The Carlo Law Group

02/20/2026

🚨 ALERT: California Budget Trailer Bill Threatens Injured Workers and Veterans

A proposed California budget trailer bill would drastically change Labor Code § 4754.1 and effectively dismantle the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). The 2026 budget trailer bill draft (RN 26 04602) explicitly adds § 4754.1 and related SIBTF reforms.
SIBTF was created after World War I to protect veterans and injured workers who already had disabilities and were hurt again on the job. It is a lifeline for people who would otherwise be left without adequate benefits.

Sneaking this major policy change into a budget trailer bill is unfair and undemocratic. This is not a minor budget tweak—this is a fundamental rollback of worker and veteran protections that should go through the full legislative process with hearings and public debate. There is a Standalone bill (e.g., AB 1576) reintroducing § 4754.1 in 2026 that is currently in committee.

If this passes, thousands of California workers and veterans will lose critical benefits they earned through service and sacrifice.

👉 Contact your State Senator and Assembly Member today and urge them to oppose this trailer bill change.
👉 Tell them: Protect SIBTF. Protect injured workers. Protect veterans.

04/29/2024

Help disabled citizens of California receive the proper benefits they deserve!

Signing our petition will be the first step of many to make a difference.

If California doubles it’s PD rate we will be roughly half as bad as Texas. California business interests can congratulate themselves on successfully lobbying for a workers’ compensation system that provides among the worst PD rates in the country. It is now time to take care of our working clas...

04/11/2024

Listen up California!

California has not increased permanent disability (PD) benefits for disabled workers in the Workers’ Compensation system in the past 10 years. The last PD increase was in 2014.

Currently, a 10% disability for an injury occurring in 2024 in California is valued at $8,772.50. In comparison, a 10% disability in Texas is valued at $35,220.00.

In Texas, a 10% impairment rating (IR) results in 30 weeks of impairment income benefits (IIBs), with workers receiving three weeks of IIBs for each percentage of impairment (10 x 3 = 30). IIBs are 70% of the average weekly wage (AWW), with a maximum rate of $1,174.00 in 2024. In contrast, the PD rate in California is $290.00. Therefore, a 10% disability in Texas pays $35,220.00.

If California were to double its PD rate, it would still be approximately half of what Texas offers. This reflects the current lobbying efforts that have shaped California’s workers' compensation system.

You can help by signing our petition linked in our bio and contacting your local representative to advocate for change in support of injured workers in California.

02/28/2024

Juan Chacón was born and raised in San Jose, California, and is now a member of the Carlo Law family. You can find him in our office receiving client calls and aiding them with any problems they may have.
As a legal assistant, Juan is passionate about assisting not only our clients, but also the office in working together to complete tasks!
Apart from work, he enjoys the rhythm of the waves and the challenge of reeling in the large catch, which brings him both comfort and excitement. When he's not by the sea, Juan is frequently seen engaged in the excitement of live entertainment, soaking up the energy of concerts and performances. However, Juan truly shines in the kitchen, where he expresses his creativity via cooking and baking. Juan, who is always keen to widen his horizons, enjoys the thrill of doing new things and is always on the lookout for new experiences to improve his life.

09/22/2023

Inform Congress to VOTE YES on the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act RIGHT AWAY!

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program helps millions of people with disabilities afford basic necessities like food and rent.

However, SSI has many limitations that make it difficult for people to save money and get out of poverty. The asset cap for SSI has not been revised since 1989! Cash, funds in bank accounts, the majority of retirement accounts, and other financial resources are all considered assets. SSI recipients are now limited to having $2,000 worth of assets. Only $3,000 is allowed for married couples.

Due to these restrictions, people are unable to save money and are consequently forced into poverty.

GET INVOLVED: Ask your congressional representatives to support

Click the link:
https://action.thearc.org/nh5jqpz

07/24/2023

Always grateful to support our local heroes.
___________________________________________

Siempre agradecido de apoyar a nuestros héroes locales.

07/24/2023

Valoramos el trabajo de nuestros héroes del barrio y estamos constantemente dispuestos a echar una mano. Contáctenos al (408) 292 - 2003 para una consulta GRATIS.

10/19/2020

The economic hardships as a result of COVID-19 have shown just how important government benefits can be for working people. Unemployment Insurance when one loses their job, or State Disability payments when someone is ill and can't work, have been lifesavers for millions of Californians.

In California we can also get SDI if we need to take care of a loved one who is ill and need to quit our jobs to do so. These benefits are for employees.
The multibillion-dollar corporations comprised of Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and the like are spending over $180 million to make sure that these lifesaving protections do not cover their drivers. They wish to roll back the protections provided for such workers in recently enacted Assembly Bill 5.

Proposition 22 would take away these benefits and once again label drivers as independent contractors, who will likely end up homeless and on welfare if they were to become sick and unable to work. Let Uber and Lyft take corporate responsibility for their drivers and not shift the expenses to the taxpayer.
Vote NO on Prop 22.

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other gig economy employers are waging the most expensive ballot initiative campaign in U.S. history so they can continue to exploit their drivers.

They’ve accumulated over $180 million to flood the airwaves with countless ads hoping they can convince voters to allow them to continue to misclassify their drivers as independent contractors and deny them legally-required benefits that come with employment.
Under current law enacted earlier this year through AB 5, drivers should be classified as employees and gig employers should be paying for unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, paid sick leave and workers’ compensation.

Rather than directing the millions of dollars toward providing drivers with a living wage and employment protections, they’ve instead decided to try and create a new employment classification for their drivers and continue their exploitative business model.
For the sake of drivers and their families, we hope voters say “no.”

Proposition 22 is a smokescreen perpetrated by corporate gig economy employers who want to create a new classification of employment so they don’t have to pay their drivers a living wage, don’t have to pay into Social Security, and don’t have to provide for unemployment or workers’ compensation insurance.
The proposition claims to provide new benefits for employees such as an hourly wage up to 120% of the local or state minimum wage, but that rate is only guaranteed when a customer is in the car and does nothing for the hours of time spent going to pick up the rider. An analysis by the UC Berkeley Labor Center found multiple loopholes in the proposed initiative that the companies could exploit and estimated actual pay would be closer to $5.64 per hour.
Does anyone really believe Uber and Lyft would pay roughly $45 million apiece to provide workers with more benefits? Their big bet is only to benefit themselves. Hopefully voters see through the smoke and mirrors and vote “no.”

10/12/2020

In a few short weeks, Californians will be asked to vote on what is now the most expensive ballot proposition in U.S. history to decide the fate of gig workers for years to come.

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other gig economy corporations have poured more than $185 million into the passage of Proposition 22, the largest sum for a ballot initiative campaign in California, and the U.S., even when accounting for inflation.

Rather than directing the millions of dollars toward providing drivers with a living wage, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation or pandemic assistance, they’ve instead decided to try and create a new employment classification for their drivers and continue their exploitative business model.

For several months now, they’ve been flooding the airwaves and social media platforms with deceptive messages showing drivers’ emotional pleas to keep making their own schedule while being fearful of losing their source of income should Prop 22 be defeated.

However, there are no provisions in the current law that would compel employers to force their drivers into a rigid schedule.

That hasn’t stopped the companies from using scare tactics and threatening to pull out of California altogether – an unlikely move that would prevent them from doing business in one of their most lucrative markets. They’ve even gone as far as sending push notifications and including pop-up messages for app users threatening a loss of income for most drivers if they don’t vote yes on Prop 22.

While these app-based companies are spending millions in the name of exploiting workers to protect their bottom line, the initiative could have greater repercussions for app-based business models as a whole.

Given the 7/8ths majority needed for the state legislature to overturn the measure, should Prop 22 prevail, workers in other industries could soon see themselves in a similar situation with few options for recourse.

In a recent piece for CalMatters, Ray Fuentes, a Skadden Fellow at the Partnership for Working Families, noted that, “Every nurse, janitor or construction worker in America could be hired by an app like Uber and Lyft’s, dispatched to a job and be told that they are performing their work as an ‘independent business,’ not an employee.”

This would be a huge step backward for the labor movement, creating new avenues for employers to cut labor costs while exploiting employees.

Corporations have long used the initiative process as a means of buying a law to suit their profits best. Some have succeeded while others have failed. We hope voters check this one off as a failure.

09/22/2020

The Carlo Law Group joins the country in mourning the loss of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a trailblazer for gender equality.

During Ginsburg’s early years as a lawyer, the Social Security Act contained several sections applicable only to one gender. In Weinberger vs Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) Ginsburg successfully argued that the gender-based distinction under 42 U.S.C. § 402(g) of the Social Security Act of 1935—which permitted widows but not widowers to collect benefits while caring for minor children—violated the right to equal protection secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977) Ginsburg convinced the Court that 42 USC Section 402, which required a widower to have been receiving half his support from his wife at the time of her death but did not impose this requirement on widows was also an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process clause.

Justice Ginsburg wrote the unanimous or majority opinion for several Social Security cases including Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 541132 S.Ct. 2021, 182 L.Ed 887 (2012) which held that posthumously conceived children who can inherit under the laws of intestacy of the state where their deceased father was domiciled at the time of death can meet the Social Security Act’s definition of "child" under 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A) and be eligible to receive survivor’s benefits.

Rest in Power RBG.

08/22/2020

In order to support the hundreds of thousands of app-based drivers in their quest to become employees and obtain the legally required benefits and protections that come with employment, The Carlo Law Group supports the No on Proposition 22 campaign.

On November 3, voters will be asked to approve a misleading new employment classification through Proposition 22, a ballot initiative funded by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other app-based employers. These companies want to create this new classification for their drivers so they don't have to pay for their standard benefits & protections, including a minimum wage, paid sick leave, unemployment insurance & workers’ compensation.

Rather than comply with Assembly Bill 5, which requires these companies to classify their drivers as employees, they're hoping to convince voters to approve Proposition 22 so they can continue mistreating their drivers. They've so far poured over $110 million into their campaign and will far outspend labor groups who are rallying to oppose the proposition.

Join us in helping to educate voters on the reality of what this proposition is really about.

Thank you in advance for your support. Vote .

08/22/2020

Uber wants to create a new employment classification for its drivers so it wouldn't have to pay for their standard benefits & protections, including a minimum wage & workers’ compensation. Support employee rights. Vote .