Cash for Convictions Motivation Underlies Clearly Insurance-Driven Criminal Investigation
Linda Vela, 58, sits at the table at Denny’s in West Sacramento, her hands badly shaking. Her husband has to spread and cut the butter on her pancakes, but otherwise she is able largely to eat and drink normally, if she is careful with her left hand (she’s right handed).
It has been just four days since a Yolo County Jury found her guilty of twelve felonies – seven counts of Worker’s Compensation Insurance Fraud, three counts of Presenting False Statement Concerning Payment From An Insurance Policy, and two counts of Attempted Perjury, in connection with disability claims made between March of 2005 and February of 2007, following a trial that lasted approximately nine days.
She and her husband Junior, and daughter Alincia, are stunned and uncertain about the future. It has been a long and difficult road for Linda Vela, who in August of 2003 was a 25-year veteran employee of the Sacramento Bee newspaper. At her trial, former colleagues described her as a hard and dedicated worker who was in a very stressful position with the finance department and had worked hard and long hours ensuring that ad accounts were properly paid by customers.
Her daughter Alincia described her mom in her testimony as a “supermom” that would work a long hard day, make the dinner each night, and clean the house and help her kids with their school work.
All of this changed in 2003 as she began to break down. One of her colleagues described hearing her cry out loud as she forced herself to keep working to make deadlines and achieve bonuses for her work group.
According to the Yolo County District Attorney, Ms. Vela went out on disability and was diagnosed with bi-lateral carpal tunnel syndrome. She had surgery on her right wrist in June of 2004, which by all objective signs was successful.
Ms. Vela, however, complained that she was still in pain after the surgery and that she could not go back to work despite the surgeon’s recommendation that she could return to work. Her physician kept her off work as “totally disabled,” based on Vela’s stated complaints of pain, and her reported inability to use her hands.
As a result, the district attorney argued, Ms. Vela received Worker’s Compensation Benefits from McClatchy Newspapers, the parent company of the Sacramento Bee, as well as payments from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, through which Ms. Vela had a long-term disability policy, and was able to receive 70% of her pre-disability salary, tax free.
Ms. Vela told various doctors that she was “in constant pain,” and that she “could not use her hands for any basic use,” and that “even a fork was heavy” to her. She also stated that she could not work in her garden or brush her own hair.
However, during that same time period, Ms. Vela was caught on video taken by both investigators for Liberty Mutual Insurance as well as Yolo County DA Investigator, Dan Stroscki, doing many of the things she said she couldn’t do, including brushing her long hair, gardening and holding a video camera at eye level for 30 minutes straight.
An orthopedic specialist who viewed the surveillance video testified that it was completely contrary to her presentation and complaints of pain and that she “could return to work” with the only restriction being that she “avoid power gripping and torquing.”
Deputy District Attorney Steve Mount acknowledged that Ms. Vela was hurting, acknowledged even that she could not work a full day and would be entitled to some disability, but argued that she was not hurting as much as she claimed she was. In closing remarks he argued it was not the job of the jury to decide how disabled she was – only whether she was telling the truth.
He did not dispute that she had a very stressful job; he did not argue that she was making huge amounts of money, but he did argue that she was able to make money by not working, even if it took a toll on her family financially.
In short he argued, that she had a duty to inform her employers truthfully about how hurt she was, so that they could make the determination as to whether and how much work she could do and how much disability she was entitled to.
In short, as was stated in the press release, “Vela should have been able to return to some type of employment with the Bee in December of 2004. The Bee has a policy of finding alternative work for its injured employees, but Vela’s embellishments prevented them from bringing her back to work.”
The jury, in convicting her, obviously believed, based on the video tapes showing her performing tasks with her hands ranging from gardening to filming her daughter’s performance, that she was embellishing her injuries and that, according to the law, Ms. Vela was defrauding her employer and Liberty Mutual Insurance.
At the same time, it does not take much to see that Ms. Vela is not only hurting, but that the injuries combined with clinical depression and other problems have taken this woman – that numerous witnesses including those for the prosecution described as hard working and diligent – and turned her into a shell of her former self.
The Yolo County District Attorney turned each visit and claim that she made to insurance doctors into a felony. At some point, one must reasonably question the wisdom and effort on the part of the DA’s office to prosecute a case when it was clear that this woman was not only hurt, but very well unable to perform much if any of her duties.
Indeed, the case first was presented to the Sacramento County District Attorney, who declined to file what they called a minor matter.
“Sacramento County wouldn’t take it,” Linda Vela told the Vanguard. “They wouldn’t take the case – because it was minimal, it wasn’t a big enough case.”
But Yolo County was only too willing to take on this minimal case. We wanted to know why.
Further examination leads us to an unsettling answer: cash for convictions.
As the Vanguard has previously argued and demonstrated, the cutbacks in county budget has led to the increased reliance on grants for areas of prosecution, such as gang activity. But in order for the county to receive the grant money, they must show the need for the money.
Back in July of 2011, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones announced nearly $32 million in grants to District Attorneys across the state to assist them with the investigation and prosecution of workers’ compensation insurance fraud.
“Workers’ compensation insurance fraud is a costly problem in California,” said Commissioner Dave Jones in a press release. “As the economy struggles to recover, fraud of this type creates an additional strain on the system. We must protect those injured workers who need care and compensation so they can return to work in a timely manner and bring to justice those who seek to cheat the system.”
But this money is not automatic.
According to their press release, “The grant funding is the result of assessments on California employers that are determined annually by the Fraud Assessment Commission. Counties submit applications to the Department, which convenes the Workers’ Compensation Grant Review Panel who then reviews and makes grant funding recommendations based on multiple criteria including previous year performance.”
“The panel then forwards a recommendation to the Insurance Commissioner who either accepts or amends the panel’s recommendation. Once completed, the Commissioner’s recommendation is submitted to the Fraud Assessment Commission for their advice and consent.”
Yolo County got a worker’s comp grant almost immediately following the commencement of the investigation into Linda Vela. Most recently in 2011, Yolo County received a $245,960 grant from the state to prosecute worker’s comp fraud cases.
The grant provisions contain use-it or lose it incentives. The rules allow for the “carry-over” of funds into “a subsequent funding cycle [to] carry-over” into the next funding cycle. These “unused funds” cannot exceed “twenty-five percent (25%) of the total funding award.” To carry money over, the agency must “specify” and “justify” in a written plan to the commission “how those funds will be spent.”
In their annual reporting audit they must include an accounting of the number of investigations initiated related to disability insurance fraud, the number of arrests, prosecutions, convictions and the dollar savings realized as a result of disability insurance fraud case prosecutions.
In other words, the district attorney’s office needs to be able to show that it is making use of the funding with results – cash for convictions.
The district attorney’s office is not the only “bad guy” in this story, however. Their co-conspirators included the Sacramento Bee’s HR Department and doctors for worker’s comp and Liberty Mutual Insurance.
According to Alincia Vela, one of the big culprits in creating Ms. Vela’s injuries were budgetary cutbacks not only in the newsroom, but among support staff, beginning in the early part of the previous decade.
As advertising revenues declined, the Bee cut back their department from seven people down to three people. But even with those cuts, they expected the same production.
“They still expected the same kind of work quota to come through,” Alincia Vela told the Vanguard. “That’s exactly why my mom got hurt because they needed to make the same amount of money off less employees.”
Marta Wada, who worked as the health manager for the Sacramento Bee in the HR department, working with those who received worker’s comp, testified that from the start she believed that Ms. Vela was lying and embellishing her condition despite having little evidence at that point to go on.
Worse yet was the slew of doctors hired by the insurance company and worker’s compensation not to help get treatment for Ms. Vela, but rather to discredit her story, unbeknownst to her.
The worst of these insurance doctors was Dr. Charles Xeller who makes between $400,000 and $500,000 as an insurance compensation doctor. It turned out, as even the prosecutor admitted, that he had a long track record of malpractice suits – at least 15 of them.
He was charged with an act of domestic violence, and during cross-examination Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson showed him documentation that he had reached a $1 million settlement in a civil matter in which he was accused of domestic violence.
According to DPD Ron Johnson, Dr. Xeller was sanctioned for not filing reports on time. This is not a small factor, as he was paid off by the insurance companies while causing people to go without benefits.
During the trial he testified to a full examination he says he gave Ms. Vela. However, as Alincia Vela would testify, he was merely reading from another doctor’s report, and he simply walked in, grabbed Ms. Vela’s hand and pulled it back – when she screamed out in pain, he left and that was the extent of his investigation.
“[Dr. Xeller] came over to me, pulled my fingers back hard and I pulled away,” Ms. Vela told the Vanguard. “He said just a minute I’ll be right back – he never came back.”
Clearly, the video footage was most damning to the defense, showing Ms. Vela able to do the sorts of things that the prosecution and insurance doctors said that Ms. Vela claimed she could not do.
However, the critical link in that chain is the claims made by insurance doctors and other company examiners who, Ms. Vela and her family claim, falsified their statements.
According to Ms. Vela, Dr. Xeller took the report that Dr. Cipella, a previous Qualified Medical Evaluator, had written, “and just rearranged it.”
He testified that her grip strength was tested at a zero and zero.
“That would have been easily disputed as even Dr. Cipella had a rating,” she said trying to describe the device as a staple-gun type device where you pull the lever back, “so zero and zero is absolutely ridiculous.”
If you do not believe her that Dr. Xeller would fabricate his examination, remember this is a guy who was nailed multiple times in Texas for falsifying medical reports.
Ms. Vela gave the Vanguard a more accurate picture of her strength.
“I would say I’m probably a five on my right and a ten or fifteen on my left,” she said. In fact, once she said she was able to pull a twenty on her left.
“When you pull that back, it’s heavy first of all and when you’re squeezing it, it’s hitting the palm of your hand,” she added.
The medical examiners both reported and testified that Linda Vela said she had no use of her hands at all. She however, claims that is not quite how she described it to them.
“I can pretty much do anything but I can’t do it without pain,” she said. “Actually lifting something with weight, I’ve adapted to where I almost use my left hand just about for everything.”
Most of her household chores like cooking, washing the dishes and laundry are performed by her daughters.
“If I did them myself,” she said, “I have residuals and the residuals can cause me to have migraines and can last anywhere from one day to a week.”
Deputy DA Mount argued in his closing that she claimed that she could not use her hands at all. Ms. Vela argues that is an inaccurate claim.
In fact, Dr. Chan, the orthopedic surgeon who had performed the original surgery on Ms. Vela, testified to the fact that he had instructed Linda Vela to move her hands vigorously on every occasion possible to prevent her condition from worsening – a point that Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson raised in closing, as well.
Dr. Chan also testified that tests conducted back in 2004 showed that Ms. Vela still had bi-lateral carpel tunnel even after the original surgery.
“When I said I can’t, I meant I can’t do that without pain,” she told the Vanguard. “When I said I can’t, I thought it was a commonsense issue, because everybody has to use their hands no matter what – unless you don’t have hands at all.”
But of course, Ms. Vela probably thought the doctors that she was talking to were there to help her, not to be used as evidence of fraud.
Deputy DA Mount in his closing cited that Ms. Vela described her level of pain as a ten. Some of the examiners argued that a ten pain meant that the individual should rush into the hospital.
But proving fraud on such subjective terms can be problematic.
For Ms. Vela, her definitions of pain may have been different.
She told the Vanguard, “I used the number 10 because that’s how it felt to me, I was exhausted. But it would take a twenty before I would go to the hospital because I deal with the pain in the best way I can. I was overwhelmed.”
Deputy DA Steve Mount argued that Ms. Vela could have performed some work, but Ms. Vela disputes that.
“No, I wouldn’t have been able to work,” she told the Vanguard. “The moving of my fingers, the pain radiates up my arm into my neck.”
“What do you do without your hands, what kind of job can you do? Everything’s going to require that I use my hands,” Ms. Vela asked.
“If I could have gone back to work I would have,” she said. “That’s why I was so frantic, upset and crying and got depressed because this injury really scared me. I was afraid it was really serious and it is.”
Alincia Vela, who testified at the trial about the profound life changes that this has meant for their mother and their family, has no doubt that her mother is really hurting.
“It’s very real,” she said. “Guilty sentence aside, our lives haven’t changed just because they say you aren’t as hurt as you are and you’re guilty – we’re still living the exact same way as before the trial. Nothing’s changed; we still have to deal with her injury.”
For her the question about what is different about her mother since her injury is an “overwhelming question,” as the answer is “absolutely everything has changed.”
“When I say everything, I mean literally everything down to the most miniscule things that we do every day and every night that we take for granted,” Alincia Vela told the Vanguard. “I cannot even travel with my mom and stay in the hotel with her without waking up in the middle of the night because she screams in her sleep.”
“When she tries to help in the kitchen, she usually just messes up so I send her out, whether it’s cleaning or cooking,” she added.
“She’s really regressed as a person in both the mental and physical state,” Alincia Vela said.
Even small things become a chore.
“Going to the movies is different because I have to feed her popcorn,” she added and “she has to bring a pillow. Who brings a pillow to the movies?”
The pillow was a regular feature in the courtroom with Ms. Vela often seen resting her hands on it to the point where Deputy DA Mount noted in his closing arguments that there was never a mention of her pillow in any of the reports.
Ms. Vela says that the pillow became a necessity in 2008, and she keeps pillows in both cars and even takes one with her into church.
For Alincia Vela the prosecution was not about deception on the part of her mother but rather about the bottom line for the newspaper.
“This has always been about the money, it has never been about anything else,” the younger Ms. Vela said. “The company only cared about their bottom line.”
Linda Vela’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson, fought valiantly in trial, working hard to discredit the team of medical experts that the prosecution and insurance company utilized the grant money to fund and bring in.
In Mr. Johnson’s closing arguments, he attempted to minimize that damage by the experts, which he could not completely undo, arguing that there was no specific intent by his client to defraud the insurance company. Instead he cited the testimony of Dr. Michaels, who argued that she was histrionic rather than malingering.
By histrionic, he meant that for the most part she was truthful, but maybe overly-dramatic. This, he argued, was due to both the stress of her condition and the increasing mental toll it took on her.
Ron Johnson argued that no evidence was found to make a medical determination that she was malingering – only that there was video evidence, that he attempted to mitigate by showing portions where Ms. Vela was clearly guarding her hands and that the apparent inconsistencies only arose because they took Ms. Vela’s complaints out of context.
He pointed out that, instead of treating her obvious injuries and pain, the newspaper left the matter in the hands of the insurance company who would video her and attempt to catch her in a serious of lies. When they finally caught her in simple acts of filming a video camera or gardening, he called this a great “gotcha” moment for the insurance companies, but argued it is absurd to charge twelve felonies based off these types of statements.
In the end, Ron Johnson argued that, at most, this case should have remained a civil case of overpayment, rather than a criminal case of felony fraud.
But the jury apparently disagreed with his impassioned pleas for mercy and common sense.
While Linda Vela recognizes that the chance of her actually serving time for these 12 felony convictions is small, she is not hopeful about the future or her future prospects.
“I don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel – all I saw was a life of pain,” she told the Vanguard. “I’m in pain 24 hours a day. I wake up in pain constantly. It wakes me up in the morning, the pain is so bad.”
“I shake a lot. My hands are curled because that’s the way they least hurt. If I open my hands, they don’t open all the way now flat, they used to but they don’t anymore,” she said.
She added, “I need surgery on my left wrist which they denied me because my right one didn’t work, so I’d like to have surgery on my left plus to have re-surgery on my right. The reason I asked for the surgery on my left was because at least I would have one good hand instead of two bad hands.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“At some point, one must reasonably question the wisdom and effort on the part of the DA’s office to prosecute a case when it was clear that this woman was not only hurt, but very well unable to perform much if any of her duties.”
This sentence was a surprise to read when I got to it since it’s contradicted by everything you wrote before it about the evidence presented at trial.
Up until that point, I had presented the DA’s case. That was really the transition into the rest of the story which called that case into question.
Okay, I see what you mean about it not being a summary, but a transition and introduction to the other side of the story. I just misread it, maybe ’cause I’ve because I’ve become so cautious about this kind of story.
“Ms. Vela gave the Vanguard a more accurate picture of her strength. ‘I would say I’m probably a five on my right and a ten or fifteen on my left,’ she said. In fact, once she said she was able to pull a twenty on her left….She told the Vanguard, ‘i used the number 10 because that’s how it felt to me, I was exhausted. But it would take a twenty before I would go to the hospital because I deal with the pain in the best way I can. I was overwhelmed’.”
There’s a problem claiming the stories told to the Vanguard at a restaurant are the REAL truth as opposed to the evidence presented to the jury during the trial. While your report suggests Ms. Vela is a troubled woman, her account of her experience varys so much from even your reporting of what came out at trial it’s difficult to give it any weight.
Just her rationale for using 10–on a scale of 1 to 10–suggests she’s struggling at Denny’s to justify her fraudulent behavior. If her “different” scale today would have her at a 10 on a 20-scale, she would have presented as a 5 at the doctors’ offices. If this was the only exaggeration she’d made, it would have been discarded as a misunderstanding. But, it’s clearly what her employeer, law enforcement and the jury saw as just a tiny part of her pattern of purposeful lying aimed at defrauding our system for helping needy workers.
So, let’s say you’re off-base in making the case that the jury got it wrong, that rehashing the case at Denny’s provided nothing significant that wasn’t overwhelmingly disproved or discounted during her trial. What, then, is the point?
Are you suggesting that this case should not have be investigated? Or that once Ms. Vela’s repeated law-breaking became obvious to authorities, they should not have filed charges? Or that they should have filed only half as many counts as the could prove? Or that this case wouldn’t have been pursued at all if not for the state’s special emphasis on insurance fraud? Or that the district attorney is not interested in justice?
I see all these threads running through your narrative. Yet none amounts to a convincing point, partly because there’s so little support offered and mostly because the open-and-shut case against Ms. Vela isn’t a good illustration for any criticism except, possibly, a contention that it would have been better all around to resolve this case with a plea agreement rather than a trial.
I think you over charged this case. Post-trial interviews with the convicted, however sympathetic they might seem, and defense attorneys, however trustworthy and open they might be, are tough to use to prove either unfair convictions or a corrupt system. It takes more. It takes evidence, not just innuendo and suggestions of coincidence, to be convincing.
Insurance companies and businesses love people like Dr. Xeller, because they say what they want him to for a price $$$$. I worked for an insurance company and saw things I did not like, so I left. Sounds like Realtruth does not want to hear the real truth. David, the fact that you take time from your day to investigate the “real truth” instead of believing the ca$h for conviction$ that the DA sells the public says a lot about you. Thank you for reporting on this. It’s refreshing to not be spoonfed press releases from the DA’s office reported in papers. This should be looked into by the Insurance Commissioner. I have seen this happen so many times to people. There needs to a way to track doctors like him from state to state so they cannot just pack up and practice in another state where he/she cannot be tracked for some time.
Correction: My post should read that Justsaying does not want to hear the real truth.
[quote]“No, I wouldn’t have been able to work,” she told the Vanguard. “The moving of my fingers, the pain radiates up my arm into my neck.”
“What do you do without your hands, what kind of job can you do? Everything’s going to require that I use my hands,” Ms. Vela asked.[/quote]
Ms. Vela never gave her employer the opportunity to make reasonable accommodations. She merely decided on her own that it would not be possible. The fact of the matter is there are software programs out there that can type for you. There might have been other work the employer could have given her. She had a duty here to work with the employer and see if there was some way it could accommodate her disability.
Secondly, if Ms. Vela was in so much pain as she claims, then how was she able to do gardening? I’m sure that was what the jury saw as well. By gardening, Ms. Vela undermined her own credibility…
@E Roberts Musser: It wasn’t that simple. You are oversimplifying the conditions at the time when she was injured. If the higher ups were so worried and concerned to help this woman they shouldn’t have made the work they were giving her the ability to give her an injury like this in the first place. They were never concerned with her or their employee’s. It was the bottom line they were concerned about, what they were ever concerned about, cut back-more money-less workers-same amount of work. You can’t do that to people, we Can’t let companies do that to people. And yet so many want to let it slide and let hard workers fall for it and call them liars and discredit them just because we perhaps find it easier to blame the victim.
Another thing Marta Wada (sp?) claimed to have done a lot for other disabled workers, but had nothing to say when it came to being asked what she even Attempted to do for Linda.
And the gardening? Ha! If you can call what she did gardening, she scooped some potting Soil into a pot, if one knows Anything, they know that potting soil is not Dirt. Dirt is heavy, potting soil is extremely light. She wasn’t doing it for hours, she didn’t do it every day, she was doing what she could. And she did it at the time because her doctors told her to use her hands (vigorously, I might add, and that’s their word, not mine) and try to do some things normally or else be doomed to lose the use of her hands because of her injury. Gardening. Really? A woman who can use her hands but not without horrible pain, should become a felon, and even before that have her family put through hell for nearly 10 years? Why? So the DA can have his grant for going after disabled people and Maybe come up with a Guilty if they’re lucky?
Sickening.
@Just saying: And just because you’re jaded to ‘stories like this’, doesn’t mean everyone like Linda Vela is a fraud.
[quote]And the rolls have been growing steadily for decades, since the government changed eligibility standards for the program in the early 1980s. Since then, the number of people receiving [disability]benefits has tripled.
Today there are only about 16 active workers for every person collecting disability, compared to more than twice that 20 years ago.[/quote]
In some states, the number of workers claiming disability hs grown as high as 16% of the entire state workforce.
To Loki loves mischief: Ms. Vela had a responsibility as an employee to try and come to a reasonable accommodation. That is the law. It appears she did not even try. I might be more sympathetic to your view if Ms. Vela has made some attempt at trying to work with her employee to find a reasonable accommodation for her alleged disability. Instead we see an employee who claims to be in so much pain she cannot lift a finger to work, yet somehow can lift a finger to garden and film her daughter’s performance. Such activity undermines any credibility this woman had that she cannot work…
Anne, I’m sure employees bent on defrauding also like certain doctors. With your experience, you must know how the word gets around about which ones will come up with the “right” diagnosis for the price of a few appointments and series of treatments. You and Loki suggest–and David tries to reinforce the concept–that this flat out is The Powers That Be unfairly treating The Little Guy.
I acknowledge that sometimes that judgment is warranted. From what the Vanguard reports, that is not the case here. Once we can accept that Ms. Vega is not an innocent victim, the rest of the implied sins of the DA (bad motives for prosecuting, etc.) kind of start dissolving.
On the other hand, if we insist she’s innocent in spite of overwhelming evidence–beyond reasonable doubt to the jury evidence–one ends up speculating on what terrible things OTHER people must have done in order to unfairly get Ms.Vela convicted.
Since one can’t give too much credibility to what she says at this point, and everything she says already is contradicted by what was proven in court, what can we really make of defense arguments now?
I think we’d agree there’s a war going on out there, government and businesses on one side and insurance cheaters on the other. Did the powers get this one wrong–is Ms. Vega innocent? Should her crimes have been excused by authorities and the companies that were defrauded?
E Roberts: Did you even [i]Read[/i] my post? I almost feel no need to respond to your response which is nothing but a re-post of your first post, as mine would simply be a re-post of my response.
She did not get hurt and say “DONE. I can’t work!” It took her a long time to come to the realization that she wasn’t going to get better, you know. And one who hasn’t been through an injury like this can even Fathom what that feels like. Imagine coming to the realization that you are Never going to get better, that this pain is going to be with you to the day you die. Like I said, you’re oversimplifying. And the people Responsible for accommodating her, did Nothing to even Attempt to accommodate. And even if they Did, there is no accommodating an injury like hers. Her injury is NOT just physical. It has taken a toll on her mental state as well. Her comprehension has fallen significantly. She stutters, she forgets things easily and repeats herself. She can’t articulate herself very well, think of words or get a point across clearly on a regular basis. A lot of this is due to not only her injury but the different number of medications she’s forced to be on.
IS COMMON SENSE DEAD?
Who would [b]Do [/b]this to themselves just to cheat the system? Who would end up in a 5150 and be a liar? And NO one said she cannot “Lift a finger”. And that statement alone makes me wonder if you read the article at all or comprehended it.
From David’s account, it sounds like the “disability” and the “pain” may well have been psychological, not physical… [quote]All of this changed in 2003 as she began to break down. One of her colleagues described hearing her cry out loud as she forced herself to keep working to make deadlines and achieve bonuses for her work group.
According to the Yolo County District Attorney, Ms. Vela went out on disability and was diagnosed with bi-lateral carpal tunnel syndrome. She had surgery on her right wrist in June of 2004, which by all objective signs was successful.[/quote]The carpel tunnel situation may or may not be related to the employment. Psychological illness/pain is quite real. The question is, did the employer/job cause that which would be appropriate for compensation?
In any event, these should not have been treated as felonies. Not sure if she should be entitled to worker’s comp… not enough facts in evidence for me to have an opinion on that.
@JustSaying: That’s exactly what I’m saying. The conviction [i]is [/i]wrong, it [i]is [/i]the Big company stepping on the little guy. As cliche and silly as that might sound to someone like you, it’s the truth. And the only people who know the truth, unfortunately, are the only ones paying for it. Mrs. VELA (correct spelling, by the way), her husband, her older and younger daughter. But you’re right in the sense that, what can we do now? Her daughters are going to take care of her, both physically and mentally, as they always have, help her pay back the (insanely unfair) restitution’s by working longer hours for however many years it takes, and then make sure their disabled mother is taken care of after they leave the house. Because no matter what anyone “decides” for Mrs. Vela, she Is badly injured, she Is disabled and needs help with things we take for granted in using our hands in day-to-day activities down to feeding ourselves.
Where the hell is the husband in providing for the family? If it was my spouse who became disabled to work, and I had a family to support, I’d take a second job (yeah, know that’s tougher right now). Perhaps SSI would be more appropriate than workers’ comp. Loki seems…[quote][quote][/quote]Big company stepping on the little guy. As cliche and silly as that might sound to someone like you, it’s the truth. And the only people who know the truth, unfortunately, are the only ones paying for it.[/quote]implies that if anything goes wrong in your life, find the big pockets… they are obviously the evil-do-ers…
@hpierce: Her husband, a Vietnam veteran, worked at the state until he was injured on the job as well and was medically retired.
I don’t imply anything of the sort, and I am not implying anything. I am speaking in this case alone, if that’s what I had meant to say I would have said it.
[quote]“Linda Vela’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson, fought valiantly in trial, working hard to discredit the team of medical experts that the prosecution and insurance company utilized the grant money to fund and bring in….In the end, Ron Johnson argued that, at most, this case should have remained a civil case of overpayment, rather than a criminal case of felony fraud. But the jury apparently disagreed with his impassioned pleas for mercy and common sense.”[/quote]No doubt PD Johnson did his best during the trial with what he had. He’s obviously giving the jury the option that Ms. Vela is guilty, but turning it on its head by accusing the insurance company of the “crime” of “overpayment.” The jury no doubt found that somewhat humorous rather than “common sense.”
What efforts did Mr. Johnson make to get the DA to plea-bargain a case so obviously on its way to a guilty verdict?
It’s not the jury’s job to agree “with his impassioned pleas for mercy.” It’s difficult enough to agree with the “guilty or not guilty” finding. But, they did: guilty as charged on 12 counts of fraud. The judge probably will show mercy in sentencing, given her age, emotional and physical condition, the fact that many of the counts were connected to a larger series of fraud crimes, etc.
I’m confused about who you’re saying is testifying as an “expert” and who is giving direct testimony as to Ms. Vela’s actions, and what the source of the investigation costs has to do with anything (although I get the hint.)
This story provides absolutely no basis for a headline that: “[b]Cash for Convictions Motivation Underlies Clearly Insurance-Driven Criminal Investigation[/b].” Maybe you meant an “insurance-[u]fraud[/u]-driven criminal investigation”? You didn’t provide any detail on the attempted perjury counts. Care to clarify how they might relate to the fraud charges?
In any case, the fact that state funding helped pay county costs in this case neither suggests or proves a “cash for convictions motivation” was involved. It’s just sloganeering blather until you uncover something that even starts to support the truth of your charge.
I forgot to say, great article, David. It’s highly appreciated. It’s nice to see that this innocent woman is not getting overlooked and discarded by society completely. That there are intelligent people like David on the case and not just standing back and being silent, that he’s making a statement and letting it be known what’s really going on here. I salute and applaud you, sir.
Loki, you appear to have much more information about this case than David does or than the defense used during Ms. Vela’s trial. It would be a shame if what you’re pointing out didn’t get considered at the trial. I know only what David has reported and could be wrong.
But, the jury considered everything available to them and don’t seem to have any doubt if they convicted two counts of attempted perjury, three counts of presenting false statements about insurance policy payments and seven counts of Worker Comp. fraud. If they were on the fence about her intent to defraud the insurance programs, they might have gone just with the perjury counts or fewer fraud counts.
The fact that bad choices–yes criminal choices in Ms. Vela’s case–bring pain, dishonor and unfair obligations to family members is one of those sad facts of life. However, it’s wrong to blame the family misfortune as victims on those who investigated and prosecuted.
Remember, the “system” is trying to keep the rest of us from being victimized by fraud and the higher insurance costs that follow the crimes. The motivation to investigate and prosecute insurance fraud isn’t the thousands in state funds to supplement the county, as David claims, but it is the millions or billions that these cases cost all of us.
@Justsaying: Because despite the trial being 9 days long, there’s nearly 10 years of this woman’s life, 9 days is and was not enough to expertly convey these 10 years. A lot was not said, a lot could not be said, it’s as though no one can seem to understand what this woman has and is going through. And that’s sad. Everyone just wants to point the finger without knowing the whole truth. It would take all of 2 days, a weekend, spend it with Mrs. Vela and know her, know and see her pain, and call her a liar. That’s all the defense she needs. She is not a criminal, though she is now labeled one. The jury was wrong, it’s the unfortunate truth of the matter, they are human, humans can make mistakes, they made a horrible mistake. Just because they are Jury doesn’t mean they are all free of making mistakes as we all are. The only mistake Mrs. Vela made was having faith in the justice system, having faith that the Bee, whom she had worked for for 25 years as a strong and loyal employee. She paid for her parking for MONTHS even after she was injured, determined to go back to work, but unfortunately for her, she couldn’t. Not with that pain. Hell, even when she got into a car accident (not her fault, she was hit, kit was foggy and someone ran a red light) and obtained a long term injury to her shoulder while protecting her (at the time) young daughter, she went back to work with arm pads connected to her chair to accommodate her injury. So she wasn’t scared of working with an injury. This, this was something she could not get over.
I know the system doesn’t always fail, it failed this time, it gets the bad guys sometimes, sometimes it doesn’t, as seen by people being released after years of jail time only to be found innocent by DNA revelations. Though found guilty by a jury. Unfortunately for such a subjective injury, it’s not that easy in this case, if it could proven with DNA, what she is feeling EXACTLY, then this never would have happened in the first place.
[i]”Remember, the “system” is trying to keep the rest of us from being victimized by fraud and the higher insurance costs that follow the crimes. The motivation to investigate and prosecute insurance fraud isn’t the thousands in state funds to supplement the county, as David claims, but it is the millions or billions that these cases cost all of us.”[/i]
Exactly. Not only this, but protecting people with REAL disabilities from being marginalized by so many awards from dubious and false claims. For example, it is pretty typical for HR protocol to include fighting all workers comp claims to the full extent of the law.
There is a general lack of morals for workers willing to “stick it to the man”. The main catalyst for this behavior is an “us against them” mindset fomented by the left’s continued class warfare rhetoric. Those that are experiencing real disabilities then have a much higher standard of proof to overcome.
However, most of my blame is for the medical profession, the state EDD department and labor plaintiff attorneys that all fail to correctly or adequately assess and counsel people like Ms. Vela. This case never should have ended up in the courts.
[quote]Like I said, you’re oversimplifying. And the people Responsible for accommodating her, did Nothing to even Attempt to accommodate. And even if they Did, there is no accommodating an injury like hers. Her injury is NOT just physical. It has taken a toll on her mental state as well. Her comprehension has fallen significantly. She stutters, she forgets things easily and repeats herself. She can’t articulate herself very well, think of words or get a point across clearly on a regular basis. A lot of this is due to not only her injury but the different number of medications she’s forced to be on. [/quote]
Did Ms. Vela approach her employer, and tell them she was in pain and could not use her hand, and ask that she be given a job that did not involve typing or make some kind of accommodation so she didn’t have to type? There is computer software out there that will do typing from voice command (e.g. Dragon Naturally Speaking). This woman is still capable of speaking, no? If she is having a mental breakdown, when did the breakdown occur – at the time of the disability, or after she was charged with a crime?
If Ms. Vela was unable to work bc of her disability, she should have applied for disability payments – either through her employer or the government. What I am trying to point out to you is that it does not appear from the fact pattern given in this article that Ms. Vela did any of these things. It is possible she did not know exactly what she should have done, but then she had a duty to find out what her options were.
I actually am very sympathetic to the disabled. I used to run a support group for those with severe disabilities. I am also an attorney well versed in disability law, particularly as it relates to employment law. There are very definite rights for the disabled in the work place; but the disabled must exercise those rights appropriately. It is imperative that they do so, bc cheats of the system do all the disabled a huge disservice.
@Jeff Boone: Yes, it’s as though Mrs. Vela went into the trial being already guilty and then having to fight tooth and nail to prove her innocence. It’s supposed to be the other way around. In the end, someone with a real disability was smeared and forced to ‘face the music’ with the people who put her here.
They were effectively calling her lazy. Mrs. Vela enjoyed her job and her health, she would take the injury away in a second and get back to work. The life she had before her injury was good and full of life and happiness, like any other hard working citizen out there. Bike riding with her children, sewing costumes for her children, swimming, gardening, horse back riding (bareback when she was young, having grown up on a farm), summer vacations with her family like camping at the beach in Malibu or in Yosemite and Disneyland, teaching her daughters how to use the computer or how to type. Making her and her families favorite meals. And so, so much more. So much of that has been cut away from her life, who would Ask for that? Who could give so much of that up just to cheat the system? I’ve said it before and will say it again, it’s very sad.
Just Saying, part of the problem getting back to your original post is that I question whether this should have been a criminal matter to begin with. If it is a matter as the da argued not that she didn’t deserve some disability but that she didn’t deserve all that she got, why not treat it as an overpayment and handle it civilly? That’s what would have happened Sac. So that is where I am coming from here. This woman is obviously very sick, why charge her with 12 felonies to begin with?
” but the disabled must exercise those rights appropriately”
Which sounds good when you have someone in the position to know how to do that. But she got caught in the web of the insurance companies trying to play gotcha and she’s wondering why she’s in pain and no one is trying to help her. This whole thing was manipulated by the insurance companies.
[quote]“I know the system doesn’t always fail, it failed this time, it gets the bad guys sometimes, sometimes it doesn’t….I’ve said it before and will say it again, it’s very sad.”[/quote]It’s surely very sad whether the jury was right or not. It really would be reassuring if only bad people committed crimes. Sometimes good people do bad things, as they say, and that is what might have happened here.
The judge will be taking into account many of the things you point out. But the guilt phase cannot depend on what we could find out about the accused by spending a weekend with her. In fact, trials partly are designed so we don’t convict people based on what they look like, how they talk or how they otherwise are bad or good people. It’s difficult to be very critical of the jury’s decision based on what we have available to read here.
Even David’s reporting doesn’t claim Ms. Vela is innocent, although it minimizes the seriousness of what she was found guilty of doing. David gets so caught up trying to convict the District Attorney’s office of crimes, ethics violations and bad motives, it’s difficult to really examine the cases he uses to illustrate his views about the laws, law enforcement and the judicial system.
Set aside the ethical issues of being offered an interview, and publishing it, with an ill woman so apparently in crisis, what can be gained by his report to enlighten us about guilt or innocence at her own trial? It’s interesting to know her better as a person and get her viewpoints about why she did what she did, even she really doesn’t see that anything she did was illegal.
It’s also really of no value to his on-going campaign against the District Attorney’s office or state crime programs. Elaine (Musser) is much more equipped to explain why it’s important to enforce disability fraud laws and how violations hurt the disabled as well as everyone else who has to pay the bills for fraud that gets carried out by individuals, doctors, insurance companies or anyone else.
“What efforts did Mr. Johnson make to get the DA to plea-bargain a case so obviously on its way to a guilty verdict? “
People always ask this question, if they knew what some of the offers are most of the time when cases like this don’t settle, you’d know why they didn’t take them. In this case, the penalty for being convicted of all charges is probably not much different from taking a plea and if you think you have done nothing wrong, then why take it?
Remember, the crimes here require that she have the specific intent to commit fraud, not just that she embellished her injuries.
My take is that she probably did embellish her injuries at times, but I also believe that she thought she was seeing doctors who were there to treat her not acting as claims adjusters.
“what can be gained by his report to enlighten us about guilt or innocence at her own trial?”
The purpose of this story wasn’t to explore the guilt or innocence at trial. The purpose of the Judicial Watch is to explore and critique problems in our judicial system. In this case, the problems came long before Ms. Vela ever stood trial.
The problem was the way the insurance company chose to handle this matter and the fact that the DA instead allowing a civil settlement tried to charge this as a criminal matter. Why would they do that? One reason might be because they are getting grants and have to show the continued need for insurance fraud money.
“The judge will be taking into account many of the things you point out. But the guilt phase cannot depend on what we could find out about the accused by spending a weekend with her. “
One of the problems in the current system is judges do not have a lot of leeway much of the time to sort these things out.
Second, I never once questioned the jury’s findings here, what I questioned was the decision to make this a criminal matter. You may not agree with me or think it’s a valid point, but that’s what I spent my time doing in this case – and it was a lot of time on my part.
Here’s the question I want answered.
Why did Yolo County do this case in the first place? If she worked for the Sac Bee than this was a Sacramento case. I realize that the Sacramento DA thought this case was not worth taking to court. So why are the Yolo County tax payers paying for this court trial?
Is this just so the DA can tally up convictions for a grant like David has suggested?
Can someone explain why Yolo County is paying for this trial?
@Justsaying: There is no “might” it didn’t happen because she is innocent so she is simply a good person who has had terrible things happen to her. I know the truth, and as an enlightened person, I can say that. And yet you, who know nothing about her, and only as to what you have read in this article, seem to think she is guilty. And I don’t know why it’s so difficult for you to see it any other way. Your opinion or anyone else doesn’t really matter. The truth is the truth and no one’s opinion can change that.
They’re effectively taking money away from an innocent person when a real fraud out there is actually cheating the system and getting away with it. Unless she was camped out in her house for forever, living in a dark hole somewhere doing nothing, she’s guilty of fraud. The fact that this was taken to trial at all is grotesque. I’m all for the real frauds being taken down. But this was not the case, at all. David is angry, I’m angry, everyone should be angry because In fact, it’s scary. If this could happen to Mrs. Vela, this could happen to anyone.
If David is going after the DA for doing this to more people other than Mrs. Vela? Then he is fighting the good fight. They shouldn’t get away with doing this to people and people shouldn’t just accept it either just because ‘they say so’, whomever that may be.
[quote]“In this case, the penalty for being convicted of all charges is probably not much different from taking a plea and if you think you have done nothing wrong, then why take it? “[/quote]This, of course, cannot ever be known. The question is what’s the best the attorney can do for the client? I’d expect the attorney to disabuse a client who claims “I’ve done nothing wrong,” assuming such overwhelming evidence that she broke the law.
Lying and presenting false statements aren’t “embellishment.” Innocence of fraud because she didn’t have “specific intent” was a rough contention given all of the proof of lying and the benefits she received as a result. It seems the defense would have realized this ahead of the trial and taken a less humiliating route, given the obviously skimpy odds of “not guilty” on all counts.
The defense took a risk if it refused any deals…and lost. That’s their right; I’d guess you wouldn’t criticize them for wasting our money for going to trial the way you do the DA.
There is not doubt that this is a criminal matter. Crimes were committed. There is no use making the contention that there were no crimes committed. Maybe, save that concept for “not guilty” findings.
[quote]“One reason might be because they are getting grants and have to show the continued need for insurance fraud money.”[/quote]“Might be…might be…might be….” It might be that the DA hates his mother and takes it out on motherly looking women. It might be that he had back pain the day he filed these charges. It might be that he’s trying to look good to run for governor. It might be that he’s just an all around ass—-.
That’s my whole problem with all of these stories, using specific trials that have little to do with your issue(s), assuming all kinds of hints of malfeasance and corruption without the slightest effort to show any evidence of the charges.
Just throw it out there: “Cash for Convictions Motivation Underlies Clearly Insurance-Driven Criminal Investigation” along with all the other unfounded charges and hope something sticks.
You’d be offended if the DA handled his oversight responsibilities the way you do too many times with Judicial Watch. Innocent until innuendo-ed guilty with no evidence? No thanks.
[quote]“Why did Yolo County do this case in the first place? If she worked for the Sac Bee than this was a Sacramento case. I realize that the Sacramento DA thought this case was not worth taking to court.”[/quote]An excellent question. What’s the answer, David, and the source?
This is the problem JustSaying:
You say: ” Innocence of fraud because she didn’t have “specific intent” was a rough contention given all of the proof of lying and the benefits she received as a result.”
What evidence do you consider proof of lying? The fact that insurance doctors several of which were shown to have lied themselves about the extent of their examination of Vela, claiming that she made certain claims that were then conveniently rebutted in a few videos taken over a several year period of time.
It’s a thin area when the DA himself argued “we’re not saying she wasn’t hurt” and “we’re not saying she wasn’t entitled to some disability.”
So now your black and white “proof” she was lying devolves into a gray area that is further muddled when it becomes clear that Vela herself was suffering very severe depression and other disorders. So now the idea that you scoff at “specific intent” becomes the hinging point.
“There is not doubt that this is a criminal matter. Crimes were committed.”
Crimes were only committed if Vela consciously tried to defraud the insurance company and worker’s comp. But more importantly, since we are really operating in the gray area of how much, the better solution would have been for the DA’s office to follow the lead of Sacramento and let the civil authorities make the determination of the proper payments to Vela.
“What’s the answer, David, and the source?”
It was never addressed in the trial.
From a purely medical/pathological diagnosis; can anyone definitely explain what is the cause of Ms. Vela’s physiological discomfort and attendant disability?
I think the larger issue here that is being brought up is why would Sacramento County deem this case as insignificant and not worth prosecuting as opposed to Yolo County who charged 12 felony counts? I am not saying to what degree this woman is innocent or guilty, but clearly 12 felony counts is over the top–like so many of the cases that go to trial in Yolo County. The connection to the funding attendant to the number of charges in related prosecutions cannot be ignored. I believe that is what David is trying to bring to light, and it is worthy of illumination and discussion. Thank you, David.
Someone please advance a counter argument to David’s theory as to Yolo County’s motivation to prosecute a case that Sacramento County had previously declined to prosecute?
I heard a social security worker call into a radio show today and say that four out of five days a week are spent on certifying disabled claims instead as most would think on the elderly.
Cash for Convictions is a pretty scary idea. The DA’s in Yolo County use this on a very big scale. That is why you see small crimes like this with so many counts stacked up. Juries think there must be something to the charges when there are so many of them. Here is the other scary part of the story. Private companies are offering to manage prisons for states, as long as states can guarantee a minimum occupancy rate of 90%.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/14/private-prison-company-offers-to-buy-48-states-prisons/
“I heard a social security worker call into a radio show today and say that four out of five days a week are spent on certifying disabled claims instead as most would think on the elderly. “
SSI disability claims are very difficult to get. They take months or years, and require a lot of documentation. In contrast, claims by people 65 and older require only proof of age. So, duh.
BTW, Randy, how do you know that this caller was really a SS worker? Evidence? Do you believe everything you hear on talk radio?
rusty49 (Randy?) was probably listening to conservative talk radio with is usually factual and accurate.
In any case, here is a report on SSI disability claims processing by the GAO: [url]http://www.gao.gov/products/HRD-94-11[/url]
Looks like in addition to increases in the number of claims for workers claiming disability, the explanation is typical sucky government agency performance.
[quote] GAO found that: (1) between 1990 and 1992, claims backlogs and processing times for Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits increased nearly 50 percent; (2) SSA and DDS have not been able to keep up with the increase in benefit claims; (3) DDS tend to have the poorest processing performance in the more populous states; (4) problems resulting from increased workloads include increased workforce stress and use of overtime, employees not performing their normal duties, a decline in workforce morale, an increase in claims being set aside, and a decline in automated systems support; (5) SSA has initiated short-term initiatives to keep up with claims processing that include funding additional DDS overtime, reallocating resources from continuing disability reviews (CDR) to initial claim processing, and reducing the number of pending claims; (6) SSA has estimated that discontinuing CDR will cost at least $1.4 billion because ineligible individuals will continue to receive benefits; (7) although SSA has developed numerous short- and long-term initiatives, the effectiveness of these initiatives could not be determined; and (8) the Secretary of Health and Human Services needs to develop a plan to reduce benefit claims backlogs and resume mandated CDR.[/quote]
[quote][u]David[/u]: “At some point, one must reasonably question the wisdom and effort on the part of the DA’s office to prosecute….Indeed, the case first was presented to the Sacramento County District Attorney, who declined to file what they called a minor matter.”
[u]FAI[/u]:: “Why did Yolo County do this case in the first place? If she worked for the Sac Bee than this was a Sacramento case. I realize that the Sacramento DA thought this case was not worth taking to court.”
[u]JS[/u]: “An excellent question. What’s the answer, David, and the source?”
[u]David[/u]: “It was never addressed in the trial.”[/quote] What kind of answer is that for something you reported as a fact, actually quoting the Sacramento DA as saying it was “a minor matter”? Does it not give you some pause to print this kind of specific claim without attribution? Just because if fit into your attack narrative?
I’m trying to decide if your answer means you just made it up from something Ms. Vela’s daughter said. Or you got it from some source you’re trying to hide and just got Ms. Vela’s daughter to give you her take on it (not a big deal).
You make a big deal out of it without even confirming it or finding out what justification they might have had–jurisdiction issues, to early in the investigation, not view as serious crimes in Sacramento, etc. And all you’ve got to say is, “it was never addressed at the trial.”
How are your readers supposed to decide what you’ve made up, what you’ve thought was true but didn’t check, what probably is accurate or at least credible because you’ve given it some level of fact-checking and source confirmation?
It’s almost getting like reading a fiction short story in “Judicial Watch.” This stuff should be questioned before it’s written, surely before it’s published, definitely before Fight Against Injustice and the rest of us readers question you on the facts after we assume you can confirm the accuracy of what we read here.
[quote]“Someone please advance a counter argument to David’s theory as to Yolo County’s motivation to prosecute a case that Sacramento County had previously declined to prosecute? “[/quote]Logos, let’s await whether David even knows that Sacramento County declined to prosecute. I guess that doesn’t keep him from having a theory about Yolo County’s DA though. Some of us have tried to provide a counter to David’s theories of malevolent prosecution on the part of Yolo County. But, we cannot speak for the other half of your proposition, that Sacramento County had reasons to decline prosecution if they did.
[quote]“…(4) problems resulting from increased workloads include increased workforce stress and use of overtime, employees not performing their normal duties, a decline in workforce morale, an increase in claims being set aside, and a decline in automated systems support;…”[/quote]Looks as though SSI employees will be (are?) lining up to fill out their own claims.
Just Saying:
The question as I understood it was why the Yolo DA filed a Sacramento case, I don’t know the answer to that, only that Sacramento County declined to file.
“The question as I understood it was why the Yolo DA filed a Sacramento case, I don’t know the answer to that, only that Sacramento County declined to file.”
Why are you dancing around this? Where did you find out that, “…Indeed, the case first was presented to the Sacramento County District Attorney, who declined to file what they called a minor matter”? Since you are quoting the Sacramento County DA (“a minor matter”), did you hear this yourself? If someone else told you this was true, are they reliable witnesses and did you confirm it with the DA’s office in any way?
You say that this is a Sacramento County case, why? It must also be a Yolo County case, so what’s your point? Making an issue out of the fact(?) that Yolo County apparently decided to investigate, then prosecute a case that Sacramento County found unworthy to pursue is a big deal. You can see how your readers picked it up, naturally assuming you knew what you were talking about. It’s only right that you try to be more forthcoming about where you came up with this part of your report. Please try a little.
I believe I was first told that two years ago by Ron Johnson, the public defender on this case and it may have also come up at the preliminary hearing in early 2010.
It was a Sacramento County case first because she worked in Sacramento County, the worker’s comp and insurance companies were based in Sacramento County. To me their decision not to try the case illustrates how ridiculous it was for Yolo County to then prosecute it.
David if Sacramento County declined to prosecute where the alleged crime happened how was Yolo County able to prosecute? Where did their jurisdiction come into play?
[quote]“To me their decision not to try the case illustrates how ridiculous it was for Yolo County to then prosecute it.”[/quote]Of course, it’s so patently obvious what you were trying to “illustrate.” I’d just like you to be able to trust what what you claim to be true like “(the Sacramento DA) declined to file what they called a minor matter.” It’s the kind of detail that jumps out, particularly when you don’t attribute it to anyone, because it suggests it’s gossip and maybe unfounded.
It gives readers no way to weigh the likelihood it’s true, not just some made-up excuse from the prosecution. Given the reason you published the claim, it’s odd PD Johnson didn’t use it at trial. It seems at least as good as many of the other arguments he included. And, you couldn’t have confirmed with him what you think you remember from two years ago and quoted him?
And you truly have no clue how Yolo County claimed jurisdiction? (That’s the question, of course, not whether another county also could have considered prosecution years earlier.) Where did she live, for example? Where did she collect the fraudulent payments?
There must be something that’s obvious to people who followed this case. Except for those who try to be “ridiculous,” DAs don’t go around the state taking on cases over which they have no jurisdiction. Again, one would think PD Johnson would have protested.
Eyeswideopen: Ms Vela lives in West Sacramento, so they could probably do so on a theory that some fraud was carried out in Yolo County, first instance the video was shot at her home and also at Davis Picnic day.
“And you truly have no clue how Yolo County claimed jurisdiction?”
You didn’t ask that question previously-I thought you were asking why they took the case not whether they had jurisdiction. As I explained above she lives in West Sacramento, so they could claim jurisdiction there. Jurisdiction was not challenged as far as I know in court, what is questioned is why Sacramento found this to be a minor issue not worthy of prosecution and Yolo County jumped in with 12 felonies in typical fashion stacking charges for each doctor visit.
To DMG: But did Ms. Vela even try to work things out with her employer? From your fact pattern, it does not appear she did…
I don’t know what you mean by work things out. She attempted to come back to work following her initial surgery but left work again after two days. Other than that, it is difficult to know exactly what was communicated to or from her. There is a good deal of discrepancy between what the medical doctors in charge of her treatment testified about her condition and ability to work and what the insurance doctors that were brought in ostensibly to assess whether she could work and what appears to be the real reason they were hired – prove that she was not as sick as she claimed to be. At some point it was more than just the physical ailment preventing her from working.
Elaine: You don’t send someone to a Dr. Xeller if you are trying to work things out. The DA had explain away the conduct of at least two of the medical examiners. One he said you wouldn’t want your daughter to marry him. That’s the kind of people that the Bee were sending Ms. Vela to see.
As to her guilt or innocence, I’ll take the jury of her peers verdict. In my view, juries tend to by sympathetic to the injured person on cases like this, and fraud is usually very difficult to prove.
As to whether the Yolo DA over-charged or over-prosecuted the case, and given the overcrowding of prisons, I could see David’s argument. On the other hand, I think there is a general perception that the disability system is gamed quite often by individuals taking advantage of an opportunity, and the DA may have decided that taking a stand against it in this way might prove to be a deterrent to others.
Geez, that was like pulling teeth. So, this whole “cash for convictions” theme starts out with the possibility that Sacramento County didn’t prosecute years ago for reasons you haven’t confirmed with anyone but the defendant’s daughter. And, in two years or more, you didn’t take time to check with the Sacramento DA’s office to see if any of this gossip was factual.[quote]“Indeed, the case first was presented to the Sacramento County District Attorney, who declined to file what they called a minor matter. ‘Sacramento County wouldn’t take it,’ Linda Vela told the Vanguard. ‘They wouldn’t take the case – because it was minimal, it wasn’t a big enough case’.
But Yolo County was only too willing to take on this minimal case. We wanted to know why. Further examination leads us to an unsettling answer: cash for convictions.”[/quote]So, what makes this a “minimal” case other than the daughter’s unsupported claim about an possible long-ago decision by Sacramento? How much money was obtained by fraud? What are the attempted perjury counts reflecting? Is there anything “minimal” in this case?
That leaves the rest of the story to describe the “examination” that led you to this “unsettling answer.” I see no examination of how this case fits in to your old stories about the state funding initiative to combat insurance fraud crimes.
You say that witnesses were paid for out of the state money, but don’t say which ones or speculate whether the Yolo DA would proceeded with the same witnesses without the state funds and just pay for them from county funds.
How much in state funds did the Yolo DA rely on in Ms. Vela’s case?
Knowing that you’ve given up asking the Yolo DA’s offices even the most basic questions about their trials, I really wonder where you get any accurate information about such easy questions.
The only oddity I see in this case is why every crime ends up being a separate charge. That’s a question worth following up on, I think. Maybe it’s standard practice, not just a Yolo oddity. Of course, we don’t know whether there could have been many more charges based on what Ms. Vela did.
Thanks for keeping at these questions until I think I understand what you were reporting.
Adam, I agree with your observations about a jury’s ability to sort out these things. I struggle with figuring out [u]what[/u] David’s arguing. He lists the reasons she shouldn’t have been convicted, then says he isn’t arguing that at all when questioned, then goes back to explaining she didn’t have “intent” which, of course, is required for guilt.
Then, the witnesses shouldn’t have been trusted–without whom, of course, there wouldn’t be a case. Then, there’s the overarching argument that she wouldn’t be guilty if she lived in Sacramento County–meaning she shouldn’t be guilty anywhere? Or wouldn’t be if she hadn’t been prosecuted at all, which, of course, she shouldn’t have been. Why? “Don’t ask, I didn’t say she wasn’t guilty.”
Supposedly, this case was reported in the Vanguard in order to illustrate “cash for convictions,” how he Yolo DA is driven by state grant money to prosecute people he shouldn’t be prosecuting. Why, one might ask?
–Because an innocent person has been tried? (Not really, she’s guilty depending on when you ask David.) But, if so, so what–“cash for convictions”?
–Because the county has requested and received state funding for programs the state’s decided need to be pursued, gang crime and insurance fraud? (Not really, lots of counties get this funding. The county government and tax payers probably appreciate having the state help pay our bills.)
–Because the DA has pursued someone for insignificant crimes that should be ignored. (Not really, this kind of insurance fraud is a big, expensive problem, considered serious enough to generate a state financial assistance program to help combat these criminals. Of course, David didn’t report the magnitude of this case in defrauded proceeds.) But, if so, so what–“cash for convictions”?
–Because the DA chose to investigate someone whom another county chose not to, the defense attorney told David two years ago, maybe…. (Not really, who knows if there’s a word of truth to this claim and what the reason might have been if it is true?) But, if so, so what–“cash for convictions”?
–Because the Sacramento DA told someone that the office “declined to file because it was a minor matter”? (Well, again, who knows this is true? We only have Ms. Vela’s daughter proclaiming, “They wouldn’t take the case – because it was minimal, it wasn’t a big enough case.” If a DA would say this about a case being investigated and prosecuted in a neighboring county–and I don’t buy it for a minute–how would the defendant’s family be a party to the discussion? Fourth hand, made up?) But, if so, so what–“cash for convictions”?
–Because the Yolo DA indicts with one charge per crime? (This one is a little to hypothetical for me to determine. If a prosecutor has 10 indictable offenses, how does he select the ones to take to trial? Does it make a difference if it’s 10 dead bodies, 10 robbed banks, 10 embezzled old people or 10 lesser crimes? It this case, would you pick one count of insurance fraud, one of presenting false statements and on of attempted perjury? What if he picked what he thought was strongest and guessed wrong?) And what difference does it make to the criminal is she’s convicted of 3 felonies or 6 or 9 or 12 if she’s actually guilty of 12? More to the point, how does that prove “cash for convictions”?
So, all of David’s circular “facts,” even if true, do nothing to support his “cash for convictions” claim. [quote]“We wanted to know why. Further examination leads us to an unsettling answer: cash for convictions.”[/quote]The only “further investigation” he’s reporting to us is this tragic Denny’s talk with a pained, insurance fraud perpetrator. It serves no one, including Ms. Vela, to make unfounded claims about the DA’s motives for prosecuting a case unless one has some evidence to suggest he’s done wrong.
It’s easy to be sympathetic about Ms. Vela’s plight, but there’s no evidence presented that she’s a victim of a “cash for convictions motivation.” And, that, don’t forget, was the purpose of the article.
I for one would like to hear more about this cash for convictions concept. I think it makes no sense for grants to be based on whether a DA has arrests, prosecutions and convictions.
I understand there needs to be an accountability to grants, but when grants are based on reaching a quota, then it is questionable whether they are truly supporting justice.
With shrinking budgets, DAs who depend on the grant income may push cases to trial that under normal circumstances they would not.
I think as taxpayers we should demand that when our money supports grants to fight crime, criteria that asks for a quota for arrests, prosecutions and convictions is not used. When money is tied to convictions, unfortunate things can happen that the creators of the grant did not anticipate.
“The only oddity I see in this case is why every crime ends up being a separate charge. That’s a question worth following up on, I think. Maybe it’s standard practice, not just a Yolo oddity.”
I may have missed this point in previous discussions, but I have a question about the program David calls ” cash for convictions”.
How is the cash amount decided ? By case, or by count ? If by count, David’s use of this case as an illustration might or might not be a good illustration. If by case, there still could be some validity if the DAs reasoning involved adding more charges hoping to impact the juror’s thinking based on quantity rather than on the strength of any given charge.
What this case does demonstrate for me is the difficulty in sorting out who is truly incapable of working. One difficult determination a doctor has to make is who is truly disabled when the claim is not about physical inability to perform a task vs pain limited inability to perform a task. The kind of videos taken to “prove that someone really could be working” represent relatively short points in time. Photgraphing someone holding something up for a half hour in no way proves that they would be capable of holding it for a prolonged period of time five days a week. An hour of gardening does not mean that the same motion could be performed 40 hours weekly but I suspect this is how it could be made to appear to a jury. This is not to say that individuals do not embellish their degree of pain or disability, just that I feel that our adversarial system with the focus on winning at any cost pushes both sides to dramatize their claims at the expense of working out a reasonable solution that would address the needs of both sides.
My understanding is that the reason it is cash for convictions is that the money that a given county is received only continues if they make a showing that the grant money is being used to prosecute cases of fraud and gain convictions. Just look at the audit and you can see that.
The other aspect of this is that the investigator himself is completely financed through grant money.
I found this article on the Vanguard from a few years ago.
Quoting from it ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3727:da-investigator-in-charge-of-investigating-workers-comp-fraud-admits-not-knowing-what-employees-rights-are&catid=74:judicial-watch&Itemid=100[/url]):
[quote]On Tuesday, the California Department of Insurance Fraud Assessment Commission unanimously voted to again give the Yolo County DA’s office $254,000 in grant money for their fraud prevention program.
The county has apparently received funding under the grant since 1994. “It’s based on performance,” said Lt. Dan Stroski an investigator with the DA’s office that heads up the program, a few years back. “The Fraud Assessment Commission likes the job we are doing.”[/quote]
Performance is obviously conviction and prosecutions, the more they do, the more money they get.
To me, Linda Vela is just a little bug that got squashed in the system. The billion dollar Insurance Company hired the $500,000 doctor to show that she’s lying. They find the Yolo DA who is a willing partner after Sac DA turns them down, and the DA utilizes the fraud grant money to build their case over five years and they squash this poor woman like a bug.
That’s what this case is about.
Just Saying:
“Geez, that was like pulling teeth. “
You make it this way, because you twist every word that I write. In fact, I have come to realize that it’s not personal, you do it to everyone. I do not have enough time in the day to write a proper response to you.
If you think that a case where an employee who works in the Sacramento-based company the Sacramento Bee, files for workers comp and sees doctors there but is prosecuted not by Sac County DA but by Yolo requires me trying to find someone who knows exactly what decision was made in 2006 or so, then I think you are crazy.
One of the first questions I asked was why Yolo County DA was prosecuting this and not Sac, and I was told by the public defender that Sac wasn’t interested in the matter. It should be obvious that they had the first opportunity but declined. So what’s to confirm?
I’m done, you want to dissect my work fine, but I’m not going to engage in these discussions anymore.
Well, that disappoints me, but I can understand that these exchanges are as frustrating on you as on me.
As you know, I respect what you’re doing and agree with most of your basic philosophy. I’m glad you also know it’s not personal.
The concerns I have revolve mostly around technique and zero in on your tendency to use Judicial Watch to do to the Big Man what you disdain others doing to the Little Guy (claiming he’s guilty without a fair hearing and without proof, sometimes without even trying to make your case, just announcing).
The burden is on the person making charges. Whether it’s your constant claims of bad intentions and conduct by the district attorney or Sue’s repeated charges of bad intentions and conduct by David Thompson, shouldn’t it be on you to support them? You two have a higher standard to meet than the rest of us since you manage an important news/opinion vehicle and Sue is a public official.
I try to support the friendly “charges” a make against the [u]Vanguard[/u]. Claims without attribution particularly bother me because one never knows whether they’ve been made up or exaggerated, come from a credible source or a self-interested one, etc.
A perfect example is your claim that the Sacramento DA “declined to file what they called a minor matter” cries out for attribution if you knew where it came from. (If you didn’t know where–and how could a reader tell?–I don’t think it should have been passed on as fact. If you did know where, why would you be so definitive when even now you don’t know whether anyone “called (Ms. Vela’s crimes) “a minor matter.”)
What if you would have provided us with your source in the original story: “I found out the Sacramento DA’s office investigated in 2006 and decided her case was too minor to prosecute,” DPD Johnson told the [u]Vanguard[/u]. That way, readers could evaluate credibility the way we can with the quote you attributed to the daughter.
But, you accepted the burden to provide some proof of the [u]truth[/u] of your claim about the Sacramento DA’s statement instead of just telling us you were accepting the word of the defense lawyer. There were two things you should have cared to confirm if you decide not say from who the claim came: [u]first[/u], whether Sacramento County did consider and refuse prosecution and, second, [u]why[/u] they did. Very basic stuff.
Is this example unique or a little thing? I don’t think so because it’s a Judicial Watch pattern, resulting time to time in the “dissecting” that you note. Sometimes, it not significant, but here you offered it as a linchpin for your “cash for convictions” charge.
I can’t tell whether leaving out sources is intentional in order to strengthen your case or to make confirmation impossible or because you just don’t think it’s an important part of reporting. So, I bring it up because I think improving your work in this area will strengthen Judicial Watch.
Another technique issue that I think is problematic to the effectiveness of “Judicial Watch” is the use of exciting headlines–designed, as you’ve said, to draw people to the story–that charge things that hardly are discussed in the story itself.
One that’s especially troubling to me is the assembling of lots of related items and asserting that, because they exist in the same universe, one [u]caused[/u] others because of evil intent. This article fits that pattern, as does almost every gang crime story you run.
“Crying wolf” with no proof and no real effort to support your continuing contention that law enforcement and the DA’s office are bad players will do little service to the community or to the [u]Vanguard[/u] as an institution.
I’m just trying to balance out the “right on!” responses you get from those who are less demanding in their need for proof of wrong-doing if it’s the Big Man involved. And, I’m attempting to get enough reliable information from you in order to make some reasonable judgments.
So, we don’t have that much disagreement. It’s just that you keep doing the same things and I keep asking you to provide the same kinds of support. I’ve given up on this mission twice before, but then find myself back in it because you cover such interesting and important stories, in my opinion.
I’ll try again to limit myself to comments on things for which you provide adequate details to generate an opinion. I’ll try to keep my presumptuous opinions about how you can improve your technique to myself.
[quote]David M. Greenwald:I don’t know what you mean by work things out. She attempted to come back to work following her initial surgery but left work again after two days. Other than that, it is difficult to know exactly what was communicated to or from her. There is a good deal of discrepancy between what the medical doctors in charge of her treatment testified about her condition and ability to work and what the insurance doctors that were brought in ostensibly to assess whether she could work and what appears to be the real reason they were hired – prove that she was not as sick as she claimed to be. At some point it was more than just the physical ailment preventing her from working.
You don’t send someone to a Dr. Xeller if you are trying to work things out. The DA had explain away the conduct of at least two of the medical examiners. One he said you wouldn’t want your daughter to marry him. That’s the kind of people that the Bee were sending Ms. Vela to see.[/quote]
From what you are telling me, it sounds as if Ms. Vela returned to work, decided after two days she could not do what was expected of her, went home, and then did nothing. She never asked for any reasonable accommodation for her disability. She just decided she could not work anymore and should be judged permanently disabled just bc she said so, and she should be paid disability accordingly. So the employee brought in a doctor to determine if she could work or not – a doctor that was going to be biased in favor of the employer. And so not unsurprisingly the doctor judged her competent to work. Did she try and appeal that decision? It does not appear so. From start to finish you have a person that seems to feel she can be the sole judge of whether she can return to work or not. Well she has the right to determine if she will return to work or not, but she does not have the right to determine if she will get paid for not returning to work…
Just Saying: I too will probably give it another attempt, it’s difficult given how much work I do, to them have to go through these exercises sometimes and I do feel like you are twisting my words.
Elaine: I don’t think she went home, I think she went back to her doctor. It is worth noting that the doctors that testified against her were the ones who were hired by the insurance company to evaluate her, not the doctors who were hired to treat her. Those doctors made it seem like she was being the sole judge of her condition, but in fact she was largely following the advice of her personal doctors.
I appreciate that. And, in spite of how it comes across, I appreciate what you do and how much you put into it. I started out my career with a critical, somewhat grouchy editor breathing down my back on every story I wrote. Although I was thankful for it later, it always was a private critique from someone whose job was being a critical editor. So, I’m sure this is different. I don’t mean to twist, just to ask, “where did you come up with this.”
With respect to Ms. Vela, she has a fascinating, cautionary tale to tell. Regardless of how much she might have brought on herself, I’m hoping the judge is lenient. Maybe the fact that somebody even is covering the story and others like it makes a difference.
“With respect to Ms. Vela, she has a fascinating, cautionary tale to tell.”
In thinking about this story, it occurs to me that Ms Vela may have, at least in part, been led astray by a common mistaken idea about what doctors can and cannot do. Many people who come to me believe that doctors grant disability or determine insurance claims. We do not.
What we do is to make an educated assessment of what activity it is prudent for an individual to do, or not do based on our assessment of their condition taking into account their history, physical findings, labs, radiologic studies …. We do not determine disability. I discuss this in detail with my patients before making my recommendation, because it is precisely that, a recommendation, and does not always work to the financial well being of a patient if they are really attempting to stop working temporarily because of fatigue or stress and find themselves having lost employment because an employer now states they have no work available that meets the recommended limitations. If Ms. Vela believed that her
Personal doctors recommendations were the bottom line, she may have been falsely reassured and as a result mistakenly acted against her own best interest.