Guzman

People v. Guzman

Good Law
134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66·201 Cal. App. 4th 1090·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1548
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 12, 2011No. B232299California3,404 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Yegan, J.

A physician, like any other person, knows that he cannot lawfully obtain money based upon a fraudulent representation. This is theft by false pretenses. (People v. Shirley (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 424, 436 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 282 ].) A physician should also know that he cannot lawfully submit a Medi-Cal claim representing that he is supplying an expensive FDA-approved intrauterine device when, in fact, he is supplying a cheaper non-FDA-approved intrauterine device.

Eduardo Jose Guzman, a licensed obstetrician-gynecologist, appeals from the judgment entered after his conviction by a jury of Medi-Cal fraud in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 14107, subdivision (b)(1). The jury returned a guilty verdict on a single count alleging that he had submitted a fraudulent Medi-Cal claim for the insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) into patient Blanca G. The court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for 36 months. As a condition of probation, appellant was ordered to perform 90 days of community service.

*1093 Appellant contends (1) the trial court erroneously upheld the validity of a search and seizure that he had…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.