Lawyer Convicted of Workers’ Compensation Fraud
Post 5031
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/guilty-paying-kickbacks-cappers-defraud-insurers-zalma-esq-cfe-9uybc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6r8bl0-guilty-paying-kickbacks-and-cappers-to-defraud-insurers.html and at https://youtu.be/ZXEaXW1pGZs and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In The People v. Jon Woods, G061948, California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division (March 18, 2025) a jury convicted Jon Woods of 37 felony counts of workers’ compensation fraud.
Woods was a worker’s compensation attorney who had made business arrangements that involved unlawful kickback and referral fees.
Woods contended that the Williamson rule (In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651, 276 P.2d 593) precluded convictions on counts 5 through 37. The Williamson rule states that where the Legislature has defined a specific crime with a lesser punishment, the conduct described by that crime may not be charged as a more general crime with a harsher punishment. Woods argued that his conduct was covered by a more specific statute, Labor Code section 139.32, which makes it a misdemeanor to refer work to third-party servicers in exchange for compensation.
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SYSTEM
Workers’ Compensation is a scheme where employers agree to promptly compensate employees for injuries sustained on the job regardless of fault, and employees agree to the limited remedies available under the scheme.
The Legislature passed laws to protect insurers and the overall workers’ compensation system from abuse, including making it a crime to participate in a kickback scheme which was the criminal conduct of Woods, Gonzales and Arguello.
FACTS
Woods arranged with Edgar Gonzales to use copy services business called USA Photocopy, which provided subpoena services for workers’ compensation attorneys. USA Photocopy paid for some of Woods’s business expenses, including the salary of certain employees hired by Woods.
Woods’s arrangement with Arguello involved a marketing company that advertised to obtain workers’ compensation clients. Using Arguello’s copy service for subpoenas was a condition of engaging his advertising service. Woods paid Arguello’s businesses $1,425,000 in fees for advertising services over the course of their relationship.
Arguello pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges related to worker’s compensation fraud and was sentenced to four years in federal prison. He also pleaded guilty to charges brought by the Orange County District Attorney.
The Attorney General alleged four aspects of Woods’s relationships with Gonzales and Arguello that were illegal. These included operating as a runner or capper service, providing fully signed and retained clients prior to any interaction with Woods, a quid pro quo arrangement, and an illegal cross-referral service.
After conviction Woods was sentenced to four years in prison and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $701,452.
THE APPEAL
Woods appealed, and the court reversed counts 5-37 based on the Williamson rule. Woods contended that his conduct is covered by a more specific statute that criminalizes kickback schemes, which is what Woods was accused of participating in, Penal Code Section 550.
DISCUSSION
Absent some indication of legislative intent to the contrary, the Williamson rule applies and there does not need to be perfect overlap between the general and specific statutes.
The People’s theory of how Woods violated Penal Code section 550 was precisely that he violated Labor Code section 139.32 and, therefore, the Williamson rule applies. The Court of Appeals agreed with Woods under these circumstances, and thus reversed his conviction on counts 5-37. This will also require reversal of the white-collar sentencing enhancement based on these charges, as well as a restitution award based on these charges. The restitution order of $701,452 was reversed without prejudice to the court reassessing restitution at a new sentencing hearing. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
A lawyer committing fraud taking advantage of the Workers’ Compensation system where his crimes resulted in more than a million dollars of kickbacks and payment for cappers who illegally signed up clients for Woods. The court only found that the state overcharged Woods and required him to serve an appropriate sentence for his fraud on the Workers’ Compensation system, employers and their insurers. Jail and an appropriate amount of restitution to the defrauded insurers should be assessed.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
