I have stayed out of the fray (but have supported opposition to SB202 from the start) and was unaware until today that a case involving my firm was cited as a need FOR SB202.

I respond now in defense of my firm and reputation but also in astonishment that the case would be cited at all in view of the fact that NEITHER BSIS or CALI ever ONCE contacted me or cited or disciplined the firm regarding it nor where any complaints filed with BSIS by the plaintiff in the lawsuit. I did contact Francie Koehler/CALI a couple of times at the start of the suit for reference material, advice, and referral/recommendation to experts. To then cite the case, without inquiry or investigation as to it’s outcome or examination of the full record prior to use as evidence in support of a bill as far reaching as SB202 to a LONG STANDING PAYING MEMBER OF CALI is REPRESHENSIBLE at best and VERY SHODDY AND POOR SUPPORTIVE CASE PREPERATION at worse.

To put my firm in the same company as Pelicano and the HP investigators, is in my opinion, slanderous and outrageous!

Where is the same fervent and vociferous support afforded support of SB202 by the Associattion/BOD I pay for membership and advocacy, against frivolous suits and unsubstantiated allegations leveled at one of it's membership?

The case was filed with damages requested of well over 1 million dollars AFTER I conducted multiple days of surveillance over the course of multiple years and obtained video evidence in open, very public places appearing to contradict the alleged medical restrictions of the IE AND the resulting reports- months after the last surveillance was conducted, MYSTERIOUSLY landing in the hands of the allegedly mentally unstable IE who then threatened physical harm to all involved ie TPA, employer, investigators.

It was discovered during the course of our investigation that the IE’s daughter worked for the treating Psychiatrist who hired her after the IE became a patient. The IE was institutionalized on a psyche hold after making the threats and remained institutionalized for some months.

The suit alleged that the main causation of the 100% psyche rating given the IE by the treating Psyche employing the daughter was primarily and/or directly related to our investigative activities even though none of her institutionalizations during the years of active investigation coincided even remotely with the actual dates of investigative activity. The suit was filed by a law firm notorious for filing such suits and known as the 500 pound gorilla with political clout behind the weight to IE’s. It was a plus that the treating Psyche- who didn’t advertise AT ALL but was kept in business strictly by referral only, and the firm had a working relationship.

My office was first noticed of the initial threats by the TPA that hired us and advised that we take the threats as seriously as they were, advising us that they had posted guards and locked doors as well as posting pictures of the IE obtained from our work at their offices.

The IE had an established history of multiple institutionalizations for violent attacks against her own family members before we ever were contracted to perform investigative services, were advised at the time of hire of this, and told to take extra precautions during investigations- which we did.

Myself and one other investigator performed all investigative work and adamantly deny now and did then that all of the allegations were blatantly false and that all investigative activities were conducted with strict adherence to all State, local and regulatory laws.

Upon learning of the threats we filed a report with local law enforcement and requested additional patrols of our personal residences and offices. After an officer contacted the treating psyche to confirm the threats and ascertain the seriousness of them, it was recommended that we seek a restraining order, which we did, but were never able to personally serve on the IE as the presiding judge required, ruling that a substituted service at the family residence was insufficient, as local sheriff’s officers were barred from access to the IE in the hospital.

The initial suit was thrown out on summary judgment, with the judge citing a total lack of evidence supporting the allegations in the suit and the blatant and preposterous way all points in between A and Z were entirely ignored in the dot connecting by the plaintiff, ie that if one or two pretext calls was admitted in reports that it followed that it was feasible that 25 or 30 were made as alleged.

NO evidence was ever offered proving evidence of any calls let alone multiple phone calls or fence sitting/walking/video taping. Their entire case hinged on less than a handful of references in multiple reports to pretext calls placed to confirm the IE’s presence and the allegations of her daughter that calls were received non-stop for days and hours on end, as well as an allegation that on one occassion in broad daylight on the corner of a main intersection in an intercity street a Caucasian male investigator climbed a cinderblock and constatine wire wall in the backyard to video tape, and on another that a Caucasian female standing on the porch stoop in broad daylight of that same house on the corner of a main intercity intersection pressed her face against a screened window adjacent to the front door to peer inside the house while the daughter stared back from the other side. This was in conjunction with an investigator posing as an Edison employee to gain access to the home while the occupants were there to plant cameras and listening devices inside the light bulbs in the home.

The IE’s phone, in spite of all this was never requested monitored by the phone company, nor were any complaints/reports made IE’s attorney, Psyche, or law enforcement regarding the calls, trespass, or harassment prior to the IE reading the reports. This lack of action from an entire family who were allegedly so traumatized by the alleged incidences that they lived in fear, altered their activities and drove their totally incapacitated mother to insanity.

The ruling was appealed and the appeal upheld by another judge.

Fast forward to the jury trial- and additional allegations that the investigator continued to harass the claimant during pretrial activity by, among other things, gaining access to her attorney’s bullet proof glass, security access only office unseen by anyone but her to torment her in the halls during a deposition, driving her to hysteria and further hospitalization.

First on the stand was the IE’s adult daughter who worked for the formerly treating psyche. She not only could not offer her own exact age or date and place of birth but could also not identify the investigator in the courtroom- continually describing the investigators as middle aged men who on many occasions drove a sedan back and forth at a slow menacing pace in front of the house offering her clear view- and even photographed on one occasion, though the photo mysteriously disappeared and could not be offered for evidence. I am 5’7”, blonde hair and blue eyes, and though middle aged, have never been mistaken for a male and have not driven a sedan since I was a teenager. The other investigator was a short, obviously Hispanic male with multiple tattoos and piercings in his early 30’s. Only two vehicles were used during surveillance and no cars were found rented or registered to either investigator that matched the description of cars described by the IE’s family. She was pulled off the stand after about 30 minutes.

Second on the stand was the doctor treating the IE during current institutionalization, who read from medical records the IE’s description of the investigator sitting on the fence- and providing pictures she had drawn, as red skinned, devilish looking and moving in an animal like manner with glowing eyes, among other things. He described her mental state as totally delusional and disconnected with all reality, even laughing when he recounted what he deemed incredulous allegations by her of other events both related and not to the investigation. He testified that prior to her fixation on our firm she had made repeated unfounded allegations of actions similar to ours by a coworker interviewed during initial AOE/COE investigation NOT conducted by us, who contradicted the IE’s allegations. The IE made numerous threats of violence against that individual that were taken very seriously.

Evidence was also obtained, and prepared to be presented; that the causation of the IE’s mental deterioration was the result of active disease not associated with work environment or activities and had occurred years before the IE was employed by the insured and already in a progressive, degenerative state prior to the date of hire.

After about 3 hours of cross examination of the Psyche on that first day of trail by defense counsel that followed initial exam by plaintiff attorney’s second in command, a recess was requested by the plaintiff’s lead attorney, with reserve by the defense to continue cross exam of the Psyche for the remainder of that day and the better part of the following day, and granted.

Plaintiff’s attorney immediately approached defense counsel and proposed a settlement offer for $150,000.00 and a signed full release by myself and my insurance company for any recourse in the matter. Much to my strong belief that it was legalized extortion, as continuing trial would cost well in excess of that in addition to substantial defense costs already incurred and the urging of E&O rep counsel on site, settlement was signed and the trial came to an end.

Do I begrudge the investigative firm hired as expert witnesses by Plaintiff’s counsel to crucify my work and rep? No, its the nature of the process!

What I do begrudge is being thrown under the bus by the Association/BOD that I have long been a paying member of without substantiation for advancement of personal agenda's. If my investigative actions were so egregious as to be cited as substantiation for SB202, and put on par with Pelicano & HP, where are the sanctions, citations, admonishments, suspensions or request for action to BSIS by that same association to protect the public from my firm and prevent the tarnishing of our industry, the industry they are supposed to be championing?

To CALI and the BOD- even though disagreeing whole heartedly with your justification and support of SB202, I have respected your and everyone else's right to respectful discourse and sought to oppose SB202 in the same manner. This though goes way off the charts in my view of professional and factual supportive presentation and integrity. You have resorted to sensationalism and inflammatory out of context snippets to support a baseless cause and have done more harm to the profession you so adamantly profess to champion than good.

The speed of the leader is the speed of the Gang normally, yet it seems the Gang has set a higher standard for themselves in this instance than the BOD.

To all those that have taken the time and resources to actively pursue honest and factual discourse on this matter, I applaud you! The cream always rises to the top, and in this matter will too!

Soni Melgar