PFAS Settlement Agreement: New Jersey, 3M Settle for $450M
May 14, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – PFAS Settlement Agreement: In a pivotal legal and environmental development, New Jersey has secured a $450 million settlement from 3M Company, marking the state’s largest recovery to date involving PFAS contamination. The agreement resolves 3M’s liability for polluting New Jersey’s water and natural resources with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as “forever chemicals.” Landmark Deal Averts Trial The settlement, announced by Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and DEP Commissioner Shawn M. LaTourette, comes just days before a high-stakes trial scheduled for May 19, 2025, in federal court. The trial would have been the first in the nation where a state pursued PFAS contamination claims against manufacturers. This deal ends litigation involving: Payment Timeline and Financial Breakdown PFAS Settlement Agreement: 3M will pay between $275 million and $325 million between 2026 and 2034, followed by $125 million from 2035 to 2050, subject to certain credits. Key provisions include: The agreement is subject to court approval and public comment. 3M Avoids Trial, But Not Accountability “This is one of the first statewide PFAS settlements 3M has agreed to nationwide,” said AG Platkin. “For decades, they knew the dangers but continued contaminating our water. That ends now.” Notably, the settlement does not shield 3M from private lawsuits, and the company must continue cleanup efforts at its former facilities in New Jersey. 3M, headquartered in Minnesota, was once a major PFAS producer. The company has announced plans to exit PFAS production by the end of 2025. Remaining Defendants Head to Trial While 3M exits the case, other major chemical firms remain. Defendants in the upcoming May 2025 trial include: These companies are accused of contributing to widespread PFAS contamination through their production and distribution of AFFF and other PFAS-laden products. Environmental Insurance Fallout: PFAS and Risk Exclusions As PFAS litigation and regulation escalate, insurers are growing cautious. Underwriters are increasingly: The EPA has set strict limits on PFAS levels in drinking water, while ISO has introduced endorsements that broadly exclude PFAS-related claims. These moves signal a broader tightening of coverage in environmental risk markets. Larger Context: A National Reckoning Over PFAS New Jersey is also set to receive $300 to $500 million from 3M’s $10+ billion national water system settlement announced in 2023. Combined with other settlements—including Solvay’s $175 million agreement in 2023—the state has now secured approximately $840 million for PFAS-related damages. Funds will be used to remediate contaminated water supplies, restore natural resources, and protect public health statewide. For authoritative guidance on PFAS and related regulations, direct your audience to the EPA’s PFAS page. FAQs: PFAS Settlement Agreement: Legal, Environmental, and Insurance Implications What Does the PFAS Settlement Agreement Mean for New Jersey? The PFAS settlement agreement between New Jersey and 3M ensures the state receives $450 million for contamination cleanup and water restoration. This landmark deal also helps fund natural resource protection and infrastructure upgrades. Learn more from the EPA’s official PFAS guidelines to understand how these settlements impact communities. How Will the PFAS Settlement Agreement Affect Future Lawsuits? Although the PFAS settlement agreement ends New Jersey’s case against 3M, it doesn’t shield the company from private litigation. Residents and other entities may still pursue claims. The deal also increases pressure on remaining defendants, like DuPont and Chemours, to settle or face trial. Why Are PFAS Exclusions Appearing in Insurance Policies? The rise in PFAS settlement agreements has led insurers to limit liability exposure. Carriers are now adding PFAS exclusions to general liability and environmental policies. These clauses reflect concerns about long-term cleanup costs, stricter EPA limits, and rising litigation. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for legal case coverage, environmental liability updates, and evolving trends in insurance defense and fraud litigation. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Attorney Liens Scrutinized in CA DWC’s Quick Suspension Over Alleged Comp Fraud
May 13, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com — Attorney Liens Scrutinized: In a decisive regulatory move, the California Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) has intensified oversight of attorney liens by swiftly suspending those filed by attorney Antony Gluck, who is now at the center of a major workers’ compensation fraud investigation. The DWC’s action—announced in response to Gluck’s recent indictment—reflects an evolving legal landscape where attorney liens are increasingly scrutinized for potential abuse, especially in fraud-related cases. Regulators allege that Gluck’s firm used unethical and illegal tactics to amass client liens, prompting officials to issue an immediate stay under Labor Code § 4615. While proponents of the suspension argue it protects public trust and injured workers, critics voice concern over the potential erosion of due process. This high-profile case has not only placed attorney liens under scrutiny but has also reignited debate about how swiftly the DWC should act before a conviction is secured. As the case unfolds, legal observers expect greater enforcement and compliance pressure within the workers’ compensation system—especially concerning lien practices linked to suspected fraudulent schemes. The DWC’s bold stance indicates that attorney liens scrutinized in fraud probes may face rapid regulatory responses even ahead of final court rulings. Gluck Faces Major Charges in Alleged Fraud Operation Antony Gluck, 55, now faces felony charges for conspiracy and illegal client referrals. Investigators say that from September 2021 to October 2024, he paid $388,500 to acquire 798 clients—many of whom were Spanish-speaking workers misled by a Mexico-based call center. These individuals were promised financial benefits through workers’ compensation claims. However, their information was secretly sold to attorneys like Gluck. The California Department of Insurance began investigating the scheme in 2022. Ultimately, the probe uncovered the illegal sale of over 1,100 clients for more than $550,000, implicating several individuals in a widespread operation. DWC Moves Quickly to Suspend Gluck’s Liens On April 25, 2025, the DWC publicly listed Gluck under the category of “Criminally Charged Providers Whose Liens are Stayed” pursuant to Labor Code § 4615. This move halted at least ten liens associated with his law offices across Los Angeles, Woodland Hills, and San Bernardino. These include: Although Labor Code § 4615 allows DWC to stay liens filed by providers facing criminal charges, the speed of Gluck’s suspension has caught many in the legal community off guard. Legal Community Questions Timing and Fairness Attorney Liens Scrutinized: While many support strong measures against fraud, some legal professionals question whether this response came too early. “Due process matters,” one Southern California attorney stated. “This kind of financial penalty—if premature—can devastate a law practice long before guilt is established.” The issue has reignited debate over how the DWC enforces lien suspensions. Although the law allows action before a conviction, critics argue that such measures must be balanced with the presumption of innocence. Additional Defendants Linked to the Alleged Scheme The case, officially titled People v. Antony Eli Gluck, et al. (Case No. FSB25001283), also names three co-defendants: According to investigators, Franco served as the central broker, selling 320 clients to De La Garza and Leal for $168,750, and the remaining 798 to Gluck. These individuals reportedly used false promises and deceptive tactics to exploit vulnerable workers—many unaware their personal information had been sold. What’s at Stake for the Workers’ Comp System This high-profile case underscores the fragility of trust in California’s workers’ compensation system. It also exposes how fraud schemes can exploit already marginalized groups. The DWC’s quick lien suspension has raised tough questions: Should regulatory bodies act immediately in the interest of public trust, or wait for formal convictions to uphold due process? As the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office continues its prosecution, the legal community will closely watch how courts balance the fight against fraud with the rights of the accused. The DWC’s rapid lien suspension of Gluck sets a bold tone for fraud prevention. However, it also risks undermining legal fairness if not carefully justified. FAQs: Attorney Liens Scrutinized Why Were Attorney Liens Scrutinized by the DWC? The California DWC scrutinized attorney liens linked to Antony Gluck after he was indicted in a workers’ compensation fraud case. The agency quickly suspended over ten liens under Labor Code § 4615. This raised concerns about whether such suspensions, without a conviction, are fair or premature. What Are the Implications of Attorney Liens Being Scrutinized Pre-Trial? When attorney liens are scrutinized before a trial concludes, it places financial and reputational strain on legal professionals. In this case, Gluck’s practice saw immediate suspension of liens even before a court ruling—sparking debate about balancing fraud prevention with due process. How Does the Scrutiny of Attorney Liens Affect Injured Workers? Attorney liens scrutinized by the DWC can delay or complicate case resolutions for injured workers. If an attorney is removed from a case mid-process due to fraud allegations, clients may face legal limbo, particularly when they were unaware of the alleged misconduct. Stay ahead of California’s workers’ compensation fraud cases, enforcement updates, and regulatory shifts. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for expert legal reporting and in-depth coverage on lien suspensions and due process debates. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Coalition Reports Surge in Business Email Compromise Costs for 2024
May 12, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – Business Email Compromise: Cyber insurer Coalition has released its 2025 Cyber Claims Report, revealing a sharp rise in costs related to business email compromise (BEC). The insurer found that BEC accounted for nearly 60% of all cyber insurance claims it handled in 2024. Funds Transfer Fraud Drives Costly Losses Among BEC-related claims, nearly 30% involved funds transfer fraud (FTF)—a costly form of cybercrime. On average, each FTF incident led to initial losses of $185,000. Fortunately, Coalition and its partners were able to recover $31 million, benefiting about one in four policyholders. The report emphasized that faster reporting leads to higher recovery rates. Claim Severity Increases, Especially in the U.S. The average cost of a BEC claim jumped 23% in 2024 to $35,000, with U.S.-based claims coming in higher at $36,000. In comparison, the average BEC claim cost was $22,000 in Canada and the UK. Coalition attributed the rising severity to growing expenses associated with legal services, incident response teams, data mining, and notification requirements. Ransomware Threats Decline—But Still Costly Despite the rise in BEC claims, ransomware incidents slightly declined, with a 3% drop in frequency and a 7% decrease in severity. Coalition also reported a 22% year-over-year reduction in ransom demands and successfully negotiated a 60% cut in ransom payments on average. Even so, 44% of policyholders impacted by ransomware chose to pay. The report stressed that ransom payments are not the only cost drivers—business interruption, asset recovery, and forensic investigations also contribute heavily to claim totals. The data reinforces the growing risk of email-based attacks, especially when combined with fraudulent fund transfers. Insurers and businesses alike must remain vigilant, invest in preventive tools, and ensure rapid incident reporting to minimize losses. For more cybersecurity guidance, visit the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Source FAQs: Business Email Compromise Risks in 2025 What is business email compromise and why is it rising? Business email compromise is a form of cybercrime where attackers gain access to a company’s email accounts to impersonate executives or vendors. According to Coalition’s 2025 Cyber Claims Report, BEC accounted for 60% of all claims last year, largely due to the rise in funds transfer fraud. How much do business email compromise claims cost? The average business email compromise claim rose 23% in 2024, reaching $35,000. U.S.-based claims were higher at $36,000, reflecting elevated legal, notification, and incident response expenses. How can businesses prevent business email compromise losses? To reduce the risk of business email compromise, companies should implement multi-factor authentication, train staff on phishing awareness, and report incidents quickly. Coalition’s data shows that faster reporting improves the chance of financial recovery. Stay protected in the evolving cyber threat landscape. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for in-depth updates on business email compromise, cyber insurance trends, and digital risk strategies. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Texas Woman Sentenced for Disaster Relief Fraud Across Multiple States
May 12, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – Disaster Relief Fraud: A Texas woman has been sentenced to nearly five years in federal prison for orchestrating a multi-agency disaster relief fraud scheme that caused over $620,000 in losses, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas. Sophisticated Scam Leveraged Social Media Cora Chantail Custard, 35, who lived in both Houston and San Antonio during the conspiracy, pleaded guilty on September 17, 2024, to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. On sentencing day, U.S. District Judge David Hittner imposed a 57-month prison term, followed by three years of supervised release. Custard must also pay $621,388 in restitution. The court emphasized the sophistication of the scheme, which included leveraging social media—particularly Facebook—to attract clients and advertise her illegal services. Fraud Spanned Federal and State Programs From March 2020 to March 2021, Custard worked with co-conspirators to submit fraudulent disaster relief applications on behalf of herself and others. Using her Facebook page, she encouraged followers to “do apps” that could yield between $6,000 and $8,000 within a week. Authorities say she submitted or assisted in submitting over 100 false Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) applications, with at least 36 of them leading to $345,000 in advance payments. Custard also filed 30 fake FEMA disaster claims related to Hurricane Laura (August 2020) and Hurricane Sally (September 2020). Sixteen of those applications were approved, producing about $75,000 in payments. Unemployment Insurance Also Targeted Beyond federal relief programs, Custard allegedly filed over 100 fraudulent unemployment insurance claims across multiple states, including Michigan and Illinois. These applications generated roughly $200,000 in payouts. Federal prosecutors said she not only defrauded the U.S. government but also seven different state agencies. At sentencing, she was remanded into custody immediately. For more on how the DOJ prosecutes fraud, visit the U.S. Department of Justice Fraud Section. Source FAQs: Disaster Relief Fraud Sentencing and Impact What is disaster relief fraud and how did this scheme work? Disaster relief fraud involves submitting false claims for government aid after natural disasters. In this case, the Texas woman used social media to promote fake applications for EIDL, FEMA, and unemployment programs, resulting in $620,000 in fraudulent payments. What agencies were defrauded in this disaster relief fraud case? The fraud targeted multiple federal and state agencies, including the Small Business Administration (SBA), FEMA, and state unemployment departments. Over 100 false EIDL applications and 30 fake FEMA claims were filed in the 2020–2021 period. What are the legal consequences of disaster relief fraud? In this 2025 case, the defendant received 57 months in federal prison, supervised release, and was ordered to pay full restitution. Disaster relief fraud carries severe penalties under federal law, especially when it impacts multiple states and programs. Stay informed on legal actions, fraud prosecutions, and regulatory developments. Subscribe now to JacobiJournal.com for expert insights and timely updates on federal and state-level fraud enforcement. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
FTX Investor Lawsuit Narrowed Against Tom Brady, Steph Curry
May 9, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – FTX Investor Lawsuit: A federal judge has narrowed but not dismissed a lawsuit that seeks to hold celebrities like Tom Brady, Stephen Curry, and Shohei Ohtani accountable for promoting the failed cryptocurrency platform FTX. The investors allege that the celebrity endorsers ignored red flags and secretly accepted millions to serve as FTX brand ambassadors. They claim these actions amounted to a civil conspiracy to defraud customers. Most Claims Dismissed, But Key Allegations Survive On May 8, U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore dismissed 12 of 14 claims, finding the investors failed to show the celebrities knew FTX was a fraudulent operation. He ruled that accepting payment alone does not prove conspiracy. However, the judge let two claims survive. He found it plausible under Florida law that the defendants helped FTX sell unregistered securities. A related Oklahoma claim was also allowed to proceed. These remaining claims rely on strict liability statutes, which do not require proof of intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Celebrity Endorsers Still Facing Legal Pressure The lawsuit continues against several high-profile figures, including: Plaintiffs say these endorsers misled the public by promoting FTX without disclosing their compensation or performing proper due diligence. Investors Plan to Expand Lawsuit Adam Moskowitz, who represents the investors, called the ruling a win. He announced plans to file an amended complaint that could include Major League Baseball and Formula 1 Racing as new defendants. Some celebrities, including Shaquille O’Neal and Trevor Lawrence, have already settled. Background: FTX’s Fall and Bankman-Fried’s Conviction FTX Investor Lawsuit: FTX filed for bankruptcy in November 2022. In October 2023, a judge approved a plan to repay customers. Founder Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of fraud and sentenced to 25 years in prison, though he is currently appealing. The case is being heard in the Southern District of Florida under the title:In re FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation, No. 23-md-03076. This case shows that celebrities who promote financial products—especially unregistered securities—may face legal consequences, even if they claim ignorance. It also signals stricter accountability in how influencers promote digital assets. Source FAQs: About the FTX Investor Lawsuit What is the FTX investor lawsuit about? The FTX investor lawsuit targets celebrities like Tom Brady and Steph Curry for allegedly promoting FTX without due diligence. Investors claim these endorsements misled the public and contributed to major financial losses. Why are only two claims moving forward in the FTX investor lawsuit? The judge dismissed most claims but allowed two under strict liability for promoting unregistered securities. These don’t require proof the celebrities knew of wrongdoing, keeping the FTX investor lawsuit alive. What are the implications of the FTX investor lawsuit for celebrity endorsements? The FTX investor lawsuit sets a precedent for holding influencers legally accountable when endorsing financial products. It signals growing regulatory attention on crypto and financial promotions. Stay informed on high-impact financial litigation and regulatory crackdowns—subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for exclusive legal insights and compliance updates. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Long Island School District Sues Insurers Over Abuse Allegations
May 8, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com — A School district lawsuit filed over denied abuse claims in Bay Shore Union Free School District initiated a federal legal battle against Hartford Insurance Group and CNA Insurance. Filed in the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, the lawsuit accuses both insurers of failing to defend and indemnify the district against 45 sexual abuse claims linked to former elementary school teacher Thomas Bernagozzi. The case underscores growing legal pressure on insurance providers amid a rising number of abuse-related lawsuits under New York’s Child Victims Act. Dozens of Claims Spark Legal Action The district faces 45 lawsuits filed by former students under New York’s Child Victims Act (CVA). The lawsuits allege sexual abuse by Thomas Bernagozzi, a teacher who worked from the 1970s through 2000 at Gardiner Manor and Mary G. Clarkson Elementary Schools. Long Island School District Bernagozzi was criminally charged in 2023 for allegedly abusing two students. He has pleaded not guilty. Roughly half of the civil suits have been settled. However, 18 cases remain unresolved—cases for which the district claims Hartford and CNA should provide insurance coverage under general liability policies issued between 1973 and 1982. $35 Million Bond, $25M Verdict Slashed In 2023, Bay Shore approved a $35 million bond to help fund settlements for 12 claims not covered by insurance. Meanwhile, one lawsuit that went to trial resulted in a $25 million jury award to a victim. A judge later reduced that award to $4 million, pending a new trial on damages unless the victim accepts the lower amount. Other claims have been paid through the New York State Insurance Reciprocal (NYSIR). Insurers Accused of Delay Tactics According to the lawsuit filed on May 2 in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, the district alleges that both insurers have adopted a “wait-and-see” strategy in the wake of the CVA’s passage. The complaint argues that the insurers: Bay Shore contends that this conduct violates the terms of their contracts, as well as New York state insurance and consumer protection laws. Seeking Accountability and Coverage In its suit, Bay Shore requests a declaratory judgment affirming the insurers’ obligation to cover the remaining lawsuits. The district also seeks damages for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of state business and insurance laws. Officials argue that the insurers are trying to evade financial responsibility despite issuing policies precisely to cover serious liabilities like those now unfolding. Source FAQs: Long Island School District Lawsuit Explained What triggered the school district lawsuit? The Long Island school district lawsuit stems from insurers allegedly refusing to cover abuse-related claims under decades-old policies. Bay Shore UFSD argues that Hartford and CNA breached contract terms and violated state laws. Learn more from the NY State Courts. How many lawsuits is the Long Island school district facing? Bay Shore Union Free School District is facing 45 lawsuits under the NY Child Victims Act. The Long Island school district lawsuit seeks insurance coverage for 18 unresolved cases not covered by the New York State Insurance Reciprocal. What does the Long Island school district lawsuit demand? The Long Island school district lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment, damages for breach of contract and bad faith, and an order compelling insurers to provide coverage for pending abuse lawsuits. Stay informed on school liability cases, insurance disputes, and victims’ rights under New York law. Subscribe now to JacobiJournal.com for in-depth legal coverage and exclusive updates. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Ex-State Trooper Convicted of Bribery and Fraud in CDL Testing Scheme
May 6, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – CDL testing fraud has come under sharp scrutiny following the conviction of former Massachusetts State Trooper Gary Cederquist, who was found guilty on nearly 50 counts related to bribery and falsifying commercial driver’s license exam results. The case has exposed significant vulnerabilities in the state’s licensing system and raised serious concerns about public safety and regulatory oversight. Bribes Exchanged for Fake Passing Scores Ex-State Trooper Cederquist, 59, of Stoughton, accepted illicit payments including a new snowblower and driveway paving in return for issuing fake passing scores to unqualified CDL applicants. Instead of upholding testing standards, he passed at least 17 drivers who had failed their tests — actions that endangered public safety. The conspiracy took place between May 2019 and January 2023, according to federal prosecutors. Cederquist and other troopers used coded text messages, often saying the applicant was “golden,” to signal they had falsely passed someone. In one case, a trooper joked about how poorly a driver performed, but passed them anyway. Prosecutors Condemn Violation of Duty “Cederquist chose bribery and extortion over his oath to protect the community,” said U.S. Attorney Leah Foley. “His actions placed unqualified drivers behind the wheels of heavy vehicles, threatening everyone on the road.” The jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit extortion, honest services mail fraud, and extortion, among other charges. Four co-defendants, including two civilians and two troopers, have already pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Broader Pattern of Corruption This is not an isolated incident. In recent years, the Massachusetts State Police has dealt with multiple scandals. For instance, 46 troopers from Troop E, which patrolled the Massachusetts Turnpike, were caught falsifying overtime records between 2015 and 2017. They submitted fake traffic citations to justify pay for shifts they didn’t work. Deadly Consequences and Systemic Failures The CDL testing scandal follows a tragic 2019 crash in New Hampshire, where commercial truck driver Volodymyr Zhukovskyy killed seven motorcyclists. At the time, he should have lost his CDL due to a DUI arrest in Connecticut. Although Connecticut officials notified Massachusetts, the license was never suspended due to a backlog in processing such alerts. State Implements Reforms In response to these issues, Massachusetts officials have implemented several reforms: These reforms aim to restore integrity in a system where, in 2022, only 41% of CDL applicants passed — a statistic that underscores the importance of honest testing. Source FAQs: CDL Testing Fraud Conviction What is CDL testing fraud and why is it dangerous? CDL testing fraud occurs when unqualified drivers are illegally granted commercial driver’s licenses. This endangers public safety by putting inadequately trained drivers behind the wheel of heavy vehicles on public roads. How was the ex-state trooper involved in CDL testing fraud? The ex-state trooper accepted bribes like cash and goods in exchange for falsifying CDL test scores. He passed drivers who had failed their exams, using coded messages to coordinate the fraud. What reforms have been introduced after the CDL testing fraud case? Following the conviction, Massachusetts implemented reforms such as mandatory body cameras during exams, surprise supervisor visits, and stricter training protocols to prevent future CDL testing fraud. For more updates on transportation fraud cases, public corruption prosecutions, and federal compliance reforms, subscribe now to JacobiJournal.com. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
SB 536 Expands Workers’ Comp Fraud Reporting: EDD to Join Enforcement Loop
May 05, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – Workers comp fraud oversight could soon tighten in California, addressing one of the state’s most persistent cost drivers in the insurance system. On May 5, 2025, lawmakers introduced SB 536, authored by Senator Bob Archuleta (D), to significantly expand fraud reporting requirements and allow greater data-sharing between agencies. The measure seeks to close long-standing enforcement gaps by integrating the Employment Development Department (EDD) into the existing reporting network. Supporters argue that by giving investigators broader access to payroll data—while maintaining strict privacy safeguards—the bill could help uncover fraudulent schemes earlier, prevent premium underreporting, and reduce financial losses that ultimately impact honest employers and employees. EDD Added to Workers Comp Fraud Reporting Network Currently, insurers and licensed rating organizations are required to report suspected fraud to local district attorneys and the Department of Insurance Fraud Division. SB 536 would broaden this reporting chain by adding the Employment Development Department (EDD) as a mandatory recipient of these referrals. The inclusion of EDD is intended to close long-standing enforcement gaps. Payroll fraud, such as underreporting employee wages or misclassifying workers to reduce insurance costs, frequently overlaps with workers comp fraud schemes. By having EDD directly notified of suspected fraud, investigators can cross-reference wage records, employer classifications, and tax data against insurance filings. This coordinated approach could help uncover fraud patterns that might otherwise go undetected when agencies work in isolation. For example, if an employer reports lower payroll figures to an insurer but higher amounts to another agency, that discrepancy could flag potential premium fraud. With EDD in the loop, such inconsistencies can be investigated more quickly, reducing the time it takes to build a prosecutable case. Insurers to Gain Limited Access to Payroll Records For the first time, SB 536 would allow insurers and rating organizations to request payroll data from EDD. This data could help verify suspected premium fraud. However, there are limits. The bill clearly states that personal identifying information must remain confidential. Insurers can only share data with law enforcement when submitting a formal fraud referral. This ensures that investigations are balanced with worker privacy. Improving Investigations While Preserving Rights By giving investigators access to more complete data, SB 536 aims to improve fraud detection. At the same time, it reinforces safeguards to protect workers’ personal information. The bill is set for a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 12, 2025. If passed, it could enhance fraud prevention and reduce premium inflation for honest employers. More information available here: Official Document. FAQs: About SB 536 and Workers Comp Fraud Reporting What changes does SB 536 make to workers comp fraud reporting? SB 536 adds the Employment Development Department to the workers comp fraud reporting network, allowing for better detection of overlapping payroll and premium fraud. Why is the EDD’s involvement important in workers comp fraud cases? EDD’s access to payroll data can help identify workers comp fraud more quickly, especially when it overlaps with payroll tax violations. How could SB 536 impact future workers comp fraud investigations? By expanding data sharing and reporting requirements, SB 536 could make workers comp fraud investigations faster and more accurate while protecting worker privacy. Bookmark JacobiJournal.com for expert coverage of legislative developments, fraud enforcement cases, and policy reform that affect California’s workers’ compensation landscape. From court rulings to committee hearings, we keep professionals informed and prepared. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Court Rejects Carpool Exception to Going-and-Coming Rule, No Liability Found
May 02, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com — Workers compensation commute rule was at the center of a recent California appellate decision involving a disputed carpool exception. On May 2, 2025, JacobiJournal.com reported that the court reaffirmed the long-standing “going-and-coming rule,” holding that an employee injured while carpooling in a privately arranged ride with a co-worker was not entitled to employer liability coverage—even though the co-worker received a small travel stipend from the employer. Background: The Going-and-Coming Rule Under California workers’ compensation and liability law, the workers compensation commute rule—also known as the going-and-coming rule—generally exempts employers from liability for employee injuries or torts that occur during the employee’s commute to and from work. Exceptions to this rule exist, particularly when the commute is considered part of the scope of employment or when the employer receives a direct benefit from providing or arranging transportation. Case Details The case involved an employee who was injured in a car accident while carpooling with a co-worker. The co-worker had coordinated the carpool arrangement informally and received a modest stipend from the employer intended to encourage carpooling and reduce parking congestion. In its analysis, the court reviewed whether this situation could qualify as an exception under the workers compensation commute rule, which determines when an employer can be held liable for commute-related injuries. Ultimately, the court found that the stipend did not transform the co-worker into an agent of the employer, nor did it constitute sufficient employer control to make the carpool trip fall within the course of employment. The ruling emphasized that the workers compensation commute rule continues to exclude most voluntary carpools from coverage, even when small incentives are provided, unless the employer directly mandates or manages the transportation arrangement. Court’s Reasoning Court Rejects Carpool Exception, The panel emphasized that the employer neither mandated the carpool nor exercised control over the transportation. Therefore, the injury sustained during the commute remained outside the scope of employment. The court declined to extend liability under the exception to the going-and-coming rule, noting that doing so would significantly blur the boundary between personal and work-related travel. This decision reaffirms longstanding precedent that voluntary carpools typically do not qualify for exceptions to the going-and-coming rule—even when small employer incentives are involved. More details here. FAQs: About the Workers Compensation Commute Rule What is the workers compensation commute rule? The workers compensation commute rule limits employer liability for injuries sustained during an employee’s normal commute. Are carpools covered under the workers compensation commute rule? Generally, voluntary carpools are not covered unless they are required or directly controlled by the employer. Why does the workers compensation commute rule matter? It sets clear boundaries between personal travel and work duties, helping define when injuries are work-related. Can employer-provided stipends affect the workers compensation commute rule? In most cases, small employer-provided travel stipends do not override the workers compensation commute rule. Unless the employer exerts significant control over the transportation or makes it a work requirement, commute-related injuries typically remain outside the scope of workers’ compensation coverage. How does the workers compensation commute rule apply to remote or hybrid employees? For remote or hybrid employees, the workers compensation commute rule usually applies only to travel between home and the employer’s physical workplace. Trips made purely for personal reasons are not covered, but if travel is required for a specific work assignment, different rules may apply. Want to stay ahead of legal developments in employment and workers’ compensation? Visit JacobiJournal.com for detailed case law analysis, fraud updates, and court rulings that matter to legal, insurance, and HR professionals. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Fired State Employees Exposed Personal Data of 33K Texans
May 1, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – Fired State Employees Exposed Personal Data of 33K Texans: Late Wednesday, the Texas HHSC data breach was confirmed when the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) notified 33,529 recipients of state benefits that fired state employees had improperly accessed their private information. This latest announcement follows an ongoing investigation into breaches involving state employees who accessed Medicaid, food stamp, and other assistance programs’ data. Three months ago, the agency notified 61,104 Texans about the breach of their personal information by state employees. Seven employees were fired at that time, including two who had stolen from recipients’ food stamp cards. Texas HHSC Data Breach: State Employees Involved in Unauthorized Access In February, HHSC notified lawmakers that two more employees had been fired, raising the total to nine employees who accessed individuals’ accounts without legitimate reasons. These employees are now responsible for breaching the personal data of another 33,529 account holders who applied for or received assistance between June 2021 and January 2025. HHSC has not yet determined how many of those individuals had their benefits compromised. Fired State Employees Exposed Personal Data of 33K Texans Recommendations for Affected Texans HHSC urges affected individuals to carefully review their accounts and examine statements from health care providers, insurance companies, and financial institutions to ensure that their account activity is correct. They should report any questionable charges to the respective provider and notify law enforcement promptly. The agency recommends that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients check their Lone Star Card transactions for fraudulent activity. Individuals can do this by visiting YourTexasBenefits.com or using the mobile app. If they suspect SNAP fraud, they should call 2-1-1, select a language, and choose option 3 to report the fraud to the Texas Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General. Affected individuals should also contact law enforcement and visit a local HHSC benefits office to replace their stolen benefits. Details of the Breach and Available Resources HHSC reports that the compromised data includes full names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, email addresses, Social Security numbers, Medicaid and Medicare identification numbers, and other personal information. The agency offers two years of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to those affected. Individuals can also call 866-362-1773, using engagement number B139792, for further assistance. Contractor Employee Terminated Over Improper Access HHSC has notified one of its contractors, Maximus, about an employee suspected of misusing personal data from HHSC’s systems. Maximus terminated the employee for improperly accessing protected health information of Texans enrolled in state benefits between May 8, 2023, and February 28, 2025. The Texas HHSC Office of the Inspector General is conducting an investigation into these data breaches. For more information, visit the Texas Tribune. FAQs: About the Texas HHSC Data Breach What personal information was exposed in the data breach? The breach involved names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, Medicaid and Medicare IDs, and other sensitive personal data of over 33,000 Texans. What should Texans do if they were affected by the data breach? Affected individuals should monitor their accounts for suspicious activity, review Lone Star Card transactions, report any fraud to HHSC and law enforcement, and use the free credit monitoring services offered. How is the HHSC responding to the data breach? HHSC is investigating the breach, providing two years of free credit monitoring, working with law enforcement, and has terminated employees and contractors responsible for improper access. Get the latest updates on workers’ compensation fraud and other critical industry news. Stay ahead by reading more insightful articles and case analyses on JacobiJournal.com. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com: