Authors
On February 11, 2026, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California against Mochi Health, a telehealth weight management company, alleging the company misclassified its health care providers as “independent contractors” to evade wages and benefits it would otherwise owe the providers had they instead been classified as full-time employees. This complaint, Cioppettini v. Mochi Medical CA, P.C., Case No. 3:26-cv-01260, represents a reminder for telehealth companies that rely on independent contractor arrangements with physicians and other health care professionals to closely review their classification practices.
Background
The plaintiff, a licensed physician living in South Carolina, worked remotely for Mochi Health for three months, from approximately December 10, 2024, to February 14, 2025. The plaintiff was paid per patient, per month. Despite being classified as an “independent contractor” by the telehealth company, the plaintiff alleges the relationship was in actuality an employer–employee relationship subject to California’s wage and hour protections.
The plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and hundreds of other health care providers; the class includes a California class of all Mochi Health health care professionals classified as contractors whose employment relationship was governed by California law over the past four years and a nationwide collective of providers subject to the company’s uniform pay and classification practices, regardless of where they reside.
The complaint
The heart of the plaintiff’s complaint is California’s “ABC test” for determining worker classification. Under the ABC test, a worker is considered an employee and not an independent contractor unless the company can satisfy all three of the following conditions:
- Prong A: Freedom from control. The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
- Prong B: Outside usual course of business. The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
- Prong C: Independently established business. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
If the company fails to prove any one of these prongs, the worker is an employee entitled to California’s full suite of wage and hour protections. The plaintiff argues that Mochi Health fails all three elements of the ABC test. He argues that Prong A is not met because the plaintiff was not free from Mochi Health’s control and direction, since the company controlled his job duties and work conditions, monitored his work, and had the right to discipline or terminate him. He argues that Prong B is not met because the plaintiff was required to perform work in the company’s ordinary course of business. Finally, the plaintiff argues that Prong C fails because he was not operating an independently established medical practice.
The plaintiff alleges that the company violated multiple California wage and hour laws, including unpaid overtime, failure to pay all wages, improper wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses. If the plaintiff prevails on his claims, he could potentially recover back pay for unpaid overtime and wages of all class members, liquidated damages of up to double the unpaid amounts, civil penalties, and injunctive relief.
Potential defenses
While the company has not yet filed its response to the plaintiff’s complaint, there are various potential defenses it may assert (particularly bearing in mind that, at this stage, the plaintiff’s allegations are nothing more than that). Mochi Health will likely argue that its providers were truly independent – arguing that providers set their own schedules, exercised autonomy, and operated their own practices. The company may also challenge the class certification, arguing that individual differences among the providers should not warrant a class action. If any of the providers had arbitration clauses in their agreements, Mochi Health may also move to compel the providers to individual arbitration, which would limit the scope of the lawsuit and reduce the company’s exposure.
What this means for your business
Engaging physicians as independent contractors is common in the telehealth industry, but can be susceptible to claims of misclassification. Telehealth companies and other similarly situated businesses should evaluate their business practices to be better positioned to defend against potential lawsuits or avoid them altogether, particularly in states like California that use the ABC test.
This includes carefully reviewing their contractor agreements for provisions that may suggest that an employment relationship exists and determining whether to require workers to sign arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers.
We will continue to monitor this case and provide updates as it progresses.
Client Alert 2026-039