcripts;
(4) Administrative or clerical tasks.
The forum can be found online on the DWC forums web page under “current forums.” Comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. on February 13, 2026. - BLS Reports Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries Down 3.1%on January 27, 2026 at 3:30 PM
According to a new U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report, private industry employers reported 2.5 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses in 2024, down 3.1 percent from 2023. This is the lowest number of employer-reported injuries and illnesses for this data series going back to 2003.
This reduction was largely driven by a 26.0% drop in illness cases, which totaled 148,000, including a significant 46.1% decrease in respiratory illnesses to 54,000 - the lowest level since 2019.
The overall incidence rate for total recordable cases (TRC) in private industry fell to 2.3 cases per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers, down from 2.4 in 2023, marking the lowest rate in over two decades. Injuries accounted for the majority, with an incidence rate of 2.2 per 100 FTE workers, while the illness rate decreased to 13.9 cases per 10,000 FTE workers from 19.0 in 2023, and respiratory illnesses dropped to 5.1 per 10,000 FTE workers.
Notable declines in TRC incidence rates occurred across several sectors, including information (0.7 per 100 FTE workers, down from 1.0), health care and social assistance (3.4 per 100 FTE workers, down from 3.6), retail trade, manufacturing, and real estate and rental and leasing.
No industry sector experienced an increase in its TRC rate.
For the biennial period of 2023-2024, cases involving days away from work (DAFW) totaled 1.8 million, comprising 61.5% of days away, restricted, or transferred (DART) cases, with an annualized incidence rate of 86.6 per 10,000 FTE workers and a median of 8 days away. Days of job transfer or restriction (DJTR) cases numbered 1.1 million, or 38.5% of DART cases, with an incidence rate of 54.2 per 10,000 FTE workers and a median of 15 days.
Leading causes of DART cases included overexertion, repetitive motion, and bodily conditions (946,290 cases) and contact incidents (860,050 cases), while exposure to harmful substances and environments resulted in 224,450 cases, with 87.6% requiring at least one day away from work.
Under the updated Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System (OIICS), a new category for novel coronavirus (COVID-19) cases was introduced, showing an annualized DAFW incidence rate of 5.6 per 10,000 FTE workers in private industry for 2023-2024. The highest COVID-19 rates by occupation were in healthcare support (32.4 per 10,000 FTE workers) and healthcare practitioners and technical roles (26.7 per 10,000 FTE workers).
All reported changes were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, with data for mining incorporating preliminary figures from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. - Study Shows California's Heat Standard and Reduction in Deathson January 26, 2026 at 3:27 PM
California’s 2005 heat standard was an important first step to protect workers. Yet critics argued that the standard contained ambiguous wording that enabled employers to avoid improving working conditions, relied on vulnerable workers to demand breaks, and was not actively enforced by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health.
In 2010, California responded by launching a statewide initiative aimed at educating workers about their rights, improving compliance among employers, and increasing inspections and enforcement. Labor unions and worker advocates continued to argue for changes, and in 2015, California revised the standard to close loopholes related to rest, water, shade, and enforcement.
Several US states have followed California’s example. Since 2022, Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have passed new laws that mandate water, shade, and regular rest breaks for all outdoor workers on hot days. In August 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed a new standard that would require similar protections for workers throughout the United States.
A new study just published by Health Affairs compared heat-related deaths among outdoor workers in California with those in neighboring states without standards during the period 1999–20. Researchers obtained data for all 126 counties in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Oregon for the period 1999–20. They identified 6,145 heat-related deaths among outdoor workers during the study period.
Arizona had the highest cumulative number of deaths (2,546), followed by California (2,207), Nevada (1,124), and Oregon (268). The county-year with the highest number of heat-related deaths among outdoor workers was Maricopa County, Arizona, with 233 deaths in 2020. Among counties that reported heat-related deaths among outdoor workers, the mean annual death rate was 0.91 deaths per 100,000 residents. All fifty-eight counties in California were covered by a heat standard starting in 2005, whereas none of the sixty-eight counties in the neighboring states was covered by a heat standard during the study.
Results suggest that the effectiveness of California’s heat standard increased substantially over time. Researchers found no decrease associated with the policy during the initial implementation period (2005–09), but point estimates suggested a 33 percent decrease in heat-related deaths among outdoor workers after increased enforcement (2010–14) and a 51 percent decrease after California’s heat standard revisions went into effect (2015–20). Although these individual period estimates were not statistically significant, a Wald test confirmed that California’s enhanced approach from 2010 onward was associated with a statistically significant decrease in worker deaths.
"Our findings offer important lessons for other states regarding the potential promise and pitfalls of heat standards meant to protect outdoor workers. On the one hand, California’s experience suggests that heat standards can reduce heat-related deaths among outdoor workers. On the other hand, it highlights that such policies may have little impact unless they are carefully designed and effectively enforced. A review of recently implemented heat standards suggests that variation in effectiveness is likely: Although Maryland’s 2024 law closely mirrors California’s revised standard, for example, Nevada’s 2024 version lacks a trigger temperature for enforcement" - Gallup Poll of 22K Workers Shows Increases in AI Useon January 26, 2026 at 3:27 PM
This fall, Gallup conducted a comprehensive survey of over 22,000 U.S. workers, shedding light on the evolving role of AI in the American workplace. The data revealed a quiet but steady march forward in AI adoption, with 45% of employees now using it at least a few times a year - up from 40% just a quarter earlier.
Among them, frequent users, those tapping into AI a few times a week or more, climbed to 23%, while daily devotees edged up to 10%. It's a picture of gradual integration, where AI is becoming a familiar tool rather than a daily staple for most.
Diving deeper, the survey highlighted stark differences across job types and industries. In tech-savvy fields like information systems, a whopping 76% of workers have embraced AI, turning to it for tasks that demand precision and innovation. Finance and professional services aren't far behind, with 58% and 57% adoption rates, respectively. Yet, in the trenches of frontline work - retail at 33%, healthcare at 37%, and manufacturing at 38% - AI remains more of a distant concept, perhaps overshadowed by the hands-on demands of these roles.
When it comes to organizational buy-in, about 37% of workers reported that their companies are leveraging AI to enhance productivity, efficiency, or quality. But uncertainty lingers: 40% said their organizations haven't jumped on board, and 23% simply weren't sure. This fog of awareness is thicker among individual contributors (26% unsure) compared to managers (16%) or leaders (7%), and it's even more pronounced for part-time, on-site, or non-decision-making staff, suggesting a divide between the C-suite and the shop floor.
In practice, employees are wielding AI for everyday intellectual boosts - 42% use it to consolidate information, 41% to spark ideas, and 36% to learn new skills. Chatbots and virtual assistants lead the pack, employed by over 60% of users, followed by writing and editing tools at 36%, and coding assistants at 14%. Frequent users, unsurprisingly, venture into more sophisticated territory, like data analytics (18%) or advanced coding aids (22%), painting a portrait of AI as a versatile sidekick that's adapting to individual needs.
All told, this Gallup snapshot captures AI's uneven but undeniable foothold in the workforce - a tool that's driving efficiency in some corners while leaving others untouched, all amid a backdrop of growing familiarity and lingering questions about its full potential. - Drug Prices Up 4% as PBM Federal/State Regulations Increaseon January 22, 2026 at 1:15 PM
In early 2026, pharmaceutical companies have implemented list price increases on at least 350 branded medications in the US, up from around 250 at the same point in 2025. The median hike is approximately 4%, consistent with the prior year's average, despite ongoing political pressure from the Trump administration, which secured "most favored nation" (MFN) pricing deals with 14 major drugmakers in late 2025 to align certain US prices with those in other developed countries.
These deals primarily affect Medicaid and cash-paying patients for specific drugs treating conditions like diabetes, arthritis, and cancer, but they do not broadly prevent list price increases, as companies often maximize list prices while offering rebates to insurers and setting separate discounts for direct sales.
Key examples of 2026 price increases include:
- - Pfizer, which leads with hikes on about 80 products, including a 15% increase on its COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty, as well as rises on the cancer drug Ibrance, migraine treatment Nurtec, and COVID-19 therapy Paxlovid.
- - GSK with increases on around 20 drugs and vaccines, ranging from 2% to 8.9%.
- - Other notable hikes on vaccines for COVID-19, RSV, and shingles, plus some hospital drugs like morphine and hydromorphone (with increases exceeding 400% in certain cases).
At least five companies that signed Most Favored Nation deals - Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and GSK - proceeded with these increases anyway, highlighting that the agreements address only a fraction of the factors driving high US drug costs (where patients pay nearly three times more than in other developed nations). Industry stakeholders predict continued single-digit annual rises through the end of Trump's term, largely fueled by expensive new therapies for cancer, diabetes, obesity, and gene/cell treatments.
Currently efforts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) have accelerated at both federal and state levels, driven by bipartisan concerns over their role in inflating drug costs, reducing pharmacy access, and prioritizing profits through practices like spread pricing (where PBMs charge payers more than they reimburse pharmacies) and rebate retention.
Congress is on the verge of passing significant PBM reforms as part of a bipartisan $1.2 trillion appropriations "minibus" package released on January 20, 2026, which funds agencies like HHS through fiscal year 2026. This deal revives elements of stalled 2024-2025 proposals, including those from Senate Finance Committee leaders Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mike Crapo (R-ID), and is expected to be signed into law to avert a government shutdown. Key provisions include:
- - Medicare Part D Reforms (Effective 2028-2029): Bans PBMs from pocketing manufacturer rebates or kickbacks, requiring full pass-through to plan sponsors or patients. Delinks PBM compensation from drug prices or utilization, shifting to flat service fees to reduce incentives for favoring high-cost drugs. Reinforces "any willing pharmacy" rules to prevent exclusion of independent pharmacies from networks.
- - Medicaid Changes (Effective Immediately or 2026): Bans spread pricing entirely and mandates direct payments to pharmacies.
- - Commercial Market Requirements: Mandates rebate pass-throughs to employers and updates pharmacy network standards for fairness.
- - Enforcement and Studies: Allocates $188 million to CMS for oversight, requires a government study of PBM business models, and updates the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) survey for accurate pricing benchmarks.
- - Other Bills: The PBM Reform Act of 2025 (H.R. 4317), introduced in July 2025, remains in the "introduced" stage but influenced the appropriations package. Separate proposals like the Patients Before Monopolies Act (introduced in 2024 and reintroduced in 2025) seek to prohibit PBM-pharmacy co-ownership by major players like UnitedHealth, CVS, and Cigna, with divestiture timelines, but have not advanced beyond committee.
These reforms target the "Big Three" PBMs (CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx), which control about 80% of the market and are often vertically integrated with insurers and pharmacies. A July 2024 FTC report highlighted how these entities pay affiliated pharmacies up to 40 times more for certain drugs than competitors, exacerbating costs.
All 50 states now have PBM regulations, with 26 enacting new laws in 2025 alone, focusing on licensing, transparency, and curbing predatory practices. As of January 1, 2026, several bans and requirements are in effect:
- - Spread Pricing Bans: Implemented in states like California (via Senate Bill 41) and multiple Medicaid programs, prohibiting PBMs from retaining the difference between payer charges and pharmacy reimbursements.
- - PBM-Pharmacy Ownership Bans: Arkansas led with Act 624 in April 2025, barring PBMs from owning pharmacies; it's under federal injunction but inspired similar laws in at least five other states (e.g., Massachusetts with transparency mandates under Senate Bill 3012).
- - Transparency and Reporting: Over 23 states require real-time drug pricing disclosure and rebate reporting; 12 have prescription drug affordability boards to review costs. Illinois and others ended "predatory practices" like clawbacks.
- - Other Measures: Bans on gag clauses (preventing pharmacists from discussing cheaper options), limits on audits, and "any willing pharmacy" protections are common.
States like Arkansas and California are testing models that could influence national policy, though PBMs are litigating aggressively, with some laws delayed by courts. Projections for 2026 indicate continued state experimentation, potentially filling federal gaps. - Staffing Company to Pay $4.1M to Resolve Misclassification Caseon January 22, 2026 at 1:15 PM
The San Francisco City Attorney announced that he reached a $4.5 million settlement with gig staffing company WorkWhile, requiring the company to pay restitution to thousands of delivery drivers. The settlement requires WorkWhile to pay $4.1 million in restitution to its delivery drivers and $400,000 in civil penalties to the City Attorney’s Office.
In June 2024, the City Attorney sued WorkWhile for depriving its gig workers of critical employment protections and benefits by misclassifying them as independent contractors instead of employees. In December 2024, the City Attorney secured a stipulated partial judgment and injunction that required WorkWhile to pay its California non-driver workers $1 million in restitution and reclassify all non-driver workers as employees. The ongoing lawsuit has so far yielded $5.5 million benefitting WorkWhile gig workers and helped bolster the City’s enforcement of labor laws.
WorkWhile is a San Francisco-based temporary staffing company. Since its founding in 2019, WorkWhile has grown rapidly, with half a million workers operating in 30 major metropolitan areas across 27 states. Through its app, WorkWhile provides client businesses with workers, hired and paid by WorkWhile directly, to fill empty shifts. WorkWhile fills shifts in many different industries, including delivery, warehouse, hospitality and food service, food production, event service, and general labor. WorkWhile’s gig workers often work alongside and perform the same functions as employees at the client businesses.
According to the City Attorney, WorkWhile has violated California law by misclassifying and treating these workers as independent contractors. As a result of this misclassification, the workers have been denied a wide range of state and local employee rights, including the right to overtime pay, paid sick leave, paid family leave, health and safety protections, and anti-retaliation protections, among others.
WorkWhile also did not provide legally required workers’ compensation insurance coverage but instead charged its workers a “Trust & Safety Fee,” which funded a substandard insurance-like product, shifting the cost of a workers’ compensation-type protection from the employer to its low-wage workers.
In June 2024, the City Attorney filed a lawsuit to stop to these illegal practices and recover restitution for workers who had been harmed. The lawsuit alleged that the misclassification of WorkWhile’s workforce violated a host of state and local labor laws and denied workers the protections, wages, and benefits guaranteed under law. In doing so, the City alleged WorkWhile gained an unfair business advantage over other law-abiding businesses, constituting a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The stipulated partial judgment, approved by the San Francisco Superior Court on January 16, 2026, requires WorkWhile to pay restitution to drivers who were misclassified and worked California shifts on or prior to September 5, 2025. The City Attorney will continue to litigate the classification of WorkWhile drivers who completed shifts after September 5, 2025.
The case is People of the State of California v. WorkWhile, et al, San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-24-615401. The stipulated partial judgment can be found here.