Buddha reportedly said, “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.”
There are only a couple of problems with this. First, although I found it on the internet (so it must be correct, right?), further research confirms this attribution cannot be authenticated. Second, there is—sadly—much evidence to contradict “Buddha’s” (or whoever’s) assertion.
For example, although there is no credible, ABA-backed study estimating the extent to which perjury and fraud soil our legal system. However, anyone who has worked in the workers’ compensation industry long enough has seen films, reviewed records, read deposition or trial testimony, and read case law demonstrating that a lack of veracity can often seem rampant. Frustratingly, falsehoods often go unchallenged, and when challenged, the challenges are often unsuccessful.
Any Honesty Out There?
Perjury and fraud occur throughout California workers’ compensation. They come from employers, applicants, physicians, lawyers, and others. That said, I believe that all of the attorneys I have had the pleasure of working with throughout California, regardless of which side they represented, have done their best to keep their clients from utilizing untruths. Most, I believe, have been successful.
The primary motivations for workers’ compensation attorneys to follow the rules are their honor and the desire to ensure the system works fairly. Aggressive—even creative—arguments are legitimate and often called for. Lies are not. Never. They only lead to delays in benefit issuance, increased insurance rates, and the slowing of an already slow system, to name a few. Additionally, as “officers of the court,” attorneys and judges must uphold the administration of justice through integrity, candor, and civility (See Attorney Civility Guide, California State Bar). Indeed, as of April 1, 2026, Rule 9.7’s Attorney Civility Oath Requirement demands attorneys to commit to civility, integrity, and respect in practice.
Perjury: Fiction Sworn on a Bible
Where honesty and professionalism fail, the law steps in.
When successfully prosecuted in workers’ compensation cases, it can cause big shock waves and lead to headline news. As such, it puts everyone on notice that “crime doesn’t pay” (despite sometimes paying, which leads to this article).
Perjury occurs when a person, under oath, willfully states as true a material matter they know is false. Per California Penal Code 118, perjury convictions carry 2, 3, or 4 years in state prison and up to $10,000 in fines. There is an additional concern for attorneys: pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 6106, perjury is a crime of “moral turpitude.” As such, convicted lawyers may be stripped of their bar card.
Attorneys can be impacted severely, even if they do not lie themselves. If they knowingly cause, persuade, or induce perjury on their watch – they are guilty of “subornation of perjury” (California Penal Code section 127). This involves individuals, including attorneys, who attempt to persuade someone else to commit perjury. The elements of this crime include a person committing perjury and the defendant knowingly persuading or inducing that person to testify falsely. A person who caused, persuaded, or induced another to commit perjury is punished in the same manner as perjury.
It is possible to attempt perjury without meeting all the legal elements. Attempted perjury arises when a person intends to commit perjury and takes a direct step toward it, but the crime is not completed, such as when the false statement was not “material,” or the proceedings were flawed. It is generally treated as a felony or a lesser attempt offense, carrying serious legal consequences. If prosecuted as a felony, convictions carry fines up to $10,000 and legal penalties equivalent to half of a perjury conviction (California Penal Code §664, attempt statute, in conjunction with § 118, defining the elements of perjury). Like perjury and subornation of perjury, other long-term consequences such as professional license revocation apply.
In addition to sidestepping the charge by not having committed all the legal elements, the teller of falsehoods may also avoid a perjury finding by correcting the lie in a timely manner. A narrow safe harbor known as the recantation defense (Penal Code § 118(b)), may defeat a perjury claim entirely. However, it must be made in same hearing, deposition, or proceeding and employed before falsity is exposed, such as via impeachment or contradiction.
Fraud: Theft Wearing a Mask of Truth
More typical than recantation is the deponent’s attempt to avoid trouble by refusing to sign the deposition transcript. This, however, is not foolproof. In fact, only a fool would rely on this as a defense.
Rather than being used to prosecute for “perjury,” an unsigned deposition transcript may still be admissible if properly authenticated and corroborated, and can support a fraud prosecution under Insurance Code § 1871.4. It focuses on knowingly making false statements to obtain benefits (or deny), including medical treatment, temporary disability, and permanent disability. (The statute is particulary far-reaching inasmuch as it also covers assisting, abetting, or conspiring in fraud, as well as concealment or failure to disclose material facts.) That said, getting an unsigned transcript admitted into evidence can be difficult. The prosecution must authenticate the document, demonstrate its reliability and accuracy, and provide corroboration (sub rosa, medical records, testimony of witnesses, etc.).
Perjury prosecutions in the workers’ compensation context are uncommon, with fraud charges under Insurance Code § 1871.4 being far more typical. This is the primary fraud statute in workers’ compensation. If a case is referred by the WCJ to the California Department of Insurance (CDI) Fraud Division, the chances of it being pursued increase. If the lies are particularly egregious, the CDI is likely to show more interest.
This does not preclude employers from reporting perjury and fraud. If an employer has evidence of a crime, they should inform their insurance carrier immediately. Based on my involvement over the years in fraud referrals throughout California, I strongly recommend the employer not make referrals to the state. Rather, they should provide their evidence to the adjuster assigned to the file.
When sufficient evidence is identified, the adjuster, their defense attorney, or the carrier’s Fraud Unit will contact the CDI Fraud Division. Those who successfully make such referrals usually have detailed training, often directly from the CDI itself. Evidence may include video, witness names, conflicting medical reports, and deposition transcripts, whether or not signed.
Whenever perjury and/or fraud is suspected, investigation is warranted. Why? In addition to acting as a crime deterrent, the WCAB often relies on evidence to weigh witness credibility, including that of an applicant. Further, a WCJ has many options not requiring a referral to the CDI, ranging from decreasing or denying benefits to dismissing claims with prejudice.
It Really Works
The foregoing was recently demonstrated by a happy (for the defense) story (aka panel decision). In John Sarviss v. City of Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power, ADJ866628 (WCAB panel decision, Feb. 23, 2026), the carrier accepted the claim and provided benefits. Thereafter, however, after reviewing subpoenaed records, medical records, and a deposition transcript, the AME issued a report stating that “it is clear that significant credibility issues exist in this case.” Mr. Sarviss “completely omitted the history of the nonindustrial… incident with herniated disc requiring surgery.” Thereafter, the regular physician, Dr. Sabbag, who was appointed by the WCJ pursuant to Labor Code § 5701, related that he could not “reconcile this discrepancy” between medical records and the history given by the applicant.
How did the applicant’s falsehoods impact his benefits? The WCJ determined the applicant was “not credible.” As such, the WCJ found, and the WCAB upheld, no temporary disability, permanent disability, future medical care, or attorney fees. Why did this lack of credibility give rise to this result? An injured worker has the burden of proving their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, there was no substantial medical evidence or other form of proof given that Mr. Sarviss never provided a complete, accurate medical history to the medical reporters.
The point? Workers’ compensation does not award benefits based on what may be true; it awards benefits based on what is proven. The purpose of WCAB proceedings is to reach the truth, but only through admissible, credible evidence—not half-truths, inconsistent testimony, and lies.
It is easy to lose sight of the big picture when dealing with the daily minutiae that constitutes workers’ compensation. Do not allow concerns regarding the Labor Code, regulations, deadlines, temporary disability calculations, Utilization Reviews, Independent Medical Reviews, and the AMA Guides (5th) to draw your attention away from the fact that workers’ compensation does not award benefits based on speculation or what may be true—it awards benefits based on what is proven. While truth is the objective, what is true is only determined via admissible, credible evidence—not half-truths, inconsistent testimony, misrepresentations, and lies.
Thus, once the applicant presents their case, the defense must be prepared to present contrary evidence, including discrepancies that directly challenge credibility. Successfully proving that the applicant and their evidence cannot be believed can lead to diminished, discontinued, or denied benefits, restitution, denial of attorney fees, take-nothings, referrals to the CDI Fraud Division, convictions, fines, and imprisonment. Not a “big picture” to ever forget!
Don R. Barthel is one of the founding partners of Bradford and Barthel, and is based in the firm’s Sacramento office. He has taken dozens of doctor depositions and analyzed thousands of medical-legal reports in order to correct innumerable errors, including misapplications of the AMA Guides, statutory misunderstandings, and other errors making the underlying medical reporting entirely speculative and unreliable. If you have any questions about workers’ compensation defense issues, please feel free to contact him at 916.569.0790 or via email at dbarthel@bradfordbarthel.com.
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.