This evidentiary record constitutes a formal demand for audit pursuant to California Government Code § 8546.7, which provides that every contract involving expenditure of public funds exceeding $10,000 “shall be subject to the examination and audit of the California State Auditor.” The Legislature specifically intended this provision to apply to the Regents of the University of California. The contracts at issue — including UC’s systemwide agreements with Anthem Blue Cross, Accolade, and Via Benefits (Willis Towers Watson) — each involve public fund expenditures far exceeding this threshold.
The University of California constitutes a “public trust” under California Constitution, Article IX, Section 9. As a self-insured employer, UC is bound by Cal. Code Regs. Title 8, § 15400.2: claim files where future benefits may be payable “shall not” be destroyed.
A prior formal audit request was submitted November 9, 2021, to Chief Compliance & Audit Officer Alexander Bustamante. UC has never responded. This is the second such demand.
On December 26, 2025, Charles A. Harold Jr. signed UBEN 100 and UBEN 101 forms directing UC to disenroll him from UC High Option Supplement to Medicare and transfer him to the Via Benefits Medicare Coordinator Program. Harold signed these forms based on representations made by a UC RASC representative during a November 17, 2025 telephone call, in which he was told that his Arizona residence required him to transfer to Via Benefits.
The single question this chapter addresses is: Does Harold have the legal right to rescind the December 26, 2025 UBEN 100 and UBEN 101 forms?
The answer is yes. Five independent legal grounds support rescission, each sufficient standing alone. All five apply simultaneously.
California Civil Code § 1689 provides that a party to a contract may rescind the contract under the following circumstances. Each subsection below identifies one ground, states the applicable law, presents the facts that satisfy it, and provides live hyperlinks to UC’s own published policies and the California statute so that the reader may independently verify every claim.
“If the consent of the party rescinding, or of any party jointly contracting with him, was given by mistake, or obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, exercised by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds.”
On November 17, 2025, Harold called UC RASC at (800) 888-8267. The call lasted 49 minutes and 46 seconds. During this call, the UC representative stated that Harold’s Arizona residence required him to transfer to Via Benefits. Harold was also told during a subsequent call that Via Benefits “uses a third party administrator to pay your claims” and “we send them so much money a year and they pay for your claims.” Both statements were materially false.
Five months before the November 17, 2025 call, Harold attended UC’s own “Monthly Medicare Webinar - Presented by RASC” on May 22, 2025 (Webinar ID: 952 3749 5832, organized by RASC Insurance Liaison Alicia Rivera via UCOP Zoom). During this webinar, UC representatives informed attendees — including Harold and his wife — that retirees enrolled in the UC Anthem Blue Cross program would be automatically transitioned to the corresponding UC Medicare plan administered by Anthem Blue Cross.
UC’s own published document, “Medicare & Your UC Medical Plan,” available on the UCLA Emeriti/Retirees Relations Center website, confirms this representation. The document states: “For members covered by these plans, you will transition to the UC Medicare PPO plan, administered by Anthem Blue Cross.” The document contains no mention of Via Benefits, no mention of the Medicare Coordinator Program, and no reference to any out-of-state stipend alternative.
Harold relied on this May 2025 representation when he subsequently enrolled in UC High Option Supplement to Medicare and submitted UBEN 123 forms on November 17 and November 21, 2025. The November 17, 2025 UC RASC call — during which a different UC representative stated that Harold’s Arizona residence required him to transfer to Via Benefits — directly contradicted what UC’s own RASC Insurance Liaisons had told Harold five months earlier.
UC’s published Via Benefits FAQ (Rev. 2020-01-09), Question #9, states that before UC provides retiree records to Via Benefits, the retiree must meet all eligibility criteria, including: “(c) not a recipient of UCRP disability.”
UC’s published Via Benefits FAQ, Question #10, lists reasons a retiree would NOT be eligible for Via Benefits, including: “You are disabled and under the age of 65.”
UC’s published Via Benefits FAQ, Question #17, confirms that a recipient of UCRP disability benefits may remain in UC group coverage regardless of state of residence: “Yes, as long as you are under 65 years old and not yet enrolled in Medicare (or covering family members who are under 65), or a recipient of UCRP disability benefits.”
UC’s own Medicare Coordinator Program page on UCnet states: “You are not eligible for the Medicare Coordinator program if you or any covered family members are under the age of 65, even if the covered individuals are eligible for Medicare due to a health condition or disability.”
| UC Rep Statement (Nov. 17, 2025) | UC’s Own Published Rules |
|---|---|
| Arizona residence REQUIRES Via Benefits transfer | FAQ #9: UCRP disability recipients are excluded from data files sent to Via Benefits |
| You HAVE TO be in that program | FAQ #10: Disabled retirees under 65 are NOT eligible |
| Via Benefits pays your claims | Via Benefits administers a marketplace and HRA — it does NOT pay medical claims |
| (Implied) No alternative exists for Arizona residents | FAQ #17: UCRP disability recipients remain in UC group coverage regardless of state of residence |
Harold’s consent to sign the December 26, 2025 UBEN 100 and UBEN 101 forms was given based on the UC representative’s statement that Arizona residence required the transfer. UC’s own published rules — available on UC’s own website — state the opposite for UCRP disability recipients. The consent was obtained through material misrepresentation of UC’s own eligibility rules.
“If the consideration for the obligation of the rescinding party fails, in whole or in part, through the fault of the party as to whom he rescinds.”
Harold signed the UBEN 100 and UBEN 101 forms to enroll in Via Benefits. The consideration Harold was to receive was enrollment in the Via Benefits Medicare Coordinator Program with a UC-funded Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA).
On February 2, 2026, Via Benefits program administrator Joshua Lewis called Harold from Willis Towers Watson (1-866-322-2824). The call lasted 7 minutes and 6 seconds. Lewis confirmed that Harold is ineligible for Via Benefits because of his disability rating. Lewis stated he would send written notification to UC that Harold’s application will not be accepted by Via Benefits.
The consideration Harold was promised — enrollment in Via Benefits — cannot be delivered because UC’s own contractor has determined Harold is ineligible. The failure is through the fault of UC, which directed Harold into a program whose published eligibility rules exclude him.
“If the consideration for the obligation of the rescinding party becomes entirely void from any cause.”
The UBEN 100 form Harold signed requested disenrollment from UC High Option to enroll in Via Benefits. Via Benefits has now determined Harold is ineligible and has notified UC in writing that his application will not be accepted. The transfer cannot be completed. The consideration — enrollment in Via Benefits — is entirely void because the receiving program will not accept him. This is not a disputed eligibility question. UC’s own published FAQ lists three separate disability exclusions. Via Benefits’ own administrator has independently confirmed the ineligibility. The consideration is void as a matter of UC’s own rules.
“If the contract is unlawful for causes which do not appear in its terms or conditions, and the parties are not equally at fault.”
The UBEN 100 form UC sent Harold on December 26, 2025 lists “Via Benefits—Medicare Coordinator Prog” as an available plan option. The form includes two footnotes for Via Benefits: Footnote 3: “Must live outside of CA”; Footnote 4: “All covered members must be enrolled in Medicare.”
There is NO footnote, warning, or notation anywhere on the UBEN 100 form stating that UCRP disability recipients are ineligible for Via Benefits. The form’s own header reads: “YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION — RETIREE, SURVIVOR OR DISABLED MEMBER.” The form explicitly contemplates use by disabled members, yet presents Via Benefits as an available option without disclosing the disability exclusion that exists in UC’s published eligibility rules. Harold, who signed the form in reliance on UC’s representations, is not at fault.
“If the public interest will be prejudiced by permitting the contract to stand.”
Harold’s cancer surgery was scheduled for February 25, 2026 — fifteen days from the date of this document. If the Via Benefits transfer were permitted to stand:
The University of California is a public trust under California Constitution Article IX, Section 9. Permitting a public institution to strip health coverage from a permanently disabled former peace officer fifteen days before cancer surgery — based on enrollment in a program that institution’s own rules prohibit and that institution’s own contractor has rejected — would prejudice the public interest. On February 2, 2026, Via Benefits administrator Joshua Lewis himself acknowledged the urgency, stating: “We need to fix this before then,” when Harold informed him of the February 25 surgery date.
The following disability exclusions are published by UC itself. They are not Harold’s interpretation or argument. They are UC’s own eligibility criteria, available on UC’s own websites, stating in UC’s own words that UCRP disability recipients are excluded from Via Benefits.
UC’s published FAQ states that UC provides retiree records to Via Benefits only for those who meet all of the following criteria:
“(a) at least 64 years old, (b) have a non-California address, (c) not a recipient of UCRP disability, and (d) not Medicare-eligible due to ESRD.”
Harold is a documented recipient of UCRP disability. Criterion (c) independently excludes him.
UC’s published FAQ lists reasons a retiree would NOT be eligible through Via Benefits, including: “You are disabled and under the age of 65.”
Harold received UCRP disability income from approximately 2003 through 2015, when UC unilaterally reclassified his income from Disability (IRS Code 3) to Early Retirement (IRS Code 2) without documented authorization. Harold’s permanent disability determination from Octagon Risk Services, dated August 8, 2001, has never been revoked.
UC’s published FAQ explicitly addresses out-of-state residence and confirms that UCRP disability recipients may remain in UC group coverage:
“If I move out of California, can I remain in my current UC group coverage? Yes, as long as you are under 65 years old and not yet enrolled in Medicare (or covering family members who are under 65), or a recipient of UCRP disability benefits.”
This provision directly contradicts the UC representative’s November 17, 2025 statement that Arizona residence required Harold to transfer to Via Benefits. UC’s own published rule says the opposite: UCRP disability recipients remain in UC group coverage regardless of state of residence.
“You are not eligible for the Medicare Coordinator program if you or any covered family members are under the age of 65, even if the covered individuals are eligible for Medicare due to a health condition or disability.”
On February 2, 2026, Via Benefits program administrator Joshua Lewis (Willis Towers Watson, 1-866-322-2824) independently confirmed Harold’s ineligibility during a 7-minute, 6-second phone call. Lewis stated he would send written notification to UC that Harold’s application will not be accepted. Harold specifically directed Lewis not to enroll him because it would seriously jeopardize his healthcare coverage during cancer treatment.
Understanding what Harold would lose — and what he was never supposed to be paying — requires correcting the record on how UC High Option premiums are handled.
Harold’s UCRAYS portal (screenshot dated January 30, 2026) shows:
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Plan | UC High Option Supplement to Medicare |
| Monthly Premium | $727.48 |
| UC Contribution | Shown as 100% |
| Medicare Coordination | Yes |
| Address on File | MATCHED |
Despite the UCRAYS display showing “100% UC contribution,” UC presently deducts the $727.48 monthly premium directly from Harold’s pension check. Under the terms of Harold’s 2003 workers’ compensation settlement and the Octagon Risk Services permanent disability determination dated August 8, 2001, UC was obligated to pay Harold’s medical insurance — not deduct it from his pension. For many years under disability income classification, UC paid the insurance directly and no deductions were taken.
When UC unilaterally reclassified Harold’s income from Disability (Code 3) to Early Retirement (Code 2) in 2015 — without documented authorization — two things changed simultaneously: 100% of his income became taxable (previously approximately 92.7% was tax-free), and medical insurance premiums began being deducted from his pension. Harold was told by UC’s “At Your Service” representatives during the 2015 conversion that “UC would continue to pay for my medical insurance since I had had a previous disability income.” This representation was not honored.
| Comparison | UC High Option vs. Via Benefits HRA |
|---|---|
| Annual Value of Coverage | UC High Option: $8,729.76/year ($727.48 × 12) | Via Benefits HRA: Maximum $4,000/year |
| Who Pays | UC High Option: Currently deducted from Harold’s pension (should be paid by UC per settlement) | Via Benefits: Harold pays premiums, then seeks reimbursement from HRA |
| Coverage Type | UC High Option: Employer group Medicare supplement with comprehensive coverage | Via Benefits: Individual market Medicare plan selected from marketplace |
| Annual Shortfall | Via Benefits HRA maximum ($4,000) is $4,729.76 LESS than current premium value ($8,729.76) |
No rational person — particularly a cancer patient sixteen days from surgery — would voluntarily exchange $8,729.76 in annual premium coverage for a $4,000 stipend that requires out-of-pocket payment followed by reimbursement requests.
Harold has provided UC with prompt notice of his intent to rescind, satisfying the requirements of California Civil Code § 1691.
Harold filed a formal “Immediate Hold Request on Retiree Medical Coverage Changes” with UC RASC, demanding that all coverage changes be frozen pending his February 25, 2026 cancer surgery. The letter cited unresolved internal conflicts regarding his retiree/disability status and was sent by fax and mail.
RASC responded via UCRAYS messaging (Jeanine/Farzana). UC stated that outbound Via Benefits calls would be paused until March 1, 2026 and that UC coverage would continue through March 31, 2026. However, UC’s directive stated: “Please ensure that your new coverage through Via Benefits becomes effective on 04/01/2026.” The transfer was paused — not voided.
Joshua Lewis (Via Benefits/Willis Towers Watson) called Harold, confirmed his ineligibility due to disability rating, and stated he would notify UC in writing that Harold’s application will not be accepted. Harold specifically directed Lewis not to enroll him.
This chapter constitutes formal written notice of rescission of the December 26, 2025 UBEN 100 and UBEN 101 forms, on all five grounds identified in Section II above, pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 1689 and 1691.
California Civil Code § 1691 requires that to effect a rescission, a party must promptly upon discovering the facts: (a) Give notice of rescission to the other party; and (b) Restore to the other party everything of value received under the contract, or offer to restore the same.
Notice: Harold provided notice on January 29, 2026 (Immediate Hold Request), reinforced by Joshua Lewis’s February 2, 2026 notification to UC, and formalized by this document dated February 10, 2026. Harold discovered the material facts — his ineligibility for Via Benefits and the misrepresentation of UC’s own eligibility rules — after signing the December 26 forms. Notice was given promptly upon discovery.
Restoration: Harold received nothing of value under the UBEN 100/101 forms. The Via Benefits transfer was never completed. Via Benefits never enrolled Harold. No HRA was established. No coverage was provided through Via Benefits. There is nothing to restore. Harold’s UC High Option coverage has continued uninterrupted through the date of this document. The rescission procedure under § 1691 is fully satisfied.
UC’s own language confirms the Via Benefits Medicare Coordinator Program is an offering, not a mandate. UCnet’s official page for the UC Medicare PPO states:
“UC offers a Medicare Coordinator Program (administered by Via Benefits) to retirees and to families whose members are all eligible for or enrolled in Medicare and live in a state outside California.”
The word is “offers.” UC does not “require,” “mandate,” or “compel.” It “offers.” An offer requires acceptance. Acceptance requires informed, voluntary consent. Consent obtained through misrepresentation of eligibility rules is not informed. Consent given by a person the program will not accept is not voluntary — it is futile.
Further, the existence of the UBEN 100 form itself proves the program is elective. The form requires the retiree’s signature and voluntary consent. If the transfer were truly automatic or mandatory, no signature would be required. UC would simply process the transfer administratively.
The entire premise for the Via Benefits transfer — that Harold’s Arizona residence required him to leave UC High Option — is contradicted by UC’s own plan documentation and UC’s own enrollment processing.
UC High Option Supplement to Medicare is a Medicare Supplement (Medigap) plan, not a Medicare Advantage plan. Medicare Supplement plans operate under Medicare’s rules nationwide. There is no geographic service area restriction because the plan pays after Medicare pays, and Medicare is accepted by providers throughout the United States.
UC’s own systems confirm this: Harold’s UCRAYS portal showed active UC High Option enrollment at his Arizona address with $727.48/month premium and Medicare Coordination: Yes. On November 17 and 21, 2025, UC accepted Harold’s UBEN 123 forms enrolling him and his wife in Navitus drug coverage under UC High Option at his Arizona address. If UC High Option were unavailable in Arizona, UC could not have accepted those enrollment forms.
The following sources are cited in this chapter. All links were verified as active on February 9, 2026.
The December 26, 2025 UBEN 100 and UBEN 101 forms are rescinded on five independent grounds under California Civil Code § 1689:
Harold received nothing of value under the UBEN 100/101 forms. There is nothing to restore. The rescission procedure under California Civil Code § 1691 is fully satisfied. UC must immediately confirm that the December 26, 2025 UBEN 100 and UBEN 101 forms are void, that Harold’s UC Blue Cross High Option coverage continues uninterrupted, and that no further Via Benefits transfer processing will occur.