CORRECT LYRICS
Lyrics : Business & corporate attorney
A jury of the Orange County Superior Court, California, found defendant guilty of 33 counts of violating Ins. Code, § 11880, subd. (a). The jury also found defendant engaged in a pattern of related fraudulent felony conduct resulting in over $500,000 in losses. The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison and ordered him to pay $500,000 in restitution. Both defendant and the People appealed from the restitution award.
The court concluded the evidence supported the jury's guilty verdicts. The prosecution presented evidence that, from 2000 to 2008, defendant knowingly and repeatedly underreported his payroll to reduce the premium he owed for workers' compensation insurance. Defendant's felony convictions for violating § 11880, subd. (a), did not violate his constitutional right to equal protection. Defendant's repeated fraudulent underreporting of Business and corporate attorney payroll so as to reduce the workers' compensation premium owed to the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) was not the same as merely failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance at all. The evidence supported the jury's finding the prosecution timely charged defendant with the counts pre-dating October 2005. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's pretrial request to review SCIF's e-mails covered by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. The sentence imposed by the trial court did not violate the prohibition on multiple punishments. However, with respect to restitution, the trial court abused its discretion by not employing a method that was rationally designed to determine the victim's economic loss.
The trial court's restitution order was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings, but the judgment was otherwise affirmed.
A reference to Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(5), in a conspiracy to commit insurance fraud charge was not surplusage because it included fraudulent workers' compensation claims, regardless of other violations. Section 550, subd. (a)(5), was intended by the Legislature to apply to all fraudulent workers' compensation claims; [2]-The trial court did not err in denying production of insurer victim adjustor manuals and medical opinions because the trial court reasonably concluded that the defense requests for such internal doc*ments was of minimal relevance and value for the defense and overburdensome on the insurance carriers; [3]-The statutory funding scheme for the investigation and prosecution of workers' compensation insurance fraud, Ins. Code, § 1872.83, did not create a conflict of interest for the district attorney.
Judgment affirmed.
The court concluded the evidence supported the jury's guilty verdicts. The prosecution presented evidence that, from 2000 to 2008, defendant knowingly and repeatedly underreported his payroll to reduce the premium he owed for workers' compensation insurance. Defendant's felony convictions for violating § 11880, subd. (a), did not violate his constitutional right to equal protection. Defendant's repeated fraudulent underreporting of Business and corporate attorney payroll so as to reduce the workers' compensation premium owed to the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) was not the same as merely failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance at all. The evidence supported the jury's finding the prosecution timely charged defendant with the counts pre-dating October 2005. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's pretrial request to review SCIF's e-mails covered by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. The sentence imposed by the trial court did not violate the prohibition on multiple punishments. However, with respect to restitution, the trial court abused its discretion by not employing a method that was rationally designed to determine the victim's economic loss.
The trial court's restitution order was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings, but the judgment was otherwise affirmed.
A reference to Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(5), in a conspiracy to commit insurance fraud charge was not surplusage because it included fraudulent workers' compensation claims, regardless of other violations. Section 550, subd. (a)(5), was intended by the Legislature to apply to all fraudulent workers' compensation claims; [2]-The trial court did not err in denying production of insurer victim adjustor manuals and medical opinions because the trial court reasonably concluded that the defense requests for such internal doc*ments was of minimal relevance and value for the defense and overburdensome on the insurance carriers; [3]-The statutory funding scheme for the investigation and prosecution of workers' compensation insurance fraud, Ins. Code, § 1872.83, did not create a conflict of interest for the district attorney.
Judgment affirmed.
