Case Results

Attorneys are bound by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1-400 requires that we inform you that prior case results, client testimonials and/or attorney endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

 

————————————————————–
  • Board of Psychology vs. J. J.  Case Conclusion Date: September 21, 2015.   Practice Area: Administrative Law.   Outcome: Investigation Closed with No Disciplinary Action filed.    Description: Psychologist charged with and pled guilty to driving a vehicle in which his blood alcohol exceeded .08, he was sentenced and placed on probation. In the investigation by the BOP, this law firm presented a compelling and lengthy treatise supported by expert evidence that resulted in the BOP closing the investigation without any disciplinary action taken against the Psychologist.
  • For  countless other cases this law firm handled during 2014 and 2015:
    Please view the Avvo  Attorney profile of Sam Spital: Avvo Superb Lawyer Rating
  • Board of Registered Nursing Accusation Against Yevgenia K.  Case Conclusion Date:  December 20, 2013. Practice Area: Sate Board Licensing. Outcome: Pubic Reproval.   
    Description: Client is a Registered Nurse who during the course of her work in the hospital performed an episiotomy, which is a surgical procedure only a physician and surgeon may perform. Charges were filed by the BRN for exceeding the scope of practice and unprofessional conduct. A forceful defense with irrefutable evidence, legal arguments and forensic experts was presented due to the unique facts and circumstances to validate the procedure and what otherwise would should have been deemed superior care rendered to the patient. We achieved a truly unprecedented and winning result.
  • In The Matter of The Investigation of Rochelle J. Case Conclusion Date: November 7, 2013. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Physical Therapy Board of California closed case with no disciplinary action taken. Description: Complaint filed with the PTBC alleging Supervising Physical Therapist instructed one or more subordinate physical therapists to record treatment time that was not actually provided in order to obtain a higher reimbursement rate. My law firm demonstrated by both incomparable and unimpeachable evidence the accusations were completely unfounded and, therefore, credibility of the complaining parties questionable at best.
  • Accusation Against Roger S. Case Conclusion Date: July 17, 2013.  Practice Areas: Criminal Law & Licensing.Outcome: Letter of Public Reproval issued. Description: Attorney General’s Office filed charges to suspend or revoke State license for a misdemeanor conviction as a result of a prior arrest for soliciting prostitution. Compelling and substantial evidence along with highly persuasive legal and factual arguments were made on behalf of licensee resulting in unprecedented result.

  • In The Matter of The Complaint Against James T. Case Conclusion Date: July 15, 2013. Practice Areas: Administrative Law & Criminal Law. Outcome: BRN Complaint closed – No action Taken. Description:  Registered Nurse charged with driving under the influence of a controlled substance. Client pled guilty to reckless driving, but complaint closed as a result of compelling legal and factual arguments made in a lengthy Legal Brief with exhibits by my law firm.

  • Physical Therapy Board of California Investigation of Rebecca L.    Case Conclusion Date: April 26, 2013. Practice Area: Licensing. Outcome: PTBC closed case with no disciplinary action
    Description:  Physical Therapy Board of California investigated case involving a patient who was admitted for a total knee replacement after a recent hip fracture who filed a complaint against client for negligence and incompetence in the treatment he received. Substantial evidence regarding standard of care along with corroborating forensic reports refuted allegations of unprofessional &/or improper conduct.
  • In The Matter of The Investigation of Estella G.:   Case Conclusion Date: April 22, 2013 Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Complaint and Investigation closed without meritDescription: RN worked in prison and charged with improper and inadequate care and departure from protocols. Our comprehensive legal defense and exhibits provided along with compelling offense established to dispel any wrongdoing.
  • BRN vs. Cheryl R.Case Conclusion Date:  March 28, 2013 Practice Areas: Licensing & Criminal Law. Outcome: Public Reproval
    Description: Board of Registered Nursing filed charges against nurse for a prior DUI. Convincing evidence in a comprehensive Legal Brief with supporting proof and documents submitted on behalf of client.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. Shirley S,  Registered Nurse
    Case Conclusion Date: February 25, 2013 Practice Areas: Administrative Law and Criminal Law. Outcome: Investigation and Case Closed – No public record of any disciplinary action filed. Description: The Board of Registered Nursing may suspend or revoke a license against an RN for falsification of patient records, incompetence and unprofessional conduct.Respondent was accused of entering false, incorrect and untrue information into a patient record in order to cover up the adverse set of events arising due to the medical condition of a patient. Based upon the compelling legal and factual arguments, forensic testimony and defense evidence, the complaint was determined to be unproven and unsubstantiated, to be not a violation of law and as an unprecedented outcome the entire investigation was closed by the Board of Registered Nursing (BRN).
  • Board of Pharmacy vs. Clifford W, Registered Pharmacist.
    Case Conclusion Date: February 13, 2013 Practice Areas: Administrative Law and Criminal Law. Outcome: Investigation Closed – No public record of disciplinary action filed. Description: The Board of Pharmacy may take disciplinary action against a Pharmacist for the conviction of a felony or any offense substantially related to the duties and functions of a Pharmacist. Respondent had a conviction for Domestic Violence. Based upon the comprehensive Litigation Brief and compelling arguments made, the complaint and investigation were closed by the Board of Pharmacy (BOP).
  • Mark vs. BVNPT. 
    Case Conclusion Date: November 13, 2012 Practice Areas: Criminal Law & Licensing. Applicant for LVN license initially denied for three misdemeanor convictions. License granted. No probation nor restrictions ordered and no other public record of disciplinary action imposed on the client’s license history.
  • Rebecca vs. BRN. 
    Case Conclusion Date: August 2, 2012 Practice Areas: Criminal Law & Professional Licensing. Applicant for RN license initially denied for two misdemeanor convictions. License granted. No probation nor restrictions ordered and no other public record of disciplinary action imposed on the client’s license history.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. John R.
    Case Conclusion Date: July 22, 2012. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: BRN Investigation Closed. No Public Record. No Disciplinary Action. Description: Board of Registered Nursing opened investigation as a result of disciplinary action taken by New York Board of Nursing in which client was previously placed on one year Probation. With persuasive testimony, notable evidence and both compelling legal and factual arguments made, my law firm obtained unprecedented results and the complaint against this otherwise stellar nurse was dismissed with the investigation case was closed by the Board of Registered Nursing.
  • BRN vs. Rowena C
    Case Conclusion Date: June 1, 2012. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Board of Registered Nursing Investigation Closed. No Public Record. No Disciplinary Action. Description: This talented, resourceful and dedicated nurse had worked sixteen years as a Registered Nurse as well as a Supervisory Nurse when the BRN received a complaint of misuse of drugs and unprofessional conduct. In fact, we established by overwhelming evidence that our client never misused or diverted drugs, nor did she ever perform her duties and responsibilities under the influence of drugs or alcohol. We demonstrated by both incomparable and unimpeachable evidence our client had only taken medication regularly prescribed by her physician. As a result of abundant testimony, compelling evidence and highly persuasive legal and factual arguments made, the BRN closed its investigation without merit.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. Kristin H.
    Case Conclusion Date: January 31, 2012. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: BRN Accusation Withdrawn. No Public Record. No Disciplinary Action. Description: Board of Registered Nursing charged RN with incompetence and unprofessional conduct as a result of a 58 year old patient admitted to the Hospital with polycystic kidney and end stage liver disease, had an adverse reaction to the medication, his condition continued to deteriorate and later died. Kristin was the preceptor for another nurse who administered a medication written by a physician without verifying the medication order and dosage with the hospital pharmacy. The alleged incompetence was Kristin’s failure to perform an intensive review of medications for this patient before any medications were given to him; her alleged failure to provide adequate supervision to the other nurse assigned as her orientee; and, her failure to review and note the correct dosage of the medication on the Medication Administrative Record for the patient. With testimony and evidence from multidisciplinary forensic experts and compelling legal and factual arguments made, my law firm obtained unprecedented results and the Accusation was dismissed and case closed by the Board of Registered Nursing.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. Carol K
    Case Conclusion Date: October 13, 2011. Practice Areas: Criminal Law & State Board Licensing – Administrative Law. Outcome: Public Reprimand. Description: The Board of Registered Nursing filed a formal and public Accusation against this Registered Nurse for an arrest for a BA of .22 and a conviction of a DUI (Driving Under The Influence of Alcohol). Based upon a powerful Legal Brief and compelling arguments made, the Board of Registered Nursing agreed to issue only a Public Reprimand, No probation ordered and no other public record of disciplinary action imposed on the client’s license history.
  • Board of Vocational Nursing vs. Vaneza D.
    Case Conclusion Date: September 13, 2011. Practice Areas: Administrative Law & Criminal Law. Outcome: Investigation Closed – No public record of disciplinary action filed. Description: The BVNPT may take disciplinary action against an LVN for a conviction of a felony or any offense substantially related to the duties and functions of an LVN. Respondent was arrested for Petty Theft, which resulted in a conviction for Trespassing. Based upon the comprehensive Litigation Brief and compelling arguments made, the complaint and investigation were closed.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. Brenda W.
    Case Conclusion Date:  July 18, 2011. Practice Areas: Criminal Law & State Board Licensing Outcome: Public Reproval Description: The Board of Registered Nursing may take disciplinary action against an RN for a conviction of a felony or any offense substantially related to the duties and functions of an RN. Respondent had a conviction for Battery. Based upon the comprehensive Legal Brief and compelling arguments made, the Board of Registered Nursing ordered a Public Reprimand.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. Aaron T. 
    Case Conclusion Date: June 14, 2011. Practice Areas: Administrative Law and Criminal Law. Outcome: Investigation Closed – No public record of disciplinary action filed. Description: The Board of Registered Nursing may take disciplinary action against an RN for a conviction of a felony or any offense substantially related to the duties and functions of an RN. Respondent had a conviction for Domestic Violence and a Violation of Probation. Based upon the comprehensive Litigation Brief and compelling arguments made, thecomplaint and investigation were closed by the Board of registered Nursing.
  • Contractors State License Board vs. FM,Inc.
    Case Conclusion Date: November 18, 2010. Practice Areas: Criminal Law and Administrative Law.Outcome: Formal Accusation withdrawn, No public record of Accusation, Civil Citation only. Description: The CSLB filed charges against a national contractor with locations throughout the United States, including California alleging RMO convicted of Felony Harassment and Assault; in addition, CSLB alleged Misrepresentation on License and discipline by another State for certification and electrical permit issues. Based upon a powerful defense argued, the Accusation filed by the Contractors’ State License Board was withdrawn and only a civil penalty paid.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. Tracy C.
    Case Conclusion Date: October 5, 2010. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: BRN Accusation Withdrawn. No Disciplinary Action. Description: BRN files an Accusation alleging multiple counts of Unlawful Possession of an Illegal Substance, Failure to note administration of medications on MAR (Medication Administration Record); and Falsification of Hospital or Patient Records. After painstaking investigation by our office on behalf of RN, it was determined that another RN had gained access to PYXIS machine and committed these acts of unprofessional conduct.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. Carol B.
    Case Conclusion Date: August 19, 2010. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Investigation Closed – No public record of disciplinary action filed. Description: The Board of Registered Nursing may take disciplinary action against an RN for a conviction of a felony or any offense substantially related to the duties and functions of an RN. Based upon the Litigation Brief and compelling arguments made, the complaint and investigation were closed.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. Dawne B.
    Case Conclusion Date: August 18, 2010. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Public Reprimand. Description: Registered Nurse charged with incompetence &/or gross negligence following a medication administration error (patient expired next day).
  • California Board of Pharmacy vs. David K.
    Case Conclusion Date: Aug 17, 2010. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Board of Pharmacy Accusation Withdrawn – No Disciplinary record. Description: 2008 Criminal Conviction. 2009 Acts of Unprofessional Conduct.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. Jennifer N.
    Case Conclusion Date: August 9, 2010. Practice Area: Criminal Defense. Outcome: Investigation Closed – No public record of disciplinary action filed. Description: BRN investigation for improper removal of narcotic from the PYXIS system, and failure to report for drug testing.
  • California Department of Real Estate vs. Lamson
    Case Conclusion Date: April 14, 2010. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Restricted Real Estate Salesperson License Issued. Description: Accusation to revoke Real Estate Broker’s license for trust account violations in excess of $200,000. Results: Department of Real Estate (DRE) permitted licensee to obtain restricted real estate salesperson license, which license to be unrestricted within two years.
  • Board of Registered Nursing vs. Lisa A.
    Case Conclusion Date: April 13, 2010. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Complaint dismissed and case closed . Description: Felony conviction substantially related to the qualifications, functions and duties of a Registered Nurse. After submitting a comprehensive Legal Brief, the BRN determined conviction did not constitute a basis for disciplinary action.
  • Board of Professional Engineers (BPELS) vs. Fred J.
    Case Conclusion Date: March 17, 2010. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Accusation Withdrawn, No Discipline on RecordDescription: BPELS filed formal Accusation against Civil and Geotechnical Engineer Licenses for fraud and incompetence in multiple projects. We presented overwhelming evidence to refute all of the charges. In an unprecedented decision, BPELS withdrew the Accusation and case closed.
  • California Board of Pharmacy vs. Zimmerman
    Case Conclusion Date: August 14, 2009. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Probation – 5 years. Description: Allegations of multiple counts of Diversion of Dangerous Drugs or narcotics; use and possession of drugs; under the influence of drugs during work; and, conviction substantially related to duties and functions of pharmacist.
  • California Respiratory Care Board vs. MacNeil
    Case Conclusion Date: July 21, 2008. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: License not revoked. Description: Petition to Revoke Probationary License for failure to pass Competency Test. Results: After presenting compelling Legal Brief, the Respiratory Care Board agreed to permit licensee to re-take test two additional times.
  • Board of Veterinary Examiners vs Grace Roberts, DVM
    Case Conclusion Date: June 6, 2008. Practice Area: Litigation. Outcome: Non-Disciplinary Action Issued: Citation only. Description: Board investigation of allegations of Negligence, Aiding and Abetting, Anesthesia, Recordkeeping violations, and Duties of Supervising Veterinarian in death of cat after surgical procedure.
  • Medical Board of California vs. M. Winscott , MD
    Case Conclusion Date: May 14, 2008. Practice Area: Administrative Law. Outcome: Public Reprimand Only. Description: MBC filed formal Accusation to revoke physician license for repeated negligent acts and incompetence in patient care and treatment. RESULTS: We presented a comprehensive Mitigation Legal Brief. Medical Board issued a Public Reprimand only.
  • Miller v. Obledo
    An optometrist sought review of a decision of the State Department of Health suspending him from participating in the Medi-Cal program, for one year. The optometrist contended that a state investigator’s inspection of his Medi-Cal records pursuant to State law was invalid in that the investigator had not obtained a subpoena duces tecum. The Superior Court denied relief.
  • Thole v. Structural Pest Control Bd. of Dept. of Consumer Affairs
    In disciplinary proceedings before the Structural Pest Control Board, a pest control operator had his license suspended for various violations including gross negligence. He claimed the term “gross negligence” was vague. The court held against the pest control operator ruling the term was not vague; additionally, the fact he eventually completed the work was no defense, stating that the Structural Pest Control Act contains no requirement of pecuniary loss to support the charge, and does not make restitution a defense.
  • People v. Lindsey
    About 10 years after defendant had been convicted of armed robbery, the superior court issued a writ of habeas corpus on the ground his confession was received in evidence in violation of the U.S. Constitution and a US Supreme Court case which held unconstitutional a sister state’s practice whereby a confession was submitted to a jury for its determination of voluntariness without having the trial judge first satisfy himself that it was voluntary.
  • People v. Wax
    Defendant was sentenced to state prison for selling narcotics. Subsequently, he filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking to have the allegation of a prior conviction, found to be true at the time of the trial, stricken from the record. The court denied the writ and the Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the narcotic conviction, holding that failure to obtain and to consider an up-to-date probation report or a report from the Director of Corrections before denying the writ was reversible error. The court reconsidered the prior narcotic drug conviction.
  • People v. Williams
    In a non jury trial, defendant was convicted of forgery in violation of Pen. Code, § 470. Representing himself as the payee thereof, defendant attempted to deposit and draw on two checks, which checks he knew to have been stolen from the United States mails. Defendant had previously pleaded guilty and been sentenced under a federal statute for possession of the checks as stolen mail. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. The court held that forgery and possession of stolen mail were separate and distinct offenses, founded on different acts, so that prosecution for the forgery violation was not barred. The court also held that Pen. Code, § 654, prohibiting double punishment for an act made punishable in different ways by different sections of the Penal Code, did not apply to prohibit punishment for the state forgery offense after imposition of punishment for the federal crime.