. i BoARD(JF ·~ £XA1\1 IN E RS ~-State of Ca lifornia : Cll I ROPRACTIC a ..... ~dmund G. Brown Jr., Governor S I Al£ Of CAt fOR Nil April 30, 2015 Christina Jewett Reveal +The Center for Investigative Reporting 925 L Street, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95814 Public Records Request- Faramarz Khalili, DC 19178 Ms. Jewett: This is in response to your correspondence received by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners on April 30, 2015. You have requested a copy of disciplinary actions regarding Faramarz Khalili, D.C . In response to your inquiry, you will find documents pertaining to your request. If you have any further question re garding this matter, please contact me at (916)263-5355 ext. 5362. B \/gards. Valerie James Management Services Technician T (9 r6) 263-5355 F (9 r6) 327·oo39 TT/TD D (Boo) 735·2929 consumer Complaint Hotline (866) 543-1311 Boar d ifC hiropractic Examiners 901 P Street, Suite 142A Sacra m e n to, Californ ia 95814 www.chiro.ca.gov BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Accusation Against: FARAMARZ K.HALILI P.O. Box 97-11 Newport Beach, CA 92568 Case No. 99-110 OAR No. 11999070208 Chiropractic License No. DC 19178, Respondent. DECISION AFTER NONADOPTION This matter was heard before John Thomas Montag, Administrative Law Judge, Office of Aillninistrative Hearings, State of California, in Los Angeles, Califomia on December 13 and 14, 1999. Jessica M. Angwerd, Deputy Attorney General, represented complainant. Michael J. Khouri, Attorney at Law, represented respondent, who was present throughout the hearing. The aillninistrative law judge rendered his proposed decision on January 13, 2000. On Febmary 2, 2000, the Board of Chiropractic Examiners issued an Order ofNonadoption and afforded the parties an opportunity to present written argument. Upon consideration of the parties' written argument as well as the entire record, including the transcript of the hearing, the Board hereby makes the following decision and order: FACTUAL FINDINGS 1. Respondent, FaramarzKhalili, was born on January 10, 1961 in Tehran, Iran. He is presentlythi.tiy-nine (39) years ofage. He is man-ied to woman whom he has lmown for four years. They have a two year old daughter. Respondent attended school in his native country of Iran throngh the eleventh grade. He came to the United States in 1977. He has been a continuous resident of this country since that time. He graduated from Skyline High School, in Oakland, California in 1979. Respondent obtained an Associate of Arts degree from Pierce Junior College in 1982, graduating with honors. He attended Cal State Nortluidge for two years, taking classes in Health Science. In 1984 he entered Cleveland Chiropractic College, located in Los Angeles, California. He graduated from that institution in 1988. Respondent tool' the state license examination in July 1988. He was among the 455 who passed this examination and, on July 31, 1988, the Board issued respondent Chiropractic License No. I 9178. This license was in effect until January 31, 1997, at which time it was forfeited for failure to pay the renewal fee. Respondent's license was returned to active statUs on June 13, 199.8. Respondent's license is current and valid. Unless renewed, it will expire on July 31,2000. 1 BCE0008112 2. For a brief period oftime after he obtained his license, respondent worked for a chiropractor in Beverly Hills, Califomia. In 1989 he conm1enced his own practice in Westwood, Califomia, and he maintained that practice until March 1996. Sometime in 1991, respondent was approached by a lawyer who promised to send to respondent, for treatment, clients who had received injuries in automobile accidents. Respondent was to provide chiropractic treatment to these clients and submit appropriate billing for said treatment. When settlement checks were received from the insurance carriers who insured the responsible party in the accident, respondent would be paid for the chiropractic treatment which he had rendered. However, to "compensate" the attomey who had referred the patient to respondent, respondent agreed to pay the attomey a percentage of the fee which respondent received for having given the medical treatment Initially, this "kick-back" percentage was 35%, but as more patients were referred to respondent for treatn1e11t, the percentage quickly rose to 50%. In order to make these payments to the attomey, respondent would take the check which he received for payment of his chiropractic treatment to the bank and convert it to cash. He would then give. the attomey his "kick-back" payment in cash. The income tax implications of such transactions is readily apparent. Respondent did not Jist these payments on his tax retums. Undoubtedly, neither did the attomey. This initial arrangement with one attorney soon mushroomed to include a large network of attomeys and ultimately became a major scandal when the illegal activity was discovered. This scandal. involved approximately twenty-seven attomeys and a number oflaw firms. The attomeys were obtaining the clients by means of an illegal arrangement called "capping." A "capper" is an individual who refers clients who have sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident to an attomey, in exchange for a payment from the attomey. Persons who might be "cappers" would include insurance adjusters, body repair shop operators, and tow truck drivers. 3. Respondent engaged in this illegal activity for approximately four years, from 1991 through 1995. During that period of time, the monetary amount of the "kick-back" payments which he made to the attomeysinvolved approximated $135,000. During this same period of time, respondent filed corpbrate and individual income tax retums in which he understated his taxable income by approximately $448,000 (Exhibit 6, Page 22). 4. Shortly before Cln·istmas 1995, respondent was contacted by an agent from the Federal BUTeau oflnvestigation. The FBI aget1t infmmed respondent that he was investigating criminal charges againsthim and advised him to obtain an attorney. Realizing the seriousness of his situation, respondent did retain an attomey. The FBI issued an ultimatum to respondent's attomey, demandingrespondent's cooperation in the FBI investigation, in exchange for a moratorium on an Indictment in South Dakota against respondent for alleged involvement in fraudulent accident claims in that state. Respm1dent agreed to cooperate in the investigation. 2 BCE0008113 Respondent's cooperation was more than the federal agents had initially expected. Since he had treated patients referred to him by virtually all of the attomeys being il'lvestigated, respondent was in a position where he could help bring them all to justice, and he pro· ceeded to do so. Respondent, by his own admission, was beginning to lose his health because he had become so deeply enmeshed in such extensive illegal activity arid he was actually happy when he was contacted by the FBI because it gave him the opportunity to cease these activities. Respondent placed telephone calls for the agents to various prospective defendants, which were preserved on tape recordings. At one point, he apparently placed hin1self in some physical dangerwhen he made a personal visit to the office of an attorney who wa.s allegedly part of a Russian gang. Respondent !mew that this attomey and his colleagues had guns in their desk drawers. Nonetheless, he allowed himself to be ''wired" by the FBI agents and he thereafter entered the attomey's office and-conducted illegal business with him, while the agents were in their car on the street outside the office, listening to andrecording the transaction. Respondent also gave testimony before a Grand Jury. As a result of his cooperation, a nnmber of the attorneys involved pleaded guilty to the charges brought against them. Respondent was thus able to negotiate a favorable plea bargain in connection with the criminal proceedings which had been instituted against him in Federal Court. Further, his cooperation prompted the assistant United States Attomey who was prosecuting his case to malce a Motion and Declaration on his behalf in the criminal prosecution so that the sentencing judge could depart downward from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in respondent's case (Exhibit C). 5. . In March 1996, respondent closed his office. In Aplil 1996, the United States Attorney made his case public. A full one-half page article appeared in the Business Section of the Orange County Register. The article was translated into respondent's native language of Farsi and was circulated throughout his native conm111nity. Respondent was subjected to a barrage of telephone calls from his patients, doctors, attorneys and relatives.- His fan1ily and his fiance were disgraced, along with respondent. 6. On September 27, 1996, in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Califomia, in CaseNo. CR 96-0156 EJG, respondent was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of one count of mail fraud, in violation of Section 1341 of Title 18, United States Code, and one count of making false statements on his income tax returns, il1 violation of Section 7206(1) of Title :26, United States Code. (In his Memorandum of Plea Agreement, which is Exhibit 5, respondent also agreed to plead to a one count indictment in the Federal District Court in Nmih Dakota. This agreement is also noted in the transcript of respondent's change of plea, which is Exhibit 6. The North Dakota case, however, was apparently later abandoned, and respondent was not required to enter a plea in Nolih Dakota.) On February 28, 1997, respondent was sentenc.ed to be imprisoned for eight months, and he was placed on Supervised Release for a period of three years. His supervision will not tem1inate until February 28, 2000. Respondent was pennitted to serve his prison sen- • 3 BCE0008114 tence in a Federal Half-Way House. He commenced serving his term of incarceration on March 17, 1997. He was released from the half-way house on November 17, 1997. 7. Respondent's September 27, 1996, conviction of the crimes ofma:il fraud, and the making of false statements on his income tax returns, under the circumstances set forth above, are climes which are substantially related to the practice of chiropractic and they clearly involve unprofessional conduct within the meaning ofthe cited code sections. This constitutes cause to suspend or revoke his license. The Board had no option except to file the Accusation herein. 8. Respondent testified that when he closed his office in March 1996, he had decided that his practice of chiropractic had come to an end. He was finished with it. He decided that he would retum to school and be a student for a few years. He elected to apply for law school. He commenced law school in September 1996 at the University of West Los Angeles. He completed two years of law school. He was allowed to continue with his legal studies throughout the time he was serving his eight month sentence in the half-way house. He was in a house with seven other inmates, all of whom shared one bath, one shower and one small kitchen. He attended school andheworked at.the house, picking up cigarette butts, scrubbing the bathroom, cleaning the shower,. mopping the floor and washing the dishes. In March 1998, two years after closing his office, even though he had only one year oflaw school left to complete, respondent realized that he did not have the proper personality to be an attomey. He wanted to retum to the practice of chiropractic. He liked seeing patients. He liked being a doctor, and he missed being one. Accordingly, he approached his probation officer, who happens to be an attorney, and discussed the possibility of returning to his practice. She encouraged respondent to pursue !lis idea. Accordingly, in Apri11998 he attended a twelve (12) hour seminar designed for persons who wanted to reactivate a chiropractic license. In May 1998, he sent a certificate of completion of.this course to the Board with his application and the renewal fee of $350.00. In June 1998 respondent's license was reactivated.. He received a new license from the Board. During the period from March 1998 until August 1998, respondent had employment as an administrator for a Board and Care facility for the elderly in Mission Viejo, California. In July 1998, respondent commenced employment as a staff chiropractor ·at Bristol Medical Clinic in Santa Ana, Califomia. Bristol Medical Clinic is owned and operated by two medical doctors, Dr. Homayoun Saeid and Dr, Julio Westerband. Dr. Westerband, an orthopedic surgeon, has known respondent for seven years. (Each of these doctors has written a letter of reconunendation for respondent, which are Exhibits D-1 and D-2.) Respondent notified his probation officer of this employment. His probation officer visited the clinic and was given a tour of it. 4 BCE0008115 In August 1998, respondent's attorney, acting upon fue advice of respondent's probation officer, informed fue Board of respondent's Climinal conviction. · 9. On May 18, 1999, M. Elizabeth Ware, acting in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners of fue State of Califomia, signed the Accusation herein, seeking to revoke or suspend respondent's chiropractic license, on the ground that respondent has been convicted of the federal offenses of mail fraud and making a false statement on income tax retums. Respondent's counsel executed aNotice of Defense on his behalf on June 9, 1999, which was timely filed with the Board. This hearing ensued. 10. Respondent's treating clinical psychologist, Ali R. Sadeghi, testified at the · hearing on his behalf. When he first began to see respondent in 1995, his life was extremely disorga!lized and he "seemed to be on a mission of destruction." He initially consulted Dr. Sadeghi for depression and family relationship problems. Later in therapy, Dr. Sadeghi became aware of his legal problems. After he was contacted by the FBI, respondent decide that he must do "the right thing." Dr. Sadeghi found that respondent was willing to "tum his life around." He was of the opinion that respo!ldent was sincere in wanting to change his life. He said that respondent realized that he was "in a very bad place" and he wanted to move from it. It is Dr. Sadeghi's opinion that during the months oftherapy, respondent made significant progress. Dr. Sadeghi recalled a telephone call which he received fi·om respondent while he was living in the Half-Way House. He was humiliated by being forced to clean bathrooms, but he realized that he had brought these things on himself. After respondent found employme!lt with the Bristol Medical Clinic, Dr. Sadeghi personally inspected the clinic. He testified that the fact that respondent was again working as a chiropractor was an indication to him that the psychological therapy had been successful. 11. Curtis D. Booraem, Ph. D., testified as an expert witness for respondent. Dr. Booraem conducted a psychological evaluation of respondent on September 3 and September 15, 1999. He took,a detailed history from respondent, including the illegal acts which he performed, and he administered the standard battery of psychological tests. They are described in detail in Exhibit F .. He examined Dr. Sadeghi's records . .Dr. Booraem then examined what respondent had done to rehabilitate himself after his criminal conviction. Dr. Booraem concluded that respondent was genuinely remorseful for the harm which he had caused to his farnily and to his profession. Respond13nt expressed his remorse to Dr. Booraem. Respondent became significantly more involved with his family and also with his community. He associated himself with respected doctors when he sought employment. Dr. Booraem testified that respondent has significantly rehabilitated himself. Respondent poses no threat to the public. There is no psychiatric reason why he cannot practice as a chiropractor, Dr. Booraem's report indicates that respondent is unlilcely to engage in future c1iminal behavior. He is motivated to live a moral and ethical life. 5 BCE0008116 12. Keith A Wells, D.C., testified as an expert wimess on behalf of respondent. He is an Associate Professor at the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic. He has been licensed as a chiropractor since July 1983. He has taught at the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic for seventeen years. He visited the Bristol Medical Clinic to observe the manner in which respondent treated his patients and to judge his professional competence. He also spoke with the office staff. Dr. Wells verified that respondent is a salaried staff employee of the clinic. Hereceives no compensation other than his specified salary. He is not involved, in any mrumer, in the billing process. The office has a separate billing staff, over which respondent has no control. Concerning respondent's professional abilities, Dr. Wells. is of the opinion that respondent is a safe and efficacious chiropractor who is competent to hold a California license. He is confident in his treatment of patients. He is of above average competency in delivering chiropractic services to his patients. As previously indicated, respondent testified in his own behalf. He described his present employment at Bristol Medical Clinic. He is a full time, salaried employee. He is paid an annual salary of $30,000. He sees only patients of the clinic who have first been examined by one of the two managing doctors. If one of these doctors detennines that respondent's services would be of benefit to the patient, the patient is referred to respondent for chiropractic treatment. He can give only the a111ount of treatment which is prescribed by the referring doctor. The type and frequency of treatment is determined by the primary treating medical do.ctor. If any additional treatment is required beyo.nd that which has been initially prescribed by the primary treating physician, respondent must obtain the consent of that physiciaJl for additional treatment. He has no authority to., nor does he engage in any fonn of marketing, advertising or promoting the clinic. He is happy simply treating patients. He has worked at the clinic for the past sixteen months. Both of the doctors at the clinic are aware of the crime he committed. 13. Respondent has lo.st any benefit of his former illegal activity. He has paid over $100,000 to the IRS and there is a possibility that he may owe additional taxes. The IRS took all that he had left after paying his attorney fees .. He was forced to file bruikruptcy. Respondent admitted that he had "done a lot of bad acts." He says that he was very yo.ung and inexperienced. He has suffered much because of his i1legal actions. He has lost his good na111e and reputation, as well as his friends and associates. His daughter, who is now two years old, was born in the midst of the time when he was serving his sentence in the HalfWay House. He says that he has learned fromhis mistakes. Respondent aclmowledged in his testimony that he has caused great embarrassment to his family and to his community. He expressed sorrow for the damage which he has done to his profession. He acknowledged that he has no one to blame, except himself, for his actions. He stated that he "is sorry .... tmly sony." In giving this portion of his testimony, re6 Rf':FOOORJ'I7 spondent's remorse was genuine, for, at one point, he was helplessly struggling to hold back tears. Section 317.5 of Title 16, California Code of Regulations, provides that the 14. Board may request the Administrative Law Judge to direct any licensee who has been found to have committed a violation of the Chiropractic Initiative Act to pay to the Board a sum not to exceed the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of the case. Exhibit 3 is a Certification of the Prosecution Costs ofthis case. The total cost thus ce1iified for prosecution of this case is the sum of $3,150.00. No costs are claimed for investigation of this case. Said costs are reasonable and were necessarily incurred in this case. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS 1. Section 1000-10 of the Business and Professions Code provides, in pertinent part, that the Board may sugpend orrevoke a license to practice chiropractic, or may place such a license on probation for violations of the rules and regulations adopted by the Board, or for any cause specified in the Chiropractic Initiative Act, including a plea of guilty made to a charge of a felony or any offense substantially related to the practice of chiropractic. · Sectio11 317(g) of Title 16, California Code of Regulations, provides that the. Board shall take action against a licensee who is guilty of unprofessional conduct, which includes conviction .of a crime which is substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a chiropractor. Section 317(h) of Title 16, California Code of Regulations, provides that the Board shall take action against a licensee who is guilty of unprofessional conduct, which inCludes conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption. 2. Cause exists, pmsuant to Section 1000-10 of the Business and Professions Code, to discipline respondent's'chiropractic by virtue of his February27, 1997 conviction of mail fraud and making a false statement on his income tax returns, which are felony crimes involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption, and ate substantially related to the qualifications, functions and duties of a chiropractor, by reason of Findings 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. 3. Respondent was involved in widespread illegal activity and continuing dishonesty for four years. During that time he admittedly did "a lot of bad acts." Respondent's actions resulted in his paying illegal kick-backs of approximately $135,000 and understating his taxable inco111e by nearly half a 111il1ion dollars. Wl1ile it is true that respondent subsequently cooperated with authorities in the prosecution of others involved in the widespread illegal activity, and that respondent has presented some evidence of rehabilitation (as set f01ih in Findings 10, 11, 12 and 13 ), considering the serious nature of the nnderlying offense it is found that protection of the public interest demands revocation of respondent's license. 7 BCE0008118 4. Cause exists to order respondent to pay the sum of$3, 150.00 to the Board as the reasonable costs of the prosecution of this case, pursuant to Section 317.5 ofTitle 16, Califomia Code of Regulations, by reason of Finding 14. ORDER Chiropractic License No. 19178 issued to respondent Faramarz Khalili is revoked. Respondent shall relinquish his wal!1icense and pocket renewal license to the Board or its designee within ten (1 0) days of the effective date of this decision. Respondent may not petition the Board for restoration of his revoked license for two (2) years from the effective date of this decision. Respondent shall pay to the Board its costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of$3,150.00 within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of this decision. This decision shall become effective on _ _J_ul_::y_2_B_ _ _ _ , 2000. IT IS SO ORDERED this 28 day of June , 2000. -~4£V:VJ(k_ 'fLOYD E. BOLAND, D.C. Chairman Board of Chiropractic Examiners 8 BCE0008115 1 2 3 4 BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General of the State of California JANA L. TUTON (SBN 078206) Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, California 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 324-5342 5 Attorneys for Complainant 6 BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 In the Matter of the Accusation Against: ) l ) 10 FARAMARZ KHALIL I P.O. Box 97-11 Newport Beach, CA 11 ACCUSATION ) ) ) ) ) 92658 Chiropractic License No. DC 19178 ) ) ) Respondent. 14 99-110 ) 12 13 No. 15 16 17 M. Elizabeth Ware, for causes for discipline, alleges: 18 1. Complainant, M. Elizabeth Ware, is the Executive 19 Director of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners of the State of 20 California (hereinafter the "Board") and makes and files this 21 Accusation solely in her official capacity. 2. 22 On or about January 1, 1988, the Board issued 23 license No. 19178 to Faramarz Khalili (het·ei.nafter, 24 to practice chiropractic. 25 will expire July 31, 2000. 26 III 27 Ill "respondent") The license is current and valid and 28 1. BCE0008120 ! 1 I 2 General Provisions 3 3. Business and Professions Code section 1000-10Y 4 (all sectional references are to the Business and Professions 5 Code unless otherwise indicated) provides that the Board may 6 suspend or revoke a license to practice chiropractic or may place 7 that licensee on probation for violations of the rules and 8 regulations adopted by the Board or for any cause specified in 9 the Chiropractic Initiative Act including a plea or verdict of 10 guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere made 11 to a charge of a felony or any offense substantially related to 12 the practice of chiropractic. 13 4. Title 16 1 California Code of Regulations, section 14 317(g) provides that the Board shall take action against a 15 licensee who is guilty of unprofessional conduct, which includes: 16 conviction of a crime which is substantially related to the 17 qualifications, functions or duties of a chiropractor. 18 5. Title 16, California Code of Regulations, section 19 317(h) provides that the Board shall take action against a 20 licensee who is guilty of unprofessional conduct, which includes 21 conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or 22 corruption. 23 6. Title 16, California Code of Regulations, section 24 317.5, provides, in part, that the Board may request the 25 administrative law judge to direct any licentiate found to have 26 27 28 1. The Chiropractic Act is an initiative measure approved by the electors on November 7, 1922. While the Act is not included in the Business and Professions Code, it is set out in the Business and Professions Code for convenient reference. 2. ( 1 committed a violation or violations of the Chiropractic 2 Initiative Act to pay the Board a sum not to exceed the 3 reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of the 4 case. 5 II 6 CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS 7 7. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action 8 pursuant to Code section 1000-10 and section 1000-10 in 9 conjunction with Title 16, California Code of Regulations, 10 section 317, subdivisions (g) and (h) as follows: 11 A. On or about February 21, 1997, respondent was 12 convicted on his plea of guilty in U. S. District Court, Eastern 13 District of California, Case No. CR S-96-156-01 of .count 1, 14 violation of 18 United States Code section 1341 (mail fraud); and 15 Count 2, violation of 26 United States Code 7206 (1) 16 statement on tax returns) . 17 18 WHEREFORE, complainant prays that a hearing be held and that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners make its order: 19 20 (false 1. Revoking or suspending chiropractic license number 19178, issued to Faramarz Fred Khalili. 21 2. Compelling the respondent to reimburse the Board 22 for the reasonable costs of its investigation, enforcement and 23 prosecution of this matter, up to the day of hearing. III 2s Ill 26 Ill 27 Ill 2s Ill 24 3• 3. 1 2 deems proper. 3 DATED: Taking such other and further action as the Board 4 5 ETH WARE DIRECTOR Chiropractic Examiners 6 7 Complainant 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. BCE0008123 BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter oftl1e Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License of: Case No. 1999-1 I 0 OAB. No. 2012110322 FARAMARZ FRED KHALIL! Beverly Hills, California Petitioner. DECISION The attached Proposed Decision of the Administrative Law Judge is hereby adopted by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners as its Decision in the above-entitled matter, fEB 2JS 2013· This Decision shall become effective o n - - - - - - - - - - - IT IS SO ORDERED this -~21£Bfloi::!h--day of Tan 201 3· Hugh 'ubkin, D.C. Chair Board of Chiropractic Examiners OAB 15 (Rev. 6/84) BEFORE THE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License of: Case No. 1999-110 OAH No. 2012110322 FARAMARZ FRED KHALIL! Beverly Hills, California Petitioner. DECISION This matter was heard before the Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) on December 6, 2012, in Sacramento, California, Dr. Hugh Lubkin, D.C., Chairperson. Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Lew, State of California, Office of Administmtive Hearings, presided. Faramarz Fred Khalili (petitioner) was present and was represented by Ismae1 Bautista, Jr., Attorney at Law. Brian S. Turner, Deputy Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the Department of Justice, State of California. Evidence was received, the record was closed and the matier was submitted for decision on December 6, 2012. FACTUAL FINDINGS ' I. The Board issued Chiropractic License No. DC 19178 to petitioner on Janum'y I, 1988. In a Decision effective July 28,2000, the Board revoked petitioner's license to practice chiropractic, in Accusation Case No. 1999-110. On September 27, 1996, in the United States Court for the Eastern District of 2. Califomia, in Case No. CR 96-0156 EJG, petitioner was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of one count of mail fraud, in violation of Section 1341 of Title 18, United States Code, and one count ofmalcing false statements on his income tax retums, in violation of Section 7206(1) of Title 26, United States Code. On February 28, I 997, respondent was sentenced to be imprisoned for eight months, and he was placed on supervised release for a period of three years. His supervision terminated on February 28,2000. Respondent was permitted to serve his prison sentence in a Federal half-way house. He commenced serving his term of incarceration on March 17, 1997, and was released from the half-way bouse on November 17, I 997. 3. The Board determined that petitioner had engaged in felony criminal offenses involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corTuption, and that were substantially related to the pntetice of chiropractic, as a basis for revocation of petitioner's license. PosfcRevocation Criminal O.ffim.ses 4. On November 28, 2011, petitioner signed the cmTent Petition for Reinstatement of Revoked License. His petition referenced two post-revocation criminal offenses. His statements regarding these convictions are set forth below: On or about September I, 2005, l was arrested for vandalism of a vehicle and charges were filed. On or about January 23, 2007, I pled guilty to the vandalism charge. I was placed on threeyear informal probation with fifty-two (52) hours of community service. The probation tem1inated when l completed community services on February 2, 2007 .... I complied with the terms of probation. On September 1, 2010, the Orange County Superior Court granted my request to expunge this conviction, Case No. 05HM.06686 .... On or about April 19, 2006, I' was a.t1·ested for a hit-and-run. On . or aboutApril2l, 2006, I was arrested for driving with a suspended license; I was cha.t:ged with both violations and for making annoying phone calls. On or about J a.tma.t·y 23, 2007, I pled guilty to all seven com1ts associated with the hit-a.t1d-run, driving with a suspended license, and making a1111oying phone calls. This is in Orange County Superior Comi, Case No. 06HM0360 I, ... I was ordered to serve thirty (30) days in Orange County jail, pay a fme, complete an anger management program, attend psychological therapy for one ( 1) to three (3) times per week for a period of twelve ( 12) months, a.t1d be placed on three (3) years of probation. I served jail time from April .16, 2007, to May 3, 2007. I remained on probation until Janua.t·y 22, 20~0. 5. Petitioner explained that the above offenses occun-ed while he was undergoing severe emotional distress due to his separation and divorce from his ex-spouse. He noted that he felt "much remorse.•rn,1d regret that ,I engaged in such conduct}'. He has sb'Jce, · .·. · · completed the court-ordered anger management program and psychological therapy. He 2 continued in therapy beyond what was ordered. Petitioner saw Dr. Omrani, a psychiatrist, twice a week from November 2008, to September 2011, for anxiety and depression .. Petitioner noted that he benefited from therapy: "I feel I have overcome my life c)'iallenges and no longer need to see Dr. Omrani. I feel myself again." Post-Revocatioi1 Activities 6. Petitioner has accepted responsibility for the prior conduct leading to revocation of his license. He expressed remorse for his "stupidity and poor judgment." Petitioner acknowledged being part of a rather large "kick-back" scheme in which he provided chiwpractic treatment to clients refwed to him by attorneys. He submitted appropriate billing for this tTeatment. When he received settlement checks fron1 the insurance carriers who insured tl1e responsible party in the accident, petitioner would be paid for the chiropractic treatment which he had rendered. However, to "compensate" the attorney who had referred the patient to him, petitioner agreed to pay the attorney a percentage oftl1e fee which he received for having given the medical treatment. Initially, this "kick-back" percentage was 35 percent, but as more patients were referred to petitioner \ for treatment, tl1e percentage quickly rose to 50 percent. This scheme involved approximately 27 attorneys. Petitioner engaged in this illegal activity for approx.imately four years, from 1991 through 1995. During that period of time, the monetary amount of the "kick-back" payments made to the attorneys approximated $135,000. During this same period oftime, respondent filed corporate and individual income tax returns in which he understated his taxable income by approximately $448,000. 7. Petitioner was contacted by the FBI. He fully cooperated with their investigation !lnd became a "star witness." As a result of his cooperation, a number of the attomeys involved pled guilty to the charges brought against them. Petitioner was thereby able to negotiate a favorable plea bargain in cmmection withthe criminal proceedings which had been instituted against him in Federal Court. His cooperation prompted the Assistant United States Attomey who was prosecuting his case to malce a Motion and Declaration on his behalf in the criminal prosecution so that the sentencing judge could depati downward from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. 8. Petitioner provided some documentation of continuing education in chiropractic. He enrolled in atl International Chiropractors Association of California continuing education progrrun on x-rays for chiropractors (2007, five hours), and other seminars on radiology, ethics and relicensing that were offered in 20 II. Petitioner also reads the Chiropractic Journal (California and American), as well as articles, studies and websites ------,r