Category: Daily News

A year long investigation by authorities into the activities of the California Injury Lawyers Inc. has lead to the arrest of an attorney, chiropractor and other operatives in Riverside County.

Peyman Heidary is one of the named defendants in the 8 page criminal complaint containing a total of 25 counts. Heidary at one time held California chiropractors license 25035 which is now reported to be inactive. The license was first issued in 1997. The Board records also reflect a forfeited license for Heidary Chiropractic Inc. Web searches reflect a chiropractic office at one time located at 1450 W 6th Street in Corona, and another at 15030 Imperial # A, in La Mirada. Corporate information also suggests that Peyman Heidary’s additional active roles include:president of California Healthcare Management Franchise, Inc. and president of The Best of California Promotions and Management, Inc. as well as past president of Doctor’s Reports, Inc. and past managing member of Bellflower Health Clinic, LLC. Riverside Health Clinic, LLC., Corona Health Clinic, LLC. and Santa Ana Health Clinic, LLC. The criminal complaint also alleges that Heidary was also known as Brian Heidary and “The Godfather.” It is believed that Heidary was involved in a total of nine medical clinics in the Southern California area.

The criminal case also involves attorney Cary David Abramowitz. State Bar records reflect that he was issued State Bar number 159906 in October 1992. This license is still active. The Bar reports that he is affiliated with California Injury Lawyer Inc. in Corona. A web search shows the office to be located at 495 E Rincon St #207, Corona,

A declaration in the case signed under penalty of perjury by William G. Hanley, Senior Investigator, Bureau of Investigation, Riverside Count District Attorney’s Office alleges that “Heidary was arrested on July 23, 2014 at 1700 hrs. for a bailable felony offense, to wit: a violation of Insurance Code section 11880 (four counts) with Penal Code section 12022.6 (A)(4) and Penal Code section 186.l l(a)(2) allegations, Defrauding State Compensation Insurance Fund with an excessive taking of more than 1.3 million dollars and the White Collar crime enhancement with a taking of more than $500,000.00. Additional Charges are Insurance Code section 11760 Defrauding an Insurance Company, Penal Code section l 82(a)(2) Conspiracy and Business and Professions Code section 2052(a).” The declaration goes on to state that Heidary was “acting as the head of a criminal organization consisting of illegally established medical clinics and a law firm whose main purpose is to milk money out of Workers’ Compensation Insurance Companies. Between 2008 and today this organization has processed thousands of workers’ compensation claims consisting of non-existent injuries. These cases were prepared and filed at defendant’s direction. The loss to the insurance companies could well exceed 50 million dollars, with a known loss to SCIF of 5 million at the time of the arrest. Aside from having access to large amounts of money in 26 identified Wells Fargo Bank Accounts we also believe that defendant has access to money in overseas bank accounts. Defendant is an Iranian nation (sic) I believe that should he be released on the scheduled bail amount there is a strong likelihood he will flee the State’s jurisdiction.” As a result of this declaration, a Superior Court Judge set bail at $5 million.

A list of the entities allegedly defrauded by this enterprise is extensive. The Complaint lists Amtrust North America, Western States, Zenith Insurance, American Alternative Insurance, California Contractors Network, California Restaurant Mutual, Everest National Insurance Company, Lincoln General Insurance Company, Manufacturers Alliance Insurance Company, Pennsylvania’s Manufacturers Associated Insurance Company, Pennsylvania Manufacturers Indemnity Company, Tower Insurance Company, Zurich American Insurance Group, Crum and Foster Insurance Company, ACE USA Insurance (TPA ISIS), AIG and CNA Insurance, No doubt there are others yet to be identified.

Jail records reflect that Heidary was arrested last Wednesday and remains in custody at Robert Presley Detention Center with his court appearance set for July 29.

Entities currently under investigation include Heidary Chiropractic Inc, The Best of California Business Promotions and Mgmt, Bellflower Health Clinic, LLC, Santa Ana Health Clinic, LLC, Corona Health Clinic, LLC, Ontario Health Clinic, LLC, Riverside Health Clinic, LLC, Anaheim Health Clinic LLC, and Montebello Health Clinic, LLC. Special Investigation Units with relevant information about this entities may contact M. J. Mayman, Deputy District Attorney, Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, Special Prosecutions Section-White Collar Crime, 3960 Orange Street, Suite 1015 in Riverside, California 92501, Telephone No.: 951-955-5400. Cell: No.: 951-427-7277

A federal indictment released Friday expanded criminal charges against state Sen. Leland Yee to include racketeering, alleging Yee attempted to extort campaign contributions from an NFL team owner in exchange for a favorable vote on pending workers’ compensation law.  Yee, a San Francisco lawmaker, was arrested in March and charged with accepting $62,000 in campaign contributions in return for favors, and offering to arrange the sale of machine guns and shoulder-fired missiles to an undercover FBI agent posing as a mob figure.

The Los Angeles Times reports that a superseding grand jury indictment was issued, adding a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act, which allows enhanced criminal penalties and civil action when crimes are performed as part of a criminal organization. In the new indictment, Yee faces three additional charges: one count of “conspiracy to conduct the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity,” and two counts of conspiracy “to obtain property under the color of official right.” Yee has pleaded not guilty to the original counts and remains in office on paid suspension. He will have to enter a plea on the new charges.

The new, 148-page indictment includes charges against the same 29 people charged earlier, including Yee’s political consultant, Keith Jackson, and Chinatown figure Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow. Jackson, a former president of the San Francisco Board of Education, also was newly charged with racketeering. A racketeering conviction carries a possible prison sentence of 20 years or more and huge fines, said “Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School and a former federal prosector.”RICO allows the prosecution to tie together different types of illegal activities and conspiracies. Thus, it is a more expansive charge,” Levenson said. “From a public relations point of view, being charged with ‘racketeering’ certainly sounds worse and connotes the activities of organized crime.

The alleged racketeering enterprise involving Yee and Jackson, according to the indictment, included “Extorting individuals and professional sports teams related to the passage of legislation governing the ability of professional athletes to collect workers compensation for injuries in California.” In 2013, Yee allegedly told an undercover FBI agent posing as an Arizona businessman that he should contact an NFL team owner the agent claimed to know and the owner “should contact Yee with an offer to help Yee,” because he would be a key vote on the workers compensation bill, the indictment says. The undercover agent allegedly asked Yee how much his vote would cost and Yee allegedly said, “Oh no … we gotta drag it out, man. We gotta juice this thing,” the indictment says. The indictment refers to a purported owner but does not provide any evidence that an actual NFL owner was involved. The undercover agent offered Yee $60,000 for his vote, the indictment says, but Yee, after voting for the bill in committee, did not receive a campaign contribution. Yee abstained when the full Senate approved the bill.

The indictment also accuses Yee and Jackson of “extorting individuals related to the California State Athletic Commission and the Mixed Martial Arts industry regarding retaining the existence of CSAC and its ability to regulate certain sports in California.” Yee allegedly told an unidentified individual who wanted the commission to keep operating, which allowed it to continue permitting mixed martial arts fights, that he should hire Jackson as his lobbyist to win approval of a bill that extended the commission’s operations. Yee told the individual he was thinking of voting against the bill but ended up voting for the measure.

Curtis Briggs, an attorney for Chow, called the new indictment “completely underwhelming” because it did not charge any new defendants and did not expand on the allegations against his client, including money laundering, which he denies.

Jackson’s attorney declined to comment, through a representative. An attorney for Yee did not respond to requests for comment on the new indictment, which describes additional accusations of actions by Yee offered in exchange for campaign contributions.

About two-thirds of adults have lower back pain at some point in their lives, and most are told to take acetaminophen, sold under brand names like Tylenol, Anacin and Panadol. Medical guidelines around the world recommend acetaminophen as a first-line treatment. But there has never been much research to support the recommendation, and now a large, rigorous a double-blind, randomized controlled trial published in the Lancet has found that acetaminophen (also known as paracetamol) works no better than a placebo.

The Lancet is a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is one of the world’s oldest and best known general medical journals, and has been described as one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.[2] The Lancet was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley, an English surgeon The Lancet’s impact factor was ranked second among general medical journals after The New England Journal of Medicine

“Our result illustrates the problems in relying on that indirect evidence when setting guidelines,” said Christopher M. Williams, a researcher at the George Institute for Global Health in Sydney and lead author of the new study, published Wednesday in The Lancet.

Dr. Williams and his colleagues randomly assigned 1,643 people with acute low back pain to one of three groups. The first was given two boxes: one “regular” box containing 500-milligram acetaminophen tablets, and a second “as-needed” box also containing acetaminophen. The second group received a regular box of acetaminophen and an as-needed box containing a placebo. The third group received two boxes of placebos. All participants were told to take six tablets every day from the regular box, and up to two tablets a day from the as-needed box for pain relief.

The three-month study found no differences among the groups in recovery time, pain, disability, function, symptom changes, sleep or quality of life. About three-quarters of the patients were satisfied with their treatment whether they received medicine, placebos or both.

Dr. Bart W. Koes, who wrote an editorial accompanying the paper, said that even though the study was large and methodologically sound, it was not necessarily the last word on the subject. “The fact that it’s no more effective than placebo does not mean that it doesn’t work for a given patient,” wrote Dr. Koes, a professor of general practice at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Dr. Williams said that acetaminophen had been shown to be effective for headache, toothache and pain after surgery, but the mechanism of back pain is different and poorly understood. Doctors should not initially recommend acetaminophen to patients with acute low back pain, he said.

But, he added, “If patients already taking it feel they are getting a benefit, then it wouldn’t be wise to tell them to stop.”

Gary McKinney was involved in an auto accident while driving a delivery truck for UPS, which resulted in the death of a motorcyclist.  McKinney was terminated following an investigation involving a union representative, a company employee, and an arbitrator. As a result of the investigation, it was determined that applicant’s conduct was reckless, resulting in a serious accident.

Nonetheless, McKinney pursued his workers’ compensation benefits for both orthopedic and psychiatric alleged injury. For his orthopedic condition, applicant was evaluated by an orthopedic QME Dr. Senador on multiple occasions, resulting in six reports issued by Dr. Senador between July 14, 2010 through March 26, 2012. Dr. Senador’s opinion that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his back, neck, and sleep was consistent throughout his opinions. For the psychiatric injury, applicant was evaluated by Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME) Dr. Charles Furst, Ph.D. Dr. Furst stated that 50% of applicant’s psychological disorder was caused by the emotional trauma of learning that a motorcyclist involved in the accident was killed, as well as the emotional trauma of being criminally charged with manslaughter in this death. The remaining 40% of the causation of applicant’s psychological disorder was due to applicant being terminated from his job due to his conduct involved in the auto accident, which Dr. Furst noted may be the result of a nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action.

The WCJ found that applicant, while employed as a driver/dockworker for United Parcel Service on August 8, 2008, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his psyche, but did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his back. neck and sleep. In finding that applicant’s psychiatric injury was caused by his employment, the WCJ rejected the portion of the opinion of Dr. Charles Furst which found that 40% of applicant’s psychiatric injury was caused by applicant’s termination following the injury, which Dr. Furst deemed to be the result of a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel action pursuant to Labor Code section 3208.3(h). In support of the determination that applicant did not sustain injury to his back, neck and sleep, the WCJ relied upon the opinion of the orthopedic QME Dr. Jose Senador.

Both parties filed a petition for reconsideration. Defendant objected to the finding of psychiatric injury, and applicant objected to the take nothing in the physical injury case.

The WCAB panel rescinded the WCJ’s Findings and Award and Order, and issued its own decision to find that applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his psyche. In doing so, it found that Dr. Furst adequately discussed the issue of causation of applicant’s psychiatric disorder, and that his opinion was based upon substantial medical evidence when reviewing his opinion as a whole. It did not disturb the portion of the WCJ’s decision which found that applicant did not sustain an industrial injury to his back, neck, and sleep. Thus, applicant took nothing in the case of Kinney v. United Parcel Service.

The novel issue in was in an argument raised by the applicant for the first time on reconsideration, He argued that since Dr. Senador’s QME license was suspended during this case, his reports were inadmissible. The WCAB rejected this argument and held that the reports of Dr. Senador were indeed admissible.

The WCAB panel noted that there is no authority, and certainly none cited by applicant, in the Labor Code or in the regulations which indicates that reports of a QME are inadmissible during a suspension or probation of the QME’s license by the Medical Unit.  Labor Code section 139.2(m) specifies that a report of a QME is inadmissible if the QME has been suspended or placed on probation by the “relevant licensing board,” which is the California Medical Board.  Applicant did not allege that Dr. Senador was suspended or placed on probation by the relevant licensing board. Furthermore, an online search of the records of the California Medical Board reveals that its only disciplinary action involving Dr. Senador at any time was a public reprimand on February 4, 2010, and that his license has not been suspended or revoked.

In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court panel declared this morning that government subsidies worth billions of dollars that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are illegal. The 2-1 ruling in Halbig v US Secretary of HHS said such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia – not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. The ruling relied on a close reading of the Affordable Care Act.

“Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. “We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.”

In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority “portends disastrous consequences.”

Indeed, the 72-page decision threatens to unleash a cascade of effects that could seriously compromise Obamacare’s goals of compelling people to get health insurance, and helping them afford it. However, the ruling does, and will not ultimately affect the taxpayer-fund subsidies the federal government issued to 2 million or so people through the 15 exchanges run by individual states, including California, and the District of Columbia, The Obama administration is certain to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the panel’s decision, which for now does not have the rule of law.

According to the story on CNBC, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the ruling “for now – does not have any practical impact” on premium subsidies issued to HealthCare.gov enrollees now. ” “We are confident” that the ruling will be overturned, Earnest said. “We are confident in the legal position we have . . . the Department of Justice will litigate these claims through the federal court system.” Earnest said “it was obvious” that Congress intended subsidies, or tax credits, to be issued to Obamacare enrollees regardless of what kind of exchange they used to buy insurance.

Tuesday’s ruling endorsed a controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that argues that the HealthCare.gov subsidies are illegal because ACA does not explicitly empower a federal exchange to offer subsidized coverage, as it does in the case of state-created exchanges. HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace. About 4.7 million people, or 86 percent of all HealthCare.gov enrollees, qualified for a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes. If upheld, the ruling could lead many, if not most of those subsidized customers to abandon their health plans sold on HealthCare.gov because they no longer would find them affordable without the often-lucrative tax credits. And if that coverage then is not affordable for them as defined by the Obamacare law, those people will no longer be bound by the law’s mandate to have health insurance by this year or pay a fine next year.

The ruling also threatens, in the same 36 states, to gut the Obamacare rule starting next year that all employers with 50 or more full-time workers offer affordable insurance to them or face fines. That’s because the rule only kicks in if one of such an employers’ workers buy subsidized covered on HealthCare.gov. The decision by the three-judge panel is the most serious challenge to the underpinnings of the Affordable Care Act since a challenge to that law’s constitutionality was heard by the Supreme Court. The high court in 2012 upheld most of the ACA, including the mandate that most people must get insurance or pay a fine.