Anaheim Woman Pleads Guilty to $2.2 Million Hospice Fraud Scheme
Lynn Galbraith admitted to submitting fraudulent Medicare claims for hospice services for patients who were not terminally ill.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 5:15 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 27, 2026, 5:15 p.m. ETFirst report
Anaheim Woman Pleads Guilty to $2.2 Million Hospice Fraud Scheme
An Orange County woman pleaded guilty on August 27, 2026, to one count of health care fraud for submitting more than $2.2 million in false claims to Medicare for hospice services, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California.
Lynn Galbraith, 60, of Anaheim, was the co-owner and operator of Azure Hospice Care Inc. in Garden Grove from September 2019 to July 2022, and then its sole owner until February 2024. According to her plea agreement, she knowingly submitted claims for beneficiaries who did not have a terminal illness with a life expectancy of six months or less, and she did not routinely coordinate with their primary care physicians. In one example, she submitted a claim for $6,600 in October 2022 knowing there was insufficient documentation to establish eligibility.
In total, Galbraith submitted approximately $2,266,694 in false claims, and Medicare paid approximately $2,140,606 to Azure. U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt scheduled a December 3 sentencing hearing, where Galbraith faces a statutory maximum of 10 years in federal prison. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General is investigating the matter.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 21:22current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 21:15current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.