Blog

  • California Adult Residential Facility License Defense Attorney

    California Department of Social Services License Defense Lawyer

    The California Department of Social Services, known as CDSS, licenses Adult Residential Facilities in the State of California. Most California Adult Residential Care Facilities have minimal or no contact with the enforcement arm of the California Department of Social Services. For Adult Residential Care Facilities who become part of the California Department of Social Services’ disciplinary process, the consequences are profound. The Adult Residential Care Facility License disciplinary process is complex, procedural and time consuming. Adult Residential Care Facilities facing the California Department of Social Services disciplinary process should seek legal representation from an experienced California Adult Residential Care Facility License Defense Attorney.

    California Department of Social Services Investigation Defense Lawyer

    The majority of California Department of Social Services investigations begin with the filing of a consumer Complaint. However, California Department of Social Services Investigations also occur through sting operations, criminal conviction referrals and criminal investigations. The California Department of Social Services employs non sworn Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) to conduct non criminal investigations. The California Department of Social Services employs sworn Peace Officer Investigators to conduct criminal investigations against Adult Residential Care Facilities. These employees investigate criminal and administrative law violations. Administrative Law Due Process Rights differ substantially from the Due Process Rights accorded in criminal law.

    It is important to have an attorney that understands the California Department of Social Services disciplinary process. At the conclusion of a California Department of Social Services investigation, the Department has several options. The Department can choose to close the Complaint. The Department can choose to issue a Citation. The Department can also choose to refer the matter to the California Department of Social Services Legal Division. The California Department of Social Services Legal Division will determine whether cause exists to file a formal disciplinary Accusation. In cases involving criminal conduct, the Department may refer the case to the District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution. If you are a Adult Residential Care Facility Licensee facing a California Department of Social Services investigation, contact a California Department of Social Services License Defense Attorney for representation.

    California Adult Residential Facility License Accusation Defense Attorney

    A formal Accusation served on a California Adult Residential Care Facility Licensee serves as notice to an Adult Residential Care Facility that the Department intends to revoke the Adult Residential Care Facilities’ License. The Adult Residential Care Facility, now called the Respondent, has only 15 days from the date that the Accusation was served (not received, but served) to file a Notice of Defense. The failure to file a Notice of Defense results in a Default against the Adult Residential Care Facility. A Default will result in the immediate Revocation of the Adult Residential Care Facilities License.

    An Accusation is a serious matter that can result in the suspension or revocation of an Adult Residential Care Facility License in California. In many cases, it is possible for Adult Residential Care Facilities to reach a Stipulated Agreement with the California Department of Social Services. A Stipulated Agreement is a formal term for a settlement agreement. If a Stipulated Agreement cannot be reached, the parties will proceed to a formal Hearing before the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Adult Residential Care Facilities facing a California Department of Social Services Accusation should contact an experienced California Adult Residential Care Facility License Defense Attorney for representation. Common causes of action for disciplinary Accusations against Adult Residential Care Facilities include:

    • Conduct Inimical
    • Elder Abuse
    • Failure to Provide Care and Supervision
    • Failure to Provide Adequate Medical Care
    • Health & Safety Code Violations
    • Improper Staff to Client Ratio
    • Improper Storage of Toxic Substances
    • Lack of Disaster Plan
    • Lack of Food
    • Lack of Supervision
    • Municipal Code Violations
    • Negligence
    • Overcapacity
    • Physical Abuse
    • Verbal Abuse
    • Violation of Personal Rights

    California ARF License Hearing Attorney

    The California Office of Administrative Hearings, also known as OAH, maintains several Court Hearing locations. These Court locations are in Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento and San Diego. In some instances, Hearings may be held offsite in Bakersfield, Fresno, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Jose or Ventura. The Administrative Law Hearing is a formal Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

    The Administrative Law Judge, or ALJ, will issue a written Proposed Decision approximately 30 days after the Hearing. The California Department of Social Services can adopt, modify or reject the ALJ’s Proposed Decision. The California Department of Social Services’ action is called the Final Decision and Order. There are two main rights of Appeal of a Final Decision and Order. California Government Code § 11521 allows an Adult Residential Care Facility to file a Petition for Reconsideration prior to the effective date of the Final Decision and Order. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5, the Adult Residential Care Facility can also file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Superior Court. A Writ must be filed within 30 days of the effective date of the Final Decision and Order. California Adult Residential Care Facilities facing a California Department of Social Services Administrative Law Hearing need effective representation from a California Adult Residential Care Facility License Defense Lawyer.

    California Adult Residential Facility License and Criminal Convictions

    The California Department of Social Services can discipline Adult Residential Care Facility owners, corporate officers and staff members for criminal convictions. California Department of Social Services discipline occurs for criminal convictions that are substantially related to the duties, functions and qualifications of an Adult Residential Care Facility owner, corporate officer or staff member. Common criminal offenses that can cause Adult Residential Care Facility License discipline are:

    • Altering or Forging a Prescription
    • Assault With a Deadly Weapon
    • Battery
    • Brandishing a Firearm
    • Burglary
    • Carrying a Concealed Weapon
    • Child Abuse
    • Child Endangerment
    • Diverting a Controlled Substance
    • Domestic Violence
    • DUI
    • Elder Abuse
    • False Imprisonment
    • Forgery
    • Fraud
    • Hit & Run
    • Identity Theft
    • Insurance Fraud
    • Medicare Fraud
    • Mortgage Fraud
    • Possession for Sale of a Controlled Substance
    • Possession of a Controlled Substance
    • Public Intoxication
    • Real Estate Fraud
    • Robbery
    • Sex Offenses
    • Theft
    • Trespass
    • Vandalism
    • Vehicular Manslaughter

    The California Department of Social Services and other law enforcement agencies also investigate criminal conduct by Adult Residential Care Facility staff members in the course and scope of their trade. Criminal investigations often involve Adult Residential Care Facility staff members engaged in Elder Abuse and Theft. In serious criminal cases against Adult Residential Care Facility staff members pending in Criminal Court, the California Department of Social Services and the Department of Social Services Legal Division may seek a California Penal Code § 23 Order against the Adult Residential Care Facilities’ staff members. A California Penal Code § 23 Order seeks to suspend an Adult Residential Care Facility License and bar staff members from facilities in Criminal Court.

    Adult Residential Care Facility owners, corporate officers, and staff members facing criminal charges and Adult Residential Care Facilities who are convicted of criminal offenses need an experienced California Adult Residential Care Facility License Defense Attorney for representation in disciplinary proceedings before the California Department of Social Services.

    California Adult Residential Facility License Statement of Issues Attorney

    The California Department of Social Services thoroughly investigates all applicants for Adult Residential Care Facility Licenses. The California Department of Social Services may deny a California Adult Residential Care Facility License for a variety of reasons. Most California Adult Residential Care Facility License denials occur due to criminal convictions, financial problems or misstatements on the Adult Residential Care Facility License application. Statement of Issues Hearings and Accusation Hearings before the Office of Administrative Hearings maintain a similar procedure. However, in a Statement of Issues Hearing, the applicant bears the burden of proof. Individuals denied an Adult Residential Care Facility License should contact a California Adult Residential Care Facility License Denial Lawyer for representation in a California Department of Social Services Statement of Issues Hearing.

    California ARF License Petition for Reinstatement Lawyer

    A Petition for Reinstatement allows Adult Residential Care Facilities who have received an Adult Residential Care Facility License Revocation to reinstate their License. The Petition for Reinstatement must show by clear and convincing evidence the factual and legal reasons to warrant the Adult Residential Care Facility License Reinstatement. Rehabilitation from past misconduct is the primary factor in a Petition for Reinstatement before the California Department of Social Services. A successful Adult Residential Care Facility License Petition for Reinstatement requires representation by an experienced California Adult Residential Care Facility License Defense Attorney.

  • California Adult Day Program License Defense Attorney

    California Department of Social Services License Defense Lawyer

    The California Department of Social Services, known as CDSS, licenses Adult Day Programs in the State of California. Most California Adult Day Programs have minimal or no contact with the enforcement arm of the California Department of Social Services. For Adult Day Programs who become part of the California Department of Social Services’ disciplinary process, the consequences are profound. The Adult Day Program License disciplinary process is complex, procedural and time consuming. Adult Day Programs facing the California Department of Social Services disciplinary process should seek legal representation from an experienced California Adult Day Program License Defense Attorney.

    California Department of Social Services Investigation Defense Lawyer

    The majority of California Department of Social Services investigations begin with the filing of a consumer Complaint. However, California Department of Social Services Investigations also occur through sting operations, criminal conviction referrals and criminal investigations. The California Department of Social Services employs non sworn Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) to conduct non criminal investigations. The California Department of Social Services employs sworn Peace Officer Investigators to conduct criminal investigations against Adult Day Programs. These employees investigate criminal and administrative law violations. Administrative Law Due Process Rights differ substantially from the Due Process Rights accorded in criminal law.

    It is important to have an attorney that understands the California Department of Social Services disciplinary process. At the conclusion of a California Department of Social Services investigation, the Department has several options. The Department can choose to close the Complaint. The Department can choose to issue a Citation. The Department can also choose to refer the matter to the California Department of Social Services Legal Division. The California Department of Social Services Legal Division will determine whether cause exists to file a formal disciplinary Accusation. In cases involving criminal conduct, the Department may refer the case to the District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution. If you are a Adult Day Program Licensee facing a California Department of Social Services investigation, contact a California Department of Social Services License Defense Attorney for representation.

    California Adult Day Program License Accusation Defense Attorney

    A formal Accusation served on a California Adult Day Program Licensee serves as notice to an Adult Day Program that the Department intends to revoke the Adult Day Programs’ License. The Adult Day Program, now called the Respondent, has only 15 days from the date that the Accusation was served (not received, but served) to file a Notice of Defense. The failure to file a Notice of Defense results in a Default against the Adult Day Program. A Default will result in the immediate Revocation of the Adult Day Programs License.

    An Accusation is a serious matter that can result in the suspension or revocation of an Adult Day Program License in California. In many cases, it is possible for Adult Day Programs to reach a Stipulated Agreement with the California Department of Social Services. A Stipulated Agreement is a formal term for a settlement agreement. If a Stipulated Agreement cannot be reached, the parties will proceed to a formal Hearing before the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Adult Day Programs facing a California Department of Social Services Accusation should contact an experienced California Adult Day Program License Defense Attorney for representation. Common causes of action for disciplinary Accusations against Adult Day Programs include:

    • Conduct Inimical
    • Elder Abuse
    • Failure to Provide Care and Supervision
    • Failure to Provide Adequate Medical Care
    • Health & Safety Code Violations
    • Improper Staff to Client Ratio
    • Improper Storage of Toxic Substances
    • Lack of Disaster Plan
    • Lack of Food
    • Lack of Supervision
    • Municipal Code Violations
    • Negligence
    • Overcapacity
    • Physical Abuse
    • Verbal Abuse
    • Violation of Personal Rights

    California Adult Day Program License Hearing Attorney

    The California Office of Administrative Hearings, also known as OAH, maintains several Court Hearing locations. These Court locations are in Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento and San Diego. In some instances, Hearings may be held offsite in Bakersfield, Fresno, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Jose or Ventura. The Administrative Law Hearing is a formal Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

    The Administrative Law Judge, or ALJ, will issue a written Proposed Decision approximately 30 days after the Hearing. The California Department of Social Services can adopt, modify or reject the ALJ’s Proposed Decision. The California Department of Social Services’ action is called the Final Decision and Order. There are two main rights of Appeal of a Final Decision and Order. California Government Code § 11521 allows an Adult Day Program to file a Petition for Reconsideration prior to the effective date of the Final Decision and Order. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5, the Adult Day Program can also file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Superior Court. A Writ must be filed within 30 days of the effective date of the Final Decision and Order. California Adult Day Programs facing a California Department of Social Services Administrative Law Hearing need effective representation from a California Adult Day Program License Defense Lawyer.

    California Adult Day Program License and Criminal Convictions

    The California Department of Social Services can discipline Adult Day Program owners, corporate officers and staff members for criminal convictions. California Department of Social Services discipline occurs for criminal convictions that are substantially related to the duties, functions and qualifications of an Adult Day Program owner, corporate officer or staff member. Common criminal offenses that can cause Adult Day Program License discipline are:

    • Altering or Forging a Prescription
    • Assault With a Deadly Weapon
    • Battery
    • Brandishing a Firearm
    • Burglary
    • Carrying a Concealed Weapon
    • Child Abuse
    • Child Endangerment
    • Diverting a Controlled Substance
    • Domestic Violence
    • DUI
    • Elder Abuse
    • False Imprisonment
    • Forgery
    • Fraud
    • Hit & Run
    • Identity Theft
    • Insurance Fraud
    • Medicare Fraud
    • Mortgage Fraud
    • Possession for Sale of a Controlled Substance
    • Possession of a Controlled Substance
    • Public Intoxication
    • Real Estate Fraud
    • Robbery
    • Sex Offenses
    • Theft
    • Trespass
    • Vandalism
    • Vehicular Manslaughter

    The California Department of Social Services and other law enforcement agencies also investigate criminal conduct by Adult Day Program staff members in the course and scope of their trade. Criminal investigations often involve Adult Day Program staff members engaged in Elder Abuse and Theft. In serious criminal cases against Adult Day Program staff members pending in Criminal Court, the California Department of Social Services and the Department of Social Services Legal Division may seek a California Penal Code § 23 Order against the Adult Day Programs’ staff members. A California Penal Code § 23 Order seeks to suspend an Adult Day Program License and bar staff members from facilities in Criminal Court.

    Adult Day Program owners, corporate officers, and staff members facing criminal charges and Adult Day Programs who are convicted of criminal offenses need an experienced California Adult Day Program License Defense Attorney for representation in disciplinary proceedings before the California Department of Social Services.

    California Adult Day Program License Statement of Issues Attorney

    The California Department of Social Services thoroughly investigates all applicants for Adult Day Program Licenses. The California Department of Social Services may deny a California Adult Day Program License for a variety of reasons. Most California Adult Day Program License denials occur due to criminal convictions, financial problems or misstatements on the Adult Day Program License application. Statement of Issues Hearings and Accusation Hearings before the Office of Administrative Hearings maintain a similar procedure. However, in a Statement of Issues Hearing, the applicant bears the burden of proof. Individuals denied an Adult Day Program License should contact a California Adult Day Program License Denial Lawyer for representation in a California Department of Social Services Statement of Issues Hearing.

    California Adult Day Program License Petition for Reinstatement Lawyer

    A Petition for Reinstatement allows Adult Day Programs who have received an Adult Day Program License Revocation to reinstate their License. The Petition for Reinstatement must show by clear and convincing evidence the factual and legal reasons to warrant the Adult Day Program License Reinstatement. Rehabilitation from past misconduct is the primary factor in a Petition for Reinstatement before the California Department of Social Services. A successful Adult Day Program License Petition for Reinstatement requires representation by an experienced California Adult Day Program License Defense Attorney.

  • California Acupuncturist License Defense Attorney

    California Acupuncture Board License Defense Lawyer

    The California Acupuncture Board, known as the CAB, licenses approximately 11,000 Acupuncturists in the State of California. Most California Acupuncturists have minimal or no contact with the enforcement arm of the California Acupuncture Board. For Acupuncturists who become part of the California Acupuncture Board’s disciplinary process, the consequences are profound. The Acupuncturist License disciplinary process is complex, procedural and time consuming. Acupuncturists facing the California Acupuncture Board disciplinary process should seek legal representation from an experienced California Acupuncturist License Defense Attorney.

    California Acupuncture Board Investigation Defense Lawyer

    The majority of California Acupuncture Board investigations begin with the filing of a consumer Complaint. However, California Acupuncture Board Investigations also occur through sting operations, criminal conviction referrals and criminal investigations. The California Acupuncture Board utilizes non sworn civilian investigators to conduct non criminal investigations. The California Department of Consumer Affairs employs sworn Peace Officer Investigators to conduct criminal investigations against Acupuncturists. These employees investigate criminal and administrative law violations. Administrative Law Due Process Rights differ substantially from the Due Process Rights accorded in criminal law.

    It is important to have an attorney that understands the California Acupuncture Board disciplinary process. At the conclusion of a California Acupuncture Board investigation, the Board has several options. The Board can choose to close the Complaint. The Board can choose to issue a Citation. The Board can also choose to refer the matter to the California Attorney General’s Office. The Attorney General’s Office will determine whether cause exists to file a formal disciplinary Accusation. In cases involving criminal conduct, the Board may refer the case to the District Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution. If you are an Acupuncturist facing a California Acupuncture Board investigation, contact a California Acupuncturist License Defense Attorney for representation.

    California Acupuncturist License Accusation Defense Attorney

    A formal Accusation served on a California Acupuncturist serves as notice to an Acupuncturist that the Board intends to revoke the Acupuncturist License. The Acupuncturist, now called the Respondent, has only 15 days from the date that the Accusation was served (not received, but served) to file a Notice of Defense. The failure to file a Notice of Defense results in a Default against the Acupuncturist. A Default will result in the immediate Revocation of the Acupuncturist License.

    An Accusation is a serious matter that can result in the suspension or revocation of an Acupuncturist License in California. In many cases, it is possible for Acupuncturists to reach a Stipulated Agreement with the Attorney General’s Office and California Acupuncture Board. A Stipulated Agreement is a formal term for a settlement agreement. If a Stipulated Agreement cannot be reached, the parties will proceed to a formal Hearing before the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Acupuncturists facing a California Acupuncture Board Accusation should contact an experienced California Acupuncturist License Defense Attorney for representation. Common causes of action for disciplinary Accusations against Acupuncturists include:

    • Aiding and Abetting Unlicensed Practice of Acupuncture
    • Gross Negligence
    • Improper Advertising
    • Incompetence
    • Repeated Negligent Acts
    • Use of a Controlled Substance in a Dangerous Manner
    • Use of Alcohol in a Dangerous Manner

    California Acupuncturist License Hearing Attorney

    The California Office of Administrative Hearings, also known as OAH, maintains several Court Hearing locations.These Court locations are in Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento and San Diego. In some instances, Hearings may be held offsite in Bakersfield, Fresno, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Jose or Ventura. The Administrative Law Hearing is a formal Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

    The Administrative Law Judge, or ALJ, will issue a written Proposed Decision approximately 30 days after the Hearing. The California Acupuncture Board can adopt, modify or reject the ALJ’s Proposed Decision. The California Acupuncture Board’s action is called the Final Decision and Order. There are two main rights of Appeal of a Final Decision and Order. California Government Code § 11521 allows an Acupuncturist to file a Petition for Reconsideration prior to the effective date of the Final Decision and Order. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5, the Acupuncturist can also file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Superior Court. A Writ must be filed within 30 days of the effective date of the Final Decision and Order. California Acupuncturists facing a California Acupuncture Board Administrative Law Hearing need effective representation from a California Acupuncturist License Defense Lawyer.

    California Acupuncturist License and Criminal Convictions

    The California Acupuncture Board can discipline Acupuncturists for criminal convictions. California Acupuncture Board discipline occurs for criminal convictions that are substantially related to the duties, functions and qualifications of an Acupuncturist. Common criminal offenses that can cause Acupuncturist License discipline:

    • Altering or Forging a Prescription
    • Assault With a Deadly Weapon
    • Battery
    • Brandishing a Firearm
    • Burglary
    • Carrying a Concealed Weapon
    • Child Abuse
    • Child Endangerment
    • Diverting a Controlled Substance
    • Domestic Violence
    • DUI
    • Elder Abuse
    • False Imprisonment
    • Forgery
    • Fraud
    • Hit & Run
    • Identity Theft
    • Insurance Fraud
    • Medicare Fraud
    • Mortgage Fraud
    • Possession for Sale of a Controlled Substance
    • Possession of a Controlled Substance
    • Public Intoxication
    • Real Estate Fraud
    • Robbery
    • Sex Offenses
    • Theft
    • Trespass
    • Vandalism
    • Vehicular Manslaughter

    The California Acupuncture Board and other law enforcement agencies also investigate criminal conduct by Acupuncturists in the course and scope of their practice. Criminal investigations often involve Acupuncturists engaged in Unlawful Practice of Medicine and Unlawful Representation as a Physician. In serious criminal cases against Acupuncturists pending in Criminal Court, the California Acupuncture Board and the California Attorney General’s Office may seek a California Penal Code § 23 Order against the Acupuncturist. A California Penal Code § 23 Order seeks to suspend an Acupuncturist License in Criminal Court.

    Acupuncturists facing criminal charges and Acupuncturists who are convicted of criminal offenses need an experienced California Acupuncturist License Defense Attorney for representation in disciplinary proceedings before the California Acupuncture Board.

    California Acupuncturist License Statement of Issues Attorney

    The California Acupuncture Board thoroughly investigates all applicants for Acupuncturist Licenses. The California Acupuncture Board may deny a California Acupuncturist License to Acupuncturist students and Acupuncturists from other states and countries. Most California Acupuncturist License denials occur due to criminal convictions, financial problems or misstatements on the Acupuncturist License application. Statement of Issues Hearings and Accusation Hearings before the Office of Administrative Hearings maintain a similar procedure. However, in a Statement of Issues Hearing, the applicant bears the burden of proof. Individuals denied an Acupuncturist License should contact a California Acupuncturist License Denial Lawyer for representation in a California Acupuncture Board Statement of Issues Hearing.

    California Acupuncturist Petition for Reinstatement Lawyer

    A Petition for Reinstatement allows Acupuncturists who have received an Acupuncturist License Revocation to reinstate their License. The Petition for Reinstatement must show by clear and convincing evidence the factual and legal reasons to warrant the Acupuncturist License Reinstatement. Rehabilitation from past misconduct is the primary factor in a Petition for Reinstatement before the California Acupuncture Board. A successful Acupuncturist License Petition for Reinstatement requires representation by an experienced California Acupuncturist License Defense Attorney.

  • California Business License Defense Case Results

    In the Matter of the California Air Resources Board Notice of Violations Against Michigan Manufacturer: The client, a Michigan manufacturer of aftermarket Electronic Control Units (ECUs), received an investigation notice from the California Air Resources Board, known as CARB, or ARB. ARB commenced an investigation into the Michigan company for a number of vehicle violations. These ECUs allegedly led to an increase in emissions and violated a number of California Air Pollution Control rules and regulations. ARB issued the company Notices of Violation. The company faced fines and penalties of $12,800,000. At a Settlement Conference, ARB offered to settle the matter for $650,000. After a successful negotiation, the Michigan company paid ARB a fine of $50,000.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Adult Day Care: The client, a Ventura County Adult Day Care Facility, received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. Several violations were alleged against the facility, including the failure of staff to report client abuse and the use of clients to care for other clients. Other serious violations included a staff member was caught with narcotics and another staff member was working even though she was subject to a CDSS Exclusion Order. The Adult Day Care entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Department of Social Services. The client was placed on California Department of Social Services probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Adult Residential Facility (ARF): A Los Angeles Adult Residential Facility (ARF) received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. CDSS alleged that the Administrator engaged in dishonesty by failing to attend required continuing education classes. The evidence presented by DSS actually supplemented the client’s version of events. The matter proceeding to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Administrative Law Judge found that the client was negligent, rather than engaged in intentional misconduct. The Administrative Law Judge allowed the client to retake the classes and did not discipline the ARF Administrator.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Adult Residential Facility (ARF) Administrator: A Los Angeles Adult Residential Facility (ARF) Administrator received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. CDSS alleged that the Administrator engaged in dishonesty by failing to attend required continuing education classes. The Administrator attended a DSS sponsored program that promoted the incorrect continuing education courses. Prior to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles, CDSS reached a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the client. The California Department of Social Services placed the ARF Administrator on probation with standard terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Children’s Group Home: The client, a Bakersfield Children’s Group Home, received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. Dozens of violations were alleged against the facility, including numerous instances of children fighting and running away from the facility. Other serious violations included the improper use of physical restraints on children by staff members and improper training of staff members. The Children’s Group Home entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Department of Social Services. The client was placed on California Department of Social Services probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Children’s Group Home: The client, a Bakersfield Children’s Group Home, received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. Several violations were alleged against the facility, including the improper use of physical restraints on children by staff members and improper training of staff members. Other violations included facility maintenance issues and improper record keeping. The Children’s Group Home entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Department of Social Services. The client was placed on California Department of Social Services probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Preschool: A large Preschool in the Hollywood neighborhood of Los Angeles received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. A child escaped from the facility and was found approximately twenty minutes later by a Good Samaritan wandering on a busy Hollywood street. The Los Angeles Police responded and took the child into protective custody. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Preschool probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Preschool: The client, a Los Angeles Preschool, received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. A parent made allegations that teachers hit their child at the Preschool. The California Department of Social Services further alleged that the Preschool failed to report the assault to the California Department of Social Services. Additional issues included facility violations. The Preschool entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Department of Social Services. The client was placed on California Department of Social Services probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Preschool: The client, a San Diego Preschool, received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. During a field trip, a child went missing, causing a massive police search. The incident made local headline news. The Preschool entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Department of Social Services. The client was placed on California Department of Social Services probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Preschool: The client, a San Jose Preschool, received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. The Preschool was alleged to have committed over two dozen violations. These violations were related to improper staff to student ratio, overcapacity and Building Code Violations. The Preschool entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Department of Social Services. The client was placed on California Department of Social Services probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Family Child Care Home: The client, a Los Angeles Family Child Care Home received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The Accusation sought to revoke the owner’s Criminal Records Exemption. Seven years prior, the client worked in a private capacity as an elderly caretaker. Several years subsequent to employment, the elderly patient’s family made allegations that the client committed Theft from the elderly patient. Several years later, the California Department of Social Services filed an Accusation based on the aforementioned allegations. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Accusation in its entirety. No discipline was imposed.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Family Child Care Home: An Orange County Family Child Care Home faced an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The Accusation alleged Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. A parent made a complaint against the Home Day Care because another student had allegedly bitten her child numerous times. The Home Day Care also faced allegations of improper ratios of staff to children, lack of supervision and facility violations. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the California Office of Administrative Hearings. While assigned to the Los Angeles office, the Hearing occurred in Orange County. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Family Child Care Home probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Family Child Care Home: A Bakersfield Family Child Care Home received a Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. The owners of the Family Child Care Home were also former Foster parents. While fostering a child, one of the owners of the Family Child Care Home spanked the child. This resulted in the filing of the disciplinary Accusation to revoke the Family Child Care Home License. Due to extensive mitigation presented, the California Department of Social Services agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) for probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Family Child Care Home: The client, a Bakersfield Family Child Care Home received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. The client allegedly improperly supervised children at a playground. The California Department of Social Services alleged that as a result, a fistfight occurred between two children in care. Furthermore, it was alleged that a minor improperly transported a child under the client’s care, the client dispensed medication to a child without parental permission and the smoke detector at the facility did not properly function. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Family Child Care Home probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Family Child Care Home: The client, a Los Angeles Family Child Care Home received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. The owners of the Family Child Care Home were unavailable to an emergency. They left the Family Child Care Home in the care of friends. The California Department of Social Services conducted a random inspection of the Family Child Care Home. The random inspection determined an improper ratio, staff to children, overcapacity, the availability of dangerous substances and a lack of supervision. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Family Child Care Home probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Family Child Care Home: A Ventura County Family Child Care Home received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. A child escaped from the Family Child Care Home and was found approximately forty five minutes later by a Ventura Police Officer. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings. The matter was assigned to the OAH Los Angeles Office, but the Hearing occurred in Ventura County. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Family Child Care Home probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Against Family Child Care Home: A Bakersfield Family Child Care Home received an Accusation from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical and Negligence. The licensee’s son, a Registered Sex Offender, used the licensees address as his own address for a period of time. As a result, the California Department of Social Services initiated a disciplinary Accusation. The licensee presented substantial mitigation evidence on behalf of the Family Child Care Home. Prior to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles, CDSS reached a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the client. The California Department of Social Services placed the Family Child Care Home on probation with standard terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Accusation Foster Care Home: A San Bernardino County husband and wife teacher received an Accusation (Exclusion Accusation) from the California Department of Social Services. CDSS alleged Conduct Inimical arising from allegations of child abuse, child neglect and facility violations. The evidence against the couple was weak. However, DSS refused to enter into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the husband and wife. The matter proceeding to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Riverside. The Administrative Law Judge found the evidence against the couple weak, but agreed that the home needed upgrades. The husband and wife were placed on disciplinary probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Exclusion Accusation Against Child Care Center Teacher: A Los Angeles Child Care Center Teacher received an Accusation (Exclusion Accusation) from the California Department of Social Services. The allegations included Conduct Inimical, Lack of Supervision, Negligence and Violation of Personal Rights. The teacher was accused of using a plastic bat in a dangerous and intimidating manner and hitting a child with the plastic bat. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. During the Hearing, CDSS and the client entered into a Stipulated Agreement, whereby the client admitted to using the plastic bat in an inappropriate manner, and was placed of two years of CDSS probation.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Exclusion Accusation Against Preschool Teacher: A Ventura County Preschool teacher received an Accusation (Exclusion Accusation) from the California Department of Social Services. CDSS alleged Conduct Inimical. The teacher was accused of felony Domestic Violence for allegedly assaulting her husband at home due to a psychological breakdown. The client underwent a psychological evaluation and demonstrated her mental fitness. Prior to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles, DSS offered the client a Stipulated Agreement (settlement). The client agreed to three years of disciplinary probation from the California Department of Social Services.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Statement of Issues (License Denial) Against Preschool License Applicant: The client sought to open a Preschool in the Los Angeles area. The client was involved in major civil litigation with family members. The civil litigation caused the California Department of Social Services to deny the client’s Preschool license. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The allegations against the client were found to be speculative and not credible. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Statement of Issues in its entirety. The client received Preschool License. No discipline was imposed.

    In the Matter of the California Department of Social Services Statement of Issues (License Denial) Against Foster Family Home License Applicant: The client, a highly educated corporate executive in Los Angeles, was denied a Criminal Records Exemption due to a misdemeanor Battery conviction. The conviction occurred twenty six years prior to the application to become a Foster Family Home. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The client presented substantial evidence of honesty, positive moral character and trustworthiness. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Accusation in its entirety. The client received a Criminal Records Exemption to become a Foster parent. No discipline was imposed.

    In the Matter of the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education Statement of Issues (License Denial/Denial of Operating Approval) of Radio Broadcasting School: The client, a Radio Broadcasting school, sought licensure and operating approval from the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education. The BPPE denied the Radio Broadcasting school operating approval due to deficiencies in the application for licensure. These deficiencies included improperly trained faculty, a confusing grading system, a lack of equipment and facility violations. Upon revising the application and authoring a settlement proposal, the BPPE dismissed the Statement of Issues. The Radio Broadcasting school received licensure and approval to operate.

    In the Matter of the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education Citation Against Non Approved School: The client, a Firearms Training Facility in San Bernardino County, licensed by the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, received a $100,000 Citation from BPPE for operating without approval. The Citation stemmed from an allegation that the Firearms Training Facility conducted classes outside the scope of its BSIS licensure. Mitigation evidence showed that the Firearms Training Facility stopped conducting the unapproved classes and did not make a significant profit. The California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education reduced the Citation to $10,000.

    In the Matter of the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education Citation Against Non Approved School: The client, a speed typing tutor for Court Reporters located in Riverside County, received a $75,000 Citation from BPPE for operating without approval. The Citation arose from an allegation that the Court Reporters speed tutor offered a certificate upon completion of a tutoring program. Mitigation evidence showed that the tutor only advertised a certificate of completion, but had never actually issued a certificate of completion. Furthermore, the tutor did not offer a tutoring program; but merely a series of tutoring sessions designed to increase typing speed for Court Reporters. The California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education reduced the Citation to $10,000.

    In the Matter of the California Bureau of Automotive Repair Accusation Against Automotive Repair Dealer: An Automotive Repair Dealer in Riverside County faced an Accusation for numerous California Business & Professions Code violations. Specifically, the California Bureau of Automotive Repair alleged that the Automotive Repair Dealer failed to perform work as contracted, accepted payment in excess of work performed and committed Fraud. The allegations stemmed from a consumer Complaint that led to a sting operation performed by California Bureau of Automotive Repair investigators. The California Bureau of Automotive Repair agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Automotive Repair Dealer. The Automotive Repair Dealer was placed on probation.

    In the Matter of the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services Accusation Against Firearms Training Facility, Firearms Training Instructor, Private Patrol Operator and Security Guard: A San Bernardino County client licensed in all of the aforementioned categories received an Accusation for numerous California Business & Professions Code violations. Specifically, the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services alleged that the client rented his PPO License, failed to maintain adequate records, falsely certified three individuals for firearms training and engaged in dishonest conduct. A review of the evidence found that the client was set up by a rival competitor, who made baseless claims against the client. The California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the client. The client admitted Renting his PPO License and received two years of disciplinary probation. All other allegations were dismissed.

    In the Matter of the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services Accusation Against Alarm Company Operator: An Alarm Company Operator in Los Angeles faced an Accusation for numerous California Business & Professions Code violations. Specifically, the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services alleged that the Alarm Company Operator operated without a license, employing unregistered Alarm Company Employees, failed to maintain adequate records, committed acts involving fraud and violated the rules and regulations of the California Alarm Company Act. The California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Alarm Company Operator whereby several allegations were dismissed. The Alarm Company Operator was placed on probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology Accusation Against Barbershop: The client, a Barbershop in Orange County, received an Accusation from the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. The allegations included Employing Unlicensed Barbers, Health Code Violations and Municipal Code Violations. Prior to a Hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles, the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the client. The barbershop was placed on probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology Accusation Against Barbershop: The client, a Barbershop in Riverside County, received an Accusation from the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. The allegations included Employing Unlicensed Barbers, Health Code Violations and Municipal Code Violations. Prior to a Hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles, the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the client. The barbershop received a disciplinary order of probation.

  • California Medical License Defense Case Results

    In the Matter of the Osteopathic Medical Board of California Investigation Against D.O./Doctor of Osteopathy: A D.O/Osteopathic Physician in private family practice in Ventura County was arrested for misdemeanor Domestic Violence. The District Attorney’s Office declined to file formal criminal charges. The Osteopathic Medical Board of California opened an investigation into the D.O./Osteopathic Physician’s alleged misconduct. The Osteopathic Medical Board of California closed the investigation with no disciplinary action.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Pharmacy Accusation Against Pharmacist: A Salinas Pharmacist, practicing for over three decades discipline free, faced a California Board of Pharmacy Accusation. The Pharmacist was accused of Failing to Maintain an Inventory of Dangerous Drugs, Unauthorized Collection of Controlled Substances for Destruction and Failure to Maintain Records for Controlled Substances. The Board of Pharmacy deemed these serious violations. The Pharmacist’s prior employer, for whom the Pharmacist worked at the time of the events leading to the Accusation, was primarily responsible for a large portion of the violations. Prior to a Hearing before the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Oakland, the California Board of Pharmacy entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Pharmacist. The Pharmacist received disciplinary probation with standard terms and conditions of disciplinary probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Pharmacy Citation Against Pharmacist: The California Board of Pharmacy issued a Citation against an Orange County Pharmacist. The Citation alleged that the Pharmacist provided the wrong medication to a patient, failed to provide a patient consultation upon request and failed to supervise Pharmacy Technicians at the Pharmacy. The employer, a large national retail pharmacy, blamed the Pharmacist for the violations. However, a defense investigation revealed that the Pharmacist did not commit any of the violations alleged in the Citation. The California Board of Pharmacy dismissed the Citation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Pharmacy Investigation Against Pharmacist: A Los Angeles Pharmacist was arrested for Domestic Violence. The District Attorney’s Office and City Attorney’s Office declined to file formal criminal charges. The California Board of Pharmacy opened an investigation into the Pharmacist’s alleged misconduct. The evidence showed that the Pharmacist did not commit any violations and acted in self defense. The California Board of Pharmacy closed the investigation with no disciplinary charges filed.

    In the Matter of the California Veterinary Medical Board Accusation Against Veterinarian: The client, a Veterinarian in the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Area, received a disciplinary Accusation from the California Veterinary Medical Board. The Accusation contained nearly two dozen allegations of Gross Negligence and Incompetence in the Practice of Veterinary Medicine and Unprofessional Conduct. The VMB refused settlement with the Veterinarian and sought to revoke the Veterinarian License. The matter proceeded to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Oakland. The Administrative Law Judge noted the weaknesses in the Veterinary Medical Board’s case and the strong evidence in support of the Veterinarian as a competent Veterinarian in an undeserved area. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Veterinarian probation under standard terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Veterinary Medical Board Accusation Against Veterinarian: The client, a Bakersfield Veterinarian, was accused of Negligence in the Practice of Veterinary Medicine. The Veterinary Medical Board filed a disciplinary Accusation against the Veterinarian. The instant legal matter made local news in Bakersfield. VMB previously had disciplined the Veterinarian three times prior to the instant Accusation. The allegations stemmed from an incident in which the Veterinarian allegedly performed improper surgical techniques. The Veterinarian entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Veterinary Medical Board. The client received probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a Registered Nurse working in Hospice Care in the Los Angeles area, received a California Board of Registered Nursing Accusation. The Registered Nurse had been convicted of misdemeanor Vandalism. As a result of the misdemeanor criminal conviction, the California Board of Registered Nursing filed a disciplinary Accusation against the Registered Nurse. The California Board of Registered Nursing refused to offer a settlement that would allow the Registered Nurse to continue working in Hospice Care. The matter proceeded to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Accusation due to the lack of a substantial relationship between the Vandalism conviction and the duties, functions and qualifications of a Registered Nurse.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a Ventura Registered Nurse, received a California Board of Registered Nursing Accusation. The Registered Nurse was accused of Diverting Narcotics from the hospital where she was employed. The hospital terminated the Registered Nurse from employment. Despite insufficient evidence of the violations, the California Board of Registered Nursing filed several causes for discipline against the Registered Nurse. The California Board of Registered Nursing was unable to prove that the Registered Nurse diverted drugs. As a result of a Request to Dismiss, the California Board of Registered Nursing dismissed the Accusation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a Sacramento Registered Nurse, was accused of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs at work. The hospital terminated the Registered Nurse from employment. The client also received a misdemeanor Vandalism conviction in Criminal Court ten years prior to the Accusation. The California Board of Registered Nursing was unable to prove that the client possessed substance abuse problems while employed at a hospital. The Registered Nurse entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Board of Registered Nursing. The client received a Public Reproval for his misdemeanor Vandalism criminal conviction.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a Sacramento Registered Nurse, was accused of Improper Patient Charting and Negligence in the Practice of Nursing. The allegations stemmed from an incident in which the hospital accused the Registered Nurse of failing to monitor a patient, resulting in death. The hospital terminated the Registered Nurse from employment. The evidence showed that the Registered Nurse acted upon a Physician’s Order. The Registered Nurse entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Board of Registered Nursing. The client received a Public Reproval.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a San Francisco Bay-Oakland area Registered Nurse, was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). The California Board of Registered Nursing filed an Accusation against the Registered Nurse. The Registered Nurse underwent a substance abuse evaluation to show that the event was an isolated incident. The client demonstrated extensive rehabilitation and excellent work performance in a high stress area of medicine. The BRN agreed to grant the client the ability to obtain a Public Reproval rather than probation under standard terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a Redding Registered Nurse, was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). The California Board of Registered Nursing filed an Accusation against the Registered Nurse. The client previously failed to respond to the Accusation. The California Board of Registered Nursing issued a Default Decision and Order against the client. We filed a Petition for Reconsideration on the client’s behalf to Set Aside the Default Decision and Order. The California Board of Registered Nursing granted the Petition for Reconsideration. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Sacramento. At Hearing, significant mitigation evidence was submitted. The client demonstrated that he was not a danger to the public as a Registered Nurse. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Registered Nurse probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a San Diego Registered Nurse, was accused of Dangerous Use of a Controlled Substance, Diverting Medicine and Working Under the Influence of Narcotics. The allegations stemmed from an incident in which the hospital accused the Registered Nurse of diverting medication from the workplace and using the diverted medication at work. The hospital terminated the Registered Nurse from employment. Registered Nurse entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Board of Registered Nursing. The client received probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a Los Angeles Registered Nurse, was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). The California Board of Registered Nursing filed an Accusation against the Registered Nurse. The Registered Nurse underwent a substance abuse evaluation to show that the event was an isolated incident. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. At Hearing, additional mitigation evidence was submitted. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Registered Nurse probation with no requirement of random biological fluid testing.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a Ventura Registered Nurse, was accused of failing to follow a Doctor’s Orders, resulting in improper patient care for a home hospice patient. The California Board of Registered Nursing filed an Accusation against the Registered Nurse. The BRN alleged Negligence in the Practice of Nursing and Incompetence in the Practice of Nursing. Evidence in mitigation was presented on behalf of the client. The Registered Nurse entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Board of Registered Nursing. The client received probation with standard terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a Riverside County area Registered Nurse, was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) with a Blood Alcohol Content exceeding 0.15% and Child Endangerment. BRN alleged an aggravating factor due to the client’s alleged failure to cooperate with the police during the arrest. The California Board of Registered Nursing filed an Accusation against the Registered Nurse. Significant mitigation and rehabilitation evidence was presented on the client’s behalf. The Registered Nurse entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Board of Registered Nursing. The client received disciplinary probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a San Bernardino County area Registered Nurse, was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) with a Blood Alcohol Content exceeding 0.20% and Child Endangerment. The California Board of Registered Nursing filed an Accusation against the Registered Nurse. Significant mitigation and rehabilitation evidence was presented on the client’s behalf. The Registered Nurse entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Board of Registered Nursing. The client received disciplinary probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Accusation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a Los Angeles Registered Nurse serving high risk patients with HIV/AIDS, received a California Board of Registered Nursing Accusation. The Registered Nurse was convicted on two occasions of Petty Theft, resulting from shoplifting at a supermarket on two occasions. The California Board of Registered Nursing refused to offer the Registered Nurse a settlement. The matter proceeded to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Registered Nurse presented her evidence of rehabilitation and psychological fitness to continue practicing Registered Nursing. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Registered Nurse three years probation on her license, with standard terms and conditions of disciplinary probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Investigation Against Registered Nurse: The client, a Los Angeles Registered Nurse, became involved in a Complaint against another Registered Nurse. The incident stemmed from the other Registered Nurse providing incorrect medication to a patient. At the time of the incident, the client was a Registered Nurse student in training. After an explanation of the events to the California Board of Registered Nursing, the BRN closed the investigation against the client.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Statement of Issues (License Denial) Against Registered Nurse License Applicant: The client, a San Francisco Bay-Oakland prospective Registered Nurse, was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). The conviction occurred five years prior to his application to become a Registered Nurse. The California Board of Registered Nursing filed a Statement of Issues against the prospective Registered Nurse. The California Board of Registered Nursing was convinced that the client was rehabilitated. Furthermore, the client proved that he was not a danger to himself or to the public. The prospective Registered Nurse entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Board of Registered Nursing. The client received a Public Reproval.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Statement of Issues (License Denial) Against Registered Nurse License Applicant: The client, a Los Angeles prospective Registered Nurse, was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). The conviction occurred just one year prior to her application to become a Registered Nurse. The California Board of Registered Nursing filed a Statement of Issues against the prospective Registered Nurse. The client provided proof of rehabilitation from her issue with substance abuse. Furthermore, the client proved that she was not a danger to himself or to the public. The prospective Registered Nurse entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Board of Registered Nursing. The client received California Board of Registered Nursing probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Investigation Against Prospective Registered Nurse Applicant: The Los Angeles area client graduated from Nursing school and submitted an application to become a Registered Nurse. The California Board of Registered Nursing referred the client’s application to the Department of Consumer Affairs Division of Investigation for further review. The client received a misdemeanor Forgery conviction in Criminal Court ten years prior to the application. The California Board of Registered Nursing also received anonymous information that the prospective Registered Nurse possessed substance abuse issues with alcohol. The Department of Consumer Affairs Division of Investigation agreed to recommend that the prospective Registered Nurse’s application be approved. The California Board of Registered Nursing closed the investigation against the prospective Registered Nurse with no disciplinary charges filed.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Investigation Against Prospective Registered Nurse Applicant: The Los Angeles area client graduated from Nursing school and submitted an application to become a Registered Nurse. The California Board of Registered Nursing initiated a further review of the application due to the client’s criminal history. The client received a Vandalism conviction in Criminal Court over ten years prior to the application. After explaining the circumstances surrounding the conviction and the client’s subsequent rehabilitation, the California Board of Registered Nursing closed the investigation against the prospective Registered Nurse with no disciplinary charges filed.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Registered Nursing Petition for Reinstatement Against Previously Revoked Registered Nurse: The client, a former Bakersfield Registered Nurse, previously received a revocation of her Registered Nursing License for for substance abuse and diversion of narcotics. The client underwent significant character rehabilitation. The client first sought a Real Estate License issued from the Department of Real Estate. At a Hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles, the Administrative Law Judge granted the client a Restricted Real Estate Salesperson License. The client then sought a reinstatement of her Registered Nurse License. At a Hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles, the Administrative Law Judge reinstated the client’s Registered Nurse License with probationary terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the Dental Board of California Accusation Against Registered Dental Assistant: The client, a Bakersfield Registered Dental Assistant, was convicted of several misdemeanor offenses related to Forging Prescriptions. The client allegedly obtained the prescription pad from his employer, a Dentist. The Dental Board of California filed an Accusation against the client for the criminal conviction and illegally obtaining prescriptions. Prior to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles, the Dental Board of California entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Dental Board of California. The client received probation.

    In the Matter of the Respiratory Care Board of California Accusation Against Respiratory Therapist: The Respiratory Care Board of California filed an Accusation against a San Jose Respiratory Care Practitioner. The Respiratory Therapist had received three misdemeanor Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) convictions and one conviction for misdemeanor Possession of a Controlled Substance. A settlement proposal submitted to the Respiratory Care Board of California provided convincing evidence of the client’s rehabilitation and necessity to continue employment as a Respiratory Therapist. The Respiratory Care Board of California entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Respiratory Therapist. The client received Respiratory Care Board of California probation with no period of suspension.

    In the Matter of the Respiratory Care Board of California Accusation Against Respiratory Therapist: The Respiratory Care Board of California filed an Accusation against a Los Angeles Respiratory Care Practitioner. The Respiratory Therapist had received a felony conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance. A settlement proposal submitted to the Respiratory Care Board of California provided convincing evidence of the client’s rehabilitation and necessity to continue employment as a Respiratory Therapist. The Respiratory Care Board of California entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Respiratory Therapist. The client received Respiratory Care Board of California probation with no period of suspension.

    In the Matter of the Respiratory Care Board of California Accusation and Petition to Revoke Against Respiratory Therapist: The Respiratory Care Board of California filed an Accusation against a San Bernardino Respiratory Care Practitioner. The Respiratory Care Practitioner was on Respiratory Care Board of California probation for two Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) convictions. In the instant Accusation and Petition to Revoke Probation, the client was accused of Improperly Supervising Respiratory Care students, Negligence in the Practice of Respiratory Care and Patient Charting Errors. Uncovered evidence showed that the allegations were largely unsubstantiated. However, due to the probationary status of the client, the client opted to enter into a Stipulated Agreement with the Respiratory Care Board of California. The client received an extension of Respiratory Care Board of California probation with no additional terms and conditions of probation.

    In the Matter of the Respiratory Care Board of California Accusation Against Respiratory Therapist: The Respiratory Care Board of California filed an Accusation against a Bakersfield Respiratory Care Practitioner. The client was accused of Negligence in the Practice of Respiratory Care and Patient Charting Errors. A settlement proposal submitted to the Respiratory Care Board of California provided convincing evidence of the client’s rehabilitation and necessity to continue employment as a Respiratory Therapist. The Respiratory Care Board of California entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Respiratory Therapist. The client received Respiratory Care Board of California probation with no period of suspension.

    In the Matter of the Respiratory Care Board of California Accusation Against Respiratory Therapist: The Respiratory Care Board of California filed an Accusation against a San Bernardino Respiratory Care Practitioner. The client was accused of Negligence in the Practice of Respiratory Care and Patient Charting Errors. The hospital that employed the client alleged that he gave narcotics medication through an IV to a patient. The Respiratory Care Board of California entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Respiratory Therapist. The client received Respiratory Care Board of California probation with no period of suspension.

    In the Matter of the Respiratory Care Board of California Accusation Against Respiratory Therapist: The Respiratory Care Board of California filed an Accusation against a San Francisco Bay area Respiratory Care Practitioner. The client was previously convicted in Criminal Court of Battery on a Police Officer, but was later allowed to withdraw her guilty plea due to successful completion of Anger Management. Furthermore, the Respiratory Care Board of California alleged Unprofessional Conduct against the Respiratory Therapist due to two alleged, uncharged instances of Child Abuse. The matter proceeded to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Oakland. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Respiratory Care Practitioner disciplinary probation under standard terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the Physical Therapy Board of California Citation Against Physical Therapist: The client, a Physical Therapist in the San Francisco Bay-Oakland area, received a Citation from the Physical Therapy Board of California. The Citation alleged Negligence in the Practice of Physical Therapy and Exceeding the Scope of the License in the Treatment of a Patient. The allegations arose from another Physical Therapist’s patient who reported burns received from treatment. The client applied emergency wound care to the patient. A Request to Dismiss was authored that included an extensive review of the law and application of the facts to the appropriate law. This information resulted in the dismissal of the Citation by the Physical Therapy Board of California.

    In the Matter of the Physical Therapy Board of California Accusation Against Physical Therapist: The Physical Therapy Board of California filed an Accusation against a San Francisco Bay-Oakland area Physical Therapist. The Accusation alleged Negligence in the Practice of Physical Therapy, Theft and Unprofessional Conduct. The Physical Therapist allegedly submitted fraudulent billing invoices to her employer, which in turn billed insurance companies. A settlement proposal presented to the Physical Therapy Board of California showed that at the time of the misconduct, the client experienced numerous personal and family issues. The Physical Therapy Board of California entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Physical Therapist. The client received Physical Therapy Board of California probation.

    In the Matter of the Physical Therapy Board of California Accusation Against Physical Therapist: The Physical Therapy Board of California filed an Accusation against a Riverside Physical Therapist. The Accusation alleged Aiding and Abetting the Unlicensed Practice of Physical Therapy, Improper Supervision of Physical Therapy Assistants and Physical Therapy Aides, Negligence in the Practice of Physical Therapy, Patient Charting Violations and Unprofessional Conduct. The Physical Therapist lost control of her practice. Too many patients, understaffing, poorly trained staff and a lack of business knowledge resulted in the allegations. A settlement proposal presented to the Physical Therapy Board of California showed that at the time of the misconduct, the client lacked experience in private business. These issues were the primary contributor to the allegations. The Physical Therapy Board of California entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Physical Therapist. The client received Physical Therapy Board of California probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Psychology Accusation Against Psychologist: The Los Angeles Psychological Assistant, was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). The DUI stemmed from a traffic collision caused by a high Blood Alcohol Content. The California Board of Psychology sought to discipline the Psychological Assistant. A review of the evidence showed that the client committed an isolated incident. There was no evidence to suggest that the Psychological Assistant possessed a substance abuse issue. The client did not present a danger to herself or the public. The Psychological Assistant entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Board of Psychology. The Psychological Assistant was placed on a period of disciplinary probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Psychology Investigation Against Psychologist: The Los Angeles Psychologist, the director of a large treatment center, was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). The California Board of Psychology opened an investigation into the Psychologist. A review of the evidence showed that the client committed an isolated incident. There was no evidence to suggest that the Psychologist possessed a substance abuse issue. The client did not present a danger to himself or the public. The California Board of Psychology closed the investigation with no disciplinary charges filed.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Psychology Statement of Issues (License Denial) Against Psychologist License Applicant: The client, a San Francisco Bay-Oakland Doctorate of Psychology, received two Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) convictions. These convictions both occurred while the client was in graduate school. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Oakland. At Hearing, the client submitted evidence of character rehabilitation, substance abuse rehabilitation and positive future prospects. The client demonstrated that she was not a danger to the public as a Psychologist. The Administrative Law Judge granted the prospective Psychologist a license with probationary conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Optometry Accusation Against Optometrist: The Los Angeles Optometrist,was convicted of Wet Reckless. Initially, the Optometrist was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol,due to an alleged  Blood Alcohol Content of 0.31%. The Board of Optometry refused to provide an acceptable Stipulated Agreement (settlement). The matter proceeded to a Hearing before the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Optometrist presented significant mitigation evidence on his behalf. The Administrative Law Judge issued a Proposed Decision granting the Optometrist a two year term of disciplinary probation with no conditions or substance abuse or supervision.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Vocational Nursing & Psychiatric Technicians Investigation Against Licensed Vocational Nurse: A Licensed Vocational Nurse in Los Angeles County was arrested for misdemeanor Domestic Violence. The District Attorney’s Office declined to file formal criminal charges. The BVNPT opened an investigation into the LVN’s alleged misconduct. The BVNPT closed the investigation with no disciplinary action.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Vocational Nursing & Psychiatric Technicians Petition to Revoke Probation Against Licensed Vocational Nurse: A Licensed Vocational Nurse in San Bernardino County received a Petition to Revoke Probation. The client had experienced a serious medical ailment that prevented him from working and complying with the terms and conditions of an earlier disciplinary action. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Administrative Law Judge issued a Proposed Decision finding that the client did not willfully violate BVNPT probation. The client was reinstated to BVNPT probation under the same terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Occupational Therapy Accusation Against Occupational Therapist: The client, a Los Angeles Occupational Therapist, was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). The California Board of Occupational Therapy filed an Accusation against the Occupational Therapist. The Occupational Therapist could not accept a probationary disciplinary result requiring supervision and monitoring. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. At Hearing, significant mitigation evidence was submitted. The client demonstrated that she was not a danger to the public as an Occupational Therapist. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Occupational Therapist probation with no supervision or monitoring requirements.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Occupational Therapy Investigation Against Occupational Therapist: An Occupational Therapist in Orange County was arrested for misdemeanor Domestic Violence. The District Attorney’s Office rejected filing formal criminal charges against the Occupational Therapist. The California Board of Occupational Therapy commenced an investigation into the client’s alleged misconduct. The California Board of Occupational Therapy closed the investigation with no disciplinary action.

    In the Matter of the Physical Therapy Board of California Accusation Against Physical Therapy Assistant: The Physical Therapy Board of California filed an Accusation against a Riverside Physical Therapy Assistant. The Accusation alleged Negligence in the Practice of Physical Therapy, Unlicensed Practice of Physical Therapy and Unprofessional Conduct. The client took over the practice of a Physical Therapist who had lost control of her business. The client acted as a Physical Therapist and Physical Therapy clinic owner. The Physical Therapy Board of California entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Physical Therapist. The client received Physical Therapy Board of California probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Behavioral Sciences Accusation Against Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW): The California Board of Behavioral Sciences filed an Accusation against a Humboldt County LCSW. The Accusation alleged Unprofessional Conduct, Unlawful Use of Alcohol and a Criminal Conviction substantially related to the duties, functions and qualifications of an LCSW. The allegations stemmed from the client’s criminal conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI). A substantial mitigation brief was presented to the California Board of Behavioral Sciences. The California Board of Behavioral Sciences entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Licensed Clinical Social Worker for a below disciplinary guideline probation order.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Behavioral Sciences Statement of Issues (License Denial) Against Marriage and Family Therapist Intern Registration Applicant: The client, a Los Angeles prospective Marriage and Family Therapist Intern applicant, was convicted of three misdemeanor Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) offenses and one misdemeanor Driving on a Suspended License offense. The California Board of Behavioral Sciences refused to enter into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the prospective MFT Intern applicant. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. At Hearing, the client submitted evidence of character rehabilitation, substance abuse rehabilitation and positive future prospects. The client demonstrated that she was not a danger to the public as an MFT Intern. The Administrative Law Judge granted the prospective Marriage and Family Therapist Intern a registration with probationary conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Board of Behavioral Sciences Investigation Against Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW): The client, a Los Angeles based Licensed Clinical Social Worker, or LCSW, was accused of Unprofessional Conduct and Gross Negligence. The allegations stemmed from allegations that the client provided improper treatment to a patient while maintaining a personal relationship with the patient. Additional facts that were previously unknown to the Board were presented to the Board. The client received a Warning Letter rather than a formal disciplinary action.

  • California Professional License Defense Case Results

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Acccusation Against Contractor: The client, a C-33 Painting Contractor in the Los Angeles area, received an Accusation from the California Contractors State License Board. Five years earlier, the client had been convicted of felony Assault With a Deadly Weapon arising from a Domestic Violence incident in Santa Barbara County. CSLB received evidence of the conviction subsequent to the client being convicted for the felony criminal offense. The matter proceeded to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. A Statute of Limitations argument was raised. The Administrative Law Judge continued the Hearing to a future date. Prior to the continued Hearing, the Attorney General’s Office and CSLB dismissed the Accusation due to the Statute of Limitations having long expired.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: The client, a B License General Contractor in Los Angeles, received an Accusation from the California Contractors State License Board. The client focused on solar energy projects. Two customers initiated Complaints against the Contractor with CSLB, which resulted in nearly twenty causes for discipline contained in the Accusation. The Contractors State License Board refused to provide a Stipulated Agreement, or settlement, with the client. The matter proceeded to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. CSLB and the Attorney General’s Office sought revocation. The Administrative Law Judge found the client liable for some violations, but dismissed others. The Administrative Law Judge placed the client’s Contractors License on probation.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: The client, a B License General Contractor in Los Angeles, received an Accusation from the California Contractors State License Board. The Accusation alleged Aiding and Abetting an Unlicensed Contractor, Departure From Accepted Trade Standards, Departure From Plans or Specifications and Home Improvement Form Contract Violations. The allegations stemmed from the client performing poor work quality on beachfront property. The poor work quality resulted in $350,000 damage to the residence after a large storm. CSLB agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Contractor. The client was placed on CSLB probation.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: The client, a B License General Contractor in Los Angeles, received an Accusation from the California Contractors State License Board. The Accusation alleged Accepting an Excessive Deposit, Departure From Accepted Trade Standards, Departure From Plans or Specifications and Home Improvement Form Contract Violations. The Contractor and the homeowners were also engaged in a contentious civil lawsuit in Superior Court. The homeowners alleged poor worksmanship caused nearly $500,000 in damage. A review of the evidence showed that the Contractor did not intentionally cause these issues with the residence. The homeowners also possessed credibility issues. CSLB agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Contractor. The client was placed on CSLB probation with no order of Restitution to the homeowners.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: The client, a B License General Contractor in the Los Angeles area, received an Accusation from the California Contractors State License Board. The Accusation alleged Abandonment of a Project, Departure From Accepted Trade Standards, Accepting Payment Greater than Work Performed and other violations. The dispute occurred due to an uncompleted project. Prior to a Hearing before the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles, CSLB agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement). The client received a Stipulated Agreement for a below disciplinary guideline disciplinary result of two years of disciplinary probation under reduced terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: A Los Angeles General Contractor faced an Accusation by the California Contractors State License Board. The Accusation occurred due to the client’s Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) receiving numerous consumer Complaints on the RMO’s other licenses. CSLB dismissed the client from the Accusation upon showing that the client did not participate in any of the events leading to the Accusation.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: A San Diego General Contractor faced an Accusation by the California Contractors State License Board. The Accusation occurred due to the client’s Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) receiving numerous consumer Complaints on the RMO’s other licenses. The client previously failed to respond to the Accusation. CSLB issued a Default Decision and Order against the client. We filed a Petition for Reconsideration on the client’s behalf to Set Aside the Default Decision and Order. CSLB granted the Petition for Reconsideration. CSLB dismissed the client from the Accusation upon showing that the client did not participate in any of the events leading to the Accusation.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: A San Diego General Contractor (B License) faced an Accusation by the California Contractors State License Board. The Accusation alleged that the client failed to exercise the responsibilities of a Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) and unlawfully rented his license to an individual in Los Angeles. The individual in Los Angeles committed a number of Contractor License Law violations, including Abandonment, Departure From Accepted Trade Standards, Departure From Plans, Exceeding Contract Price and Failure to Maintain Worker’s Compensation Insurance. The B License General Contractor received disciplinary probation under standard terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: A San Jose General Contractor (B License) faced an Accusation by the California Contractors State License Board due to four project Complaints made by one complainant. The Accusation alleged that the client committed violations including Departure From Accepted Trade Standards, Departure From Plans or Specifications, Failure to Complete Project for Contract Price, Failure to Maintain Workers Compensation Insurance and Home Improvement Form Contract Violations. The B License General Contractor received a below guideline Stipulated Agreement (settlement) of two years of disciplinary probation under standard terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: A Los Angeles General Contractor (B License) faced an Accusation by the California Contractors State License Board due to mishandling a nearly one million dollar custom home build. The Accusation alleged that the client committed violations including Departure From Accepted Trade Standards, Departure From Plans or Specifications, Failure to Maintain Qualifier Responsibility (Renting a License) and Failure to Obtain a Permit. The B License General Contractor received disciplinary probation under standard terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: A Los Angeles General Contractor (B License) faced an investigation by the California Contractors State License Board for Abandoning a Job and Departure From Accepted Trade Standards. CSLB filed a disciplinary Accusation alleging that the client committed the aforementioned violations and additional violations. These additional violations included Contracting With Unlicensed Subcontractors, Exceeding the Contract Price, Failure to Maintain Worker’s Compensation Insurance, Home Improvement Contract Form Violations. The B License General Contractor received a below guideline disciplinary order and did not have to pay Restitution to the homeowner.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: A San Francisco Bay Area and Oakland area General Contractor (B License) faced an Accusation by the California Contractors State License Board due to activities in a declared disaster area. The Accusation alleged that the client committed violations including Departure From Accepted Trade Standards, Departure From Plans or Specifications, Failure to Complete the Project for the Contract Price, Failure to Obtain a Permit and Home Improvement Contract Form Violations. The B License General Contractor received a below disciplinary guideline probationary result.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Contractor: A Los Angeles Area and General Contractor (B License) faced an Accusation by the California Contractors State License Board arising from the construction of a restaurant. The Accusation alleged that the client Contracted With an Unlicensed Contractor and Failed to Maintain Worker’s Compensation Insurance. CSLB previously disciplined the B License General Contractor for the exact same violations, for which the Contractor was placed on probation. Despite the prior disciplinary action, the B License General Contractor received disciplinary probation.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Citation Against Contractor: A Lake Tahoe area General Contractor faced a Citation by the California Contractors State License Board. The Citation occurred due a CSLB Complaint made by a former customer. The matter proceeded to a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Sacramento. The Administrative Law Judge dismissed allegations contained in the Citation of Departure From Plans or Specifications and Failure to Pay Subcontractors.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Investigation Against Contractor: A Los Angeles General Contractor faced an investigation by the California Contractors State License Board due to a consumer Complaint. The customer believed that the Contractor Departed From Accepted Trade Standards, Departed From Plans or Specifications and Accepted Payment in Excess of Work Performed. The California Contractors State License Board closed the investigation against the Contractor and referred the consumer to the Civil Court process for redress.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Investigation Against Contractor: A General Contractor working in both Los Angeles and San Jose faced an investigation by the California Contractors State License Board due to a consumer Complaint. The customer alleged a Departure From Accepted Trade Standards, Departure From Plans or Specifications and Elder Abuse. The customer also filed a civil lawsuit against the Contractor in Superior Court. Furthermore, CSLB alleged that the Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) committed Aiding and Abetting an Unlicensed Contractor and Failure to Exercise Qualifier Responsibility. The California Contractors State License Board closed the investigation against the Contractor and referred the consumer to the Civil Court process for redress.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Investigation Against Contractor: A Los Angeles General Contractor faced an investigation by the California Contractors State License Board due to Complaints from subcontractors and the Bond Company. The subcontractors and Bond Company alleged nonpayment of funds. After payment of the funds, the CSLB closed the investigation against the Contractor.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Investigation Against Contractor: A Santa Rosa General Contractor (B License) faced an investigation by the California Contractors State License Board due to a Complaint from a customer of the General Contractor. The customer used the CSLB Complaint and disciplinary process as leverage for a Civil lawsuit. After a review of the evidence, CSLB closed the Complaint against the Contractor.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Investigation Against Contractor: A Los Angeles General Contractor (B License) faced an investigation by the California Contractors State License Board due to a Complaint from a customer of the General Contractor. The customer used the CSLB Complaint and disciplinary process as leverage for a Civil lawsuit. After a review of the evidence, CSLB closed the Complaint against the Contractor.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Investigation Against Contractor: A San Jose General Contractor (B License) faced an investigation by CSLB due to a Complaint from a customer of the General Contractor. After a review of the evidence, the Contractors State License Board closed the Complaint against the Contractor.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Judgment Suspension Against Contractor: The client, an Orange County General Contractor (B License), received a notice of license suspension. The notice arose due to a civil court judgment against a licensed company for which the Contractor previously served a Responsible Managing Officer (RMO). The Contractor declared bankruptcy, but CSLB refused to lift the judgment suspension because the judgment was still valid against the other licensed company (for which the Contractor previously served as RMO). A legal brief was prepared and submitted to CSLB and the California Department of Consumer Affairs Legal Division. The Contractors State License Board then lifted the notice of judgment suspension against the Contractor.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Judgment Suspension Against Contractor: The client, a Los Angeles General Contractor (B License), received a notice of license suspension. The notice arose due to a civil court judgment from an insurance company against the Contractor for a significant amount of money. A civil litigation attorney negotiated the judgment with the insurance company on behalf the Contractor client. Once a Satisfaction of Judgment was filed with the Superior Court, a petition to remove the judgment suspension was filed with the Contractors State License Board. CSLB lifted the suspension against the Contractor.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Statement of Issues (License Denial) Against Contractor License Applicant: The California Contractors State License Board denied the prospective Contractor a C-36 Plumbing License due to a felony conviction for Second Degree Murder. The applicant spent twenty five years in prison. While in prison, the applicant rehabilitated himself. Upon release from custody, the applicant found work in construction. Over a seven year period, the applicant worked his way up from the bottom. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Administrative Law Judge granted the prospective Contractor a probationary Contractor License.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Statement of Issues (License Denial) Against Contractor License Applicant: The California Contractors State License Board denied the prospective Contractor a C-36 Plumbing License due to five felony convictions. The felony convictions were for Assault With a Deadly Weapon, Grand Theft, Possession for Sale of Narcotics and Possession of a Controlled Substance. The most recent conviction occurred three years prior to the submission of the application. The prospective Contractor participated in extensive substance abuse rehabilitation for drug addiction, became sober and engaged in community service. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Administrative Law Judge granted the prospective Contractor a probationary Contractor License.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Statement of Issues (License Denial) Against Contractor License Applicant: The California Contractors State License Board denied the prospective Contractor a C-36 Plumbing License due to eight felony convictions. The felony convictions involving Manufacturing Controlled Substances, Identity Theft and Fraud. The client spent a significant amount of time in prison and on probation and parole. The prospective Contractor participated in extensive substance abuse rehabilitation for drug addiction, became sober and maintained stable employment. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the California Office of Administrative Hearings in Los Angeles. The Administrative Law Judge granted the prospective Contractor a Contractors License with disciplinary probation.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Home Improvement Salesperson: A Los Angeles Home Improvement Salesperson faced an Accusation by the California Contractors State License Board. The allegations included Departure From Accepted Trade Standards, Elder Abuse, Failure to Pull Permits and Willful and Fraudulent Acts in two separate Complaints. The Home Improvement Salesperson allegedly fabricated the extent of repairs necessary to the elderly homeowners. One of the elderly homeowners was coerced into signing up for a high interest credit card to finance the project. A review of the facts revealed numerous evidentiary issues for CSLB. CSLB agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) of probation for the Home Improvement Salesperson. The Home Improvement Salesperson was placed on CSLB probation.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Accusation Against Home Improvement Salesperson: The client, a Registered Home Improvement Salesperson in Los Angeles, received an Accusation from the California Contractors State License Board. The Accusation alleged Contracting Without a License, Fraudulent Use of a Contractor’s License, Failure to Maintain Worker’s Compensation Insurance, Departure From Accepted Trade Standards, Accepting an Excessive Deposit and Home Improvement Form Contract Violations. The allegations stemmed from the client failing to inform his Contractor of a job that he procured. The client was additionally convicted of misdemeanor Contracting Without a License in Criminal Court. CSLB agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Home Improvement Salesperson. The client was placed on CSLB probation.

    In the Matter of the California Contractors State License Board Petition to Revoke Probation Against Home Improvement Salesperson: A Los Angeles Home Improvement Salesperson allegedly failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his California Contractors State License Board Probation. CSLB revoked the Home Improvement Salesperson’s probation and issued an Order of Revocation of his Home Improvement Salesperson Registration. We filed a Petition for Reconsideration to Set Aside the Order of Revocation. CSLB agreed with the arguments set forth in the Petition for Reconsideration. CSLB reinstated the Home Improvement Salesperson’s Registration under the original terms and conditions of CSLB probation.

    In the Matter of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Accusation Against High School Teacher: A San Diego High School English Teacher faced an Accusation by the California CTC after a termination proceeding by the School District. The Accusation alleged that the client committed over a dozen disciplinary violations over a two year period. The alleged violations included academic dishonesty, failure to maintain student confidentiality, failure to supervise students, insubordination to school administrators, moral turpitude and numerous allegations of retaliation against students. The matter was scheduled for a Settlement Conference and Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings in San Diego. At the Settlement Conference, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing realized the weakness of some of the evidence against the client and understood the impact that this Teacher made on a number of former students. The CTC agreed to a Consent Agreement with the client that placed the client on probation, with a short suspension.

    In the Matter of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Investigation Against High School Teacher: A Los Angeles Charter School High School Teacher faced a Complaint Investigation from the CTC. A student reported that the Teacher committed Sexual Battery and Sexual Harassment against her. In its response to CTC, the defense noted that the student made the report after being disciplined by the Teacher. The student’s Complaint consisted of numerous departures from her story. The Commission on Teacher Credentialing closed the the Complaint Investigation and no disciplinary action was taken against the Teacher.

    In the Matter of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Investigation Against Middle School Teacher: A Los Angeles Middle School Music Teacher faced a Complaint Investigation from the CTC. The School District received a report of sexual misconduct from a student against the Teacher. The School District initiated a termination proceeding and referred the matter to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. The CTC’s Investigative Report contained a number of inconsistencies. The student made the report months after the alleged incident, in response to disciplinary action against the student by the Teacher. The student’s Complaint itself contained numerous inconsistencies and falsehoods. The CTC closed the Complaint Investigation and no disciplinary action was taken against the Teacher.

    In the Matter of the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists Accusation Against Land Surveyor: The client, a Los Angeles Land Surveyor, received a disciplinary Accusation from the BPELSG. The Accusation alleged Negligence in the Practice of Land Surveying, Incompetence in the Practice of Land Surveying and Contract Violations. The allegations stemmed from a project where the Land Surveyor allegedly produced deficient maps, which allegedly caused construction issues for the Land Surveyor’s client. Due to extensive defense evidence presented to the Board and to the Attorney General’s Office, the Board agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Land Surveyor for a Public Reproval.

    In the Matter of the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists Accusation Against Land Surveyor: The client was a Land Surveyor licensed in both California and Texas. The Land Surveyor received several Complaints from trade organizations in Los Angeles and Riverside County due to faulty surveys and improperly filed Records of Survey. The California BPELSG filed a disciplinary Accusation against the Land Surveyor. Due to extensive mitigation evidence presented to the Board and to the Attorney General’s Office, the Board agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Land Surveyor. The Land Surveyor was placed on probation with several modifications to allow for probation to be completed outside of California.

    In the Matter of the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists Accusation Against Land Surveyor: The client, a San Diego Land Surveyor, received an Accusation. The Accusation spanned four consumer Complaints and amounted to 34 alleged violations. The BPELSG refused to enter into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Land Surveyor. The BPELSG demanded the client surrender his Land Surveyor License. The matter proceeded to Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge from the California Office of Administrative Hearings in San Diego. At Hearing, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed nearly half of the alleged violations. The client demonstrated that he was not a danger to the public as a Registered Nurse. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Land Surveyor BPELSG probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists Petition to Revoke Probation Against Land Surveyor: The client was a Land Surveyor licensed in both California and Texas. The Land Surveyor previously received a disciplinary Accusation that resulted in disciplinary probation. The Land Surveyor failed to complete there terms and conditions of his disciplinary probation. The California BPELSG filed a Petition to Revoke Probation.Due to extensive mitigation evidence presented to the Board and to the Attorney General’s Office, the Board agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Land Surveyor to extend probation to complete the required terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists Accusation Against Civil Engineer: The client, a Los Angeles Civil Engineer, received an Accusation. The Accusation spanned six consumer Complaints and amounted to over 30 alleged violations. The client presented significant evidence of personal issues during the time of the violations. Furthermore, the client presented numerous corrective measures to make his business fully compliant with the law. The Civil Engineer entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists. The client received BPELSG probation.

    In the Matter of the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists Accusation Against Civil Engineer: The client, an out of state Civil Engineer licensed in California, received an Accusation. The Accusation alleged Incompetence in the Practice of Engineering, Negligence in the Practice of Engineering and several other violations. The disciplinary Accusation arose from a dispute between the Civil Engineer and his client, which caused significant financial harm to the client. Due to significant mitigation, the BPELSG entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Civil Engineer for a disciplinary result of probation with no restitution ordered.

    In the Matter of the California Architects Board Accusation Against Architect: The client, an out of state Architect from New York but licensed in California, received an Accusation. The Accusation stemmed from the Architect receiving a federal felony conviction for Embezzlement From an Employee Pension Fund in New York. The Architect was convicted of embezzling over $125,000 from the employee pension fund of her family’s architecture firm.The matter was set for a Hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings in San Diego. Prior to the Hearing, due to significant mitigation, the California Architects Board entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Architect for a disciplinary result of probation and a 90 day license suspension.

    In the Matter of the California Structural Pest Control Board Accusation Against Pest Control Operator: The client, a Pest Control Operator in Los Angeles, received an Accusation from the California Structural Pest Control Board. The Accusation alleged Aiding and Abetting Unlicensed Pest Control, Employing Unregistered Workers, Failure to Issue a Completion Notice, Failure to Maintain Records, Fraud, Gross Negligence and Negligent Handling of Poisonous Exterminating Agents. The allegations stemmed from the client mismanaging two projects. SPCB agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Pest Control Operator whereby the client was placed on disciplinary probation.

    In the Matter of the California Structural Pest Control Board Accusation Against Pest Control Operator: The client, a Pest Control Operator in San Diego, received an Accusation from the California Structural Pest Control Board. Nine years earlier, the client had been convicted of a felony sex offense. SPCB wanted to revoke the client’s Pest Control Operator License. However, the client showed substantial evidence of mitigation and rehabilitation. The Structural Pest Control Board agreed to a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Pest Control Operator. The Pest Control Operator was placed on three years of disciplinary probation with standard terms and conditions.

    In the Matter of the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services Disciplinary Review Hearing of Alarm Company Employee: The client was an Alarm Company Employee for a major commercial Alarm Company in Los Angeles. The client had been convicted of misdemeanor Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) and felony Child Endangerment. Police arrested the client for DUI while she had several children in the car. As a result of the felony conviction, the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services immediately suspended the client’s Alarm Company Employee Registration. BSIS held an informal Disciplinary Review Hearing in Riverside to determine whether the Alarm Company Employee Registration should remain suspended or restored to active status. After the Disciplinary Review Hearing, BSIS restored the client’s Alarm Company Employee Registration to active status.

    In the Matter of the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services Disciplinary Review Hearing of Security Guard: The client was a Security Guard Manager for a large Private Patrol Operator in Los Angeles. The client had been convicted of felony Stalking. As a result of the felony conviction, BSIS immediately suspended the client’s Guard Card. BSIS held an informal Disciplinary Review Hearing in Riverside to determine whether the Guard Card should remain suspended or restored to active status. After the Disciplinary Review Hearing, BSIS restored the client’s Guard Card to active status.

    In the Matter of the Court Reporters Board of California Statement of Issues (License Denial) Against Court Reporter License Applicant: The client, a prospective Court Reporter Applicant from Las Nevada, was denied a Court Reporters License in California. The client, a Court Reporter in Nevada, was denied licensure in California due to prior discipline in Nevada. The prior discipline occurred because the prospective Court Reporter failed to timely file transcripts while working as a Court Reporter in Nevada. The prospective Court Reporter entered into a Stipulated Agreement (settlement) with the Court Reporters Board of California. The client received Court Reporters Board of California probation.