RPNA’s Nicholas Roxborough Fights For Due Process of Law in Case Against the Department of Industrial Relations

The Department of Industrial Relations’ (DIR) new criteria for determining who can serve as a QME without going through due process is the center of a new controversy and complaint against the DIR and its director, Christine Baker. Employers rights attorney Nicholas Roxborough filed the suit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf…

RPNA Carves A Meaningful Path for Policyholders

The issue of Applied Underwriters’ ‘bait and switch’ marketing tactics to sell its workers’ compensation product was the focus of a recent San Fernando Valley Business Journal Article. The article highlighted RPNA’s case against the Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary (Luxor Cabs v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company) as well as a similar case (Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.), which prompted the California Department of Insurance (CDI) to hold Applied Underwriters accountable for its unlawful practices and comply with well recognized state filing requirements.

Referencing CDI’s settlement with Applied Underwriters, Nick Roxborough stated, “The settlement is a good first start for policyholders of Applied Underwriters in that it renders the Shasta Linen decision precedential for all policyholders similarly situated to the Shasta Linen plaintiffs.”

RPNA Wins Motion To Disqualify Opposing Counsel Based On Conflict Of Interest And Breach Of Confidentiality

Co-Managing Partner Nick Roxborough and co-counsel Jeffrey D. Farrow of Michelman & Robinson, recently won a motion to disqualify Nixon Peabody LLP from representing a plaintiff in an ongoing worker’s compensation dispute after the firm hired opposing defense counsel in the case. The decision, which was made by a Superior Court Judge in Orange County last Friday, was featured in the Daily Journal [subscription required].

San Fernando Valley Business Journal Features RPNA’s Supreme Court Win

RPNA’s $89 million judgment in a landmark class action employment suit was highlighted in the February 6, 2017 issue of San Fernando Valley Business Journal. The article discusses the impact of the 5-2 decision—which was argued in front of the California Supreme Court by RPNA partners Drew Pomerance and Michael Adreani—on how California employers approach meal and rest breaks. Specifically, it clarifies and sets…

Once Again, Berkshire Hathaway’s Applied Underwriters is Sued By Another Employer

When it comes to cases against Applied Underwriters, RPNA’s Nick Roxborough is the go-to expert for commentary. Workers’ Comp Executive reached out to Nick regarding the most recent lawsuit against Berkshire Hathaway’s subsidiary filed in New York. The plaintiff is seeking a $6 million bond and at least $18 million in trebled damages.

According to a September 28 article, what makes this suit of particular interest is that it challenges the way Applied structures, sells, and operates its SolutionOne workers’ comp and payroll program. The plaintiff maintains that Applied Underwriters uses an unfiled and unapproved Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) to siphon off money that should be reserved to pay claims, according to the article.

Roxborough Comments in Workers’ Comp Executive Article About New Oder Barring Applied Underwriters’ EquityComp Program

Workers’ Comp Executive recently reached out to Nicholas Roxborough to comment on the new cease and desist order signed by California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, barring Applied Underwriters from selling its EquityComp program in California. Roxborough told Workers’ Comp Executive that, “the Order provides additional evidence that Applied has engaged in wrongdoing. It provides exquisite foundational evidence for existing lawsuits,…

RPNA’s Nick Roxborough In The News

In a recent Workers’ Comp Executive article, RPNA co-managing partner Nick Roxborough was asked to comment on California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones’ decision regarding Applied Underwriters’ EquityComp Program. Roxborough said he wouldn’t be surprised if Applied Underwriters’ certificate is eventually pulled stating that the decision “effectively kills the program in California as it exists now.” The RPA (reinsurance participation…

Employer Hot Topic: Kickback Reimbursement

The issue of reimbursable expenses is often a hot topic amongst employees and their employers. While it seems obvious, for example, that an employee who uses his personal car to perform a work ‘errand’ will be reimbursed for his mileage, it is not often so cut and dry. What about the technician who buys his own truck, the gardener who purchases his own tools, or the production worker who purchases his own uniform? Are these reimbursable expenses for the employee? One of the most common alleged wage and labor violations involves disgruntled employees claiming they were not properly reimbursed for business expenses.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage and overtime pay for employees in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments. Additionally, the FLSA requires that employers pay an employee’s wages finally and unconditionally. If an employee is required to return some portion of wages—whether directly or indirectly (such as through purchasing his own supplies, gas, etc…)—and that “kickback” puts the employee’s hourly rate below the minimum wage, then the employer has violated the FLSA’s minimum wage requirement.