Medical Supply Owner & Marketer Sentenced In Health Care Fraud And Kickback Case Involving Power Wheelchairs Billed to Medicare

On June 24, 2013, two individuals were sentenced in a health care fraud case involving power wheelchairs.  Jose Melendez, the owner and operator of Oceanside Medical Services, was sentenced to 18 months in prison by Judge Huff, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego), for his involvement in a health care fraud conspiracy that resulted in over $1 million in false claims to the Medicare trust fund. Melendez was also ordered to pay $593,429.81 in restitution, and will be on supervised release for three years after completing his custodial sentence.

Mr. Melendez plead guilty in a plea agreement to conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks and defraud in violation of 18, U.S.C. Section 371 in which the maximum penalty is five years in custody; $250,000 fine; 3 year of supervised release; and mandatory restitution.  Thus, a sentence of 18 months indicates a reduction in the potential sentence.

This case involved the sale of power wheelchair prescriptions in order to obtain Medicare reimbursement for power wheelchairs that the patients allegedly did not need and, in some cases, the patients said they did not want. It was alleged that two of Mr. Melendez’s co-defendants and alleged co-conspirators, Dr. Irving Schwartz and Gloria Hernandez, traveled to El Centro, California in search of elderly Medicare patients.

Dr. Schwartz allegedly wrote fraudulent prescriptions for the patients to obtain power wheelchairs, even though the patients did not need the equipment and could walk without assistance, and collected a $300 cash kickback in exchange for each  power  wheelchair  prescription.  Ms. Hernandez  then  sold  the  fraudulent  power  wheelchair prescriptions to Mr. Melendez, charging him $1,000 per fraudulent prescription.

Mr. Melendez, in turn, sold some of the power wheelchair prescriptions to others, charging an additional mark-up on each prescription. As the last step, Mr. Melendez and others submitted  the  fraudulent  prescriptions  to  Medicare  for  reimbursement,  billing  up  to $5,865 for each power wheelchair.

According to the plea, Dr. Schwartz wrote at least 186 power wheelchair prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries in exchange for more than $55,000 in bribes and kickbacks. Mr. Melendez, the owner and operator of Oceanside Medical Services, purchased these 186 fraudulent prescriptions and used them to submit over $830,000 in false claims to Medicare.

Ms. Hernandez was sentenced to 6 months home confinement, and ordered to pay $160,000 in restitution to Medicare.

Dr. Schwartz is scheduled to be sentenced on August 19, 2013, before Judge Huff.  

In a separate and related case, Aristeo and Laura Tavares, who were charged in a separate case, submitted more than $250,000 in false Medicare claims based on Dr. Schwartz’s fraudulent prescriptions.  On March 27, 2013, Aristeo and Laura Tavares were sentenced to time served (1 day in custody), and ordered to pay $182,860.77 in restitution to the Medicare trust fund. 

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.

Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law

Contact: 213-233-2260

Email: tgreen@greenassoc.com

Remember: Alteration, Destruction Or Falsification Of Medical Records During Audit Can Result In A Separate Federal Criminal Charge. Case Example: Physician, Manager & Biller Of Physical Therapy Clinic Charged With Medicare Fraud, Kickbacks & Falsification of Records.

A physician who was billing for physical therapy at three clinics and his office manager (who was also a co-signer on the clinics' bank accounts) and the medical biller were charged on May 2013 in the Eastern District of New York in Case No. CR-13-0295. They were charged with Medicare fraud, violating the anti-kickback statute and creating fake medical documents to conceal fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare that were induced by kickback, not medically necessary and not provided. The defendants are presumed innocent and an Indictment is not evidence of wrongdoing.

Although this case has allegations that most medical and health care providers would not do in their practice, the issue of altering or creating records is becoming a more common charge in health care cases even where there is no provable fraud. The defendants here were charged with knowingly concealing, covering up, falsifying and making false entries in records relating to the treatment of Medicare beneficiaries, with the intent to impede, obstruct and influence the investigation and case within the jurisdiction of a department and agency of the United States, specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services. This is a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1519. Thus, any destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Medicare or Medicaid audits could result in a felony charge. 

Kickback Allegations.
In addition, the kickback allegations are a reminder for providers to adhere to regulations when providing patients items such as gift cards and lunches.  It is alleged that the defendants and others did the following:  (a) they artificially increased demand for medical services by providing Medicare beneficiaries with free goods and services such as massages, facials, lunches, gift cards and recreational classes; and (b) submitted and caused to be submitted claims to Medicare for medically unnecessary services to beneficiaries, such as office visits, physical therapy, lesion destruction and electrical stimulation treatment, which were medically unnecessary, not provided and otherwise did not qualify for reimbursement by Medicare. 

As for the kickbacks, it was alleged that the defendants paid kickbacks to patients and to marketers. For the patients, it was alleged that the defendants induced Medicare beneficiaries to attend three clinics with the promise of free, non-medical inducements, such as: (i) massages and facials, (ii) recreational classes, such as dancing classes; (iii) social events, such as birthday parties, (iv) free lunch, (v) gift cards to grocery stores, (vi) and prizes. It was alleged that once the Medicare beneficiaries arrived at the clinics, they were required to give their Medicare numbers to staff members and to see a doctor, regardless of medical need, in order to receive the free, non-medical inducements.

It was also alleged that the once there were collections, the defendants paid a pre-determined percentage of the money from Medicare to, among others, marketers Elaine Kim and Gilbert Kim. It was alleged that the nature of these payments were concealed by fake invoices with fictional expenses described as "rent," equipment and furniture," "management," "medical records and supplies," "repair and maintenance," "marketing," "telephone and cable,"  "supplies," "administration," and "management and operation."

Physical Therapy Allegations.
As for the physical therapy, the allegations that those services were induced by free goods and services, not medically necessary and not provided. For example, it was alleged that physical therapists at these three clinics did not perform evaluations and did not perform physical therapy on Medicare beneficiaries. Rather, beneficiaries were ushered to unlicensed massage therapists for massages, and fraudulent paperwork was completed purportedly reflecting that actual physical therapy services had been provided to the beneficiaries by licensed physical therapists, when such services had not been provided. The government also determined when the physician had been outside of the United States and charged dates when he was outside the U.S. and there was billing under his number and supervision. 

Obstruction Allegations During Audit.
The government alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to obstruct the functions of the Department of Health and Human services ("HHS") by creating fake medical documents to conceal fraudulent claims submitted to Medicare that were induced by kickback, not medically necessary and not provided.

It was alleged that after one of the clinics received letters from Medicare asking for documentation supporting medical services and after an unannounced visit, fake medical documents were created in support of purported chiropractic services.  Those fake medical documents were allegedly sent to Medicare in order to deceive Medicare and to obstruct the lawful function of HHS. It was also alleged that one of the defendants falsely told the investigators that the medical records could not be provided because the services were performed at a different location.

This case is pending in the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) and no trial date is set yet.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.,
Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law
Office: 213-233-2260  Email: tgreen@greenassoc.com

Los Angeles Medical Transportation Company's Owner, Manager and Biller Face Federal Health Care Fraud Charges. Services Provided But Government Claims Lack Of Medical Necessity For Transportation.

In health care fraud cases in the past, the prosecutions tended to be for "ghost billing," for illegal kickbacks or for services clearly not provided. These past years have brought on a large number of cases where the services were provided but there are allegations of "no medical necessity" and failure to comply with program rules and regulations. A recent example of this type of case is the federal Indictment filed against ProMed Medical Transportation in the Central District of California, CR Case No. 13-0264, relating to non-emergency medical transportation services. The case has been assigned to Judge Otero.

In this case, on May 14, 2013, the medical transportation company's owner Yavoslav (Steven) Proshak, manager Sharetta Michele Wallace, and its biller and office manager Sergey Mumjian were charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud (18 U.S.C. Section 1349), health care fraud (18 U.S.C. Section 1347), aiding and abetting health care fraud (18 U.S.C. Section 2(b)) as well as forfeiture counts (21 U.S.C. Sections 853 and 2461(c) and 18 U.S.C Section 982(a)(7). These individuals are presumed innocent and an Indictment is not evidence of any wrongdoing. 

Healthcare Fraud Attorney Commentary

In this case, the allegations are wide ranging and claim that ProMed's billing from May 8, 2008 to April 6, 2011 of $5.9 million in which $3.1 million was collected was all health care fraud on the ground that there was no medical necessity for the billings. The government claims that the these individuals knew the beneficiaries medical condition did not necessitate ambulance transportation services. The defendants are probably incredulous that the allegations are that all the claims are false claims.

Under Medicare guidelines, a patient whose condition permitted transport in any type of vehicle other than an ambulance did not qualify for Medicare payment unless the patient was bed confined before, during and after transportation. The defense in these type of cases is usually that the beneficiaries' (patients') treating physicians will have ordered the medical transportation and deemed medical necessity. The term "bed confined" is quite specific under Medicare guidelines. The provider must complete a Form 1500 to bill Medicare (or its contracted intermediary Palmetto). These Form 1500s will be key to the case as well as the documentation made contemporaneously at the time of the transportation.

How does the government intend to prove the fraud in this case and get around the physician order?According to the Indictment, the government is contending that the owner and manager altered the "run sheets" completed during the ambulance transportation and instructed employees to alter the "run sheets" and to ensure that they did not write certain terms to indicate that they were ambulatory or able to walk. There are certain patients who are listed in the Indictment and it is likely that these are patients who were interviewed and have indicated that they could walk or sit in a wheelchair at the time and did not need ambulance transportation for non-emergency services. 

One of the other issues may be whether the "covered destinations" for the non-emergency transports were appropriate. For example, the only time transportation to the patient's residence is allowed is if the transport is to return from a hospital and the patient's condition at the time of transport required ambulance services. If the transportation were made from home to a dialysis facility, the government may argue that it was not medically necessary. If the patient could get in and out of a wheelchair for example, that may be used to deny the claim. In defending this case, it will be important to see what rules were followed and whether any false statements were made on the 1500 Forms that were submitted for billing. 

The difficult issue in these cases is the battle of the expert witnesses especially where the government is alleging that all billings are "false claims." There may be some underlying issues with the referring physicians or facilities (skilled nursing facilities, dialysis facilities, etc.) and the ordering of the transportation. The government's position will be that even if the ambulance came out and saw that the patient could get out of bed into a wheelchair, then they should have refused the transport. The drivers will obviously be key witnesses since it appears from the Indictment they may be contending it was company policy to transport nonetheless and to create documentation that supported transportation. Investigation and interviews of all witnesses would be needed to assess the potential exposure in this case.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.

Ms. Green is an experienced Medicare fraud attorney, Medi-Cal fraud attorney, health care fraud attorney, and white collar criminal defense attorney who has handled cases representing employers, providers and individuals over the last 20 years in the health care field.

To discuss you or your company's particular issues, feel free to contact her at 213-233-2260 or via email at tgreen@greenassoc.com. The firm website is www.greenassoc.com

Medical Board of California Appoints New Interim Executive Director After Retirement of Linda Whitney After 37 Years

The Medical Board of California announces the appointment of Kimberly Kirchmeyer as its new interim executive director. Ms. Kirchmeyer has been with the Medical Board since 1999, and was deputy director from 2005 to 2009. In late 2009, Ms. Kirchmeyer left the Medical Board for approximately two years and served as deputy director of Board and Bureau Relations for the Department of Consumer Affairs. She returned to the Medical Board in June 2011 in her prior position as deputy director.

Kimberly Kirchmeyer succeeds Linda Whitney, former executive director of the Medical Board, who retired this month after 37 years of state service. Ms. Kirchmeyer begins her new position immediately.

An executive recruitment and search committee is working with the Department of Consumer Affairs to find a permanent Executive Director.

Attorney Commentary Regarding Medical Board

The California Medical Board is undergoing a great deal of change and pressure in today’s political climate. Ms. Kirchmeyer will be the interim director while they search for a new Executive Director. I expect the climate with respect to the discipline of physicians and other health care professionals to become more aggressive, consumer-oriented and proactive in its investigations.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.

Ms. Green is an experienced California Medical Board attorney who represents physicians, nurses, pharmacists and other health care professionals in licensing, civil, administrative and criminal investigations, criminal prosecutions and board proceedings. To discuss your particular situation, call 213-233-2260 or email tgreen@greenassoc.com.  The firm website is www.greenassoc.com

Los Angeles Chiropractor Charged With Medicare Fraud, Aggravated Identity Theft And Forfeiture Allegations

Medicare fraud cases involving chiropractors are not very common. The reason for this is that Medicare severely limits coverage for chiropractic services to manual manipulation of the spine to correct a condition known as “subluxation.” The diagnosis of subluxation must be diagnosed and documented either by X-ray or a physical examination that is detailed and documented before Medicare will reimburse. Medicare does not pay for maintenance therapy or for chiropractic treatments that are for maintenance or to promote health.

In Los Angeles, a chiropractor, Danny Paveh (also known as Houshang Pavehzadeh) of the Sylmar Physician Medical Group, was charged in May 2013 with federal health care fraud (18 USC 1347), aggravated identity theft (18 USC 1028(A)(1), and forfeiture allegations. Dr. Paveh is presumed innocent and the fact that an Indictment has been filed is not evidence. This case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District before Judge Manuel L. Real. Mr. Paveh was released on $100,000 bond and a trial date is not yet set.

The allegations in this case are that from 2005 to 2012 – a very long billing period – Chiropractor Paveh billed Medicare more than $1.7 million for chiropractic treatments for subluxation that were never properly performed.  The government alleges that the patients only received massages and other non-reimbursable treatments from Dr. Paveh and massage therapists who worked at his group. Essentially, the government alleges that these were “false claims” submitted to Medicare. It is also alleged that Dr. Paveh committed “aggravated identity theft” by taking the patients information and billing Medicare.

Attorney Commentary Regarding This Chiropractor Medicare Fraud Case

First, it appears that Dr. Paveh may have come to the government’s attention via an audit to be performed by OIG. According to the government, Dr. Paveh was the second-largest Medicare biller in California for chiropractic services – even though he was the only chiropractor in his group. The government also alleged that he was not in the United States when some of the  services were performed.

Second, although clients can panic when faced with an audit, the government alleges that when OIG investigators tried to conduct an audit of Pavehzadeh’s claims, he falsely reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that he had been carjacked and that patient files requested by the auditors had been stolen from his car. This could be used as a sentencing enhancement and to show false statements to government officials in conducting an audit.

Third, I often see clients who assume because they have billed certain procedures for years that it means that Medicare must not have an issue with the billing or documentation. Unfortunately, Medicare is known as “good faith” billing and it reserves the right to go back and audit and seek an overpayment in an administrative context or to seek criminal charges as was done here. Thus, years of billing does not guarantee that the government will not take action. Health care has changed over the years and Medicare has become much more aggressive in health care fraud cases.

Fourth, this case was being investigated for some years. This means that there was significant time to meet with the federal prosecutors and see if the case could be settled pre-indictment. In some cases, we are able to have the prosecutors offer a “reverse proffer” so the client and Medicare fraud attorney can see what evidence the government has so the case can be realistically assessed. 

Finally, forfeiture allegations were filed in this case which can often tie up a defendant's assets and make it more difficult to defend oneself or to support oneself pending a trial. In evaluating anyone's potential exposure, it should be assumed that forfeiture allegations will be filed in any federal health care fraud case. 

In cases like this, obtaining representation long before Indictment – and ideally at the audit stage – make the most sense so the case does not grow and if there are adverse facts, they can be handled at the earliest stage. If there is exculpatory evidence and facts that show innocence and good faith billing, then those facts can be presented as well.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.

Ms. Green is a very experienced health care fraud attorney who has handled hundreds of audits and investigations for Medicare, Medi-Cal and private insurance. In addition, she has defended health care professionals and companies in Medicare fraud, Medi-Cal fraud, mail fraud arising from false billing claims, aggravated identity theft and health care forfeiture claims. Feel free to contact her at 213-233-2260 or via email at tgreen@greenassoc.com to discuss your unique situation.

Bay Area Business Owner Pleads Guilty To Workers' Compensation Premium Insurance Fraud - Sentenced To 1 Year In County Jail Which Was Modified To House Arrest

California is still placing a high importance on the prosecution of employers for workers' compensation premium insurance fraud. We have seen an increase in audits, investigations, and prosecutions for cases that would have been settled civilly in prior years. 

In late February 2013, the owner of Genesis Building Services, Inc., a janitorial and pest control company in the Bay Area, was sentenced for insurance premium fraud. The owner, Teresa Reif, plead no contest to 8 counts and was sentenced to serve one year in jail, five years’ probation as well as being ordered to pay $1,651,148 to State Compensation Insurance Fund and $451,310 to Berkshire Hathaway (Redwood Fire and Casualty) in restitution to the insurers.  

Ms. Reif will not have to serve time in county jail since in April 2013, the judge agreed to modify her sentence and allow her to serve her sentence on home confinement with electronic monitoring so she could care for her three children. The prosecution objected but the judge granted the defense's request for modification in a humane and reasonable ruling.

Ms. Reif was originally arrested in April 2011 after an investigation that lasted several years. She was accused of having failed to report more than $10.5 million of her payroll over a four-year period. The company allegedly omitted more than half of the company's payments to its more than 140 employees from the monthly reports filed between March 2005 and March 2009. This was a family business and Ms. Reif ran the business with her brother. The company was originally accused of fraudulently avoiding nearly $3 million in insurance premiums but it was agreed by the time of the plea that the loss amount was $2 million.

The company was accused of omitting more than half of the company's payments to its more than 140 employees from the monthly reports Ms. Reif filed between March 2005 and March 2009. The carrier, Redwood Fire and Casualty, became suspicious after it received conflicting statements from Genesis staff regarding the actual number of employees at the company. The company had also obtained insurance from State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF).

Based on these conflicting reports, the insurer notified the Department of Insurance and the fraud division began an investigation. During a search of the business, a second set of fraudulent books were found.

This case was filed in San Mateo County Superior Court and handled by the District Attorney's Office with the investigation performed by the California Department of Insurance. The bail in this case was handled reasonably since she was released on her own recognizance pending trial even though the felony bail schedule is that bail is to be set at the amount of the loss. 

White Collar Criminal Defense Attorney Commentary On This Workers' Compensation Insurance Premium Fraud Prosecution

A number of lessons can be gleaned from this particular case. First, it can take years for these cases to be resolved since this case was not filed until 2011 for conduct that ended in 2009. It appears that the prosecution waited until the statute of limitation was about to run before it filed.

Second, the prosecution can go back years if they can show that the fraud was not discovered. We have seen cases go back 10 years in seeking to collect premiums. The case was prosecuted by the San Mateo County District Attorney's office.

Third, in this case it does not appear that the company was able to pay the restitution before sentencing. This is often key in plea negotiations. In a number of cases, we have had parallel civil lawsuits which we have negotiated at the same time in order to avoid jail time.

Fourth, the prosecution prefers to file against individuals and not companies. In some of our cases, we have been able to have the companies added as defendants and have the individuals dismissed where we have been able to pay restitution and work out a mutual resolution.

Fifth, what we have seen is that once the Department of Insurance gets involved with a fraud complaint, they will request payroll information from the State of California. Often employers will report the correct payroll information to government authorities but report different numbers to workers’ compensation insurance companies. In those cases, it becomes fairly simple for the prosecution to prove the fraud.

Sixth, we have seen cases that became criminal where the employer decided to be aggressive and fight the insurance carrier on the demand for payment after an audit. In some cases, it makes sense to fight the carrier but there needs to be a full evaluation of the facts and reporting and ensure that an insurance fraud report will not be a viable option for the carrier. We have seen disputes over $90,000 turn into criminal cases where they could have been settled early on.

Seventh, one important factor is where your case is being prosecuted and the judge that is assigned to your case. A sentencing analysis in this case would show exposure of 17 years for all counts and due to the large loss amounts. However, that is not the type of sentence that is usually imposed. In this case, the prosecution and court understood that the large amount of restitution, the felony convictions were significant punishments and did not insist on a lengthy jail sentence. However, we have seen that these cases are handled with an understanding of the underlying business issues facing employers in the worst recession of our lifetime (high workers' compensation premiums that could close an employer's business). 

Finally, for those businesses that are run by licensed individuals (physicians, contractors, etc.) we have had success in reaching agreements so that the business will not lose the license and livelihood. Most of the prosecuting agencies do not want to close businesses and put employees out of work. This should be part of the evaluation of the case, risks and potential resolution. 

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.

Ms. Green is an experienced workers' compensation fraud attorney and white collar criminal defense attorney who has handled cases representing employers, providers and individuals over the last 20 years.

To discuss you or your company's particular issues, feel free to contact her at 213-233-2260 or via email at tgreen@greenassoc.com. The firm website is www.greenassoc.com

How to Clean Up Your Conviction - Expunging Calfornia State Criminal Convictions

BACKGROUND ABOUT EXPUNGEMENT 

Expungement is a method for cleaning up your state criminal record. There is no expungement for federal convictions. This procedure reopens your criminal case, dismisses the conviction, and re-closes the case without a conviction. In effect, you are no longer a convicted person. However, the case record itself will still exist, and the expungement will appear on your record. 

It is important to understand that it does not "seal" your records. Moreover, if you had a juvenile conviction, you need to file a petition to seal that conviction since it is not sealed automatically.

We represent our clients in this process but for those who want to understand it further or cannot afford representation, this guide will be helpful. If you have had a misdemeanor conviction such as a DUI, petty theft or any other minor conviction it is still necessary to go through this process to get the conviction off your record no matter how many years ago. If you had a felony case, you may also want to have it reduced to a misdemeanor first and then have it expunged. 

Since most misdemeanor and felony cases in California are eligible, this is an important process for people to follow up on after they have completed probation and do not have any open cases. It is an important part of moving ahead with one's life and can also help with job opportunities and future licensing in professions.  We often represent individuals who failed to clear up past records and assist them, but it is important to realize that this does not happen automatically when probation ends. Moreover, with wobbler offenses which can be reduced to misdemeanors upon completion of probation, that is also not automatic in most cases. It is therefore important to do this follow up work and many people put it off for years until they suddenly realize it is holding them back.  

Not all convictions can be dismissed. Expungement is limited to cases in which the defendant was sentenced to county jail time, probation, a fine, or a combination of those three. Additionally, the Penal Codes permitting expungment of criminal records expressly prohibit certain types of convictions from being dismissed. Most of these exceptions involve serious vehicle code violations (those that result in two or more points on your driving record) or sexual offenses against minors. For a detailed list of exceptions see Penal Code § 1203.4 and Penal Code § 1203.4a.

THERE ARE 3 TYPES OF EXPUNGEMENT: 

1.      The first, governed by Penal Code § 1203.4, will expunge cases in which probation was part of the sentence. 

2.      The second, under Penal Code § 1203.4a, will expunge cases in which there was no probation. 

3.      The third, under Penal Code § 17, will reduce a felony conviction to a misdemeanor. This misdemeanor can then be dismissed. Felonies meeting the criteria under Penal Code § 17 are often called "wobblers," meaning they could be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor.

If you received state prison as your sentence, you will need to file paperwork for a Certificate of Rehabilitation, rather than a Petition and Order for Dismissal.  More information is available from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/docs/apply_for_pardon.pdf

WHAT DOES AN EXPUNGEMENT NOT DO FOR YOU?

Although your conviction may be dismissed, restrictions resulting from the conviction cannot. An expungement does not: 

o   Remove the conviction from your criminal history. California and FBI criminal history records will still show the conviction and the subsequent dismissal.

o   Seal the court case file from public inspection. The court file remains public record.

o   Reinstate your right to possess firearms. In some cases, reduction of a non-violent felony to a misdemeanor may accomplish this. 

o   Relieve you of your duty to register as a sex offender. In some cases, this may be accomplished by a different motion to the court.

o   Allow you to omit the conviction from applications for government-issued licenses. You must disclose your conviction and expungement in your license application.

o   Allow you to omit the conviction from application for government employment.  If you are applying for a government job, a job that requires security clearance, or a job that requires a government-issued license, certificate, or permit, you must disclose the conviction and expungement.

o   Allow you to hold public office, if the conviction prevented you from doing so.

o   Prevent the conviction from being used to refuse or revoke a government license or permit, such as real estate license, teaching credential, security guard certificate, etc. 

o   Prevent the conviction from being used as a "prior." The dismissed conviction can be used for determining sentencing enhancements in subsequent convictions.

o   Prevent the conviction from being used by the DMV. Expunged convictions may be used to suspend or revoke driving privileges. 

o   Prevent the conviction from being used by US Citizenship and Immigration Services. In many situations, an expunged conviction may be considered for removal or exclusion purposes. 

County Of Los Angeles Award Given To Attorney Tracy Green

The County of Los Angeles recently gave an award to attorney Tracy Green for efforts above and beyond in a two strikes criminal case involving a young adult who was developmentally disabled and was facing revocation of felony probation with state prison time and a second criminal case where the best offer had been 7 years' state prison with a second strike. Ms. Green spent a year on the case, announced ready for trial, and was able to obtain reinstatement of probation, dismissal of the strike, and probation on the new case.

The result in the case was also due to presenting a vigorous defense and mitigation package to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office which was willing to work in this case and being before an excellent judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. It takes a great deal of work and coordination in cases involving criminal defendants who are developmentally disabled.