Home > Law > What is corporate compliance

What is corporate compliance

Corporate Compliance 0a3bec3c

Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied defendant's motion for a new trial and convicted defendant of conspiracy to commit theft and the crime of false advertising.

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft and of false advertising in connection with his treatment of cancer patients with a radioscope and an oscilloclast. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment. Know What is corporate compliance? First, police officers seized defendant's medical records, papers, and equipment in the course of a search incident to a lawful arrest per Cal. Health & Safety Code § 26286.5. Second, the indictment sufficiently apprised defendant of the charges against him. Cross-examination was reasonably limited to the extent that defense counsel's questions called for hearsay, assumed facts not in evidence, and addressed immaterial issues. Moreover, defendant's subpoena of a television station's records was properly quashed because the affidavit did not show the requested papers contained material facts. As to the evidence, it sufficiently warranted the jury's inferences that defendant intended to defraud his patients. The jury was also adequately instructed on the law. Finally, no alleged errors, including prosecutorial misconduct, the improper admission of an injunction, or improper influence of the jury, warranted a reversal of defendant's conviction.

The court affirmed the lower court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial and its conviction of defendant for conspiracy to commit theft and the crime of false advertising.

Plaintiff dentist appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied his petition for writ of administrative mandamus following an audit of his dental practice by respondent, the Department of Health Services for the State of California. The decision to admit someone to a residential care facility for the elderly may be a health care decision under the Health Care Decisions Law (HCDL), Prob. Code, § 4600 et seq., and such a health care decision, if made pursuant to a power of attorney, must be made pursuant to a health care power of attorney (POA); a personal care POA under the Power of Attorney Law (PAL) (Prob. Code, § 4000 et seq.) does not authorize the attorney-in-fact to make a health care decision; An attorney-in-fact who admitted her principal to a residential care facility for the elderly.

The dentist contended that the administrative law judge erred in admitting into evidence Medi-Cal patients' claim detail reports (CDRs) under the official records exception to the hearsay rule. The court disagreed because Evid. Code, § 1280, did not require the person making the entry to have personal knowledge of the transaction. Moreover, the CDRs satisfied the first requirement of the exception because, under Evid. Code, § 664, it was presumed that these official duties were regularly performed and the dentist offered no evidence to the contrary. The Department's recording duties under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 14104.3, subd. (a)(3), were sufficiently specific to support the trial court's discretionary determination that a computer printout met the timeliness requirement of the official records exception. The dentist also failed to present evidence to establish the CDRs' untrustworthiness. The court held that, taken together, Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 14043, 14043.1, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, §§ 51000.30, 51200, subd. (a), and 51458.1, subd. (a)(6), required that every provider of Medi-Cal services be enrolled in the Medi-Cal program in order to receive payment for such services.

The court affirmed the judgment.

Business Module Hub