In order to violate subsection (b)(3) of Insurance Code section 550, a person, in addition to concealing or knowingly failing to disclose, must intend to obtain benefits to which they would not be entitled if they had made the disclosure. In short, the person must intend to commit a fraud.
[Unpublished] After the appellant has obtained an order for a new trial, a trial court is limited to imposing a sentence no greater than that originally imposed. Thus, the trial court here was unhampered during resentencing by its former choice of middle-term punishment for the insurance fraud.
[Unpublished] Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues. The court notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and the court received no response from defendant. There is no triable issue on appeal.
[Unpublished] Appellant failed to establish the relevance of testimony from his proffered medical experts. The court's exclusion of irrelevant evidence did not violate appellant's right to present a defense.
Excluded evidence that an employer failed to provide workers' compensation insurance would not likely change the outcome in the trial of a man accused of forging company checks which he claimed were advances for medical treatment, a California appeals court held.
A California appellate court upheld a former bank employee's conviction for workers' compensation insurance fraud based on her testimony that she was unable to drive; a claim which was belied by surveillance video taken just days before the hearing at which she made this assertion.
A malingering applicant should not have to repay all of the benefits received as criminal restitution, because she only started misrepresenting the extent of her symptoms after suffering a compensable injury.