State Investigates Trips by O.C. Workers’ Comp Judges

State authorities, looking into possible corruption in the workers’ compensation courts, are investigating whether four Orange County judges accepted trips to Hawaii from a doctor who treats injured workers with claims before the courts, a spokesman said.

Although at least two of the judges claim to have covered their own travel expenses, investigators have yet to verify whether advance payments or proper reimbursements actually were made by any of the four jurists, according to John Duncan, the spokesman for the California Department of Industrial Relations.

The trip was arranged in connection with a workers’ compensation seminar, at which the judges reportedly had been invited to make speeches.

Duncan, whose agency oversees the state’s workers’ compensation division, confirmed that the trip authorities are looking into was a four-day excursion to Hawaii in October, 1991. The spokesman added that “just because we are looking into this doesn’t mean there is a problem.”

The judges declined to comment. But in response to an earlier story about the investigation, two of the four judges told The Times that the allegations being investigated were “false accusations.”

Under scrutiny in connection with the trip, Duncan said, are Ellen L. Flynn and Andrew H. Nash of the Anaheim Workers’ Compensation Court, and Adolph U. Molina and David L. Zimmerman, who sit in Santa Ana. Flynn and Molina are the presiding judges of their courthouses.

“The trip is under investigation, and all aspects of it are under investigation,” Duncan said. “You can’t give a judge anything of value in exchange for favorable treatment. That’s the ultimate question” under investigation, Duncan added.

A lawyer for the Fair Political Practices Commission has advised the Department of Industrial Relations that if a judge “receives gifts, including transportation, aggregating $250 or more in value prior to a decision affecting the donor, the judge may have a conflict of interest.”

Duncan said the doctor who purportedly provided the Hawaii trips is Jacob Rabinovich of Irvine, an orthopedic surgeon whose patients include injured workers with cases before the workers’ compensation courts. Rabinovich’s income sometimes depends on decisions by workers’ compensation judges, because the courts, in disputed cases, often decide how much doctors should be paid for treating injured workers.

A representative of Rabinovich’s medical offices in Santa Ana said the doctor is on vacation outside the country and will be unavailable for comment until the end of July. She declined to discuss the situation.

If the judges did not pay their own travel expenses and later ruled on cases involving Rabinovich, there could be violations of state conflict-of-interest law. There also could be violations of rules requiring officials to report gifts and income they receive on their annual financial disclosure statements, which are public record.

There was no indication on the four judges’ economic interest statements covering 1991 that they received air fare or expenses from Rabinovich as either gifts or in lieu of speaking fees. If the judges paid their own way, or fully reimbursed Rabinovich for any sums he paid on their behalf, they would not be required to report the trip on their economic disclosure statements.

The inquiry into the Hawaii trips is part of a broader investigation launched several months ago by the workers’ compensation division. The agency oversees 28 courts statewide that resolve disputes between workers seeking medical treatment and cash benefits for on-the-job injuries, and the insurers and employers responsible for covering the costs.

Among other things, authorities are trying to determine whether judges and court employees improperly received gifts, money, trips, loans, and speaking fees from attorneys and physicians who are involved in cases pending before some of the judges in question.

Casey L. Young, the administrator for the workers’ compensation division, could not be reached for comment Tuesday. He has told The Times previously that no wrongdoing has been proven yet, and that many of the allegations have turned out to be groundless.

Copies of letters exchanged between state officials in July and September, 1991, provide some background on the Hawaiian seminar that was held Oct. 9 through 12 of the same year. The letters indicate that Zimmerman told Department of Industrial Relations officials that a private doctor offered him an expense-paid trip to Hawaii.

The letters state that Zimmerman wanted to know if accepting the offer would be a conflict of interest and, if he went ahead with the trip, how he should report it on his annual financial disclosure forms.

The final correspondence on the matter was from a lawyer for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, who advised that accepting a trip to Hawaii “can be a cause for conflict of interest.”

“If the judge receives gifts, including transportation, aggregating $250 or more in value prior to a decision affecting the donor, the judge may have a conflict of interest,” said the lawyer, Mark T. Morodomi.

Morodomi added: “Should the judge wish to avoid any potential concerns of disclosure or conflict of interest, he may reimburse the donor of the gift for all or a portion of the value of the gift.”

As for whether Zimmerman would need to disclose accepting an expense-paid trip, Morodomi indicated that the law that appeared to apply in this case required gifts valued at $50 or more to be reported.

Zimmerman reported no such gift on his financial disclosure forms for 1991, and neither did any of the other three judges believed to have taken the Hawaii trip. A spokeswoman for the California Fair Political Practices Commission said none of the other three judges asked for an opinion regarding the trip.

A lawyer for Judge Flynn, Fred J. Kumetz, said Tuesday that Zimmerman submitted his inquiry to the Fair Political Practices Commission “on behalf of everybody” and that the four judges were guided by the outcome.

Yet, in a letter stating his legal opinion, Morodomi disputed the position advanced on Zimmerman’s behalf by Lorraine Loo, personnel analyst for the California Department of Industrial Relations.

Loo sought written confirmation from Morodomi that, among other things, “there is no problem with Judge Zimmerman accepting travel and accommodations for this seminar, since they are considered gifts.”

But Morodomi, in his response, told Loo that not only would the travel and accommodations be reportable, but “a judge may have a conflict of interest . . . if the judge receives gifts, including transportation, aggregating $250 or more in value prior to a decision affecting the donor.”

Kumetz said he doesn’t see “any problem” for his clients as a result of Morodomi’s opinion. In the case of Flynn, he said she had no conflicts of interest, because she had never ruled on any unpaid medical bills involving Rabinovich. Kumetz said Flynn reimbursed Rabinovich “or whoever advanced the expenses,” but he declined to say whether Flynn paid for all or only part of the trip’s cost.

Kumetz also said that Flynn has never been notified that she is under investigation by any state authorities, and he vouched for his client’s integrity but declined to comment further.

“She is one of the straightest people around,” Kumetz said. “She would never do anything that would compromise her position.”

Though Duncan confirms that Flynn is part of the investigation, she has denied in a letter to the Times that she was ever under scrutiny.

In an interview with The Times last month, Molina said that he went to the Hawaii at his own expense to speak to a group of attorneys about workers’ compensation law. He denied any impropriety and said he kept his expense records in case any questions were raised about the trip.

At Molina’s request, The Times submitted questions in writing to him this week about the state investigation. But his staff said that Molina did not report to work Tuesday, saying he was ill.

In a letter received by The Times dated July 12, Molina wrote that the accusations surrounding him and other workers’ compensation judges disclosed in news articles were false.