Los Angeles Dentist Charged in Federal Health Care Fraud Case

On March 12, 2018, a Los Angeles dentist was charged in federal court with six counts of health care fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft. The identity theft counts are usually added in these cases since they add additional and potentially mandatory prison time which increases the pressure on those charged to plea. An Indictment is not evidence and the dentist is presumed innocent. Here is the link to the U.S. Attorney's Office Press Release.

Los Angeles Dentist Charged With Fraud for Allegedly Billing Insurance Carriers for Services Not Provided Over 7 Year Period

We have seen an increase in audits of dentists by private insurers. Big data and updated computer systems have made it easier for insurance carriers to flag suspicious billings. 

If intentional billing for services not provided is found, it can be referred for criminal prosecution and/or to the Dental Board. This is one reason to handle audits very carefully and to address any billing errors or other issues in a way that does not create additional problems.

A Los Angeles dentist, Carlos Maria Vallarta Fausto, self-surrendered on a case filed by Los Angeles District Attorney's Office after he was charged with two felony counts of insurance fraud for allegedly charging insurers more than $31,000 in billings for services not performed on patients in his Los Angeles area dental practice between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2014. Dr. Fausto is presumed innocent and a felony complaint is not evidence. The bail on this case was set at $25,000 and he was released immediately.

After an audit, an insurer filed a complaint against him with the California Department of Insurance which launched its own investigation, which allegedly revealed Dr. Fausto billed multiple insurance companies for dental treatment he did not render to his patients over this seven-year period. The case has also been referred  to the Dental Board of California, which is responsible for licensing dentists in California.

Attorney Commentary: There are several things to note from this case. First, even with a loss amount of $31,000 over a seven-year period, the case was referred criminally. Years ago, low loss amounts were not filed. Prosecutors are getting more aggressive about smaller cases especially where they believe there is "ghost" billing or billing for services not provided.

Second, these allegations are from years ago but the statute of limitation continues to run where the alleged fraud is not discovered.  Thus, even though some of the services were 10 years old (2007), charges were just filed. It takes years for these cases to be investigated and the alleged misconduct stopped in 2014.  The state statute of limitation is 4 years from date of discovery.  

Third, it should be remembered that even if the criminal case is dismissed or won, the dentist will still need to address the Dental Board which has a lower burden of proof and usually waits until the criminal case is concluded. The Dental Board can be very aggressive and the dental license is the tail that wags the dog in this type of case.

Finally, periodic self-audits, compliance and making sure that insurance billing is accurate is good business. When you bill insurance companies or the government, you need to be extra careful. The old saying of it's better to ask forgiveness than permission doesn't work in government or insurance billing.  

Even a $30,000 billing issue over seven years does not always just go away by paying the funds back in today's world.  I have seen cases where repayment upon discovery of erroneous billing helped avoid criminal and Dental Board referrals but these cases need to be handled carefully and with a view of the big picture at 40,000 feet.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.

Email: tgreen@greenassoc.com

Office: 213-233-2260

Physicians Can Apply for Award Up To $105,000 for Serving In a Medically Underserved Area of California - Apply Dec. 1, 2016 to Feb. 28, 2017

Are you licensed in California and looking for a way to work in an underserved area and get student loan forgiveness? Physicians (allopathic or ostepopathic physician or surgeon) can apply for an award from the Steven M. Thompson Physician Corps Loan Repayment Program up to $105,000 in exchange for a service obligation in a medically underserved area of California. 

The link for the physican scholarship is: http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HPEF/Programs/STLRP.html 

For more information go the website for this program (and for other health care provider scholarships) at State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Health Professions Education Foundation.  There are also scholarships for Registered Nurses, LVNs, Dentists, Physician Assistants, Occupational Therapists, Pharmicists, SpeechTherapists, Certified Midwifes, Nurse Practitioners, and other health care providers and those deadlines vary. Review the website for deadline and application information.

This underserved area covers most of the state and is close to major urban areas. Visit the website link above for the map of the area covered.

Boston Dentist to Pay $650,000 in Civil Settlement for Improper Medicaid Billing

A Boston dentist has agreed to pay $650,000 to the state’s Medicaid program (MassHealth) to resolve allegations of improperly billing for dental work at her offices in Everett, South Boston.

The January 29, 2016 settlement resolves allegations that from February 2007 through July 2012, Dr. Ekaterina Mamulashvili and her professional dental practices improperly and frequently used multiple oral examination codes to bill MassHealth for services received by the same patients on the same day.

The matter was referred to the Attorney General's (AG) Office by MassHealth after an audit uncovered concerns about Dr. Mamulashvili’s billing practices. An audit of dentists and dental practices done by the State Auditor also found issues with billing for oral examinations, including with Dr. Mamulashvili’s practices.

The AG’s Office conducted an extensive investigation into Dr. Mamulashvili and her professional dental corporations, Everett Dental Management Corporation, Sameka Dental Management Corporation in South Boston, and Malden Dental Management Center, Inc.

Under the terms of the civil settlement, Mamulashvili and her businesses will pay MassHealth $650,000 as restitution for improper billing. The settlement also requires that Mamulashvili, her employees to review and comply with all applicable state and federal statutes, and all regulations governing participation in MassHealth.

These audits in California are handled by Delta Dental and a civil settlement is certainly preferable to any criminal investigation or referral. 

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.
Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law

Sacramento Dentist Pleads Guilty to Billing for Unnecessary or Unperformed Dental Work Billed to Delta Dental From 2008 to 2010

We have seen an increasing number of audits by Delta Dental where billing for services not provided is suspected. In some cases, the issue is that non-covered services (such as implants) are being performed and there is false documentation and billing for "covered" services. Or we have seen that one patient has dental coverage and work is performed on another family member who does not have coverge.

What triggers audits? It can be discrepancies in records, significant increases in billing, or complaints by former employees or patients. Or it can be a routine audit. In a recent case, a former employee went to the Dental Board to set forth allegations against her former dental office. That disclosure triggered action by the Dental Board (interim suspension), an Accusation and then a federal criminal case. It took five years for this to play out. In the meantime, the dentist surrendered his license in August 2013.

This recent case demonstrates what can happen in these cases. Dentist David M. Lewis of Sacramento pleaded guilty on January 11, 2016 to health care fraud for his role in defrauding the health care benefit program used by United Parcel Service (UPS) employees. Undoubtedly, this has been a long hard road for the now former dentist.

A former employee at Lewis’s dental practice for 9 years, Nichol Ramirez aka Nichol Lomack, who worked as an insurance claims manager, cooperated with the Dental Board and government. She ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of health care fraud for her part. She was interviewed by the Dental Board in December 2010 and the case went from there.

In October 2011 the Dental Board executed a search warrant at the dentist's office. The search warrant was used so that the dentist would not have advance notice and have any ability to alter or destroy the charts. After the charts and xrays were submitted for expert review, the Dental Board filed an Interim Suspension Order in February 2012 and filed an Accusation. In August 2013, Dr. Lewis surrendered his license. In February 2014, Lewis was indicted on health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud and mail fraud.

According to court documents, beginning in late 2008 or early 2009 (after the economic recession), Dr. Lewis, a dentist practicing in Sacramento, began targeting UPS employees for dental treatment because their health care plan under the Northern California General Teamsters Security Fund provided 100 percent coverage without any annual limits. Dr. Lewis' office allegedly offered cash and other incentives (Sonicare toothbrushes for example) to UPS patients for receiving dental treatment or for recruiting other UPS employees to receive such treatment.

In some instances, Dr. Lewis' office submitted claims to Delta Health Systems, which administered the UPS health care plan, that billed the plan for work that was never performed. In other instances, it was alleged that Dr. Lewis performed unnecessary dental work on UPS employees, including root canals, and claims were submitted to Delta for payment for these unnecessary services.

Medical & Dental Management Companies - United Dental Group Ordered to Pay $867,000 Settlement and Cease Business Operations in California for Unlicensed Practice Due to Management of Dental Practices

Management companies operating medical and dental practices in California have long struggled with the State's strong laws against the corporate practice of medicine, dentistry, optometry or any of the healing arts. 

A recent case against a dental management company (and related Accusations by the California Dental Board against at least two of the dentists that worked there) reveal that if the State wants to be aggressive with these arrangements, companies should be careful with the structure, the written agreements, the "unwritten" arrangements, and ensure that practice and financial arrangements comply with the law. 

In this case, the Board asked United Dental for responses and received detailed written responses from it's in-house attorney and United Dental entered into a new management contract with the dentist that was not fully compliant with the law. United Dental managed 5 practices in California. Two years later, United Dental got hit with civil lawsuit and at least one dentist got an Accusation in March 2015 for aiding and abetting the unicensed practice of medicine.

Brief Summary of Settlement of Civil Lawsuit Filed by Orange County

On December 11, 2015, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) obtained a settlement in a civil suit it had filed against United Dental Corporation and its California affiliates (dba “United Dental Group”), as well as its owner Jeong Hoon Kim, for engaging in the unlicensed practice of dentistry and false and misleading advertising. The Dental Board has at least one Accusation pending against a dentist who worked at United which has not settled.

The settlement requires the shut-down of United Dental Group in California on or before March 3, 2016, and an $867,000 payment in civil penalties and costs ($8,791.20 to reimburse the Dental Board for its costs of investigation and $858,208.80 in civil penalties). During the shut-down period, all operations will be solely managed and controlled by a licensed California dentist. The final judgment was entered Dec. 9, 2015, in the Orange County Superior Court presided by Judge Geoffrey T. Glass. 

A Complaint to Dental Board Triggered The Civil Lawsuit by Orange County

Most investigations in our experience are from anonymous complaints from competitors. This case seems to be no different.

Beverly Hills Dentist And His Office Manager Charged With Insurance Fraud by Los Angeles D.A.'s Office - Nurse Charged In Related Case

A Beverly Hills dentist and his office manager have been charged with insurance fraud and other felony counts in a state criminal case pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. 

On May 3, 2012, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (Healthcare Fraud Division) charged Beverly Hills dentist Tom Kalili on a 101 felony count complaint (Case No. BA394506) alleging insurance fraud, grand theft and tax evasion. The allegations relate primarily to Dr. Kalili's acts as the owner and operator of Beverly Hills Medical Suite (BHMS). The office manager Claudia Ventura was also charged with ten felony counts.

A felony complaint is only an accusation and is not evidence of guilt. Dr. Kalili and Ms. Ventura are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  

What is alleged in the criminal complaint? It is a wide-ranging complaint. First, according to detectives from the California Department of Insurance (CDI), Dr. Kalili, acting as the owner and operator of BHMS, directed his office manager Ms. Ventura to knowingly submit fraudulent billing statements to four separate insurers in the amount of $339,799.99. 

It is alleged that BHMS submitted billing for services not rendered and in most cases the billing involved emergency dental procedures that were never performed. It is also alleged that BHMS submitted false medical reports in support of the fraudulent billing, which generally included fictitious mechanisms of injury.

Second, the investigators looked at Dr. Kalili's own insurance claims for automobile accidents and filed counts relating to them. The case alleges that Dr. Kalili submitted two fraudulent insurance claims on behalf of himself and his son to two automobile insurers. These claims included medical reports alleging he received treatment in auto accidents in 2005, 2008 and 2009 and his son for treatment received for injuries sustained in a 2009 auto accident. The detectives contend that these medical reports were fraudulently prepared and that the dentist listed as providing treatment for the injuries claimed by Kalili denied performing the services listed.

Third, the complaint alleges counts relating to tax counts: filing false tax returns/failure to file tax returns and tax evasion.  

In a related case, Marti Quinn, a nurse who allegedly received over $11,000 from a fraudulent claim submitted by BHMS was charged in a separate criminal case with insurance fraud. 

Commentary:  It appears that this case was under investigation since June 2010 after a report was sent to the California Dept. of Insurance, fraud division, that BHMS was submitting fraudulent medical bills for emergency dental work that was not provided to patients. Thus, these type of cases generally take a long time to investigate and charge.

This investigation involved a number of different agencies and companies: the California Dental Board, California Department of Insurance, California Franchise Tax Board, Anthem, United Health Care, Blue Shield, CIGNA, AAA, and Mercury Insurance. With computerized records, coordinated investigations are easier to conduct and becoming more common.

I am seeing a trend in investigating whether the medical provider has submitted fraudulent claims relating to his or personal life. This allows the government to bring in evidence that the person has engaged in other bad conduct and allows them an alternative theory at trial if there are viable defenses in billing related to their business.

As a condition of bail, the Superior Court issued an order while this case was pending precluding Dr. Kalili from submitting any insurance claims or engaging in any "insurance billing activity" while this case was pending. Otherwise, the dentist can continue to practice while this case is pending.  

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation. 

Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced insurance fraud attorney and dentist attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com. The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed health care providers in criminal matters in California and throughout the country. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com

Alert To California Professionals And Licencees: Potential License Denial Or Suspension For Failure To Pay California Taxes Starting In July 2012

Effective July 1, 2012, ALL of the licensing boards in California (Medical Board, Board of Psychology, State Bar, Dental Board, Contractors Board, Veterinary Board,  Accountancy Board, Optometry Board, Pharmacy Board, Board for Professional Engineers, etc.) are required to deny an application for licensure and to suspend the license/certificate/registration of any applicant or licensee who has outstanding tax obligations due to the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) or the State Board of Equalization (BOE) and appears on either the FTB or BOE's certified lists of top 500 tax delinquencies over $100,000. This is pursuant to legislation AB 1424, Perea, Chapter 455, Statutes of 2011.

Once it has been determined that an applicant or a licensee is on a certified list, the applicant or licensee has 90 days from the issuance of a preliminary notice of suspension to either satisfy all outstanding tax obligations or enter into a payment installment program with the FTB or BOE. Any such person who fails to come into compliance will have his/her license denied or suspended until the Medical Board of California receives a release from the FTB or BOE. The form for requesting a release will be included with the preliminary notice of suspension.

The law prohibits the Boards from refunding any money paid for the issuance or renewal of a license where the license is denied or suspended as required by AB 1424.

The FTB and BOE are currently expanding the certified lists from 250 to 500, but you can check if you are currently on the FTB's certified list at: www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/txdlnqnt.shtml or the BOE's certified list at: www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/deliq.cgi. If you believe you are on either list in error, please call the FTB at (866) 418-3702 or the BOE at (916) 445-5167.   

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation.  

Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced California board attorney, administrative attorney, and California licensing attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com.

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed health care providers in California and throughout the country. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/

L.A. Times Article On Illinois Physician Program For Sexual Misconduct Treatment Comes Under Attack. What Do We Do In California For Licensees With Substance Abuse And Sexual Boundary Issues?

In California, if there is a complaint made about a physician that alleges any type of "sexual misconduct," the California Medical Board handles those cases with a presumption that the physician is guilty until proven innocent. The incendiary nature of such an allegation makes it difficult for the Board to refuse to file unproven allegations and often physicians are forced into disciplinary hearings since the Board is reluctant to dismiss weak charges on its own.

The Los Angeles Times ran an article on December 29, 2010 entitled "Doctor misconduct cases monitored in secrecy" regarding a program in Illinois. The article writes about criticisms of the Illinois Professionals Health Program which operates a diversion program for physicians involving alcohol and drug abuse and now sexual misconduct allegations. The article quotes certain opinions that such programs shield physicians and that patients should know about these allegations.

California Does Not Have A Diversion Program
In California, physicians have not been eligible for diversion in lieu of discipline where there are substance abuse allegations since 2008. California does not have any program for the diversion or monitoring of physicians with sexual misconduct allegations where there is also no discipline filed against the physician.

Physicians Can Enroll In Treatment Programs Confidentially Before Disciplinary Charges Are Filed
In California, if a physician has a substance abuse or sexual boundary issue, he or she is free to participate in any treatment program on their own which will remain completely confidential. There is no duty to report the enrollment to the Medical Board. However, if the Board received a complaint that the physician has a substance abuse or sexual boundary problem, the Board investigates the matter to determine if sufficient evidence is found to proceed to disciplinary action.

Most Disciplinary Charges Arising From Substance Abuse Arise From Arrests And Convictions
In our practice, we see most discipline filings relating to substance abuse arising from misdemeanor convictions (such as driving under the influence or wet reckless) and felony arrests and convictions. Physicians (and other health care providers) are required upon renewal to disclose their misdemeanor and felony convictions.

As for arrests, physicians are not required to report a misdemeanor arrest but as for a felony arrest, they must report a felony indictment or a felony information (meaning that in a state criminal case the case has gone through preliminary hearing and the physician has been held to answer).  This means that if a doctor in California is arrested on felony charges, he or she does not need to report until held to answer after a preliminary hearing and an "Information" is filed. We have had cases where a physician was arrested on felony charges and we were able to have the charges dismissed before or at preliminary hearing which did not trigger any self-reporting requirements. Failure to report can be an additional ground for discipline.

Even though self-reporting is not required in felony cases until the Information is filed after a preliminary hearing, there is the risk that the city attorney or deputy district attorneys' office could notify the Board.  Prosecutors in criminal cases are required to notify the Medical Board (and Chiropractic, Osteopathic, Podiatric and "other allied health board") of any felony filings against a licensee upon obtaining information that the defendant is a licensee of that board.   California Business and Profession Code Sections 803.1. Thus, licensee must always be prepared for Board scrutiny where there has been an arrest. 

Reporting also occurs since court clerks are required to report misdemeanor and felony convictions of any persons licensed by the Medical Board and other Boards (Chiropractic, Dental, Osteopathic, Acupuncture, Nursing, Vocational Nursing, Optometry, Veterinary, Pharmacy, Speech-Audiology, Hearing Aid Dispensers, Respiratory Care, Behavioral Science).  California Business and Profession Code Sections 803.1 and 803.5.

Conclusion
Physicians and other licensees can expect that in California, disciplinary charges will be filed in lieu of any type of diversion program. Even where diversion programs exist (such as in nursing), the trend is to file disciplinary charges, place the licensee on probation and then require diversion. The Boards are very attuned to the political climate that they not be perceived as protecting physicians or other licensees and that the process be open to the public.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation.

Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced California health care attorney, administrative attorney, and California Medical Board attorney.

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed health care providers in California and throughout the country. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/

California Court of Appeal Allows Dentist To Sue Writers Of Negative Yelp Review For Libel

A common question we receive from our professional clients such as doctors and health care providers is what they can do when there is a negative review online -- whether it be Google, Yelp or other websites.  

Often common sense applies, contacting the patient or customer, offering to address the issue or solve the problem, posting a response on the website outlining those attempts, and other tactics that will not alienate the readers of these sites.


Suing the Internet host is not an option under the facts of most cases since the federal communications Decency Act immunizes Yelp and other Internet sites from libel lawsuits stemming from user comments. 

A recent case in California upheld dentist Yvonne Wong's right to sue the man who posted a negative review on Yelp for libel and his wife.  The Court held in Wong v. Jing that the lower court properly dismissed claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress filed by Dr. Wong.

Dr. Wong alleged that she properly advised the couple, prior to filling their son’s cavity in 2006, that she would use a silver amalgam filling containing mercury, and that she examined the child again in 2008 and found more cavities. But after consulting another dentist, she alleged, the couple published “slanderous complaints” on Yelp.com and other websites, false claiming that she did not tell them about the mercury, misdiagnosed the son’s case, and improperly used a general anesthetic. 

Dr. Wong alleged the couple knew those claims were false. The Yelp review, a copy of which was attached to the complaint, suggesting that Wong should be avoided “like a disease;” that she worked “really fast” and caused the son to be “light headed for several hours;” that the new dentist discovered seven cavities; that Wong used laughing gas, “which was the cause of my son’s dizziness” and “harms a kid’s nerve system” and that she used “silver amalgams” containing a trace of mercury. 

As for Dr. Wong's defamation claim, the Court held that the dentist showed a prima facie case based on her sworn statements that she disclosed that the amalgam contained mercury, that she properly diagnosed the case, and that she did not use a general anesthetic or otherwise engage in unprofessional conduct, all contrary to Jing’s assertions. 

With respect to the emotional distress claims, however, the Court of Appeal upheld their dismissal. The Opinion stated that Jing’s statements, he said, fall short of the “high bar” that California sets on such claims, and could not have caused Dr. Wong to suffer “severe, lasting, or enduring” mental harm. 

Attorney Notes:  What happens now to this case? It gets sent back to the Santa Clara Superior Court and discovery and litigation proceeds. Litigation is one tool that a professional or business owner can use with respect to reviews that rise to the level of libel. However, filing a lawsuit and going through the extensive motion and appeal process which happened in this case can be costly.

We have guided clients through this process since licensed professionals need to act cautiously since disputes with patients or clients can lead to Board complaints. Anything that is written or spoken to a client or patient needs to be viewed through that lens. An analysis of the cost benefit analysis is also helpful. The Internet has turned everyone into a potential instant critic.

We refer some of our clients to "reputation management" consultants who understand the best way to drive negative reviews and encourage our clients to deal intelligently with social media and the Internet. The funds are often best spent there and on marketing rather than on litigation against reviewers. It is very frustrating especially when some of the "reviews" are false by competitors. 

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation or to discuss this post.  

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals (including dentists), individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. Our website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/

Lesson to Physicians & Health Care Professionals Working In Prisons: Florida Dentist Convicted Of Felony For Having Sexual Relations With Inmate

With health care professionals increasingly chosing to work for correctional institutions, they need to be very careful to follow all rules and regulations of those facilities and to remember the population they are serving some of whom have mental illnesses or psychological disorders.  A recent case is a lesson for all health care professionals working in prisons.

On or about August 12, 2010, Godfrey Onugha, a dentist working at the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee, was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment, five months of home detention and a $3000 fine for one count of sexual abuse of a ward (or inmate) within a federal prison. Dentist Onugha 50 years old, was sentenced and his guilty plea on May 27 this year.

Dentist Onugha admitted in his plea that in January of this year, he engaged in oral sex with a female inmate in the x-ray room of the dental unit in the prison. The DNA profile developed from a semen sample on the inmate’s shirt matched the DNA profile of the defendant. Dentist Onugha claimed that the encounter was consensual and was initiated by the inmate. The inmate claimed that he forced himself on her. In addition to the prison term, Onugha will also be required to serve a term of five years’ supervised release following his release from custody. 

Attorney Commentary: This offense used to be a misdemeanor but in the past five years the laws have changed.  Even consensual sexual contact between staff and inmates, which previously was punished as a misdemeanor, has been reclassified as a felony and the maximum penalty for that offense is 15 years (where it used to be 1 year). 

I worked on a case 15 years ago where an inmate initiated sexual contact in order to obtain preferential treatment and then filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming there was sexual assault. In this dentist's case, after the conviction he will have consequences to his license which could include loss of the license depending on the state. 

In addition, the health care professional needs to remember that the patients will be viewed as vulnerable given the fact they are in prison. Cases involving sex with a patient are taken very seriously by the various Boards.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation or to discuss this post.  

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed providers and in investigations and criminal matters in California and throughout the country. Our website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/