Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Litigation
Litigation	Note 8. Litigation A Complaint was filed with the United States District Court, Southern District of New York by Steven Safran as Plaintiff against the Company and Douglas Beplate, its CEO, as Defendant. This case was transferred to the United States District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada. Mr. Safran sought damages and monies allegedly owed pursuant to an employment agreement of approximately $734,000 and allegedly unpaid loans of $245,824 provided to Defendants. The Company denied the Plaintiff’s allegations. On July 21, 2021, Mr. Safran and the Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement and General Release whereby the Company agreed to pay $250,000 in cash and issue 300,000 shares of common stock to Mr. Safran. The 300,000 shares have a fair market value of $312,000. As of December 31, 2021, the 300,000 shares of common stock have been issued and $250,000 in cash has been paid. In March 2021, the Company received payment of $304,273 from Maxim Group LLC, representing the full settlement payment in accordance with a Settlement Agreement in a previously disclosed arbitration between the Company and Maxim that was reached in December 2019. Philip Forman, who served as Chairman, a director, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Medical Advisor of the Company at various times between 2011 and October 2015, filed a lawsuit against the Company and our then-Chief Executive Officer, Douglas Beplate, in the United States District Court of the District of Nevada. The plaintiff has claimed, among other things: that the June 25, 2015 Amendment to his November 10, 2014 Employment Agreement with the Company, which terminated the Employment Agreement on October 1, 2015, is not enforceable due to lack of consideration; that a July 22, 2015 Stock Purchase Agreement pursuant to which the plaintiff sold Company shares issued to him under the Amendment to a third a party is unenforceable (despite the fact that all payment for the shares under the Stock Purchase Agreement was made); that the plaintiff’s 2014 Employment Agreement remains valid and that he is entitled to cash and stock compensation under that Employment Agreement (without giving regard to the Amendment); and that the Company and Mr. Beplate defrauded the plaintiff relating to the foregoing. The plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment regarding the parties’ relative rights under the Employment Agreement, the Amendment and the Stock Purchase Agreement; money damages of no less than $2,795,000; and punitive damages of $8,280,000. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims which was denied on March 19, 2020. On May 5, 2021, the plaintiff provided a deposition as instructed by the Court, subsequent to which the Company filed a motion for dismissal of this proceeding. On February 14, 2022, the Court issued an Order which declared the Amendment to be unenforceable and thus the terms of the original Employment Agreement to remain in effect. The Order also noted that the Company is not a party to the Stock Purchase Agreement, and the Employment Agreement does not constitute a prior agreement that could have been superseded by the Stock Purchase Agreement. In July 2022, United Health Products filed a motion to reopen discovery for the purpose of developing additional issues it wished to raise at trial. At the beginning of August 2022, the court denied United Health Products’ request to reopen discovery. The court instructed counsel for both parties to meet and confer regarding a Joint Trial Order to be filed with the court. The Joint Trial Order generally details the parties’ position on which issues are to be addressed at trial. The parties are currently seeking to reach agreement on what issues should be addressed at trial. Once the issues have been agreed upon, the Joint Trial Order will be filed with the court and the court will set a trial date. Concurrently with the completion of the Joint Trial Order, the parties are engaged in various settlement negotiations. In 2018, an action was commenced in the United States District Court Southern District of New York entitled JEC Consulting Associates, LLC. Liquidator of Lead Dog Capital LP against United Health Products t/k/a United EcoEnergy Corp and Douglas K. Beplate under Docket Number 18-cv-1139 (ER). The third-party action sought to remove a restrictive legend from a particular stock certificate for Three Million Fifty Thousand (3,050,000) shares and declare the shares to be free trading. The third-party plaintiff alleges that the Company and Mr. Beplate refused to have the restrictive legend on the stock certificate removed under Rule 144 and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The Federal court issued an order that the Securities Exchange Commission should review the claim before the District Court renders a final ruling. Discovery appears to be substantially complete and settlement discussions between the third-party plaintiff and the Company have been initiated. On April 22, 2022 the parties entered in a Settlement Agreement wherein the Company would agree to allow the removal of the restrictive legend as permitted under applicable securities laws and distribution of the shares to affiliates of the plaintiffs. Under the Settlement Agreement the Company will make no payments other than to pay expenses related to its own legal counsel. As mentioned in Note 7 above, the Company settled the SEC’s investigation through the filing of a consent judgment on the terms described in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on April 29, 2022, without the Company admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations. Due to uncertainties inherent in litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of the above legal proceedings. The Company is or was also a party to the following legal proceedings: On February 7, 2020, the Company filed the Original Petition for Fraud and Breach of Contract in the Texas District Court for the 215th Judicial District of Harris County against defendants Patterson Companies Inc., Patterson Management, L.P., Patterson Veterinary, Inc. and Patterson Logistics Services, Inc., and Animal Health International, Inc. On March 5, 2020, the defendants removed the case to U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas. The defendants filed their answer in federal court on March 12, 2020. The original August 25, 2020 pretrial deadlines were extended. On January 18, 2022, the Company’s claims were dismissed, with prejudice, by the court. On February 9, 2022, the Company and Patterson reached an agreement on settlement of Patterson’s counterclaim. The Company agreed to pay $120,000 which was accrued as of December 31, 2021. The $120,000 settlement payment was paid in full in February 2022. In August 2020, United Health Products filed suit against its former auditors, in Utah State Court, asserting claims related to professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The Company and the defendant, through mediation reached an agreement on settlement in which the defendant agreed to pay $392,000 and the entire amount was paid in September 2022 and recorded as other income in the statement of operations (Note 10).

Litigation

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Note 8. Litigation

A Complaint was filed with the United States District Court, Southern District of New York by Steven Safran as Plaintiff against the Company and Douglas Beplate, its CEO, as Defendant. This case was transferred to the United States District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada. Mr. Safran sought damages and monies allegedly owed pursuant to an employment agreement of approximately $734,000 and allegedly unpaid loans of $245,824 provided to Defendants. The Company denied the Plaintiff’s allegations. On July 21, 2021, Mr. Safran and the Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement and General Release whereby the Company agreed to pay $250,000 in cash and issue 300,000 shares of common stock to Mr. Safran. The 300,000 shares have a fair market value of $312,000. As of December 31, 2021, the 300,000 shares of common stock have been issued and $250,000 in cash has been paid.

In March 2021, the Company received payment of $304,273 from Maxim Group LLC, representing the full settlement payment in accordance with a Settlement Agreement in a previously disclosed arbitration between the Company and Maxim that was reached in December 2019.

Philip Forman, who served as Chairman, a director, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Medical Advisor of the Company at various times between 2011 and October 2015, filed a lawsuit against the Company and our then-Chief Executive Officer, Douglas Beplate, in the United States District Court of the District of Nevada. The plaintiff has claimed, among other things: that the June 25, 2015 Amendment to his November 10, 2014 Employment Agreement with the Company, which terminated the Employment Agreement on October 1, 2015, is not enforceable due to lack of consideration; that a July 22, 2015 Stock Purchase Agreement pursuant to which the plaintiff sold Company shares issued to him under the Amendment to a third a party is unenforceable (despite the fact that all payment for the shares under the Stock Purchase Agreement was made); that the plaintiff’s 2014 Employment Agreement remains valid and that he is entitled to cash and stock compensation under that Employment Agreement (without giving regard to the Amendment); and that the Company and Mr. Beplate defrauded the plaintiff relating to the foregoing. The plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment regarding the parties’ relative rights under the Employment Agreement, the Amendment and the Stock Purchase Agreement; money damages of no less than $2,795,000; and punitive damages of $8,280,000. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims which was denied on March 19, 2020. On May 5, 2021, the plaintiff provided a deposition as instructed by the Court, subsequent to which the Company filed a motion for dismissal of this proceeding. On February 14, 2022, the Court issued an Order which declared the Amendment to be unenforceable and thus the terms of the original Employment Agreement to remain in effect. The Order also noted that the Company is not a party to the Stock Purchase Agreement, and the Employment Agreement does not constitute a prior agreement that could have been superseded by the Stock Purchase Agreement.

In July 2022, United Health Products filed a motion to reopen discovery for the purpose of developing additional issues it wished to raise at trial. At the beginning of August 2022, the court denied United Health Products’ request to reopen discovery. The court instructed counsel for both parties to meet and confer regarding a Joint Trial Order to be filed with the court. The Joint Trial Order generally details the parties’ position on which issues are to be addressed at trial. The parties are currently seeking to reach agreement on what issues should be addressed at trial. Once the issues have been agreed upon, the Joint Trial Order will be filed with the court and the court will set a trial date. Concurrently with the completion of the Joint Trial Order, the parties are engaged in various settlement negotiations.

In 2018, an action was commenced in the United States District Court Southern District of New York entitled JEC Consulting Associates, LLC. Liquidator of Lead Dog Capital LP against United Health Products t/k/a United EcoEnergy Corp and Douglas K. Beplate under Docket Number 18-cv-1139 (ER). The third-party action sought to remove a restrictive legend from a particular stock certificate for Three Million Fifty Thousand (3,050,000) shares and declare the shares to be free trading. The third-party plaintiff alleges that the Company and Mr. Beplate refused to have the restrictive legend on the stock certificate removed under Rule 144 and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The Federal court issued an order that the Securities Exchange Commission should review the claim before the District Court renders a final ruling. Discovery appears to be substantially complete and settlement discussions between the third-party plaintiff and the Company have been initiated. On April 22, 2022 the parties entered in a Settlement Agreement wherein the Company would agree to allow the removal of the restrictive legend as permitted under applicable securities laws and distribution of the shares to affiliates of the plaintiffs. Under the Settlement Agreement the Company will make no payments other than to pay expenses related to its own legal counsel.

As mentioned in Note 7 above, the Company settled the SEC’s investigation through the filing of a consent judgment on the terms described in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on April 29, 2022, without the Company admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations.

Due to uncertainties inherent in litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of the above legal proceedings.

The Company is or was also a party to the following legal proceedings:

On February 7, 2020, the Company filed the Original Petition for Fraud and Breach of Contract in the Texas District Court for the 215th Judicial District of Harris County against defendants Patterson Companies Inc., Patterson Management, L.P., Patterson Veterinary, Inc. and Patterson Logistics Services, Inc., and Animal Health International, Inc. On March 5, 2020, the defendants removed the case to U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas. The defendants filed their answer in federal court on March 12, 2020. The original August 25, 2020 pretrial deadlines were extended. On January 18, 2022, the Company’s claims were dismissed, with prejudice, by the court. On February 9, 2022, the Company and Patterson reached an agreement on settlement of Patterson’s counterclaim. The Company agreed to pay $120,000 which was accrued as of December 31, 2021. The $120,000 settlement payment was paid in full in February 2022.

In August 2020, United Health Products filed suit against its former auditors, in Utah State Court, asserting claims related to professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The Company and the defendant, through mediation reached an agreement on settlement in which the defendant agreed to pay $392,000 and the entire amount was paid in September 2022 and recorded as other income in the statement of operations (Note 10).