SAN DIEGO, CA
Licensing Lawyer at SAN DIEGO, CA
Practice Areas: Licensing, Administrative Law ... +2 more
OUTCOME: 3 Years Probation (No outright Revocation)
RCB filed formal Accuation regarding prior arrests for substance abuse and Domestic Violence. Also, alleged physical &/or mental impairment. Rssult, client placed on probation.
OUTCOME: License not revoked
Petition to Revoke Probationary License for failure to pass Competency Test. RESULTS: After presenting compelling Legal Brief, the Respiratory Care Board agreed to permit licensee to re-take test two ... additional times
OUTCOME: Non-Disciplinary Action Issued: Citation
Board investigation of allegations of Negligence, Aiding and Abetting, Anesthesia, Recordkeeping violations, and Duties of Supervising Veterinarian in death of cat after surgical procedure.
OUTCOME: Case resolved, client paid nothing
Complex real estate lawsuit filed against client (in excess of $300,000). Complaint dismissed, client paid nothing.
OUTCOME: Court of Appeal affirmed Superior Court
In a mandamus proceeding, a Licensed Optometrist sought review of an Administrative Law Decision of the State Department of Health suspending him from participating in the California Medical Assistance ... Program (Medi-Cal), for one year. The optometrist contended that a state investigator's inspection of his Medi-Cal records pursuant to Welf. & Inst.§14124.2, was invalid in that the investigator had not obtained a subpoena duces tecum. The writ was denied. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. C 144158, Harry L. Hupp, Judge.) The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that no warrant or subpoena is required for a reasonable inspection under the regulatory system established in Welf. & Inst. Code, §§14124.1, 14124.2.
OUTCOME: Clarified definition: Gross Negligence & Damages
In disciplinary proceedings before the Structural Pest Control Board, a pest control operator had his license suspended for various violations including gross negligence. He claimed the term "gross neg ... ligence" was vague. The court held against the pest control operator ruling the term was not vague; additionally, the fact he eventually completed the work was no defense, stating that the Structural Pest Control Act contains no requirement of pecuniary loss to support the charge, and does not make restitution a defense. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that the conclusions of the board and the trial court were supported by substantial evidence. The court rejected the contention that Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8516, requiring an operator to disclose and diagram termite infestation and structural conditions likely to lead to termite infestation and to recommend corrective measures for the reported conditions, and Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 16, §§ 1900, 1991, further defining conditions likely to lead to infestation and specifying acceptable corrective measures, were unconstitutionally vague. The court further held that the specification of a "grossly negligent" act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8642) as grounds for discipline was not unconstitutionally vague, and that whether certain failures by the operator to conform to applicable statutes and regulations constituted "gross negligence" was properly treated as a question of fact left to the board's expert determination. In respect to acts of the operator which were found to constitute failures "to complete any operation or construction repairs for the price stated in the contract ...," in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 8638, and contrary to reports filed under penalty of perjury that the repairs had been completed, the court held that the fact that the operator eventually completed the work was no defense, stating that the Structural Pest Control Act contains no requirement of pecuniary loss to support the charge, and does not make restitution a defense.
OUTCOME: On the People's appeal, Appellate Court reversed.
About 10 years after defendant had been convicted of armed robbery, the superior court issued a writ of habeas corpus on the ground his confession was received in evidence in violation of the U.S. Cons ... titution and a US Supreme Court case which held unconstitutional a sister state's practice whereby a confession was submitted to a jury for its determination of voluntariness without having the trial judge first satisfy himself that it was voluntary. The Court of Appeal reversed, pointing out that the case had not questioned the procedure applied at the trial under which the jury passed on the voluntariness issue only after the judge had independently resolved the issue against the accused. The court concluded that defendant had had the benefit of everything which the Supreme Court case subsequently prescribed, and specifically rejected defendant's suggestion that the procedure under which his trial had been held failed to satisfy the Supreme Court case in not requiring the preliminary hearing by the judge on the issue of voluntariness to be held outside the jury's presence. Additionally, the court held that defendant's attorney's failure to take any of the numerous steps available at the trial, with respect to determination of the voluntariness issue and the reception of the confession in evidence, left him with no basis for complaining thereof in the habeas corpus proceeding
OUTCOME: Court of Appeal reversed Trial Court
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for selling narcotics. Subsequently, he filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking to have the allegation of a prior conviction, found to be true at the time of the t ... rial, stricken from the record. The court denied the writ and the Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the narcotic conviction, holding that failure to obtain and to consider an up-to-date probation report or a report from the Director of Corrections before denying the writ was reversible error. The court reconsidered the prior narcotic drug conviction. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that failure to obtain and to consider an up-to-date probation report or a report from the Director of Corrections before denying the writ was reversible error. The court dismissed defendant's contention that the trial court, in denying the request to strike the prior, had been under the erroneous impression that as a result of legislative inaction, it had no discretion in the matter and that failure to exercise discretion was error. The court noted that the trial court had exercised judicial discretion in denying the writ, and that the available record, augmented by counsel's argument, failed to give the court reason to exercise its prerogative. Defendant was remanded to the custody of the trial court and that court was ordered to obtain a new probation report or a report from the Director of Corrections as to defendant's conduct since his original sentencing.
OUTCOME: Court of Appeal affirmed conviction.
In a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of forgery in violation of Pen. Code, § 470. Representing himself as the payee thereof, defendant attempted to deposit and draw on two checks, which checks ... he knew to have been stolen from the United States mails. Defendant had previously pleaded guilty and been sentenced under a federal statute for possession of the checks as stolen mail. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. The court held that forgery and possession of stolen mail were separate and distinct offenses, founded on different acts, so that prosecution for the forgery violation was not barred. The court also held that Pen. Code, § 654, prohibiting double punishment for an act made punishable in different ways by different sections of the Penal Code, did not apply to prohibit punishment for the state forgery offense after imposition of punishment for the federal crime.
OUTCOME: Dentist License granted
Multiple prior convictions for unprofessional conduct alleged as a basis to deny license. As legal counsel for Dentist, we presented comprehensive Legal Brief and mitigating evidence. Dental Board issu ... ed dentist license.