People v. Blasquez

Opinion

BROWN (G. A.), P. J.

Appellant Jaime Blasquez is a licensed psychiatrist. He was convicted by a jury of eleven counts of presenting false Medi

[410]

Cal claims, one count of grand theft, and one count of conspiracy. His wife, appellant Bernice Blasquez, acted as his bookkeeper and receptionist. She was convicted of the same counts except for one of the counts involving the presentation of a false Medi-Cal claim.

Appellants fraudulently obtained between $46,000 and $98,000 from the California State Medi-Cal program by billing the Medi-Cal program for psychiatric services which were not performed.

Pursuant to a search warrant, appellants’ medical office was searched, resulting in the seizure of various documents, including patients’ records and billing records.

Appellants’ sole contention on appeal is that Penal Code section 1524, subdivision (c), deprives him of equal protection.

1

That section in part states: “. . .no search warrant shall issue for any documentary evidence in the possession or under the control of any person, who is ... a psychotherapist as defined in Section 1010 of the Evidence Code . . . and who is not reasonably suspected of engaging or having engaged in criminal activity related to the documentary evidence for which a warrant is requested unless the following procedure has been complied with . . . .” The statute then delineates a procedure for appointing a “special master” who accompanies those persons conducting a search and takes possession of seized documents until a superior court hearing on search, seizure and privilege issues can be held. If the psychotherapist is reasonably suspected of engaging or having engaged in criminal activity related to the documentary evidence for which a warrant is requested, the protection of having the search conducted by a special master and the holding of a hearing in superior court is not provided.

In the instant appeal, the seized records were under the control of appellant Jaime Blasquez who was reasonably suspected of having engaged in criminal activity related to the documentary evidence for which the warrant was requested.