Q: Is more discovery needed? What else is needed for proof of fraud?

A: Under California law, if there is evidence that the plaintiff did not have a terminal disease at any time and was fraudulently referred by a hospital to hospice, additional discovery may be necessary to strengthen the case for fraud. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Medical records: Obtaining and reviewing all relevant medical records from the hospital, referring doctor, and hospice can provide critical evidence. These records should be examined for inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or signs of fraudulent activity.

2. Expert testimony: Engaging a medical expert to review the records and provide an opinion on the validity of the terminal disease diagnosis can be crucial in establishing fraud. The expert can also comment on the standard of care and whether the referral to hospice was appropriate given the available information.

3. Depositions: Conducting depositions of key parties, such as the referring doctor, hospital staff, and the unidentified person who communicated the critical blood test values, can uncover additional information and help establish a timeline of events.

4. Subpoenas: Issuing subpoenas to obtain additional records or communications related to the plaintiff's case, such as emails or internal hospital documents, may reveal evidence of fraudulent activity.

5. Witness testimony: Identifying and interviewing potential witnesses, such as other healthcare providers or hospital staff members, who may have knowledge of the situation can provide supporting evidence.

To prove fraud under California law, the following elements must be established:

1. A false representation of a material fact;

2. Knowledge of the falsity (or reckless disregard for the truth);

3. Intent to induce reliance on the misrepresentation;

4. Justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and

5. Resulting damage to the plaintiff.

Gathering evidence through discovery to support each of these elements is crucial in building a strong case for fraud. While the evidence of the plaintiff not having a terminal disease and the inconsistencies in the medical records provide a solid foundation, additional discovery can help solidify the case and increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome.

A: It could depend on the quality and relevance of the evidence already at hand to the fraud issue - if the existing evidence does not support the allegation of fraud, then more could be needed. An attorney could answer more definitively with the benefit of the records gathered so far. Good luck

A: Addendum - It could be one thing for the blood test report to raise questions, but fraud is something that requires a clear showing of intent. It would help to see the records and see if they offer information that enables inferences about state of mind. Good luck