This is a personal injury case. Jerry Cradduck sued defendant Hilton Domestic Operating Company, Inc. (Hilton) for negligence arising out of his use of a spa at an Embassy Suites property in Palm Desert in 2019. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) intervened in the case as a defendant because of its potential liability as an insurer. Plaintiff Cradduck was represented in this case. The hotel was independently owned by defendant EHT ESPD, LLC (EHT) under a franchise agreement with a Hilton subsidiary.

His attorney in this case was attorney Todd Samuels. On his website Samuels states that he is “a seasoned litigator practicing in state and federal courts throughout California. He has successfully tried, arbitrated, and mediated hundreds of cases.” And that he “represents individuals in personal injury lawsuits that have been injured by the careless and negligent conduct of others.” The Samuels Law Group has an office in San Diego.

The Cradduck trial began in 2023 with jury selection on May 16 and 17. The matter proceeded with opening statements, during which the attorney representing EHT conceded the duty and breach elements of negligence. The only issues left, counsel stated, were causation and damages.

Plaintiff’s first witness testified in the afternoon, concluding shortly after 3:00 p.m. The court asked for the plaintiff’s next witness, but despite previous discussions between the court and counsel regarding witness availability, Samuels informed the court no other witnesses were available that day. The court asked if Cradduck could begin his testimony, since he was in the courtroom. Samuels was visibly upset. Cradduck testified for approximately 15 minutes before the jurors were excused and asked to return on Monday, May 22.

On Saturday, May 20, Cradduck filed a motion for mistrial based on comments by counsel in EHT’s opening statement. Cradduck argued that although counsel had admitted negligence during its opening statement, two days later, it filed a motion to preclude him from presenting certain evidence, stating it had conceded negligence “‘in its use and maintenance of the subject hotel’” but the jury still had to decide causation and damages. He claimed he had been “severely prejudiced in his ability to receive a fair trial by the misleading and untrue statement to the jury.” The record does not reflect that Samuels made any objections during EHT’s opening statement.

On Monday, May 22, defendants appeared for trial. Neither Cradduck nor Samuels appeared. The court advised defense counsel that it had “received word this morning that Mr. Samuels had a medical emergency so that he could not be here.” On May 23, Samuels filed a declaration. The declaration stated that on Sunday, May 21, around 6:00 p.m., he “suddenly began to feel extremely unwell and was taken to the emergency room” via ambulance. He remained in the emergency room for approximately 24 hours.

A long course of events followed, including a mistrial. The court ultimately decided to dismiss the complaint due to Cradduck’s and Samuels’ failure to appear as ordered. The court’s decision was based primarily on Samuels’ failure to provide evidence of his medical condition justifying his failure to appear. He did not offer such evidence until much later, during post-judgment motions. Additionally, the evidence showed Samuels had continued to work on other cases just days after specially appearing counsel represented that he was disabled to the extent that he could not speak. The court found Samuels’ conduct sufficiently egregious that it ordered a reference to the State Bar of California.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s case in the published decision of Cradduck v. Hilton Domestic Operating Co. CA4/3 – G064325 (June 2025). It carefully reviewed the record such as the examples below.

At the hearing on May 24, Samuels did not appear, nor did Cradduck. Narine Mkrtchyan specially appeared for Cradduck. Mkrtchyan stated Samuels had been unable to appear at the hearing, and he had “a medical situation that is significant and is disabling to him at this point . . . it’s significant enough that he cannot proceed to trial.” She reiterated Samuels’ request for a mistrial. When asked, Mkrtchyan provided no specific information as to whether Samuels could not return the following Tuesday to resume the trial. Mkrtchyan’s reaction to the court’s statements was strongly negative, accusing the court of a “lack of compassion” that was “astonishing.” She stated she would “file a further declaration with further proof of his disability under ADA which the court is obligated to accommodate.” She did not file a further declaration on these topics at any point. On Friday, May 26, Samuels filed a notice of lodging medical records under seal.

The Court of Appeal noted that “During the proceedings, attorney Narine Mkrtchyan specially appeared twice on Samuels’s behalf. During these appearances, she made numerous uncivil and disrespectful attacks on the court, including accusing the court of misrepresenting and ignoring evidence, and demonstrating bias. She ordered the court, at one point, to ‘stop making any rulings right now,’ and also interrupted the court and demanded the court ‘let me finish.’ Such conduct is reprehensible and untenable, and accordingly, we are referring Mkrtchyan to the State Bar of California for potential disciplinary action.“

On May 30, defendants appeared at trial, as did the jury. Cradduck did not appear, nor did Samuels. The court noted it had received and reviewed the lodged medical records, but to protect Samuels’ privacy, it did not discuss the contents in any detail. The court stated that having reviewed the records, it took the proper action the previous week by excusing the jury until the following Tuesday. The court did not “find any good cause for an additional continuance.”

Defendants ultimately made an oral motion to dismiss. As the defendants and the court were discussing various matters, Mkrtchyan appeared remotely (rather than in person, as the court had ordered) and several minutes late. The court informed her of its tentative. She asserted that Samuels “is in the hospital under specialized care and requires significant medical treatment.” She again requested a continuance for another “week or until Mr. Samuels recovers from hospital” or a mistrial. The court again noted that “Mkrtchyan’s representations were in conflict with Samuels’ prior declaration and the documents filed under seal.” The court continued the matter to 10:00 a.m. the next morning as an “OSC as to why the matter should not be dismissed.”

On May 31, both Samuels and Mkrtchyan appeared remotely. Defense counsel appeared in person. The focus of the Defense argument was CCP section 581, subdivision (l), which allows a court to dismiss a case when a party fails to appear at trial. the court stayed further action and continued the hearing to June 7. Defendants attached documents undercutting representations on Samuels’ behalf that he was disabled, unable to speak, and in a life-threatening emergency during the relevant time period. Those documents discussed several other litigation matters in which Samuels had been active during this time period. One set of documents demonstrated that on June 1, Samuels exchanged e-mails with opposing counsel in another Riverside County matter, stating that he was “still engaged in trial.” They discussed a trial continuance based on the trial in which he was purportedly engaged as well as one opposing counsel had coming up.

After review of the record, the Court of Appeal said “In this appeal, Cradduck argues multiple errors. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying no less than six motions and by ultimately granting the defense’s motion to dismiss. In doing so, he fails to adequately develop most of his legal arguments.”

‘Based on the information the court had before it at the hearing where it dismissed the case, we find no abuse of discretion. Samuels had weeks prior to the dismissal hearing to submit evidence of his medical condition and his unavailability. He failed to do so, forcing the court to rely on a scant evidentiary record that often conflicted with counsel’s oral representations. While he finally submitted evidence with postjudgment motions, those motions failed to adequately meet the legal standard required to justify relief. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment.”

As part of an ongoing investigation of a 2024 Butte County arson, arrest and search warrants were issued and served in Butte, Sutter, and Sacramento Counties alleging multiple counts of arson and insurance fraud. Of those who were arrested, two men were public figures in their communities. Aaron Pamma who is the Live Oak Vice Mayor was arrested with Simren Pamma, who is a Live Oak Unified School District board member.

In total three men were arrested on individual $1,000,000 warrants issued out of Butte County Superior Court. They were identified as:

– – Aaron Pamma, 30, of Live Oak, was arrested on a warrant alleging Arson, Supporting a False Insurance – – -Claim, Perjury, Fraud, and Conspiracy to Destroy Insured Property for Fraud.
– – Simren Pamma, 28, of Sacramento, was arrested on a warrant alleging Arson and Conspiracy to Destroy Insured Property for Fraud.
– – Gurtej Singh, 28, of Yuba City, was arrested on a warrant alleging Arson, Destroying Insured Property for Fraud, Presenting a False Insurance Claim, Perjury, Fraud, and Wire Fraud.

Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey said the arrest and search warrants were the result of a lengthy joint investigation involving the CalFire Law Enforcement Division, the Butte County District Attorney, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The investigation arose out of a February 17, 2024 arson fire that severely damaged a farmhouse on Ord Ferry Road in Butte County. During the investigation, CalFire investigators determined the house and surrounding orchards had been purchased in April of 2023 by Singh using a U.S. Department of Agriculture mortgage program. Approximately one month after purchasing the property Singh transferred fifty percent ownership of the property to Aaron Pamma and Simren Pamma.

CalFire investigators determined Singh had purchased an insurance policy on the house approximately three months before the fire. Working with the insurance company, investigators determined Singh had made numerous false and/or misleading representations in the application for the insurance policy and that Singh and Aaron Pamma had made numerous false and/or misleading representations to the insurance company after the fire.

Investigators alleged that shortly after the fire, Singh, Aaron Pamma, and Simren Pamma sold the Ord Ferry property and then collected payment from the insurance company resulting in an estimated gross profit of over $200,000.

As part of the alleged conspiracy, investigators also determined that after buying the property in 2023, Singh, Aaron Pamma, and Simren Pamma hired Big Dog Handyman of Corning to renovate and improve the farmhouse. As part of the renovations and improvements, Big Dog Handyman purchased thousands of dollars’ worth of goods and materials from multiple Chico area businesses, using checks on a non-existent bank account.

The owner of Big Dog Handyman, Javier Molina-Bravo, 37, of Corning, was charged in Butte County Superior Court with multiple felony counts of check fraud last March. Molina-Bravo failed to appear for a scheduled hearing in Butte County Superior Court and is currently a wanted fugitive from justice.

Karyn Stanley worked as a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida, starting in 1999. At first, she planned to serve for 25 years. Part of the reason for that had to do with health insurance. When Ms. Stanley was hired, the City offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees: those with 25 years of service and those who retired earlier due to disability.

In 2003, the City changed its policy to provide health insurance up to age 65 only for retirees with 25 years of service, while those who retired earlier due to disability would receive just 24 months of coverage.

Ms. Stanley later developed Parkinson’s disease, a disability that forced her to retire in 2018, entitling her to only 24 months of health insurance under the revised policy.

Ms. Stanley sued, claiming the City violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by providing different health-insurance benefits to those who retire with 25 years of service and those who retire due to disability.

The City responded by filing a motion to dismiss Ms. Stanley’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court denied that motion in part, allowing some of Ms. Stanley’s claims to proceed. But with respect to her ADA claim, The district court dismissed her ADA claim, reasoning that the alleged discrimination occurred after she retired, when she was not a “qualified individual” under Title I of the ADA, 42 U. S. C. §12112(a), because she no longer held or sought a job with the defendant. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the the Eleventh Circuit in the case of Stanley v City of Sanford, Florida -No. 23–997 (June 2025).

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act bars employers from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to . . . compensation” and other matters. 42 U. S. C. §12112(a). The statute defines a “qualified individual” as “an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” §12111(8).

The question before the United States Supreme Court in this case concerns whether a retired employee who does not hold or seek a job is a “qualified individual.”

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that §12112(a) does not reach allegations of discrimination against a retiree “who does not hold or desire to hold an employment position” that she is capable of performing with reasonable accommodation. 83 F. 4th 1333, 1337 (2023).

But, the court acknowledged, not every court of appeals would agree. Like the Eleventh Circuit, the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits (Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2000) ) have said that Title I’s anti-discrimination provision “does not protect people who neither held nor desired a job with the defendant at the time of discrimination.” Id., at 1341.

But the Second and Third Circuits take a different view. As those courts see it, the ADA’s definition of “qualified individual” is “ambiguous,” and they have resolved that ambiguity “in favor of ” extending the statute to reach retirees like Ms. Stanley. Ibid.

SCOTUS resolved the circuit court conflict, and agreed with the Eleventh Circuit in this case, (and with California and the 9th Circuit which previously came to the same conclusion.) To prevail under the ADA §12112(a), a plaintiff must plead and prove that she held or desired a job, and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, at the time of an employer’s alleged act of disability-based discrimination.

Shawn Pollard sustained admitted injury on October 20, 2016 while employed as an Equipment Operator by Lemstra Cattle Company. This applicant selected Michael Azevedo, M.D., as his PTP. The parties have further selected M. Nathan Oehlschlaeger, D.C., as the QME in chiropractic medicine.

The Defendant obtained surveillance video of applicant on multiple occasions between December 1, 2022 and February 22, 2023. On March 6, 2023, the parties completed the deposition of the QME.

Following the QME deposition, On April 14, 2023, defendant sent a letter to applicant’s counsel attaching surveillance videos and proposing their submission to the QME, barring objection received in twenty days. On April 18, 2023, applicant’s counsel timely objected to the submission of surveillance video to the QME.

On May 23, 2023, PTP Michael Azevedo, M.D., issued a PR-2 interim report in response to a request that he review sub rosa video of applicant. The PTP’s report discussed the films and the physician’s opinions regarding applicant’s work restrictions.

On September 27, 2023, the parties proceeded to trial and framed for decision the issue of whether defendant was precluded from sending surveillance video to the QME. The parties also framed the issue of the admissibility of the May 23, 2023 report of the PTP. The WCJ heard testimony from the claims examiner and ordered the matter submitted for decision.

On December 7, 2023, the WCJ issued the F&O, determining in relevant part that “Defendant is precluded from sending the surveillance videos in question to the QME, Dr. Oehlschlaeger.” The WCJ further ordered the May 23, 2023, report of PTP Dr. Azevedo excluded from evidence.

The Defendants’ Petition for Removal filed with the WCAB over this Order was granted in the panel decision of Pollard v Lemstra Cattle Company – ADJ10675931 (June 2025).

Defendant’s Petition for Removal acknowledges that it obtained multiple dates of surveillance videos and that “[t]he video obtained in 2017 and 2021 was not previously disclosed to any party, partly because the deposition of the applicant had been scheduled, re-scheduled, continued several times, but never actually took place.”

Defendant contends the WCJ’s order disallowing submission of the surveillance videos to the QME is prejudicial because defendant has complied with the applicable statutes regarding submission of information to the QME. Defendant acknowledges that “[t]here is no real dispute here that the surveillance videos in question would have constituted information and had to be sent to the applicant’s attorney 20 days prior to being sent to Dr. Oehlschlaeger … [w]hen applicant’s attorney timely objected, the only way the videos could be sent to the PQME would be by order of the court.” Defendant thus contends it has complied with the provisions of Labor Code section 4062.3 and Administrative Direct (AD) Rule 35 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 35) and should be allowed to send the subject videos to Dr. Oehlschlaeger for his review.

Generally, when a party makes a demand pursuant to Hardesty v. Mccord & Holdren (1976) 41 Cal.Comp.Cases 111, 114 [1976 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 2406] for service of existing evidence, including sub rosa video, the employer is obligated to promptly serve the requested materials. A failure of timely service of sub rosa video or other demanded evidence may result in the imposition of various monetary or evidentiary sanctions, including the exclusion of evidence from the record. (Lab. Code, §§ 5502(d)(3).

The WCAB noted that “Here, however, it does not appear that applicant’s deposition has been accomplished, nor has the defendant sought to introduce the sub rosa video into evidence at mandatory settlement conference on the case in chief. Rather, defendant has provided applicant with a copy of the sub rosa video and proposed to submit the video to the QME for review unless applicant objected within twenty days pursuant to section 4062.3(b).”

The WCAB panel concluded by saying “On this record, we discern no violation of our Rules or other statutory prohibition that would preclude the QME’s review of sub rosa video. Accordingly, we will grant defendant’s petition, rescind the F&O, and substitute a new finding of fact that defendant may submit the surveillance video dated December 1, 2022, December 9, 2022, December 14, 2022, February 16, 2023, February 21, 2023, and February 22, 2023, to QME Dr. Oehlschlaeger.”

And “having concluded that defendant followed the procedure for submission of sub rosa video to the QME under section 4062.3(b), and that the sub rosa video may be submitted to6 the QME as a result, we discern no basis upon which to exclude the PTP’s reporting following review of the same evidence.”

The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office has charged a San Jose fraud prevention expert with submitting more than 150 fraudulent healthcare claims for over $100,000 against her tech company’s health plan.

Faranak Firozan, 47, faces numerous felony charges, including altering medical records with fraudulent intent and preparing false statements in connection with insurance claims. She also faces an Aggravated White-Collar Crime Enhancement. Firozan will be arraigned on July 15, 2025, in Department 23, at 1:30 p.m., at the Hall of Justice in San Jose. If convicted, she could face years in prison and would be ordered to pay any outstanding restitution.

Firozan was a senior manager of privacy and security at NVIDIA and regularly spoke as an expert on fraud prevention. She is accused of submitting 167 fraudulent claims, many of which were entirely made-up, between November 2020 and January 2024 to NVIDIA’s self-insured health plan, which is administered by Cigna.

“It’s crucial for everyone, especially those who are experts in fraud prevention, to uphold the same standards they promote,” District Attorney Jeff Rosen said. “We are grateful for our partners in this investigation that brought this serious matter to light.”

Firozan’s scheme was unraveled through subpoenas, provider interviews, and bank records in a joint investigation by the DA’s Bureau of Investigations (BOI) and the California Department of Insurance (CDI).

In August 2024, CDI received a suspected fraudulent claim referral from Cigna. Firozan had been flagged previously in Cigna’s system in October 2023 after she submitted a large amount of reimbursement claims in one month. Many of the claims featured handwritten codes.

“Insurance fraud drives up costs for everyone and erodes trust in the system,” said Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. “When someone entrusted with preventing fraud is accused of committing it, that betrayal must be met with accountability. I commend our investigators and the Santa Clara County DA’s Office for their strong partnership in this case.”

Firozan is accused of altering bills by changing service dates and often fabricating entire documents. Providers verified that services listed in her claims were either not performed at all or were duplicated claims.

On her LinkedIn page, Firozan described herself as an expert in abuse prevention systems and fraud investigations for financial institutions. In 2020, she provided training on cyber laundering for the Information Systems Security Association Silicon Valley Chapter.

The DA’s Office and CDI urge anyone with further information on this case or any similar fraud matters to contact BOI Investigator Kathleen Rak at krak1@dao.sccgov.org. The DA’s Office emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of insurance systems and its dedication to prosecuting fraudulent activities to the fullest extent of the law.