Menu Close

Author: WorkCompAcademy

W.C. Exclusivity Ends Janitor’s Intentional Injury at School Case

WorkCompAcademy

Hector Gutierrez began working as a school janitor and maintenance worker in August 2011 at Inglewood Middle School Academy. The school operated under the control of Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF).

On February 14, 2012, at the end of the school day, Gutierrez walked to the school’s front office, where school employees had gathered and were laughing. The principal angrily approached plaintiff and, “out of nowhere,” violently kicked him in the groin, causing plaintiff to bend over in “agony.” Several employees saw the incident and laughed. Plaintiff suffered severe pain and emotional distress and has been unable to work since the injury. His last day of work due to the injury was June 29, 2012.

Later, Gutierrez filed three separate worker’s compensation claims with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Two of those claims – one with an injury date of February 14, 2022, and another filed January 12, 2023 – related to injuries he allegedly sustained from the kick to the groin. As to the January 2023 claim, Gutierrez alleged, “In retrospect beginning 3 weeks or so later after the kick applicant believes depression and other factors caused by the assault unbeknownst to him has caused him to become morbidly obese.”

On January 10, 2023, Gutierrez (in pro. per.) sued ICEF for general negligence, intentional tort, and sexual assault and battery based on injuries he allegedly sustained from the principal’s kick to his groin almost 11 years earlier. ICEF demurred on the following grounds: (1) the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board had exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff’s injury claims; (2) worker’s compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy; and (3) plaintiff’s claims were time barred. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. On April 18, 2023, the court sustained ICEF’s demurrer with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed his FAC on May 9, 2023. He again pleaded the same causes of action, except for “intentional tort,” and added causes of action – without the court’s permission – for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well “malice.” ICEF demurred on the same grounds as before and argued the new causes of action were time-barred, insufficiently pleaded, or weren’t causes of action at all.

The court sustained ICEF’s demurrer without leave to amend. The court found plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the FAC’s allegations were insufficient to state a cause of action. The court also noted plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support an exception to worker’s compensation exclusivity.

After judgment had been entered, on September 27, 2023, plaintiff moved for reconsideration. Plaintiff accused ICEF’s attorneys of fraud and of having “bamboozled” the court into believing counsel had agreed to give plaintiff more time to respond to discovery, not to a continuance of the demurrer hearing. Plaintiff argued “[d]efendants” violated his due process rights.

The court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff appealed the judgment of dismissal on the grounds he was denied his federal constitutional rights to due process and of access to the courts under the Fourteenth and First Amendments, respectively.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the unpublished case of Gutierrez v Inner City Education Foundation CA2/3 – B333337 – (June 2025)

The Court of Appeal noted it reviewed the record and found no error.

“The record shows plaintiff received adequate, effective, and meaningful access to the court. After ICEF demurred to plaintiff’s initial complaint, he had an opportunity to file his FAC. At plaintiff’s request, the court continued the hearing on ICEF’s demurrer to the FAC from July to August 2023 due to plaintiff’s medical emergency. Before ruling on ICEF’s demurrer, the court considered the written response plaintiff filed, even though he filed the response late and did not appear at the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [opposition papers must be filed nine court days before the hearing].)8 Indeed, the court explained in detail plaintiff’s position in its ruling.”

“Nor did plaintiff demonstrate he did not receive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.”  … “Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on appeal to demonstrate the court erred in sustaining ICEF’s demurrer to his FAC or that it abused its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend the FAC.”

View More

SoCal Hospice Operators Arrested for $3.8M Fraud

WorkCompAcademy

The owner and operator of two West Covina hospices was arrested on a 14-count federal grand jury indictment alleging she filed more than $4.8 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare – which paid more than $3.8 million on those claims – for medically unnecessary services for people not terminally ill and for paying kickbacks to marketers to procure patients.

Normita Sierra, 71, a.k.a. “Normie,” of West Covina, is charged with nine counts of health care fraud, one count of conspiracy, and four counts of illegal remuneration for health care referrals. Also arrested was Rowena Elegado, 55, a.k.a. “Weng,” also of West Covina, who is charged with one count of conspiracy, and four counts of illegal remuneration for health care referrals.

Both defendants are expected to make their initial appearances and be arraigned in United States District Court in downtown Los Angeles.

According to the indictment, Sierra owned and operated Golden Meadows Hospice Inc., and D’Alexandria Hospice Inc., which billed Medicare for hospice services for patients who were not terminally ill during a scheme that lasted from September 2018 to October 2022.

Sierra and Elegado allegedly worked together to pay marketers to recruit patients to the hospices, knowing that most of those patients had not been referred by their primary care physicians for such services. Those kickbacks, often referred to internally using the code words “girl scout cookies,” amounted to as much as $1,300 per patient, per month that the patient stayed on hospice service.

Others involved in the scheme included Carl Bernardo, 53, of Chino, who pleaded guilty in September 2024 to one count of receiving kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program and is scheduled to be sentenced on October 23. Relyndo Salcedo, 60, of Fontana, a nurse practitioner involved in the scheme, pleaded guilty on May 22 to one count of health care fraud and is scheduled for sentencing on November 20.

Salcedo, a nurse practitioner, conducted initial assessments for the hospice and found many of the patients ineligible for hospice. But, under pressure from Sierra, who made the ultimate enrollment decisions even though she wasn’t a medical professional, and marketers such as Bernardo, Salcedo exaggerated and falsified the patients’ conditions to make them seem terminally ill. Hospice physicians then relied on Salcedo’s records to certify the patients as hospice appropriate.

Once enrolled, those patients – who were not in fact terminally ill – rarely died, and instead were often discharged at around six months at Sierra’s direction, sometimes to her home health company or the other hospice company.

During the scheme, Golden Meadows submitted at least approximately $3,870,642 in fraudulent claims, on which Medicare paid approximately $2,912,187. D’Alexandria submitted approximately $945,647 in fraudulent claims, on which Medicare paid approximately $894,199.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If convicted of the charges, Sierra would face a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for each health care fraud count. Sierra and Elegado would face up to five years in federal prison for the conspiracy count and up to 10 years in federal prison for each illegal kickback count.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General and the FBI investigated this matter.

Assistant United States Attorney Kristen A. Williams of the Major Frauds Section is prosecuting this case.

View More

Former Attorney Tom Girardi Gets 7 Years for Defrauding Clients

WorkCompAcademy

Disbarred plaintiffs’ personal injury attorney Thomas Vincent Girardi was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison for leading a years-long scheme in which he embezzled tens of millions of dollars of settlement money that belonged to his clients, some of whom awaited payment for treatment of severe physical injuries.

Girardi, 86, formerly of Pasadena and who now resides in Seal Beach, was sentenced by United States District Judge Josephine L. Staton also ordered Girardi to pay a $35,000 fine and $2,310,247 in restitution. Judge Staton ordered Girardi to surrender to federal authorities no later than July 17.

Girardi was found guilty by a jury in August 2024 of four counts of wire fraud.

A once-powerful figure in California’s legal community, Girardi ran the now-defunct downtown Los Angeles law firm Girardi Keese. For years, Girardi misappropriated and embezzled millions of dollars from client trust accounts at his law firm. The scheme involved defendant Girardi stealing millions of dollars in client settlement funds and failing to pay Girardi Keese clients – some of whom had suffered serious injuries in accidents – the money they were owed.

In carrying out his criminal conduct, from October 2010 to late 2020, Girardi operated Girardi Keese like a Ponzi-scheme by providing a litany of lies for failure to pay clients and directing law firm employees, including co-defendant and former Girardi Keese CFO Christopher Kazuo Kamon, to make incremental payments of newly obtained settlement funds to previously defrauded clients or using the new funds to pay other unrelated expenditures.

Girardi sent lulling communications to the defrauded clients that, among other things, falsely denied that the settlement proceeds had been paid and falsely claimed that Girardi Keese could not pay the settlement proceeds to clients until certain purported requirements had been met. These bogus requirements included addressing supposed tax obligations, settling bankruptcy claims, obtaining supposedly necessary authorizations from judges, and satisfying other debts.

Girardi also diverted tens of millions of dollars from his law firm’s operating account to pay illegitimate expenses, including more than $25 million to pay the expenses of EJ Global, a company formed by his wife related to her entertainment career, as well as spent millions of dollars of Girardi Keese funds on private jet travel, jewelry, luxury cars, and exclusive golf and social clubs.

At the end of 2020, as Girardi and his law firm faced mounting legal problems related to his years-long theft of client funds, Girardi Keese was forced into involuntary bankruptcy. The State Bar of California disbarred Girardi in July 2022.

Relatedly, co-defendant Kamon, 51, formerly of Encino and Palos Verdes and who was residing in The Bahamas at the time of his November 2022 arrest on a federal criminal complaint, pleaded guilty in October 2024 to two counts of wire fraud. Kamon, the long-time head of the accounting department at Girardi Keese, aided and abetted Girardi’s fraud scheme and embezzled millions of dollars from Girardi Keese itself for his own benefit.

On April 11, Kamon was sentenced to 121 months in custody and ordered to pay $8,903,324 in restitution. Kamon has been in federal custody since November 2022.

Kamon has agreed to plead guilty to federal fraud charges in Chicago where he is charged along with former Girardi Keese lawyer David R. Lira, Girardi’s son-in-law. Trial in that case is scheduled to start on July 14. Girardi was dismissed from the Chicago case because of his conviction and sentencing in this case.

IRS Criminal Investigation and the FBI investigated this matter. The Office of the United States Trustee provided assistance.Assistant United States Attorney Scott Paetty of the Major Frauds Section prosecuted this case.

View More

Home Depot Settles Overnight Overtime Wages Case for $3.35M

WorkCompAcademy

A class action lawsuit was filed by Sandy Bell and Martin Gama against Home Depot U.S.A. in 2012 in California state court. The lawsuit alleged that Home Depot violated California labor laws by designing its workday to evade overtime obligations, specifically for employees working overnight shifts.

The plaintiffs claimed Home Depot structured its workday (defined as 12 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.) to avoid paying proper overtime wages for shifts crossing midnight. California law requires overtime pay (1.5 times the regular rate) for hours worked beyond 8 in a single workday or 40 in a workweek, and double time for hours exceeding 12 in a workday. By splitting overnight shifts across two calendar days, Home Depot allegedly avoided paying overtime for hours worked past midnight, even if part of a single shift.

The case is cited as Bell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02499-JAM-CKD, originally filed in Sacramento County Superior Court and later moved to federal court. It was consolidated with Henry v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04858. The class currently includes 20,000 individual Class Members who worked more than eight hours and past midnight.

The Bell portion of this action covers the following certified class: All persons who worked for Home Depot in California as a non- exempt, hourly-paid supervisor during the period from August 14, 2009 through June 1, 2016, who worked at least one overnight shift that crossed midnight of more than eight hours, and who, as a result, was not paid overtime for the hours worked over eight hours during such overnight shift.

The Henry portion of the action covers the following certified class: All persons employed by Home Depot in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the period from September 18, 2010 through May 3, 2016, who worked a shift past midnight in which the total aggregate number of hours for that shift exceeded eight hours.

After several rounds of summary judgment, the claims remaining for both the Bell and Henry classes were violations of California Labor Code sections 203 and 226, as well as claims under the UCL and FLSA, and PAGA claims. Plaintiffs’ claims were predicated on allegations that they did not receive adequate compensation for overnight overtime shifts.

Judge Tigar emphasized that Home Depot’s liability hinged on whether its workday designation had a legitimate business purpose or was intended to evade overtime pay. The court noted Home Depot’s detailed employee records in its Kronos time-tracking system could help determine class membership and assess claims.

Plaintiffs have now filed an unopposed motion in which they request preliminary approval of the class and PAGA settlements, approval of the Class Notice, and appointment of the Settlement Administrator.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to settle Plaintiffs’ claims for a Gross Settlement Amount of $3,350,000. This is a non-reversionary settlement in which no portion of the Settlement can revert to Defendant. After review of the factors outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement was granted.

The Bell v. Home Depot case is distinct from other Home Depot wage and hour lawsuits, such as Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., which addressed off-the-clock work and rounding practices and settled for $72.5 million in 2023, covering over 272,000 employees since March 2012. The Bell case is explicitly excluded from the Utne settlement’s scope.

California’s labor laws are among the strictest in the U.S., requiring precise compliance with overtime, meal, and rest break provisions. The Bell case highlights how workday definitions can impact overtime calculations, a tactic plaintiffs argued was exploitative.

View More

Court of Appeal Declines to Apply Federal FEHA Attorney Fee Scrutiny

WorkCompAcademy

In 2017, Michael Cash worked as a captain in the Los Angeles County Fire Department and also served as a training captain for the Department’s training academies. When plaintiff complained to the Department’s battalion chief of training that the chief should have terminated a female recruit for failing a test that ordinarily results in automatic termination from a training academy, plaintiff was removed as a training captain in future academies.

Cash thereafter sued the County of Los Angeles (the County), alleging that his removal constituted (1) retaliation for reporting gender discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.), (2) a failure to take reasonable steps to prevent such etaliation in violation of FEHA, and (3) retaliation for whistleblowing in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.1

The matter proceeded to a 20-day jury trial in the spring of 2023. The jury found for plaintiff on all three claims and awarded him $450,000.

The County filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, for a new trial. After a round of briefing, which included an opposition from plaintiff that included 28 exhibits encompassing 385 pages, the trial court denied the motion.

In August 2023, plaintiff filed a motion requesting $705,730 in attorney fees. In support of that motion, plaintiff’s attorney declared that the law firm’s hourly rates were (1) $600 for partners, (2) $400 for associates, and (3) $150 for paralegals; however, the invoices submitted in support of the $705,730 total reflected a higher hourly rate of $500 for associates and $200 for paralegals. In October 2023, plaintiff filed a supplemental request, seeking an additional $29,580 in attorney fees related to (1) additional hours opposing the County’s post-trial motions, (2) filing the motion for attorney fees, and (3) opposing the County’s motion to tax costs. This brought plaintiff’s request to a total of $735,310.

Following a hearing, the trial court awarded plaintiff $455,546 in attorney fees. The court started from plaintiff’s originally proffered lodestar of $705,730, declining to include plaintiff’s supplemental request in the lodestar calculation. From that amount, the court deducted $54,950 to reflect the lower billing rates for associates and paralegals set forth in plaintiff’s attorney’s declaration. The court deducted a further $195,234—that is, an “across-the-board percentage cut” of 30 percent from the adjusted $650,780 lodestar – because the court’s “review of the billing records” indicated that “there has been unreasonable padding” because “[s]ome of the work appeared to have been duplicative” and because plaintiff’s attorneys unnecessarily prolonged trial with unnecessary prefatory statements during witness questioning. That resulted in the adjusted lodestar fee award of $455,546. The court declined to further reduce the award based on the County’s other arguments.

Also in August 2023, plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs seeking $132,445.32. The County moved to tax those costs, challenging several items including $4,300 associated with one of plaintiff’s expert witnesses, Donald Lassig (Lassig). Following a hearing, the trial court denied much of the County’s motion, but did tax $4,300 in plaintiff’s costs associated with Lassig.

Plaintiff timely appealed the attorney fees and costs orders. The Court of Appeal affirmed the reduced attorney fee award for the plaintiff in the published portion of the case in Cash v. County of Los Angeles CA2/5 – B336980 – (May 2025),and in the unpublished portion of this opinion also affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion to tax the plaintiff’s costs.

“Until recently, appellate courts in California uniformly “review[ed] attorney fee awards on an abuse of discretion standard” (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 488 (Laffitte)), and would infer findings and defer to a trial court’s “general observation that an attorney overlitigated a case” or otherwise overcharged for fees (Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734, 744; California Common Cause v. Duffy (1987) 200 Cal.App.3d 730, 754-755 (Duffy)).”

“Recently, however, a handful of California courts have employed “heightened scrutiny” – imported from federal cases interpreting a federal civil rights statute (namely, 42 U.S.C. § 1988) – and on that basis have demanded that a trial court articulate “case-specific reasons for [any] percentage reduction,” including a “clear[]” “expla[nation of] its reasons for choosing the particular negative multiplier [or percentage] that it chose.” (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 37, 41 (Warren); Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Inc. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 908, 921 (Snoeck); see Kerkeles v. City of San Jose (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 88, 101-104 (Kerkeles)).”

“Other courts have declined to employ this importation of federal law (Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 37 & fn. 6 (Morris)), and we join them in doing so.“

“Importing the federal standard exceeds the federal courts’ rationale for employing heightened scrutiny of specific fee awards and is inconsistent with our State’s longstanding policy that “[t]he ‘experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in [their] court.’” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 (Serrano).)”

View More

Sutter Health Expands California Rural Health Care Access

WorkCompAcademy

In a move to expand access and advance care in some of Northern California’s most remote and rural communities, Sutter Health is making two strategic investments to expand primary care and behavioral health services in Del Norte and Lake counties. These enhancements are part of Sutter’s systemwide, not-for-profit commitment to help bridge gaps and deliver high-quality, innovative care closer to where patients live.

Sutter Coast Hospital just broke ground this June on its new Emergency Psychiatric Assessment, Treatment and Healing, or EmPATH, unit. The unit leverages a nationally recognized care model designed to provide a more supportive and calming environment for individuals experiencing acute psychiatric crises. The unit aims to stabilize patients in a more appropriate setting, reducing unnecessary inpatient stays. The EmPATH unit, set to open in early 2026, will also improve wait times within the hospital’s emergency department.

Sutter has also closed escrow on a 18,000 square-foot building across the street from the hospital that will expand access to primary care, urgent care and rehabilitation services. Construction is set to begin the first quarter of 2026 with plans to occupy the space by the first quarter of 2027.

Additionally, workforce recruitment and retention are essential to Sutter’s efforts to expand care access. Workforce housing is just one growing need for health care professionals, especially in rural areas. The Sutter system is committed to exploring affordable housing initiatives, starting in Crescent City, as well as other potential solutions that can further enhance recruitment and retention. Sutter closed escrow on more than 6.5 acres of land to develop for workforce housing, that will support the additional primary care, urgent care and rehabilitation services, as well as the physician residency program.

$17.5 million has been approved to date to support planning for these two projects.

Sutter Health is also investing $5.5 million to build a new 6,900-square-foot care center in Lake County’s Hidden Valley Lake—long known as a health care desert with limited options for care. The new site will help address provider shortages and reduce long appointment wait times. When it opens in June 2026, the care center will offer urgent care, primary care, on-site lab and X-ray services, and rotating specialty care in cardiology, OB/Gyn and orthopedics.

As a not-for-profit health system, Sutter Health said it is committed to helping close health care gaps – especially in rural communities. Sutter’s investments in Del Norte and Lake counties are the latest examples of the system’s efforts to provide care that is aligned with local community health needs that can also have a ripple effect on the overall health and well-being of those throughout California.

View More

May 26, 2025 – News Podcast

WorkCompAcademy

Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: WCAB (En Banc) Limits Replacement QME Process. Admitting Evidence Not Listed at MSC Is Not “Harmless Error”. Court Finds United Indian Health Immune From WCAB Jurisdiction. PAGA Action Prevailing Employer May Not Recover Costs From LWDA. Ninth Circuit Upholds AB 5 Against Independent Truckers’ Challenge. SoCal Police Officer and Attorney Face $600K Comp Fraud Charges. Tulare Doctor Pleads Guilty to Distributing Misbranded COVID Drugs. Security Company Owner Sentenced for $3.4 M Premium Fraud.

View More

Munir Uwaydah Entity Loses $2.25M Legal Malpractice Case

WorkCompAcademy

Munir Uwaydah was an orthopedic surgeon well known as a treating physician in California workers’ compensation cases. He had been charged as the ringleader in one of California’s biggest health fraud schemes allegedly perpetrated by his company Frontline Medical Associates, which included unnecessary operations by an untrained assistant that scarred patients forever, according to indictments unsealed in Los Angeles County years ago. A total of 102 people testified during two separate Grand Jury proceedings.

A new civil appellate case involving Frontline (as a plaintiff) decided in May 2025 depicts Uwaydah’s absence from the United States as beginning in 2010, allegedly to evade criminal investigations, with subsequent indictments in 2015 and 2019 solidifying his fugitive status in the civil case defendants’ view. Frontline’s conflicting representations – ranging from Uwaydah choosing not to return, to being under a strict travel ban, to potential extradition for perjury in the civil case – were deemed misleading by the court, contributing to the pattern of misconduct that led to the case’s dismissal by the trial court.

This new case, Frontline Medical Associates v. Bird, Marella, Boxer, etc. (CA2/1, B336038) a May 2025 unpublished appellate case involves Frontline Medical Associates, Inc. appealing a trial court’s decision to grant terminating sanctions, resulting in the dismissal of their case against the law firm of  Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C., and Benjamin Gluck (collectively, Bird Marella). The dismissal was based on the trial court’s finding of Frontline’s pervasive misconduct during litigation of this case.

Frontline filed this lawsuit in July 2019, with an amended complaint in December 2021, alleging that Bird Marella, their former legal counsel, committed professional misconduct. Specifically, Frontline claimed that Bird Marella made misrepresentations to induce Frontline to pay $2,250,000 for legal services to represent Paul Turley, who operated Frontline before September 2015. Additionally, Frontline alleged that Bird Marella, which had also represented Frontline and Uwaydah, failed to adequately advise Frontline about potential conflicts of interest arising from their simultaneous representation of Turley. The complaint included causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud by intentional misrepresentation, fraud by fiduciary, conversion, common counts, and declaratory relief, seeking to address the alleged financial and ethical misconduct by Bird Marella.

Paul Turley was a chiropractor and a key figure associated with Frontline Medical Associates. His involvement with Frontline and its owner, Munir Uwaydah, placed him at the center of significant legal and criminal proceedings related to an alleged massive insurance fraud scheme that allegedly generated $150 million in fraudulent workers’ compensation claims. In September 2015, Turley was arrested as part of a Los Angeles County District Attorney’s investigation.

Over 18 months following the 2015 indictments, a judge dismissed most of the 132 counts in the initial indictments due to insufficient evidence, particularly the aggravated mayhem charges, which carried potential life sentences. In March 2017, at the prosecutors’ request, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy dismissed the pending charges against 13 defendants, including Turley, except for two fugitives. Prosecutors immediately refiled new charges in three separate criminal complaints, listing 194 counts, including aggravated mayhem, money laundering, insurance fraud, and unlawful patient referrals.

Benjamin Gluck, Turley’s attorney, criticized the refiling as an attempt to restart the case after prosecutorial missteps, stating, “They want to basically say, ‘We don’t like the way this game is going so we’re turning the board over.’”

In December 2018, Paul Turley pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, insurance fraud, unlawful referrals, and mayhem. As part of his plea, he confirmed in a factual statement that Frontline paid “cappers” to recruit injured workers to maximize billing, regardless of patient needs, and that services like prescriptions and surgeries were prioritized for profitability.

Returning to the civil case appeal decided this month, Uwaydah’s role was pivotal in the Frontline case against Bird Marella due to his historical control over Frontline and his status as a key witness. The defendants alleged that Frontline was essentially a “fake company” operated by Uwaydah, who had fled to Lebanon in 2010 amid criminal investigations for healthcare fraud.

Frontline claimed Uwaydah transferred his ownership interest in Frontline to Medconsult, S.A.L., a Lebanese company, in early 2022 to satisfy a debt, though this was contested as a misrepresentation. Uwaydah’s inability or unwillingness to travel to Los Angeles for trial or deposition, coupled with contradictory statements about his travel restrictions, was a significant issue. The court ordered a bench trial to determine if Uwaydah was Frontline’s alter ego, and his status as a fugitive and the ownership transfer claims were central to the defendants’ arguments for dismissal.

The trial court ultimately dismissed Frontline’s case with prejudice on October 27, 2023, granting Bird Marella’s third motion for terminating sanctions due to Frontline’s deliberate, egregious misconduct that rendered a fair trial impossible. The court cited both its inherent authority and statutory authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 for the dismissal.

The specific conduct included misrepresentations about attorney Browne’s conflict of Interest. Frontline’s attorney, David Browne, declared on May 4, 2023, that he had to withdraw due to an unwaivable conflict of interest stemming from a contempt proceeding related to his representation of Medconsult, S.A.L., the purported owner of Frontline. On June 13, 2023, he reiterated this conflict was mandatory and unwaivable. However, evidence showed Browne continued to act as Frontline’s counsel, preparing key witnesses Paul Turley and Amber Woodley for depositions and trial in July 2023.

The court found Browne’s claims about the conflict’s severity were exaggerated to delay proceedings, constituting a fraud on the court. The court dismissed Frontline’s expert testimony defending Browne’s actions as unpersuasive, noting Browne’s post-withdrawal work contradicted his stated ethical concerns.

The court additionally found that Frontline repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations and court orders over several years. Itfailed to timely respond to multiple sets of interrogatories and requests for production of documents served between March 2021 and August 2022. Despite court orders to provide code-compliant responses, Frontline missed deadlines, ignored meet-and-confer efforts, and provided incomplete or evasive responses. The court imposed monetary sanctions ($3,000 and $7,500) for these failures, but Frontline’s noncompliance persisted.

Frontline obstructed depositions of its Person Most Qualified (PMQ) and other witnesses. Frontline failed to appear for PMQ depositions noticed for March and September 2022. When it produced David Livingston as PMQ in November 2022, he was unprepared, answering “I don’t know” over 500 times. A subsequent PMQ, Amber Woodley, arrived late and left early, limiting testimony. The court found these actions willful and noncompliant with court orders.

Depositions of Janek Hunt and Adib Kassir were disrupted by late arrivals, excessive breaks, refusals to answer, and early terminations. Frontline failed to produce Ali Mohsen and Mazen Helou for depositions despite court orders, further evidencing noncompliance.

The court rejected Frontline’s excuses (e.g., documents seized in raids, witnesses overseas) as insufficient, finding a “pattern of willful noncompliance” that violated numerous court orders.

Frontline initially represented that Uwaydah was its primary principal (until December 8, 2022). After the court ordered an alter ego trial, Frontline claimed in January 2023 that Uwaydah had transferred his ownership to Medconsult in early 2022 to satisfy a debt. Contradictory evidence, including a January 11, 2022 contract showing Medconsult paid $1 million for Frontline (despite its assets being worth millions and Medconsult already holding a 2005 security interest), and the lack of documentation for a $10 million arbitration award, led the court to find these representations “highly misleading, if not wholly false.” The court concluded Frontline misrepresented ownership to manipulate the use of Uwaydah’s testimony.

Frontline provided conflicting statements about Uwaydah’s ability to travel to Los Angeles. Initially, it claimed Uwaydah chose not to return due to criminal charges (July 2022), with Browne guaranteeing in January 2023 that Uwaydah could travel if he agreed to extradition. Later, Frontline asserted Uwaydah was under a travel ban in Lebanon, unable to leave legally. A Lebanese decree and Uwaydah’s extradition waiver suggesting Frontline misrepresented his status to avoid in-person testimony while seeking to use his deposition, potentially evading perjury accountability.

The court found that Frontline’s cumulative misconduct – misrepresentations, discovery abuses, and disregard for court orders – demonstrated a “mockery of the judicial process.” Previous monetary and evidentiary sanctions had failed to deter Frontline’s behavior, and the court concluded that lesser sanctions would not ensure future compliance. The pervasive, deliberate, and egregious nature of the misconduct, which prejudiced the defendants and undermined trial fairness, justified terminating sanctions.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case, finding substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings and no abuse of discretion in the dismissal.

View More

Reserve LAPD Officer & Brother Face Insurance Fraud Charges

WorkCompAcademy

Eric Benjamin “Ben” Halem, 37, of Porter Ranch, a former full-time Los Angeles Police Department officer and current LAPD reserve officer, and his brother, Jacob Halem, 32, of Tarzana, were arraigned on felony insurance fraud charges following an investigation by the California Department of Insurance. The investigation found the brothers allegedly filed a fraudulent auto insurance claim in an attempt to obtain benefits they were not entitled to receive.

The Department of Insurance began its investigation after receiving a fraud referral alleging Eric Halem falsely reported a crash involving his 2020 Bentley Continental GT, stating his brother Jacob Halem had borrowed the vehicle and was involved in a solo-collision on January 5, 2023. However, the investigation revealed that the luxury vehicle had actually been rented out through Eric Halem’s exotic car rental company, Drive LA, and crashed by the renter three days earlier.

Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) deputies responded to the accident scene, documenting the vehicle’s damage with body-worn camera footage before it was impounded. Shortly after, Eric Halem contacted his insurance company twice to obtain proof of insurance, which he then used to release the Bentley from impound. Meanwhile, the renter filed a claim with their insurance company, but it was denied due to lack of first-party collision coverage.

Upon learning that the rental driver’s claim had been denied, Eric Halem allegedly filed a fraudulent claim with his insurance company on his personal policy, misrepresenting the accident details. He claimed that his brother, Jacob Halem, had been driving the vehicle at the time of the crash. To support their false claim, Eric and Jacob Halem submitted staged photographs of the damaged Bentley on a tow truck near the alleged accident location. These photos were intended to mislead adjusters, but the investigation discovered that the damage in the photos was identical to the damage captured in LASD’s body-worn camera footage from January 2, 2023, showing the damage was created before when the brothers claimed.

Further investigation revealed that Jacob Halem also provided a false statement to the insurance company investigator in an effort to corroborate his brother’s fraudulent claim. The total potential loss from the fraudulent claim was $229,283.

Insurance fraud impacts all Californians by driving up costs for consumers and businesses. If you suspect insurance fraud, report it to the California Department of Insurance at 800-927-4357 or visit www.insurance.ca.gov.

The National Insurance Crime Bureau assisted with the investigation and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office is prosecuting this case.

View More

WCRI Studies Variations in Hospital Outpatient Payments Growth

WorkCompAcademy

As policymakers nationwide focus on the rising costs of health care, a new study from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) reveals that hospital outpatient payments for workers’ compensation grew faster in states with fee schedules based on a percentage of hospital charges and in states without fee schedules.

“This study provides meaningful state comparisons at a time when many are considering or revising hospital fee regulations,” said Sebastian Negrusa, vice president of research at WCRI. “It offers a clear, evidence-based perspective on how different regulatory approaches influence cost growth and payment levels.”

The report, Hospital Outpatient Payment Index: Interstate Variations and Policy Analysis, 14th Edition, analyzes payments for common outpatient surgeries across 36 states, representing 88 percent of the nation’s workers’ compensation benefits. Covering data from 2005 to 2023, the study also compares workers’ compensation hospital payments to Medicare rates.

The following are among the major findings:

– – Faster growth in states with charge-based fee regulations and in non-fee schedule states: From 2011 to 2023, growth in outpatient payments for common surgeries reached 61–81 percent among states with charge-based fee schedules, and 55–88 percent in non-fee schedule states, substantially higher than 24 percent in the median fixed-amount fee schedule state.
– – Higher payments in states without fee schedules: Outpatient payments were 63 to 154 percent higher than the median of states with fixed-amount fee schedules. In these states, workers’ compensation paid $7,550 to $22,002 more per surgical episode than Medicare.
– – Percent-of-charge states cost more: States like Alabama and Louisiana, using percent-of-charge-based fee schedules, paid 83 to 233 percent more than states with fixed-amount fee schedules.
– – Wide variation vs. Medicare: Average workers’ compensation payments for a common group of outpatient surgeries ranged from 40 percent below Medicare in Nevada to 480 percent above in Alabama.

The report also tracks the impact of recent policy reforms. In May 2023, Florida expanded its fixed-amount fee schedule by eliminating charge-based reimbursement for unlisted procedures. This policy change led to a 6 percent decrease in hospital outpatient payments per surgical episode within the same year.

View More