Beverly Hills Radiologist Ronald Grusd and two of his corporations, California Imaging Network Medical Group and Willows Consulting Company, were sentenced in federal court in June 2018 after a jury trial in December resulted in convictions on 39 felony fraud counts. He was sentenced to 10 years in custody and a fine of $250,000. His companies, California Imaging Network and Willows Consulting Company, were each required to pay a $500,000 fine, and an additional $15,600 in special assessments.

According to evidence presented at trial, Grusd and his companies paid kickbacks for patient referrals from multiple clinics in San Diego and Imperial counties in order to fraudulently bill insurance companies over $22 million for medical services. Grusd negotiated with various individuals, including a primary treating physician, the payment of kickbacks for the referral of workers’ compensation patients for various medical services, including MRIs, ultrasounds, Shockwave treatments, toxicology testing and prescription pain medications.

Gonzalo Ernesto Paredes was the office administrator for an entity called Advanced Radiology, owned by Ronald Grusd. A jury in a state court trial found Paredes guilty of 35 counts of offering or delivering compensation for workers’ compensation patient referrals and 16 counts of concealing an event affecting an insurance claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in the unpublished case of People v. Gonzalo Ernesto Paredes.  

Now, approximately 8 years later, a long list of lien claimants related to Grusd continue a long procedural history of litigation starting in 2016 involving the consolidation of the liens for purposes of discovery based on evidence produced indicating a likelihood of fraudulent activity including unlawful referral for kickbacks.

In the WCAB case of Julieta Jiminez v Don Miguel Foods – case SAU135220 pending in the Van Nuys District Office – Lien claimants Ronald S. Grusd, M.D., Inc.; California Imaging Network Medical Group, Inc.; The Oaks Diagnostics, Inc., Dba Advanced Radiology Of Beverly Hills; Beverly Hills Magnetic Imaging Medical Associates, Inc., Allied Imaging Of California, Inc., California Sleep Apnea Centers, Inc., Peace Of Mind Scans, Inc., Pacific Radiology Network, Inc., California Radiology Institute, Inc., California Radiology Network, Inc., Pacific Radiology Group Of California, Inc., Capital Health Centers, Inc., are listed as “Real Parties in Interest/Lien Claimants” in the case who are seeking recovery on bills and liens filed in the consolidated cases associated in some way with Dr. Grusd.

The WCAB just granted an Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Removal and Decision After Removal in this case. The real parties in interest and lien claimants in this consolidated matter seek removal of the Order Compelling Attendance at Deposition and Production of Documents of Centro Legal Internacional, Inc. issued on February 3, 2025 by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The Order compelled the person most knowledgeable/qualified (PMK) of Centro Legal Internacional, Inc., as to various categories of inquiry identified in the subpoena issued by the carriers in these consolidated proceedings, and to produce the documents requested to be produced in that subpoena.

Lien claimants contend in their Petition that lien claimant Ronald S. Grusd, M.D. was not convicted for any conduct related or involving Centro; Centro is not referenced in the indictment, superseding indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing of Dr. Grusd; and, there was no evidence introduced or produced during any of the criminal proceedings against Dr. Grusd suggesting that Dr. Grusd had any involvement with Centro. Therefore, the Order attempts to compel information and documents unrelated to the conviction against him and/or the Labor Code section 139.21 suspension of Dr. Grusd and is therefore an unwarranted and prejudicial deviation from relevant issues.

The question in these special lien proceedings is whether any of the lien claimants identified above have rebutted the presumption in section 139.21, subdivision (g), by a preponderance of the evidence. If so, the WCJ then has the option pursuant to subdivision (i) to fully adjudicate those liens not subject to the presumption, or to return them to the district office having venue over the case.

The WCAB panel noted that “the WCJ did not issue an opinion on decision with the Order, and after review of the record of these special lien proceedings, we find no orders, findings of fact, pleadings, and/or other documentary or testimonial evidence as to any of the preliminary factual questions required by section 139.21, subdivisions (e) through (j) (see section II, supra), and therefore cannot conduct a meaningful review of the Order or lien claimants’ allegations.”

“As one very significant example, we do not find the suspension order(s) in the record, or any related documents regarding the underlying criminal conviction(s) admitted into evidence. In other words, the record here is inadequate for a full or meaningful review of the discovery ordered in relation to the scope of section 139.21 special lien proceedings…”

“Unfortunately, the WCJ’s Report in this matter does not cure the failure to issue an opinion on decision. The WCJ explains why the deposition and document production as to Centro is being compelled but failed to include ‘a summary of the [substantial] evidence received and relied upon and the reasons or grounds upon which the determination was made.’ “

For these reasons the Order Compelling Attendance at Deposition and Production of Documents of Centro Legal Internacional, Inc. issued on February 3, 2025 was rescinded, and this consolidated matter was returned to the to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.