UPDATE: Sixth Person Found Guilty in Unlicensed Chiropractic Clinics Scam

A Naples man convicted of committing mail fraud back in September of 2016 has been sentenced to 14 years in prison. According to the Naples Daily News, Nesly Loute, was also ordered to pay restitution of almost $2.15 million to the insurance companies.

Loute and five others plead guilty and were convicted of operating five unlicensed chiropractic clinics and fraudulently billing auto insurers for Personal Injury Protection benefits.

Click here to view the full article. (Previous post)

Comments Off on UPDATE: Sixth Person Found Guilty in Unlicensed Chiropractic Clinics Scam

Filed under auto insurance, Auto Insurance Fraud, Florida, Insurance Fraud, Personal Injury Protection, PIP, PIP/No Fault, Unlicensed Clinics

Trooper Fired and Arrested for Helping Friend Cover Up Crash

Florida Highway Patrol Trooper David Casillas was arrested on Tuesday, February 28th and charged with organized fraud, filing a false insurance claim and official misconduct after trying to help a friend cover up a traffic crash that occurred in June of 2015. FHP fired Casillas in January as a result of the investigation which lasted over a year.

During the investigation, it was discovered that Casillas had written a false report for a bogus insurance claim submitted by his friend, dentist Jesus Del Valle. The insurance claim was submitted as a result of damage the dentist had done to his vehicle when he sideswiped a landscaping crew and kept driving.

Del Valle’s crash left Yoel Montero, a gardener with Lewis Tree Service, with a traumatic head injury and severe injuries to his right leg. The false insurance claim alleges that the accident happened a week later than it actually happened and that he had crashed the SUV into a palm tree instead of a landscaping crew.

The key to breaking the case was the fact that Del Valle’s 2015 Land Rover needed a new passenger-side mirror which could only be ordered from Range Rover manufacturers. Only one such had been sold in that time period and it was to Del Valle’s mechanic (and friend) Ariel Perera who performed the repair on his vehicle. Perera also allegedly submitted inflated invoices to Del Valle’s insurance company as well as charged the company for replacement parts that were never actually replaced. He is also facing charges with Del Valle and Casilla.

Click here to read the full story.

Comments Off on Trooper Fired and Arrested for Helping Friend Cover Up Crash

Filed under Auto Insurance Fraud, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Fraud, Miami-Dade County

Will You Have Coverage When You Cross The Line?

Is an automobile insurance company required to extend Florida Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits to an insured who resides in another state?

Well yes and no.

An automobile insurer who sells automobile insurance policies in Florida and the nonresident insured’s state is required to extend the minimum Florida Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits of $10,000.00 to the insured if they are involved in a motor vehicle accident in Florida, but only if they qualify under Florida law.

To qualify, the nonresident insured’s vehicle must have been physically located in Florida for 90 nonconsecutive days out of the previous 365 days from the date of the accident. By nonconsecutive days, it means that the insured vehicle could leave Florida and re-enter and still qualify for Florida PIP benefits if the vehicle has been in Florida for longer than 90 days throughout that preceding year.

An insurer is not required to extend the $10,000.00 in Florida PIP benefits to a nonresident insured whose vehicle is not in Florida for longer than 90 nonconsecutive days out of the previous 365 days from the date of the accident.

Most if not all automobile insurance policies have an “Out-of-State Coverage” provision which will detail that insurer’s obligation to comply with a State’s minimum insurance requirements if their nonresident insured becomes subject to the insurance laws of that State. However, some insurance contracts make it the responsibility of the nonresident insured and not the insurer to purchase the required minimum Florida PIP coverage if they plan to stay in Florida for longer than 90-days.

An insurer is not required to extend additional Florida PIP benefits to a nonresident insured that enters Florida and whose insurance policy meets the States minimum PIP or No-Fault requirements.

For Example:

The New York Automobile No-Fault Law requires each insured to carry a minimum of $50,000.00 in No-Fault/ PIP benefits. Thus, if a New York resident drives their vehicle into Florida and is involved in a motor vehicle accident, then they will receive the $50,000.00 in New York PIP benefits as this is greater coverage than the minimum $10,000.00 in PIP benefits which is required under Florida law.

This article is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information, and anyone’s review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. The content provided is intended to provide information of general interest to the public and is not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. You should consult a lawyer with regard to specific law issues that requires attention.

For additional information please contact Stephen Mellor of Roig Lawyers at 954-354-1541 or by email at smellor@roiglawyers.com.

Comments Off on Will You Have Coverage When You Cross The Line?

Filed under Auto Insurance Fraud, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Personal Injury Protection, PIP/No Fault

Chiropractor’s Challenge To ‘PIP’ Law Kicked Back By Appeals Court

In a 14-page ruling on Wednesday, February 15th, the 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld part of a 2012 overhaul of the state’s personal-injury protection auto insurance system that limits No-Fault (Personal Injury Protection) benefits to $2,500 for individuals who were not diagnosed with an emergency medical condition. The appeals court overturned a judge’s decision in a Miami-Dade County court citing arguments that the 2012 law overhaul was intended to help prevent fraud in the PIP insurance system, but was unconstitutional.

The ruling was in response to chiropractor Eduardo Garrido’s legal victory against Progressive American Insurance Company. Garrido was seeking a determination that the insurer should pay up to the policy limit of $10,000 in the absence of diagnosis that the patient suffered an emergency medical condition as the result of an automobile accident. He also challenged that it was unconstitutional to bar chiropractors from being able to diagnose patients with having suffered an emergency medical condition. The chiropractor treated a patient after an accident in 2013 and submitted invoices to Progressive who only paid $2,500 of the $6,075 billed. According to Progressive, there had been no determination, other than Dr. Garrido’s, a chiropractor, that the patient suffered an emergency medical condition.

Click here to view the full story.

Comments Off on Chiropractor’s Challenge To ‘PIP’ Law Kicked Back By Appeals Court

Filed under FL Legislation, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Miami-Dade County, Personal Injury Protection, PIP/No Fault

Florida Supreme Court Backs Allstate Policy Language in Landmark PIP Case

On January 26, 2017, after months of waiting, those of us in the PIP world finally have our answer to the Allstate policy language debate. It appears that you just need to read the policy as a whole and within its context.

Does Allstate’s PIP policy provide legally sufficient notice to its insureds of its election to use the permissive Medicare fee schedules found in Florida Statute 627.736(5)(a)2 (2009) in order to limit reimbursements for medical services?

The Florida Supreme Court released its opinion on January 26, 2017 holding that Allstate’s PIP insurance policy stating that Allstate’s policy “provides legally sufficient notice of Allstate’s election to use the permissive Medicare Fee Schedule identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2 to limit reimbursements.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, No. SC15-2298, at *2, (Fla. 2017).

The case before the Florida Supreme Court involved a certified decision from Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals, which had held that Allstate’s policy language did not provide sufficient notice to allow the insurer to apply the Medicare Fee Schedules in limiting reimbursements to bills submitted under the PIP portion of the subject policies. The Fourth District Court of Appeals had certified its decision as it provided a direct conflict with the First District Court of Appeals’ ruling in Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. v. Stand-Up MRI of Tallahassee, P.A., 188 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), which held that Allstate’s policy language did in fact provide sufficient notice to its insurer’s to allow the Medicare Fee Schedules to be used in limiting reimbursements to bills submitted under the PIP portion of the subject policies. The First District Court of Appeals was not the only Court in the state to opine in favor of Allstate, in fact by the time that the Florida Supreme Court held oral arguments in this matter in August of 2016, the Second and Third District Courts of Appeals had already entered rulings on the issue agreeing with the First District Court of Appeals’ opinion that Allstate had provided sufficient notice to its insureds of its intent to limit PIP reimbursement by using the permissive Medicare fee schedules found in Florida Statute 627.736(5)(a)2 (2009).

The specific portion of Allstate’s policy language which was being evaluated in Orthopedic Specialists v. Allstate Insurance Co., 177 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), states that Allstate will make payments as follows:

“Allstate will pay to or on behalf of the injured person the following benefits:

1. Medical Expenses

Eighty percent of all reasonable expenses for medically necessary medical, surgical, X-ray, dental, and rehabilitative services, including prosthetic devices, and medically necessary ambulance, hospital, and nursing services.

Id. at 21. An endorsement to the policy provides:

Limits of Liability

. . . .

Any amounts payable under this coverage shall be subject to any and all limitations, authorized by section 627.736, or any other provisions of the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, as enacted, amended or otherwise continued in the law, including, but not limited to, all fee schedules.

Id. (emphasis and alterations omitted).” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, No. SC15-2298, at *3, (Fla. 2017)

The Florida Supreme Court found that “[t]he endorsement to Allstate’s policy clearly and unambiguously states that ‘[a]ny amounts payable’ for medical expense reimbursements ‘shall be subject to any and all limitations, authorized by section 627.736, . . . including . . . all fee schedules.’ When read in its context and as a whole with Allstate’s policy, the plain and obvious meaning of the endorsement is that reimbursements will be made in accordance with all of the fee schedule limitations contained within section 627.736(5)(a)2. See, e.g., Stand-Up MRI, 188 So. 3d at 3 (“Virtual Imaging requires no other magic words from Allstate’s policy and its simple notice requirement is satisfied by Allstate’s [unambiguous] language limiting ‘[a]ny amounts payable’ to the fee schedule-based limitations found in the statute.” (second alteration in original); Fla. Wellness & Rehab. v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 201 So. 3d 169, 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“The use of the phrase ‘subject to’ in the policy places the insured on notice of the limitations elected by Allstate; indeed, we cannot discern any other alternative meaning to this language.”); Allstate Indem. Co. v. Markley Chiropractic & Acupuncture, LLC, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D793, 2016 WL 1238533, at *4 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 30, 2016) (explaining that “Virtual Imaging did not dictate a form of notice” or require insurers to specifically state the word “Medicare”). Allstate’s policy thus places both providers and insured on notice of Allstate’s election to use the permissive Medicare fee schedules identified in section 627.736(5)(a)2. to limit reimbursements.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orthopedic Specialists, No. SC15-2298, at *8-9, (Fla. 2017).

Click here to read the full opinion.

Comments Off on Florida Supreme Court Backs Allstate Policy Language in Landmark PIP Case

Filed under Florida Supreme Court, Fourth District Court of Appeals, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Personal Injury Protection, PIP/No Fault

Physicians able to keep practicing for years after they are arrested for pending felony charges

According to the Palm Beach Post, investigators with the Florida Department of Health (DOH) and Broward County Sheriff’s Office arrived at a Pompano Beach pain clinic in 2012 to search for evidence of crime. Dr. Donald Willems, the osteopathic physician admitted to signing blank prescriptions for powerful painkillers such as oxycodone, admitted to letting a clinic manager fill them out, for patients he had not seen.

Eight criminal charges were leveled against Willems, including racketeering and illegally providing oxycodone. With those felony charges still pending, Willems was arrested again on December 21, 2016, named in a federal complaint alleging insurance fraud orchestrated by a local treatment center.

Anyone checking out his background on the Florida Department of Health’s consumer website would never have known it. The site listed the doctors’ license to practice as “clear and active.”

The DOH, which participated in the 2012 clinic raid, did not file formal disciplinary charges against Willems until January 2016, three years after criminal charges were filed.

The Health Department has previously faced criticism for extensive lags between the time a physician is arrested on drug-related charges and the time the state files a disciplinary charge that could result in sanctions, which include revoking a doctor’s license.

In some ways, quick action by the DOH is hindered by law. State law does not require that a doctor tell the department when he or she is arrested; only when there is a conviction. It can be years between an arrest and a trial.

According to DOH spokesman Brad Dalton, when law enforcement agencies tell the state an investigation is underway, “there are times when the department is asked to wait until a criminal case resolves … to protect the confidentiality of an active law enforcement investigation.”

The agency does not impose sanctions. After investigating, it may file a formal disciplinary charge — an administrative complaint — seeking disciplinary sanctions.

The burden of proof needed to justify such disciplinary charges is high, said Dalton. In a civil court suit, lawyers need to prove a “preponderance” of evidence to win their case, he points out. To prove a discipline case against a doctor, the state has to prove “clear and convincing” evidence.

Click here to view the full story.

Comments Off on Physicians able to keep practicing for years after they are arrested for pending felony charges

Filed under Broward County, DOH, Insurance Claims, Insurance Fraud, Pain Clinics, Palm Beach County

Brother Duo Accused of Massive Insurance Fraud Scheme

According to Law360, on January 3rd in a 427-page state court complaint the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI) and Allstate Insurance Co. have accused brothers Anhuar and Karim Bandy of masterminding a massive personal injury insurance fraud scheme in which they recruited automobile accident victims for file claims for treatment. There were several law firms and health care providers involved in the schemes as well.

The Bandy brothers had previously pled guilty in July 2015 to organizing an insurance fraud scheme in which they recruited auto accident victims as patients for their clinics and received kickbacks from attorneys and medical professionals for patient referrals.

This recent complaint against the Bandy brothers detailed a series of alleged overlapping schemes that date back to their previous conviction. DOBI Commissioner Richard J. Badolato explained, “These and similar alleged fraudulent activities increase the cost of insurance to consumers.” While DOBI is seeking a fine against the Bandy brothers, Allstate is seeking reimbursement for paid benefits paid on behalf of its customers.

Click here to view the full story (subscription required).

Comments Off on Brother Duo Accused of Massive Insurance Fraud Scheme

Filed under Auto Insurance Fraud, Insurance Fraud, Personal Injury Protection

Florida Supreme Court Allstate Fee Schedule Litigation: Shall We Read The Tea Leaves?

The Florida Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Allstate Insurance Company v. Orthopedic Specialists, No. SC15-2298. At issue was an appeal of a ruling that it wrongfully limited its reimbursements under Medicare fee schedules for motorists’ personal injury protection (PIP) claims.

Allstate’s policy language has been found to be exceedingly clear and concise by the majority of appellate courts across the state. A ruling affirming the Fourth District Court of Appeals decision would only serve to blindside Florida’s citizens with additional bills for costly co-payments while also limiting the amount of coverage available to them.

While we wait for a final opinion, industry professionals have been closely watching the court for any and all clues. Politics of the high court aside, what “shall” we analyze to determine how the justices will rule?

One such clue seems to be overlooked, yet is hiding in plain sight. On the very day that the court heard oral argument in Allstate v. Orthopedic Specialists the court issued a Per Curiam Opinion amending the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in which the word “shall” was stricken over 200 times. See In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure No. SC16-155. Ironically and perhaps persuasively, the court writes unanimously that “[t]he amendments shall become effective January 1, 2017, at 12:01 a.m.” (emphasis mine.)

More recently, numerous Per Curiam Opinions amending various procedural and administrative rules have been issued. They have seen the court continue to favor “shall”. Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Appellate Procedure, Code of Judicial Conduct and Small Claims Rules did not remove any “shall” provisions.

Pouring over minor amendments by the high court with no clear answer, perhaps we are left to channel Judge May’s epic dissent in the Fourth District Court of Appeals Opinion in which she found Allstate’s policy language to be unambiguous and compliant. While accusing the medical providers of leading the majority down the yellow brick road she writes frustratingly, “As the Pope once asked Michelangelo during the painting of the Sistine Chapel: “When will there be an end?”

We “shall” know soon.

Comments Off on Florida Supreme Court Allstate Fee Schedule Litigation: Shall We Read The Tea Leaves?

Filed under Auto Insurance Fraud, FL Legislation, Florida, Florida Supreme Court, Fourth District Court of Appeals, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Personal Injury Protection

Two Pharmacies in Florida to Pay $750k for False Billing

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Florida announced that Lemon Bay Drugs North, Inc. in North Port, FL and Brooksville Drugs, Inc. operating in Brooksville, FL have agreed to pay a total of $750,000 to the government to resolve allegations that the pharmacies violated the False Claims Act.

Both pharmacies are managed by Benzer Pharmacy Holding LLC and are owned by Alpesh Patel.

The allegations were that Lemon Bay and Brooksville Drugs provided Medicare and Medicaid patients generic versions of certain medications, but charged Medicare and Medicaid for the brand name versions of those medications. These allegations were initiated in a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower who was a former pharmacy technician who worked at Lemon Bay Drugs. The whistleblower will receive $142,500 as her share of the recovery.
This investigation was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kyle S. Cohen with assistance from the Department of Health and Human Services – Office of Inspector General, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the FBI, the Florida Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, the North Port Police Department, and the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office.

According to the Department of Justice, the claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Click here to view the full story.

Comments Off on Two Pharmacies in Florida to Pay $750k for False Billing

Filed under Florida, Health care, Insurance, Insurance Fraud

United States Settles False Claims Act Allegations Against Orthopedic Surgery Practice For $4,488,000

According to The U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Florida, Southeast Orthopedic Specialists (SOS) has agreed to pay the government $4.488 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act.

The claims against SOS arose from the company billing federal healthcare programs for services that were not medically necessary or reasonable. Specifically, the United States contended that SOS sought reimbursement for millions of dollars of healthcare claims that were questionable.

This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.

Click here to view the full story.

Comments Off on United States Settles False Claims Act Allegations Against Orthopedic Surgery Practice For $4,488,000

Filed under False Claims Act, Florida, Health care, Insurance, Insurance Fraud, Middle District of Florida