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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
