Case Name:	People v. Kamal		11/29/2007
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT No. B190006 November 29, 2007 THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. FADI Z. KAMAL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. Fadi Z. Kamal appeals from the judgment following his convictions for grand theft and receiving stolen property. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Appellant Fadi Kamal began working for Darden Dental Supply in 2002. When it terminated him, the company offered appellant $2,000 in severance pay if he would sign a waiver not to sue. In the meantime, company officials had started noticing about one month earlier that some items were inexplicably missing from its warehouse.
Note:	[Unpublished] Because the trial's outcome hinged on credibility factors, the prosecutor's improper attacks on appellant's credibility more likely than not affected the jury's deliberations and ultimate verdict. Appellant is therefore entitled to a retrial before a jury untainted by prosecutorial misconduct.
Citation:	B190006
WCC Citation:	WCC 32832007 CA

Case Name:	People v. Lias		12/31/1969
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT  DIVISION TWO  .             THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, .             v. .             MICHELLE JANET LIAS, Defendant and Appellant. .             E067278 .             (Super. Ct. No. RIF1500177) .             O P I N I O N .             APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. .           Defendant and appellant, Michelle Janet Lias, pled guilty to fraudulently making a material statement and representation for the purpose of obtaining compensation. .           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS .           McKINSTER J. .           We concur: .           RAMIREZ P. J.
Note:	The 4th District Court of Appeal upheld a sentence ordering a worker to pay restitution for investigatory expenses incurred over the course of her admittedly fraudulent claim — not just the expenses incurred after her doctor determined she was "miking it."
Citation:	E067278
WCC Citation:	Super.Ct.No. RIF1500177

Case Name:	People v. Lucena		09/21/2010
Summary:	C059767 & C064415 September 21, 2010 THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. JUNE ANN LUCENA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. Such activity was better than "just surviving" and not typical of patients with significant complaints of low back pain. His opinion would have been different if he had known of her level of activity as shown on the videotapes. On August 25, 2003, defendant indicated she continued to have pain in the same areas; there was no major change. Dr. Mann had no reason to believe that defendant's activities had changed from what she indicated on her first visit.
Note:	The 3rd District Court of Appeal affirmed most of a trial court's decision that convicted June Ann Lucena of workers' compensation fraud, attempted perjury, theft by false pretenses, and false claims.
Citation:	C059767
WCC Citation:	WCC 36722010 CA

Case Name:	People v. Montes		09/07/2011
Summary:	THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RENE MONTES, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Rene Montes seeks additional presentence conduct credits pursuant to Penal Code section 4019, as amended in January 2010. 1 We agree the amended statute applies retroactively to time defendant served in pretrial custody before the amendment became effective. It imposed a total term of 12 years in state prison and ordered more than $1. 75 million in restitution. a term of six days will be deemed to have been served for every four days spent in actual custody. "As amended, the statute granted to certain defendants two days of conduct credits for every four days in custody.
Note:	A surgery center owner who helped defraud American International Group and Matrix Absence Management out of $1.4 million will get an additional 271 days of credit toward his sentence.
Citation:	G044451
WCC Citation:	WCC 37982011 CA

Case Name:	People v. Moreno		02/08/2008
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OSCAR CARDENAS MORENO, Defendant and Appellant. First, defendant denied ever being known by a name other than "Oscar Moreno Cardenas"; however, defendant filed a second workers' compensation claim under the name "Pedro Navaro Cabrera. "The attorney who deposed defendant read from the deposition transcript at trial, and testified that at the deposition defendant stated his name was "Oscar Moreno Cardenas. "We note that this case is filed under the name "Oscar Cardenas Moreno," and that during trial, defendant was referred to as "Mr. Accordingly, we infer that defendant's name is "Oscar Cardenas Moreno. "
Note:	[Unpublished] 'Unless testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient' to establish that Defendant had the requisite intent in making false statements for the purpose of obtaining workers' compensation benefits.
Citation:	E041868
WCC Citation:	WCC 33152008 CA

Case Name:	People v. Navaei		01/19/2010
Summary:	The court stayed imposition of sentence and placed Navaei on five years of formal probation on certain conditions, including that he serve 120 days in county jail. Navaei testified to the physical attack under oath during a deposition in his workers' compensation case. The videotape showed a verbal altercation between Navaei and his employer but no physical attack. The minute order also inaccurately reflects the court's oral pronouncements concerning the condition prohibiting Navaei from associating with illegal drug users. =========FOOTNOTES========= *fn1 The People charged Navaei with attempted perjury rather than perjury because there was no evidence Navaei had signed his deposition transcript.
Note:	The court modified Navaei's probation conditions to be more specific.
Citation:	B210534
WCC Citation:	WCC 35912010 CA

Case Name:	People v. Parede - unpublished		02/18/2021
Summary:	INTRODUCTION A jury found Gonzalo Ernesto Paredes guilty of 35 counts of offering or delivering compensation for workers’ compensation patient referrals (Lab. Paredes also contends that the prosecutor committed further error during his closing argument by stating that Paredes had admitted paying kickbacks. In other words, the misconduct must be ‘of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial. ’ [Citation. ]While Paredes uses the term prosecutorial misconduct, as do many courts, we refer to the claim as raising one of purported prosecutorial error. “[The prosecutor:] Did Gonzalo Paredes offer you an alternative arrangement[4] by which MRIs could be referred to Advanced Radiology in exchange for something?
Note:	A California appellate court upheld the sentence and conviction of a former office manager for his involvement in an illegal kickback operation.
Citation:	No. D076086
WCC Citation:	No. D076086

Case Name:	People v. Peebles		07/17/2009
Summary:	IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. H031155 July 17, 2009 THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. WADE ELLIS PEEBLES ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. He also found nothing to show that Gigi Peebles Corp. is a registered corporation. He was a signatory on a bank account but he did not personally sign a signature card for the account. Peter never had any dealings with defendant Gigi regarding Castle Rock business other than when she relayed instructions from defendant Wade. Several checks were made out to Gigi Peebles Corp. , with references to other specific or unknown individuals or to specific projects.
Note:	An appellate court upheld the convictions of a husband and wife who were convicted of more than 40 counts of insurance fraud in an unpublished decision.
Citation:	H031155
WCC Citation:	WCC 35462009 CA

Case Name:	People v. Ryles		09/09/2010
Summary:	No. B208070 September 9, 2010 THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. EUELL RYLES ET AL. , DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. 1182142, 1225501)(Santa Barbara County) James F. Rigali, Judge Sanger & Swysen, Robert M. Sanger, Stephen K. Dunkle, for Defendant and Appellant Euell Ryles. Law Offices of Joseph D. Allen, and Joseph D. Allen, for Defendant and Appellant Linda Ryles. On May 23, 2006, appellants appeared with Funke-Bilu and filed their individual signed waivers on a form entitled "Waiver of Conflicts of Interest - Joint Representation of Witness" that bore the caption "The People of the State of California v. Euell Bertram Ryles & Linda Marie Ryles. "I did not tell Mr. Ryles that he has to only say 'It was my state of mind' or whatever.
Note:
Citation:	B208070
WCC Citation:	WCC 36672010 CA

Case Name:	People v. Straiton		01/12/2017
Summary:	This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115.   COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA .             THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, .             v. .             KEVIN STRAITON, Defendant and Appellant. .             D070565 .             (Super. .             The San Diego County District Attorney filed an amended complaint alleging that Kevin Straiton committed 19 counts of grand theft (Pen. .           Subsequently, Straiton moved under section 995 seeking to strike count 18 because the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was not sufficient to create probable cause to believe Straiton committed the offense. .           This claim is forfeited because Straiton did not move under section 995 to challenge count 7.
Note:	A California appellate court upheld an employer’s conviction for grand theft and failing to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for his consignment vehicle dealership.
Citation:	D070565
WCC Citation:	Super. Ct. No. SCD254770