Details

Written by: Editor

Published: 11 June 2009

Created: 10 June 2009

Last Updated: 10 June 2009

SAN DIEGO – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. on Wednesday forged a settlement with CVS Pharmacy requiring the company to make sure expired products are not sold in its stores and provide customers a $2 coupon if they identify products past their sell-by date.

The settlement also applies to Longs Drug Stores California, which CVS purchased in late 2008.

"CVS Pharmacy routinely sold expired baby formula, over-the-counter medication and dairy products long after the expiration date," Brown said. "This agreement forces the company to give customers a $2 dollar coupon if they find expired products in CVS or Longs Drug Stores."

In March 2008, Brown launched an investigation which revealed that CVS Stores in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties had regularly sold expired baby food, baby formula, over-the-counter medications and dairy products to consumers.

Expired products found include:

• Gerber's Vanilla Custard, 11 months expired, at a Huntington Beach store;

• Bright Beginnings Ultra Baby Formula 31.7 oz., three months expired, at a Fullerton store;

• Bonine for Kids (children's motion sickness medication), five months expired, at a Buena Park store;

• Gerber Baby Food Oatmeal with Applesauce and Bananas, two months expired, at an El Cajon store.

The investigation also confirmed that five CVS Pharmacies had improperly discarded more than 500 documents and prescription bottles containing confidential medical information in dumpsters outside of its stores. This discarded information included patient names, addresses, birthdates and prescription medications.

In June 2008, Brown called on CVS Pharmacy to immediately end the sale of expired products and mishandling of confidential customer information across all CVS Pharmacy stores.

Brown today filed a civil suit and a stipulated judgment in San Diego County Superior Court.

The suit contends that CVS Pharmacy violated Business and Professions Code 17200 and Civil Code 1798.81, by misleading customers about CVS' standards to insure that products would not be sold after the expiration of the "sell buy" or "best by" date and by failing to preserve the confidentiality of customers' personal medical records. In entering into the settlement, CVS denied any wrong-doing.

The stipulated judgment resolves the suit and forces CVS to:

• Stop the sale of expired products in CVS Pharmacy and Longs Drug stores in California;

• Implement a first-of-its-kind coupon program whereby consumers who find an expired item on store shelves are entitled to a coupon worth $2.00 which can be used in any future purchase at a CVS Store in California for any product;

• Revise existing policies regarding the sale of expired products and require employees to check at least twice a month that sell-by dates have not passed on infant formula, baby food, eggs, dairy products and over-the-counter medications;

• Revise existing policies regarding the disposal of confidential waste so that they include proper shredding policies and require written certification that all records containing personal information have been properly disposed of;

• Review and revise these updated policies annually and provide employees with written training in these new policies;

• Provide the Attorney General's Office with sworn statements certifying that it has complied with all aspects of the Judgment;

• Perform random audits in its California stores twice a year to make certain that expired products aren't being sold and that confidential medical information is safeguarded and disposed of properly: if CVS fails to meet these new conditions, audits will continue until these new requirements are met for two consecutive years; and

• Designate a toll-free number for employees and customers to report expired products and each store must submit reports to its corporate headquarters regarding these incidents at least twice a month.

CVS will pay $975,000 in civil penalties, attorney fees and costs.

Details

Written by: Editor

Published: 10 June 2009

Created: 10 June 2009

Last Updated: 10 June 2009

SACRAMENTO – The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), in conjunction with its Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), has requested that the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) adopt emergency amendments to the current heat illness prevention standard, section 3395 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.

“We are now in our fourth year of enforcing this standard, which was enacted to protect outdoor employees from the hazard of heat illness,” said DIR Director John C. Duncan. “We have found from our enforcement activities that there is a need for the standard to be clarified so that more employers will comply fully and effectively with its provisions.”

Cal/OSHA enforcement statistics collected from the brief periods of hot weather experienced in the state this year have demonstrated that substantive changes to clarify the regulation are necessary to ensure that employers have the guidance they need to protect employees working outdoors from exposure to heat.

“California is home to sunshine and heat, as well as thousands of workers whose make their living under it,” said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. “Since taking office I have worked to protect California’s outdoor workers and I will continue to improve and strengthen those standards to protect these men and woman and help their employers better comply with California’s standards.”

Public awareness of the heat illness prevention regulations has increased as a result of education and outreach efforts by Cal/OSHA in partnership with labor, industry and community partners. However, Cal/OSHA is requesting that the OSHSB adopt the emergency amendments to the standard in order to bring more specificity and enforceability to the standard.

The proposed amendment will:

• Clarify the provisions that govern when and how to provide shade, drinking water and employee training;

• Add tiered procedures to be followed when temperatures are above 85 and 95 degrees Fahrenheit;

• Add related requirements to implement feasible and effective measures for the protection of employees working outdoors, and;

• Eliminate the definition of “preventative recovery period.”

“Although most employers of outdoor worksites are now on board with the need to provide safeguards to their workers, some employers still fail to comply,” said Cal/OSHA Chief Len Welsh. “Last month in a two-week period we required eight employers to cease their operations because their failure to provide the most basic protection to their workers from heat far in excess of 90 degrees exposed them to an imminent hazard.”

A public hearing to discuss the proposed amendment to the heat illness prevention regulation, Section 3395 of the Title 8 California Code of Regulations has been scheduled by the OSHSB to take place at their next meeting on June 18 in Oakland.

If the emergency amendments are adopted, they will be sent to the State Office of Administrative Law for approval and then to the Secretary of State for filing. A 120 day standard rulemaking process will follow to develop permanent amendments to the heat illness prevention regulations.

In July 2006, the heat illness prevention regulation became permanent, making California the first state in the nation to adopt a comprehensive heat illness prevention standard for outdoor workers.

For more information on OSHSB’s public meeting details and agenda, visit the OSHSB Web site at www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb/agendaJune09.html .

For more information on heat illness prevention and training materials, visit the Cal/OSHA Web site at www.dir.ca.gov/heatillness .

Employees with work-related questions or complaints, including heat illness, may call the California Workers’ Information Hotline at 1-866-924-9757.

Details

Written by: Editor

Published: 07 June 2009

Created: 07 June 2009

Last Updated: 07 June 2009

SACRAMENTO – The California Senate voted 29-0 June 3 to approve legislation by Sen. Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) designed to encourage residential and commercial producers of solar power to generate even more.

Existing law allows a customer of a utility provider (such as PG & E or SMUD) to sell solar power to the utility provider to offset the cost of his/her electric bill. This is referred to as “net-energy metering.”

If the customer produces enough solar power to cover their electrical use, the customer owes nothing on their bill at the end of the year. If the customer produces less solar power than the electricity consumed, at the end of the year the customer owes the utility provider money.

The problem, Wiggins said, is that a utility customer can also produce more solar power than they use, but the utility provider doesn't have to pay the customer anything at the end of the year.

While some will argue that was the deal made under the net-energy metering statutes, others will argue that it's not fair because the customer produced solar power when their utility company agreed to buy the power, but in the end, the customer/solar producer believes he/she didn't get paid.

“This is kind of like having frequent flyer miles that you can never cash out or use,” Wiggins said. “And it sends the wrong message to consumers about the importance of energy conservation.”

Her legislation, Senate Bill 7, requires utility providers to allow customers who produce their own solar power to roll over unused energy credits for up to two years.

Senate approval of SB 7 means the bill next heads to the Assembly for further consideration.

The measure is supported by, among others, Recolte Energy, California Farm Bureau Federation, City of Calistoga, City of Oakland, David Arthur Vineyards, Family Winemakers of California, Far Niente, Napa Valley Vintners, Peter A. & Vernice H. Gasser Foundation, Redwood Empire Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, Schramsberg, Sustainable Napa County, The Wine Institute and Vintage High School.

Also on June 3, the California Senate voted 26-7 to approve SB 542, another Wiggins bill,to encourage solar power installations and energy efficiency in apartments, commercial buildings, and manufactured homes, from which solar power opportunities have historically been excluded.

Senate approval means SB 542 next heads to the Assembly for further consideration. The bill is co-authored by Senator Tony Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks).

Since the 2000-2001 energy crisis, state policy has elevated energy efficiency measures as the highest priority activity for meeting California's energy needs. Energy efficiency is often cost effective, cheap, clean, and relatively quick to implement.

The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) authorized substantial energy efficiency programs for the major investor-owned utilities for the period 2006-2008. This program was expected to produce $2.7 billion in net benefits, reducing customer bills. Moreover, these savings are the equivalent of avoiding three large power plants over the next three years, eliminating 3.4 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, equivalent to taking 650,000 cars off the road. For the 2009-2011 period, the PUC has adopted slightly more ambitious goals.

Renters make up about 43 percent of California households. As a consequence, Wiggins said, “the incentives for energy efficiency, and solar power, aren’t cost effective for either the tenant, or the landlord, in many instances.”

Her bill requires the PUC to address these issues and barriers, so that all ratepayers who pay into the state’s solar initiative and energy efficiency programs can benefit from the programs. SB 542 also seeks to eliminate barriers for installation of solar on manufactured homes by requiring the PUC to inform installers about permitting processes.