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
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
