George Bernard Shaw has a quote we use a lot in my family: “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” This is pertinent to contractors and homeowners alike because the cost of failing to get proper signatures on documents like construction contracts, and particularly, change orders, is heavy. Both contractors and homeowners are in the same boat as far as wanting to complete a job as swiftly as possible: contractors go on to their next job and homeowners can return to peace in their home. This is prime territory for either party to suggest the work be completed today and the contract or change order executed tomorrow, or even later. However, without a contract, there is no memorialization of the communication between the parties, which can lead to confusion and missed expectations on both sides.
Construction plans are rarely as neat and tidy as they originally seem to be. A contractor may uncover unforeseen conditions, an owner may request additional work or changes that require additional work, or weather interferes with project schedules or the work itself. Unfortunately, the signature that never gets collected can become one of the most expensive omissions on a project – for both sides.
As a litigator, I frequently see disputes that begin with a simple statement: “We agreed to it.” Or “That’s what they said they would do.” The problem is that often months – or even years – later, the parties no longer agree on what was approved, who approved it, or how much it was supposed to cost. If we believe George Bernard Shaw, it may be the case that the parties never really even agreed on the scope of the work to be done in the first place.
Many contractors perform additional work based on a verbal conversation at the jobsite, a quick phone call, or an informal text message. At the time, everyone may be on the same page (or not). The project moves forward, the work gets completed, and the parties focus on finishing the job.
The dispute often arises later when payment becomes due or when the homeowner is finally presented with a copy of the change order or contract. At that time, the contractor has made his or her case more difficult for receipt of payment. It may be the case that actual materials cost may have been underestimated, leading up to a surprise amount to pay for the owner.
By the time many of these issues come home to roost, key project personnel may have moved on to different jobs. Memories fade. Documents become difficult to locate. What was once a likely straightforward conversation becomes a costly disagreement.
In fact, as of January 1, 2026, California law added a statute to control the way construction payment disputes are handled. (Civ. Code, §8850.) After an owner gets his or her final invoice, they must review it within thirty days and reply with a written statement outlining which costs are undisputed and which are not. If the owner fails to do so, or the parties fail to agree, the contractor may request an informal conference, which must take place within thirty days. Within the ten days following, the owner must send another written statement within ten days again outlining the portions of the demanded amount disputed and undisputed. If, following the meet and confer conference, the parties still do not agree on a payment amount, the parties must attend nonbinding mediation[1]. Under this section, homeowners who do not comply with this payment scheme may lose their claims as against the disputed portion of the claim. For any undisputed portion of the claim not paid, it shall incur interest at a rate of 2% per month.
These types of issues are not limited to change orders. Handshake agreements at the outset can create similar problems. While oral contracts may be enforceable under certain circumstances, proving the exact terms of an unwritten agreement can be challenging, and claims for breach of an oral contract have – generally – shorter statutes of limitation. Parties frequently remember the same conversation very differently when significant amounts of money are at stake. (Thank you, George Bernard Shaw.) These issues are compounded when there may be concerns with the quality of work performed and the owner may now be frustrated and unsatisfied with everything the contractor has done.
The best way to avoid these disputes is simple: document the agreement before the work is performed. A signed change order should clearly identify the additional work, the associated cost, and any impact on the project schedule. If circumstances require immediate action, a follow-up email confirming the discussion can provide valuable evidence if questions arise later, but this should not take the place of a formal change order. While it may be tempting for both the homeowner and the contractor to plow forward with the work and settle up later, it is important to take the time to hash out the details. While a pause of the work for even a day or two on the job may be costly, it will likely not amount to the cost both parties will spend on court fees, mediators, and attorneys if the matter needs to be litigated. This is to say nothing of the cost of how long litigation can take; matters that need to go to trial can wait for years before a judgment is issued.
Good documentation is not about mistrust. It is about clarity and managed expectations. A written agreement protects everyone involved by ensuring that expectations are understood before disputes develop. Construction litigation is often expensive because courts are asked to reconstruct conversations that occurred months or years earlier. Signed contracts and change orders, by contrast, takes only minutes. Those few minutes may save thousands of dollars in legal fees and countless hours of uncertainty down the road.
Experienced mediators in California can charge $500 to $3000 per hour and, often, minimums are set that both sides must pay.
On May 21, 2026, the California Court of Appeal sided with an employer in a Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) disability case, a genuine win for employers, but one with real limits worth understanding.
As a brief background, FEHA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s physical or mental disability and to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process with the employee to determine what accommodations are reasonable. California law has long held that an employer cannot be liable for violating FEHA’s disability provisions unless it knows of that disability, including: (1) when an employee notifies the employer of a physical or mental disability, (2) if the employer learns of the disability through a third-party, or (3) if the employee becomes aware of the condition through observation. In Husband v. Target Corp., the Court of Appeal answered a question that is consistently brought up in workplaces: when does an employee’s odd or troubling behavior legally put the employer “on notice” that they are dealing with a disability?
The Facts:
Daniel Husband (“Husband”) worked as a fulfillment expert at a Target store in Burbank for about 20 months without incident. Then things changed fast. First, Husband allegedly swore at a coworker when he entered the store as a customer. A few weeks later he showed up to a shift agitated and yelling, and his supervisor sent him home, describing the behavior as “out of the ordinary” and “somewhat disturbing.” The next day, Husband arrived shaky and distraught and told his supervisor he’d “killed” his stepmother by speaking a word, then asked whether he’d killed anyone at the store. Supervisors were alarmed enough to loop in Human Resources and privately suggest Husband might need to see a doctor or even be hospitalized. That same day Target terminated Husband for violating its workplace violence policy after he made threats against coworkers. In turn, Husband sued Target under FEHA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in the interactive process built on the theory that Target should have recognized he had bipolar disorder and accommodated him. Here, Husband never told Target about his diagnosis, and never requested an accommodation.
The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that Target had no knowledge of the employee’s alleged disability when it decided to terminate him and that no accommodation was necessary since the employee never disclosed he suffered from a mental disability.
Holding:
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Court ruled that an employer is not liable for disability discrimination under FEHA unless it had actual knowledge of the disability (from the employee or someone else) or imputed knowledge. It should be noted that imputed knowledge only exists when a disability is the “only reasonable interpretation” of the facts the employer had in front of it. Erratic, alarming, even disturbing behavior isn’t enough on its own.
The Court reasoned that while one interpretation of the employee’s actions was a mental disability, another reasonable interpretation was that the employee suffered a “side effect of ingesting illegal substances or a combination of prescribed medications or a manifestation of sleep deprivation.” The Court rejected the notion that the manager’s subjective opinion regarding employee treatment from a hospital altered the analysis. Rather, the standard is an objective one based on the facts, not a subjective opinion from an untrained co-worker.
Why This Matters:
This is useful precedent for employers. However, it is not a blank check to ignore warning signs. There are three practical takeaways employers should consider:
1. Document what you observe, not what you assume. Here, Target’s contemporaneous notes describing the behavior as “out of the ordinary” rather than speculating about the employee’s diagnosis helped its case.
2. Keep the disclosure channels open. The court noted Target employees said they would have accommodated Husband’s condition had they known. That’s a favorable fact. Employers still need clear, well-publicized ways for employees to disclose a disability and request accommodation, because once an employer has actual knowledge, the interactive process obligation immediately kicks in.
3. Don’t be tempted into willful blindness. The “only reasonable interpretation” standard is narrow. If an employee or a family member explicitly tells you about a condition, or the facts are genuinely unambiguous, courts will still find imputed knowledge. This case protects employers who acted on legitimate policy violations without a disability disclosure. It does not protect employers who had clear signals and looked away.
Bottom Line:
Employers still need to be mindful before disciplining or terminating an employee for concerning conduct. Employers should train supervisors to escalate concerning behavior to HR immediately, document behavior factually, and make sure your accommodation request is easy to find and easy to use. Provided the complexities of the law, employers should consult with an experienced employment attorney in uncertain cases.
In California, an employer can seek protection on behalf of its employees and their family or household members against a person who has stalked, harassed, threatened, or been violent with one or more employees at the workplace by requesting a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) under Section 527.8 of California’s Code of Civil Procedure. Section 527.8 was modeled on Section 527.6, which allows individuals to seek civil harassment restraining orders, but it extends that same protection to employers acting on behalf of their workforce. The legislature enacted it to address rising workplace violence by giving employers the ability to act, rather than leaving employees to handle the threat alone.
Before filing, the employer or collective bargaining representative must give each employee the opportunity to decline being named in the petition; one employee’s refusal does not prevent the employer from seeking protection for others. The petition must seek to prevent future unlawful violence or threats of violence at the workplace, and no filing fee applies where violence, stalking, or a threat is alleged. Unless the court shortens the timeline for good cause, the respondent must be served at least five days before the hearing with the petition, any temporary restraining order, and the hearing notice. Employers should check their local court’s requirements for the full list of forms.
The supporting declaration must satisfy one of two standards. The employer must show either reasonable proof that an employee suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence, along with a showing that great or irreparable harm would result, or clear and convincing evidence that an employee suffered harassment, that great or irreparable harm would result, that the conduct served no legitimate purpose, and that the order is not otherwise prohibited by statute
Conduct warranting a WVRO can take many forms, including physical violence, threats made in person, online, by phone, or by mail, and following an employee to or from work. The most difficult question under Section 527.8 is usually whether a “credible threat” exists where there is no direct threat, since direct threats are relatively rare in the workplace setting. Courts look closely at the specific facts to decide whether the line has been crossed.
Two cases show how that line gets drawn. In County of Los Angeles v. Niblett, the court upheld a WVRO for an assistant fire chief after a mechanic, speaking to a secretary days after shouting profanities at the chief, referenced an incident where a firefighter had fatally shot a coworker. The mechanic never made an explicit threat, but the trial court found clear and convincing evidence that the chief was the “logical target” of the implied threat. In Technology Credit Union v. Rafat, by contrast, the appellate court reversed a WVRO where the respondent had become visibly angry and aggressive, made rude and inappropriate remarks, recorded a coworker without her permission, and pushed a pen toward her demanding she write down his number. The court found this conduct rude, aggressive, and derogatory, but not an implied threat of violence. Workplace violence is unpredictable, and the line between troubling behavior and a legally actionable threat is not always obvious. Employers who see warning signs at work shouldn’t wait for something to escalate before taking action. A WVRO is one of the few tools that lets an employer step in and protect employees directly, rather than leaving them to fend for themselves. Given how fact-dependent these cases can be, employers should consult with an experienced employment attorney early to determine whether a WVRO is the right path forward.
On May 7, 2026, Attorney General (“AG”) Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit on behalf of the people of California alleging that Aspen Dental Management, Inc. (“ADMI”) violated California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq. The parties have since agreed to a proposed Final Judgment, which now awaits approval from a superior court judge.
Monetary Payments
For alleged violations under Business and Professions Code sections 17206 and 17536, ADMI is required to pay $2 million in civil penalties, to be wired in full to the Office of the California Attorney General no later than 15 days following entry of the Judgment.
The settlement also requires ADMI to pay $300,000 in restitution to affected patients. Beyond the dollar amounts, the agreement specifies a detailed payment timeline and places an affirmative obligation on ADMI to reach out to eligible patients. In cases where patients cannot be located after good-faith efforts, any remaining restitution funds are to be remitted to the Office of the California Attorney General for disbursement to the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund.
Injunctive Terms
The heart of this settlement lies in its injunctive relief. Spanning 46 subsections, these terms reflect AG Bonta’s firm line on what dental support organizations can and cannot do when operating in California. The settlement includes unprecedented injunctive terms to protect California consumers and clinical staff, covering everything from clinical independence to advertising transparency. Among the key restrictions, ADMI must not:
Replace any practice owner with a dentist of its own choosing
Require practice owners to surrender their dental practices upon termination of their contractual relationship with ADMI
Own the property used by any affiliated practice
Practice dentistry, including owning or managing any dental office
Base service fees on practice revenue, sales, or profits
Suggest, direct, or encourage any licensed clinician, other than a practice owner, to sell or increase revenue for any service or product
Compensate its own employees based on practice sales or revenue
Pay practice employees incentives tied to sales, revenue, profits, or the promotion of any particular service or product
Enforce existing contractual provisions that restrict where licensed clinicians may practice or limit their ability to communicate with patients they have treated
ADMI is also required to register with the Dental Board of California as a Dental Group Advertising and Referral Service, provide written fee schedules for products and lab services, and clearly identify the practice owner’s name in all advertisements, confer annually with the practice owner to negotiate the nature, scope, and service fees provided, among other provisions preserving the autonomy of practice owners over clinical and business decisions.
Compliance Provisions
Both the People and ADMI have mutually agreed to appoint an independent compliance monitor. The monitor will serve in this role for 36 months from the entry of the Judgment, the designated Oversight Period, with all associated costs to be paid by ADMI.
Three months after entry of the Judgment, the monitor must deliver a status report to the parties. Six months following that initial report, the monitor must complete a second written report reviewing ADMI’s compliance with any remaining outstanding terms. Throughout the Oversight Period, ADMI is required to provide the monitor with reasonable access to all records and employees.
Why This Settlement Matters: The Bigger Picture for Corporate Practice of Dentistry
Prohibition on the corporate practice of dentistry, the legal principle that prohibits non-licensed entities from owning or controlling dental practices, has existed in California law for decades (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 1626). The underlying concern is straightforward: when business interests are permitted to direct clinical decision-making, patient care can suffer. Incentive structures tied to revenue, centralized operational control, and restrictions on clinician autonomy all create an environment where profit can quietly override professional judgment. A trend the state actively targeted on October 6, 2025, when Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill No. 351 to curb private equity and hedge fund ownership in healthcare. This settlement is significant because it represents California’s most aggressive enforcement of that doctrine to date, and it does so at a moment when private equity investment in dental and medical practices is at an all-time high.
Owned by private equity firms, ADMI describes itself as a dental support organization that provides business management and administrative services to dental offices. The AG’s position, however, is that ADMI crossed the line from support into control, and the breadth of the injunctive terms suggests the office intends to hold that line going forward. For other dental support organizations and management services organizations operating in California, this settlement functions as both a warning and a roadmap. The 46-subsection injunction effectively illustrates the specific practices regulators are watching for: revenue-based fee structures, clinician incentive programs, real property ownership, and other restrictive covenants designed to insert corporate control into the practice of dentistry, precisely what California has moved to prohibit in healthcare. Whether or not a given Dental Service Organization (“DSO”) ‘s operations mirror ADMI’s, this settlement signals that California is no longer content to let organizational structure alone determine the boundaries of corporate practice. What matters now is how control is exercised in practice, and the AG’s office has made clear it is paying close attention.
So you finally finished your estate planning and signed your revocable living trust. Phew!! Now you are done. Or are you? Finalizing your trust is a major accomplishment to be applauded for sure. However, your trust is only effective as to assets “in the trust.” You will not avoid probate unless and until the trust obtains legal title to your property. The procedure of transferring title of your assets to your trust is called “funding” the trust and is a vitally important step in implementing your estate plan.
For an asset to be subject to the terms of your trust, you must transfer title to yourselves as trustees. In general, title on all trust assets should be held: “John Doe and Jane Doe, trustees of the John and Jane Doe Trust, dated _ _[date]_ _.”
Transferring title varies depending on the type of asset, but all transfers will require some documentation or “documents of title” be signed. The following is general guidance about common funding transfers, but there are nuances and variations so you should consult with your advisors to be sure the transfers are completed correctly:
1. Real property. To transfer your residence and other real property to the trust, you must execute a grant deed to the trustee(s) of the trust and then record the deed at the county recorder’s office (along with a Preliminary Change of Ownership Report). Again, the “grantee” on the deed will be in the form of “John Doe and Jane Doe, trustees of the John and Jane Doe Trust, dated _ _[date]_ _.”
Exception: If you purchase a home under the Cal-Vet program you should consult with the Department of Veterans Affairs for the proper method of transferring your contract.
2. Financial institution accounts. These accounts are normally transferred by changing the name of the account owner on the signature card or other “contract” between you and the bank, broker, etc., to the trustee of the trust. Financial institutions should be accustomed to making these transfers and generally have their own set of forms or documents to complete. Often, the institution will want a “certification of trust” and may ask that you complete their version. If not, your attorney can assist you with preparing one. It is highly recommended to visit the institution in person with a copy of your trust agreement than trying to do it over the telephone or on-line.
3. Stocks and bonds. If you hold your shares through a brokerage firm, you need change the title on the brokerage accounts. Your stockbroker may request a copy of the signed trust instrument for examination by his or her firm’s legal department. Again, this can be satisfied by a Certification of Trust which your attorney can help prepare for you as needed.
If you have physical stock/share certificates in your name, those certificates will have to be transferred which normally requires surrendering the certificates and having new certificates issued in the name of the trust. This process can be complicated and may involve working through a “transfer agent” so you should ask your advisors to assist you.
4. Automobiles. Generally, it is not necessary to transfer automobiles to the trust provided that you have given someone a durable power of attorney, which will enable them to sell the vehicle and transfer the proceeds to the trust if you become incapacitated or if you hold title with your intended beneficiaries as joint tenants. Also note that California law provides a procedure for an heir or other successor to the decedent’s property to transfer vehicle titles if the decedent has no other probate property and no probate proceeding is being conducted. The DMV has a form for certifying entitlement to transfers, titled “Affidavit for Transfer Without Probate; Titled Vehicle or Vessels Only.”
5. Other personal property. Since you generally do not have “title” documents for items such as your furniture, clothing, jewelry, etc, it is advisable to sign a general assignment to clearly indicate that you intend the trust to also hold all your tangible personal property.
6. Interests in businesses, including partnerships and small corporations. Transfers of interests in businesses will require an attorney’s assistance. Businesses generally require a variety of permits and licenses, and it is necessary that they be reviewed in detail before making the transfer. In addition, most business are held through an entity which may have owner agreements or other governing documents that need to be considered and complied with.
In addition to your current assets, moving forward you should take title to assets in your trust’s name as you acquire them. If you take title to an asset in your own name, that asset will not be a trust asset, undermining your planning.
If you have questions or need assistance with funding your trust, you should consult with experienced estate planning professional such as the Estate Planning Group at Wilke Fleury.
Wilke Fleury is pleased to announce that 18 of the firm’s attorneys have been selected for inclusion on the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists.
The annual Super Lawyers and Rising Stars selections recognize attorneys across a wide range of practice areas. This year’s honorees reflect the depth of Wilke Fleury’s litigation, business, healthcare, employment, bankruptcy, appellate, real estate, construction, and estate planning practices.
Some assets automatically pass to a designated beneficiary upon the owner’s death, often referred to as “non probate” assets. Common examples are bank accounts or life insurance policies where a beneficiary designation is made on the account. This may seem like a quick and efficient way to provide for the disposition of an estate, eliminating probate and avoiding the costs of working with an attorney. However, there are a number of drawbacks to relying solely on Payable-on-Death and Transfer-on-Death Designations.
1. Payable-on-Death and Transfer-on-Death Designations are inflexible. In the event that a beneficiary you name dies first, the interest may revert to your estate unless you update the beneficiary designation. In the event you have more than one account, this requires you to closely monitor your beneficiary designations and affirmatively make changes, on an account by account basis, which could be time consuming. There is also a chance that an account could be missed and the beneficiary designation not updated, which could cause unintended consequences such as the asset passing to someone you did not want to benefit or a probate proceeding. Payable-on-Death and Transfer-on-Death Designations do not allow for alternate or contingent dispositions, again risking unintended outcomes.
2.Payable-on-Death and Transfer-on-Death Designations do not provide access or management of the asset in the event of your incapacity. These non probate transfers only occur at death. Should you become incapacitated, other steps are necessary to manage the account for you, which could include court proceedings.
3. Payable-on-Death and Transfer-on-Death Designations are short term planning. Often, spouses are the Payable-on-Death or Transfer-on-Death beneficiaries, which ignores the longer term planning that estate planning should include. Even if everything passes to the surviving spouse based on Payable-on-Death and Transfer-on-Death Designations, the surviving spouse is faced with having to undertake estate planning steps alone. The surviving spouse would have to promptly update asset and account information (to remove the deceased spouse) and make new beneficiary designations. Until this is done, there is the risk that all the assets that avoided probate proceedings at the first death could be subject to probate at the surviving spouse’s death. This places a heavy burden on the surviving spouse who, in addition to grieving the loss of a spouse, may also be older, ill, or even incapacitated, making taking action impractical or even impossible.
In contrast to these limitations, a comprehensive estate plan will include tools that not only avoid probate but also provide for flexibility and comprehensive asset management during lifetime and after death. While Payable-on-Death and Transfer-on-Death Designations can be a part of your estate plan, they should be carefully coordinated and are not a substitute for comprehensive planning.
Government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid provide financial assistance to millions of Americans with disabilities. However, qualification for public “means tested” programs is typically available only if an individual has very limited financial resources. For example, programs such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid generally require individuals to have limited income and countable assets of no more than $2,000. And the rules relative to qualification can be nuanced, difficult to navigate and are heavily scrutinized. Families trying to do the right thing for their loved ones can unintentionally or inadvertently cause reduction, disruption or even loss of public assistance. As such, the need for comprehensive estate planning for families with a family member with a disability is even more critical.
The challenge of planning with a family member with a disability is implementing a plan to provide necessary support without putting essential benefits at risk. Planning must be proactive and consider protecting benefits, supporting quality of life, and include long-term financial planning alongside long-term care needs.
As with estate planning in general, various tools and techniques can be coordinated depending on a family’s unique circumstances. A primary concern, though, is ensuring that money or other assets are not left directly to the individual with a disability, as this will jeopardize means tested benefits, and rather than providing additional benefit, these resources will have to be expended typically on care costs otherwise covered by public benefits. A beneficial plan should provide for the disposition and management of assets in a way to provide supplemental benefit to the individual with a disability.
A common tool to facilitate supplemental benefits to an individual with a disability is a special (or supplemental) needs trust (SNT). A SNT is a separate legal entity (trust) that holds funds for a beneficiary with a disability. The SNT is carefully drafted to allow money to be used for expenses that improve the quality of life but do not affect eligibility for programs such as SSI or Medicaid. The primary directive of the SNT is to use funds to supplement public benefits, not replace them. A single SNT can receive and hold gifts and inheritances from any number of family members or friends, and in any amounts.
The SNT can also provide for administrative flexibility and oversight of the use of funds, for example, allowing designated friends or family members input into some decision making. There should be a careful balance though, to avoid the SNT becoming too administratively cumbersome or complex. One size/form will absolutely not fit all, and families should work with experienced professionals.
It is also important to note that actual health care decision making and generally care and maintenance of the individual with a disability will be the responsibility of a conservator, which is separate and distinct from the SNT and the functions that the Trustee performs administering the SNT. While a discussion of conservatorship is beyond the scope of this article, the key distinction to keep in mind is that the Trustee of the SNT controls the purse strings, while a conservator oversees the care and custody of the individual.
A more recent tool in the special needs planning arsenal is the Achieving a Better Life Experience (“ABLE”) account. An ABLE account allows eligible individuals with disabilities to save a limited amount of money each year for qualified expenses such as housing, education, transportation, and healthcare. These accounts are not “countable assets” and therefore do not impact public benefit qualification if the funds are used for qualifying expenses. It is important to note that an ABLE account is the personal account of the individual with a disability. He or she is the account owner and has control and access to the account. Limiting the amount in an ABLE account may be prudent for individuals who may be vulnerable to being taken advantage of. If an ABLE account is to be included in a conservatorship to help protect against predators, this creates an additional administrative layer of reporting and Court oversight to be considered as well. While an ABLE account provides an opportunity for individuals with a disability to accumulate funds and exercise independence, it may not be appropriate in all circumstances. Also due to the limitations on annual and cumulative amounts, ABLE accounts are NOT a replacement for a SNT, but a tool that can be implemented as part of an overall, comprehensive plan.
The right approach to estate planning if there is a family member with a disability involves a combination of tools, carefully coordinated to reflect a family’s resources, goals, and the specific needs of the individual with a disability. Each approach should be examined individually and collectively, with the assistance of experienced professionals to avoid unintentional or inadvertent consequences.
DMHC’s March 2026 Roundtable Signals a Busy Year Ahead
The Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) held its quarterly roundtable on March 4, 2026, and the message was clear: 2026 will be an active year for health plans. DMHC shared updates on assessments, pending regulations, licensure initiatives, network reporting, and several recently enacted laws. While some items remain in development, the Department’s comments offered a useful look at where regulatory attention is headed.
Assessments, Budget Proposals, and Oversight Priorities
DMHC explained that it does not yet know the 2026-27 health plan assessment rate, though it expects enrollment changes at the federal level may affect the per-enrollee amount. The Department said its annual assessment APL should be issued within the next four to six weeks. DMHC also discussed proposed trailer bill language related to menopause services, including a public education campaign and additional staffing. Beyond those proposals, DMHC raised concerns it has recently seen in-network participation and continuity of care, including reports that some plans may be declining to contract with certain DHCS-provisionally licensed residential treatment centers and concerns about transitions from out-of-network to in-network behavioral health providers without adequate analysis of clinical appropriateness.
Regulatory Activity Continues to Expand
DMHC’s Office of Legal Services reported progress on several regulations. The provider directory regulations under SB 137 have now been approved and will take effect on April 1, 2026. DMHC also announced that formal rulemaking for the SB 17 prescription drug reporting regulations is beginning, with the package submitted to the Office of Administrative Law. In addition, DMHC said it is moving forward with regulations related to health equity and quality standards under AB 133, and it is again seeking stakeholder feedback on proposed revisions to its general licensure regulation, including the exemption process for entities accepting global risk. At the same time, the Department acknowledged continued uncertainty around its proposed Essential Health Benefits benchmark update after CMS paused review of pending state benchmark applications.
Implementation Issues Remain Front and Center
DMHC also addressed implementation of several newer laws. With respect to SB 729, the infertility coverage law, the Department reminded plans that affected products issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026 must comply, and that updated EOCs should be submitted with legislative compliance filings due March 19. DMHC noted that it recently amended its prior guidance and may issue FAQs in the coming months. The Department also reiterated that long-acting injectable PrEP drugs may not be denied in favor of oral alternatives on the theory that they are interchangeable. In the licensing space, DMHC said it plans to open eFiling for Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) licensure in July 2026, with a two-step process intended to allow PBMs to obtain conditional licensure by January 1, 2027 while completing the remainder of the application during 2027.
What Plans Should Be Watching For plans, the practical takeaway is that DMHC is advancing several regulatory and legislative initiatives at the same time. Developments involving provider directories, prescription drug reporting, fertility coverage requirements, PBM licensure, combination networks, and prior authorization reporting will likely continue to evolve throughout the year. Plans should remain attentive to DMHC guidance and rulemaking activity as these initiatives move forward.
On February 27, 2026, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a moratorium on the enrollment of new durable medical equipment (“DME”) suppliers with Medicare. The moratorium applies to the following seven supplier types:
Medical supply company
Medical supply company with orthotics personnel
Medical supply company with pedorthic personnel
Medical supply company with prosthetics personnel
Medical supply company with prosthetics and orthotics personnel
Medical supply company with registered pharmacist
Medical supply company with respiratory therapist
In issuing the moratorium, CMS noted that their determination for the need to implement the moratorium was based on a high risk that fraud, waste, and abuse exists. CMS relied on historical Medicare enrollment and claims data and analyzed key metrics pertaining to enrollment volume and trends for more than eighty types of DME suppliers. Despite a relatively small number of bad actors, DME suppliers continue to be a prime target for allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse.
The moratorium will remain in effect for six months and may be extended thereafter. The CMS notice identifies the following changes that the moratorium does not apply to:
Changes in practice location (except if the location is changing from a location outside the moratorium area to a location inside the moratorium area).
Changes in provider or supplier information, such as phone number or address.
Changes in ownership (except changes in ownership of home health agencies that would require an initial enrollment).
However, the moratorium would apply to suppliers that go through a change of ownership because a supplier that undergoes a nonexempt change in majority ownership within thirty-six months of its initial enrollment must enroll in Medicare as a brand new supplier, despite already operating prior to the moratorium. Additionally, changes of ownership that are the result of asset sales would also be impacted by the moratorium as the new owners would also have to enroll in Medicare as a new DME supplier. Applications submitted to CMS for new enrollment during the moratorium period will be denied and the applications will have to be resubmitted in the future once the moratorium is no longer in place.
The notice indicates that CMS believes the moratorium will not substantially limit Medicare beneficiaries’ access to care because “there is already an adequate nationwide quantity of such suppliers.” However, the number of overall suppliers does not take into account the fact that there may be limited numbers of specific types of suppliers and also fails to consider that there may already be very limited access to Medicare beneficiaries located in certain rural communities.
For existing DME suppliers, this moratorium serves as a barrier to entry to new suppliers that would compete with them for business. DME suppliers currently enrolled in Medicare should note the increased scrutiny that they face for allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse with the current administration. It is as important as ever for DME suppliers to prioritize regulatory and compliance efforts in order to maintain their Medicare enrollment and continue to serve the Medicare beneficiary population.
Aaron Claxton is a California healthcare attorney and partner with Wilke Fleury LLP focused on regulatory compliance for a range of clients providing healthcare services within the state.
We recently had a call from an individual, “Person X”, who was asked to pay money to a Companion to help settle the estate of the Companion’s father. Specifically, the money was necessary to pay estate taxes, to allow the release of the decedent’s assets. The Companion provided Person X a copy of a “Will” that seemed to look like a formal and “official” document. It had our firm’s name, logo, and address at the top, recited some “testamentary” sounding language, included the name of an attorney alleged to work at our firm, and had an official-looking “seal” near the signature line. The Companion indicated that several thousand dollars were needed to pay estate taxes, to allow for the release of the several million dollars in assets listed in the “Will.” Thankfully, Person X was suspicious and, rather than just relying on an internet search to verify that our firm exists, Person X called us and sent us a copy of the “Will” to look at. There were numerous problems with the Companion’s story, and we could immediately see many issues with the document itself. In addition, to claim these assets, there would need to be a probate proceeding. Moreover, all the decedent’s money and property would be available and required to be used to pay any estate taxes, assuming any estate taxes would even be due, which is not necessarily the case due to current exemption amounts. So, a proper analysis required drawing together a number of elements that are not evident to someone without the requisite knowledge or experience in estate planning. Thankfully, Person X was suspicious and contacted us, and we were able to confirm that the story and the document were fake, and this was, unfortunately, a scam to take Person X’s money.
It was clear that the Companion had taken the time to piece together a document to support the tale and ask for money, and by including an actual law firm name, logo, and address, lend it credibility. Research on the internet would verify that yes, we are a law firm in Sacramento, and our services include estate planning, so it could be plausible that the document was authentic. But the internet cannot take the place of the knowledge, experience, and analysis of an estate planning professional.
So, please be careful, trust your instincts, and if something seems off, do not just rely on what you find online. Contact experienced professionals to assist you. A little time or cost now can save you and your family from heartbreak and disaster down the road.
Many kinds of accounts and property allow for a beneficiary designation, sometimes called transfer-on-death (TOD) or payable-on-death (POD) designations, that allow the account to pass directly to a beneficiary on your death. Do you know if you have made any beneficiary designations on your accounts? Have you reviewed these lately to be sure they are still consistent with your wishes? Did you know that TOD, or POD designations, take precedence over your Will or living trust? Are you aware of what can go wrong if there are issues with your beneficiary designations?
If you answered “no” to any of these questions, it may be time to review your accounts, particularly your TOD and POD beneficiary designations, to be sure everything is complete, accurate, and up to date. An annual review is crucial to ensuring that your accounts and property go quickly and seamlessly to the right people.
Where to Find TOD, POD, and Beneficiary Designations Beneficiary, TOD, and POD designations in writing that specify who will receive the asset (e.g., accounts, property, death benefits, etc.) after the original owner dies. These designations allow you to pass assets directly to your beneficiaries and avoid probate. This results in faster distribution to your family and loved ones and can reduce costs relative to settling your estate. Some common assets with beneficiary designations include the following: ● retirement accounts—401(k)s, individual retirement accounts, and other retirement plans; ● investment accounts—Brokerage accounts, stocks, bonds, and mutual funds; ● bank accounts—Checking accounts, savings accounts, and certificates of deposit; ● life insurance policies— Including whole, term, and group; and ● real estate—TOD deeds or survivorship designations on title. For most, their homes and financial accounts are the primary source of wealth, making it all the more important that beneficiary designations for these assets reflect your current wishes.
What Can Go Wrong with an Omitted, Incomplete, Inaccurate, or Outdated Beneficiary Designation? According to financial advisors, beneficiary form errors are among the most common—and the costliest—estate planning mistakes that people make. These errors fall into a few main buckets: ● Failure to name a beneficiary. Many people simply forget to complete beneficiary designation forms or put them off indefinitely. This situation is especially common for inherited accounts. ● Outdated information. Major life events such as marriage, divorce, the birth of a child, or the death of a beneficiary generally mean that beneficiary designations need to be updated. ● Inaccurate or missing information. Mistakes in spelling, addresses, or other identifying information, or failure to provide complete information, can cause delays, confusion, or even disputes when processing beneficiary designations. ● Naming a minor as beneficiary. Technically, minors can be named as beneficiaries, but they cannot legally receive or manage money and property above a certain value. If they are named as beneficiaries, a court may need to appoint a guardian to oversee the funds for them until they reach the age of majority (18 years of age in some states and 21 in others). ● Overlooking complex circumstances. A beneficiary may be unable to manage their inheritance because of a disability, special needs, poor money habits, mental health issues, or substance use disorder. ● Not naming contingent beneficiaries. If the primary beneficiary dies before the account holder or cannot be located, and no contingent (backup) beneficiary has been named, it will be treated as if no beneficiary had been named. ● Lost or invalid forms. Unfortunately, financial institutions sometimes misplace beneficiary designation forms or fail to process them correctly. Also, if a financial institution or employer changes the plan’s service provider or administrator, the original beneficiary designation may no longer apply, meaning that a new beneficiary designation form needs to be completed under the new provider.
In addition to the unintended distribution of accounts, property, or death benefits and related disputes, an invalid, missing, or outdated beneficiary designation can result in the assets requiring probate administration, resulting in payout delays and increased costs:
Robert had a brokerage account but never designated a beneficiary. When he died, the account became part of his probate estate, resulting in a lengthy and expensive legal process that delayed the distribution of his money. Moreover, the costs of the probate reduced the final amount that went to his heirs, and even though Robert may have told family that he wanted the brokerage account to pass to a specific beneficiary, through the probate proceeding, the account was divided among several beneficiaries.
Calendar Your Estate Plan Review You should be reviewing your estate plan at least every few years or after any significant life event. But even if you have not formalized your estate plan (what?!?!), you should, at a minimum, review your account beneficiary designations and ask: ● Are these beneficiaries still the people you want to receive your accounts? ● Are the beneficiaries still living? ● Are they capable of managing the inheritance? Should they receive an outright distribution, or are safeguards needed? ● Is there more than one beneficiary named, and if so, how hard is it to divide the account or property, and what is the potential for conflict between/among the beneficiaries? ● Do the beneficiaries know that they are named? Do they know how to proceed after your passing?
As part of your review process, it is important that you have accurate information. Get the current confirmation directly from the financial institutions of what they have on record. Do not just rely on memory or copies of forms you originally filled out.
Even if everything looks good after a review, you may benefit from reviewing your plan with your attorney or financial advisor. They have seen it all and may be able to suggest options or alternatives that are better suited to your needs.
We are pleased to congratulate Jason Eldred on his promotion to senior counsel at Wilke Fleury LLP. Jason’s work in service of clients is outstanding. His thoughtfulness and hard work contribute so much to what makes our firm truly special. Jason’s clients include construction companies, real estate companies, and medical professionals. Jason’s practice focuses on business and healthcare litigation, employment counseling and litigation, and bankruptcy. Senior Counsel at Wilke Fleury have a minimum of six years experience delivering high-quality legal services, collaborating with partners on development and management of cases, and actively mentoring junior lawyers. Congratulations Jason!
Myth 1: I have a will, so I do not need anything else.
Fact: A will is one part of the estate planning puzzle. But it is only one part and by itself is generally insufficient to meet the comprehensive needs of a business owner. A will does not address what happens to your business if you become incapacitated (unable to handle your own affairs). A will does not avoid probate, leaving your loved ones to have to navigate the probate process after your death to transfer your business ownership interest. For everyone—but especially business owners—a comprehensive estate plan can help avoid delays, frozen assets, and legal battles. Relying on a will alone can leave your business vulnerable to disruption and potentially a significant loss of value.
Myth 2: My family will automatically take over the business if something happens to me.
Fact: Neither business ownership nor management automatically transfers to another person if you become incapacitated or pass away, unless you have taken formal steps and documented a legally binding transition process.
If you become incapacitated, your family cannot simply step in to run the business on your behalf. Without the proper estate planning tools in place, they may need to seek a court-appointed conservator, which can be time-consuming and costly, just to handle essential tasks for day-to-day management of your business, such as signing contracts, accessing business bank accounts, or approving payroll.
If you pass away without addressing the operation and transition of your business in your estate plan, the problems only multiply. Before your business interests can be transferred, there will likely have to be a probate proceeding —a public and often lengthy court process. Even worse, if you have done no estate planning, the court could determine who inherits your business interests according to state law, which may not be the person(s) you would have chosen. A relative with no interest or experience in running the business could end up in charge, or ownership could be split among multiple heirs, leading to disputes and instability.
A well-structured estate plan ensures that the right people are in control, operations continue smoothly, and your life’s work retains its value and purpose.
Myth 3: My business is small, so I do not need to worry about estate planning.
Fact: Even small businesses can face serious consequences without proper estate planning and may actually be more vulnerable than larger businesses because they often rely so heavily on the owner’s day-to-day involvement. If something happens to you and no one is legally authorized to act in your place, your business could lose access to contracts or bank accounts, miss payroll or tax deadlines, or even be forced to shut down. An estate plan ensures that someone you trust can step in immediately to make decisions, pay bills, and keep operations running, regardless of business size.
Wilke Fleury LLP is pleased to announce that Neal Lutterman is the firm’s Managing Partner beginning January 1, 2026. Neal succeeds Steve Williamson, who held the role of Managing Partner from 2020 through 2025. Steve Williamson led the firm through several years of significant change, and the firm is immeasurably grateful for Steve and his leadership.
Neal joined Wilke Fleury in 2015 and has been a Partner since 2017. Neal is an incredibly valuable member of the firm’s partnership and litigation teams. He has a demonstrated history of leadership on the firm’s Management Committee for 4+ years. Neal’s practice focuses on litigated matters in the healthcare arena. For over 25 years, Neal has defended physicians, healthcare systems, hospitals, medical groups, and allied healthcare providers in professional and general liability matters. Neal regularly represents physicians and other healthcare clients in administrative proceedings relating to professional licensing and disciplinary matters. Neal also works closely with the firm’s corporate healthcare clients representing health plans, Medicare Advantage Plans, Risk Bearing Organizations (RBOs), and other entities in reimbursement and contract disputes.
Neal will work closely with the firm’s Management Committee to advance the firm’s focus on client development, strategic growth, and attorney excellence in the years to come. Neal Lutterman is excited about the firm’s future, committed to the “next generation” of talented Sacramento lawyers, and continues to establish Wilke Fleury as the preeminent law firm in Sacramento.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're okay with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie SettingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
