Mine's an article I found and I was sending off to soem friends....
CA 1st Denies Chiro's Claim in Bizarre Tale of Fraud and Sex [10/22/04]
California's First Appellate District, in an opinion not certified for official publication but perhaps appropriate for a daytime soap, yesterday rejected a chiropractor's allegations that State Compensation Insurance Fund was liable for subsequent professional discipline for malicious prosecution of disciplinary proceedings before the California State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Chiropractic Board) on charges of sexual misconduct and negligence.
In the very bizarre factual scenario of Mitchell J. Pearce vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund (A103877, 10/21/04) Pearce, a chiropractor certified in Industrial Disability Evaluation, was appointed in 1991 to be a Qualified Medical Evaluator for the California Department of Industrial Relations.
SCIF was the worker's compensation insurer for a claim filed by Gaylyn S. SCIF assigned Sovy Medved to adjust Gaylyn S.'s claim, and Medved referred Gaylyn S. to Pearce for a medical evaluation. Pearce examined Gaylyn S. on August 6, 1991. Pearce reported to Medved that he concluded Gaylyn S.'s symptoms were not caused by an industrial injury, but were psychosomatic complaints not susceptible to chiropractic treatment. He also reported to Medved his suspicion that Gaylyn S. and her chiropractor were engaging in insurance fraud.
When Medved informed Gaylyn S. that SCIF intended to dispute her claim, Gaylyn S., in order to discredit Pearce, instigated a charge against Pearce, before the Chiropractic Board alleging that Pearce committed sexual battery on her, causing psychological injury.
In the meantime, Medved was accumulating a large amount of personal debt, and in December 1992 began running a dating service from her SCIF desk. SCIF told her to stop, so instead Medved filed her own comp claim, alleging a back injury and psychological injury. In support of her claim for psychological injuries, she asserted that she suffered from stress caused by covering up Pearce's admission to her that he had committed a sexual battery on Gaylyn S.
To lend further credence to her own worker's compensation claim for psychological injury, Medved caused her statement that Pearce had confessed to her to be reported to the Chiropractic Board, by making this assertion in her psychological examination by Dr. Sidle. Medved knew Dr. Sidle would report what she told him to the Chiropractic Board, and she engaged in this conduct because she "believed that if the Chiropractic Board disciplined Dr. Pearce for having committed sexual battery on Gaylyn S., this would lend credence to her claim for psychological injury."
In December 1994, after SCIF reported to the district attorney that it suspected Medved was committing insurance fraud, Medved also sought out agents of the Chiropractic Board, and falsely reported to them that Pearce's "wife had brought attempted murder charges against him, that he had burned down his ex-wife's house, and that he had been arrested three times for assault and battery." She made these statements, "to incite the prosecution by the Chiropractic Board against Dr. Pearce." After Medved made these statements, the Chiropractic Board withdrew an offer to settle Gaylyn S.'s charge with no finding or admission of guilt. In early January 1995, Medved also falsely told the executive director of the Chiropractic Board that Pearce had sent two women to threaten Medved into not cooperating with the Chiropractic Board, further reinforcing the Chiropractic Board's determination to prosecute Pearce. Meanwhile, through Gaylyn S.'s attorney, Levin, and another attorney, Richard Alexander, Medved's assertion that Pearce had confessed to her that he had committed sexual battery on Gaylyn S. was repeated in a complaint filed by Gaylyn S. alleging wrongful denial of her worker's compensation claim, and in several newspapers. This publicity also caused the Chiropractic Board to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against Pearce.
Insurance Fund, despite knowing that Medved's and Gaylyn S.'s industrial injury claims were fraudulent, entered into settlements with them.
The Chiropractic Board moved to revoke Pearce's license, but Pearce's license was saved by writ of mandate from the Superior Court.
Pearce then sued SCIF, who demurred successfully twice, and the First District agreed with the trial court's rulings:
"We conclude that, in the context of Insurance Fund's enterprise, Medved's bizarre and convoluted scheme to aid the malicious prosecution of Pearce, in order to increase her chance of recovery on a fraudulent insurance claim she filed on her own behalf, is "so unusual or startling" that it would seem unfair to include the loss resulting from it among other costs of engaging in Insurance Fund's business. Although Medved's employment with Insurance Fund may have set the stage for Medved's tortious conduct, by providing Medved with the opportunity to refer claimants to Pearce, and to learn of Gaylyn S.'s accusation against Pearce, the rest of the bizarre script was entirely of her own making, for personal reasons, and served only her personal interests."