In 2009, Chany Lopez was an employee of the San Diego Unified School District. In late November 2009, while driving a district truck, defendant was sideswiped. Although defendant complained to coworkers that he was injured in the accident, he then declined any medical treatment and the matter was handled internally by the district. But in June 2011, Lopez submitted a workers’ compensation claim for pain in his neck and lower back arising from the November 2009 accident.

Lopez denied having any prior injuries to his back and neck to his evaluating physicians, and to investigators. But later during a background search of Lopez that included subpoenaed records, The TPA found he had in fact submitted the following workers’ compensation claims when employed by the City of San Diego: 1) May/June 1991 for left shoulder, left arm and upper back; 2) March 1993 for low back and both legs; and 3) January 1996 for low back.

A jury convicted Lopez of four counts of unlawfully making false and fraudulent statements to physicians and investigators in connection with workers’ compensation claims (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. (a)(1); counts 1-2, 4-5). The court granted a judgment of acquittal under Penal Code section 1118.1 as to count 3 because the People failed to present adequate foundational evidence of a false statement to another physician. The court granted Lopez probation for three years and imposed 180 days in local custody in a work furlough program.

In this appeal, Lopez challenges the court’s order awarding York Risk Services restitution in the amount of $30,154.02 for expenses related to the workers’ compensation claims. Lopez contends the court erred in ordering restitution for medical expenses not affected by his failure to disclose prior claims, for expenses associated with the denied claim, and for expenses incurred to obtain his medical records.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution as a condition of probation and it affirmed the order in the unpublished case of People v Chany Lopez .

“The California Constitution gives crime victims a right to restitution and, consequently, requires a court to order a convicted wrongdoer to pay restitution in every case in which a crime victim suffers a loss. A number of statutes implement this constitutional right to restitution. Courts have interpreted Penal Code section 1202.4 as limiting restitution awards to those losses arising out of the criminal activity that formed the basis of the conviction.

But in cases where probation is granted, Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (a)(3), provides the court “shall provide for restitution in proper cases.” Restitution ordered under this section is not limited to losses arising out of the conduct for which the defendant was convicted. Under certain circumstances, restitution has been found proper where the loss was caused by related conduct not resulting in a conviction. There is no requirement the restitution order be limited to the exact amount of the loss in which the defendant is actually found culpable, nor is there any requirement the order reflect the amount of damages that might be recoverable in a civil action.

In this case, the court granted Lopez probation. Restitution was ordered to York as a condition of probation. Therefore, the court had broad discretion to order restitution under section 1203.1 and the limitation of section 1202.4 does not apply.