Fourth District Issues Limitations Opinion Regarding Internal Workers’ Compensation Fraud Investigations

English: Image is similar, if not identical, t...

English: Image is similar, if not identical, to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation patch. Made with Photoshop. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Court of Appeal for the Fourth District today issued an opinion in California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Board (Moya), Case No. Cite as D061653, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (4th Dist. April 26, 2013).  The court considered whether the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Gov. Code § 3300 et seq., excepts internal workers’ compensation fraud investigations from the one-year limitations period established in section 3304, subdivision (d)(1).  The court concluded that it does and affirmed the judgment.

Judges & Attorneys

Presiding Justice Judith McConnell delivered the opinion for the court, with Associate Justices James A. McIntyre and Joan Irion concurring.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Judge Donal B. Donnelly.

Michelle L. Hoy and Rudy E. Jansen for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Alicia M. B. Fowler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Chris A. Knudsen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

By CHARLES H. JUNG

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One thought on “Fourth District Issues Limitations Opinion Regarding Internal Workers’ Compensation Fraud Investigations

  1. […] In California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Board (Moya), No. D061653, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (4th Dist. April 26, 2013).  The court considered whether the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Gov. Code § 3300 et seq., excepts internal workers’ compensation fraud investigations from the one-year limitations period established in section 3304, subdivision (d)(1).  The court concluded that it does and affirmed the judgment.   […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: