Category Archives: Uncategorized

Palm Beach County Business Owner Charged with Workers’ Compensation Fraud

According to the Florida Department of Financial Services, Vanessa Arreguin, owner of V&G Concrete, Inc. was arrested in August for three felony counts of concealing payroll to avoid workers’ compensation premiums and two felony counts of application fraud. Arreguin claimed she made less than $50,000 will conducting more than $7.5 million in business to avoid paying $51,000 in workers’ compensation.

Florida Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Jimmy Patronis said, “Last year alone, our fraud detectives made more than 400 arrests for workers’ compensation fraud and I can assure you my office will continue to hold these individuals accountable.” Arreguin could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

Click here to read the press release.

Comments Off on Palm Beach County Business Owner Charged with Workers’ Compensation Fraud

Filed under Insurance Fraud, Uncategorized

Doctor Sent To Prison For Obstructing Medicare Audit

Dr. John Janick of Port Charlotte was sentenced to five months in prison and three years of parole for lying to during a Medicare audit. Dr. Janick lied to a Medicare program integrity contractor about office space that was being utilized by his wife Lisa McLaren Janick who was found guilty of health care fraud in another related case. Mrs. Janick used the office to gain access to sensitive patient data and generate bogus patient referrals from the Janick Medical Group to her third-party employer.

Click here to read the press release.

Comments Off on Doctor Sent To Prison For Obstructing Medicare Audit

Filed under Healthcare Fraud, Uncategorized

Pending PIP Litigation on the East and West Coasts Could Impact States In Between

PropertyCasualty360 published a report about pending automobile personal-injury litigation in California and New York that could have a lasting impact if the decisions spread to other jurisdictions. Courts will determine allowable evidence for suits involving these insurance claims.

East Coast

In New York, insurers investigated radiologist Andrew Carothers, a suspected illegal straw owner after he filed 20,000 lawsuits against auto-insurance carriers. After insurers refused to pay Carothers, he flooded the state’s courts with more than 20,000 lawsuits seeking collection for unpaid “services.” The civil cases were consolidated, and the jury agreed Carothers was fraudulently engaged in the corporate practice of medicine. The Appellate Division affirmed, so Carothers went to the New York Court of Appeals, where the case awaits a decision.

A favorable decision can deter scams like Carothers’ in other states that forbid the corporate practice of medicine. Fraudsters who often quickly expand operations to line their pockets in other states could be deterred. A decision is expected in 2019.

West Coast

Dave Pebley was involved in a serious vehicle accident, sought medical care and filed suit. He had health coverage but decided not to submit his bills for payment. That is because, under California law, the jury would only hear about the amount paid by his health insurer as the measure of his medical expense while Pebley was billed at the top rate for medical services by refusing to use his health insurance.

The insurer cried foul, asserting that such actions mislead the jury, and are fraudulent because medical providers never expect to receive such high payments. They argued the plaintiff may present the higher medical bills but must provide expert testimony to prove the charges are fair and reasonable. Similarly, the defendant or their insurer may present counter-evidence as to what the health providers normally accept for payment of those services.

The California Second District Court of Appeal reasoned that juries should be allowed to ultimately decide the appropriate charge for the medical services. Parties are lining up to support an appeal of the case to the state Supreme Court. If Pebley succeeds in California, potentially winning the $3.6 million he seeks, the strategy of refusing to use health insurance can be expected to spread rapidly to other states.

Click here for full article.

Comments Off on Pending PIP Litigation on the East and West Coasts Could Impact States In Between

Filed under auto insurance, Auto Insurance Fraud, Fraud, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Insurance Fraud, PIP, PIP/No Fault, Uncategorized

Roig Lawyers Orlando Managing Partner to Present at DRI Marijuana Law Seminar

If you’ve never attended a DRI seminar, you don’t know what you’re missing in terms of networking and education!

Roig Lawyers’ Orlando Managing Partner, Scharome Wolfe, will present “How High? Insurance and MedicalMarijuana” at the 3rd Annual DRI Marijuana Law Seminar in Chicago from June 26-27. It’s a fascinating area of rapidly-changing law. We encourage you to attend!

Click here for more information.

Comments Off on Roig Lawyers Orlando Managing Partner to Present at DRI Marijuana Law Seminar

Filed under Insurance, Marijuana, Uncategorized

Roig Lawyers Partner Keith Hernandez Publishes Article in CLM Magazine on Autonomous Vehicle Technologies and its Impact on Insurance

ROIG Lawyers Deerfield Partner Keith Hernandez has published an article in CLM Magazine entitled “Keep Your Eyes Off the Road.” In the article, Keith discusses the emergence of autonomous vehicle technologies and its impact on traditional insurance.

Click here to read the entire article.

CLM Magazine is the premier source for content that addresses trends, topics of interest, and industry challenges for those in the claims and litigation management industry.

Comments Off on Roig Lawyers Partner Keith Hernandez Publishes Article in CLM Magazine on Autonomous Vehicle Technologies and its Impact on Insurance

Filed under auto insurance, Autonomous Technology, Claims Handling, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Insurance Fraud, PIP/No Fault, Uncategorized

Former Dade City Police Officer and Two Others Charged in Insurance Fraud Scheme

According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, former Dade City police officer Jonathan Lance Hobby and two others, Bruce Dewayne Wilson Jr. and Carl “Chuck” Roach Jr. were arrested for insurance fraud among other charges.

Hobby, Wilson and Roach were charged with combinations of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, filing a false police report, conspiracy to deal in stolen property and operating a chop shop. According to detectives, Hobby filed a police report and auto theft claim in May 2017 claiming his 2015 Dodge Ram 1500 truck was stolen from Rancho Bonito in Lakeland. The insurance company paid a claim to Hobby in the amount of $24,712.72.

Hobby’s truck was located at Wilson’s business, After Hours Diesel Service. Investigators say Wilson and Hobby orchestrated a scheme to falsely report the truck as stolen and sell most of its parts, which Roach knew about and actually participated in dismantling the truck.

All three suspects were arrested and booked into the Pasco County Jail.

Click here to read the full article.

Comments Off on Former Dade City Police Officer and Two Others Charged in Insurance Fraud Scheme

Filed under Auto Insurance Fraud, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Fraud, Uncategorized

Attorney Fee Multipliers in PIP and the Search for a Guiding Lodestar

In October 2017, the Supreme Court again addressed the issue of contingency fee multipliers to awards of attorneys’ fees. Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Plaintiff attorneys felt a tinge of delight and perhaps delayed buying their lottery tickets in hopes that this new decision will help them win an attorney fee multiplier if they prevail in a PIP suit. While HB 119 in 2012 eliminated multipliers from newer PIP lawsuits, there are still many older cases that are now being resolved which face the possibility of large awards of attorney fees going to Plaintiff attorneys. Additionally, there is no penalty for a Plaintiff attorney to attempt to pursue a multiplier, thus the key question is how to best defend against this potential windfall.

To understand the new decision in Joyce v. Federated Nat’l Ins. Co., 2017 Fla. LEXIS 2070 (Fla. 2017), it is beneficial to look back at the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of how and when to award a multiplier. The seminal decision regarding the applicability of multipliers is still the Quanstrom decision from 1990. Specifically, the requirements under Quanstrom necessary to find a fee multiplier are:

  1. Whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel.
  2. Whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of non-payment in any way.
  3. Whether any of the factors set forth in Rowe are applicable, especially, the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the attorney and his client. Id. at 834.

Joyce re-iterates that a market inquiry as to whether a multiplier was necessary to obtain competent counsel is the primary factor under the Quanstrom[1] requirements. This is important to PIP litigation since there are few, if any, potential PIP lawsuits that cannot find a warm and welcoming PIP attorney eager and willing to take the case.

Interestingly, the Florida Supreme Court in Joyce noted that the United States Supreme Court in 1992 revisited the issue of contingency fee multipliers in Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992), concluding that “enhancements for contingency [was] not permitted under the fee-shifting statutes at issue…[and] Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, reasoned that enhancement for contingency would likely duplicate in substantial part factors already subsumed in the lodestar.” Joyce. at 17, citing Dague at 567.

Under Joyce, the Florida Supreme Court separated itself from this federal precedent and continued to allow the use of multipliers under Florida law. The fear was that without the possibility of contingency multipliers some individuals with meritorious claims would fail to obtain competent counsel and the Florida Supreme Court noted “their usefulness in helping parties secure legal representation and their importance in ensuring access to Courts.” Id. at 17-18 citing Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., Inc., 734 So.2d 403, 411 (Fla. 1999). In other words, the Florida Supreme Court was concerned that Justice Scalia failed to consider that without a potential multiplier there is a danger of never obtaining competent counsel. Id. at 25. But with the thousands of PIP lawsuits being filed every year, can a Plaintiff truly make an argument that finding a PIP attorney is difficult?

Under Joyce, it appears that contingency fee multipliers are alive and well under Florida Law, and there are some circumstances where they are certainly warranted. Paradoxically, the best argument against the applicability of multipliers to the majority of PIP lawsuits comes from the Joyce opinion itself. The majority opinion which intentionally diverged from federal precedent on multipliers in order to preserve access to courts appears to have absolutely no concern about whether prohibiting multipliers in PIP lawsuits somehow prevents individuals from obtaining fair access to courts or diminishes one’s ability to obtain competent counsel. The dissent also argues that PIP litigation suffered no decrease in volume after HB 119 and that there was no negative impact on an insured’s ability to obtain counsel in PIP cases. Id. at 40-41. The dissent even cites the Plaintiff’s own expert testimony that there is no lack of attorneys willing and able to take PIP cases and “that same fee expert begrudgingly ‘hate[d]’ to admit that plaintiffs’ attorneys throughout the entire State of Florida are abundantly motivated to take PIP cases (even though PIP cases contain no possibility of a multiplier).” Id. at 42.

The majority opinion in Joyce actually agreed with the dissent that PIP litigation is different because of the number of attorneys willing to take PIP lawsuits. The majority opinion notes that PIP should not be compared to other types of first-party litigation since, “the fact that there are attorneys who specialize in PIP claims, which can be handled with relative ease in a volume practice, does not correlate with the availability of competent attorneys who are willing to litigate other types of insurance coverage cases, where generally more complex issues are raised.” Id. at 25. Clearly, the majority opinion is willing to differentiate PIP lawsuits from other types of first-party litigation due to the ease of obtaining a competent attorney.

Ultimately, none of the Quanstrom factors changed with the recent Joyce decision. However, the new opinion does provide an excellent analysis and justification as to how multipliers developed under Florida law and why the Supreme Court continues to think multipliers are necessary to ensure fair and equal access to the courts. It is important to keep in mind that Joyce does not mean a PIP lawsuit can never justify a multiplier. In fact, the Quanstrom decision is a PIP lawsuit[2]. Understanding the best way to contest aggressive attempts to collect fee multipliers and create an appropriate record at the trial court level remains important in PIP litigation.

[1] Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom,555 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
[2] Other notable PIP lawsuits have been awarded multipliers after there was substantial and competent evidence to justify that a multiplier was necessary.  See  State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 555 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1990)

If you have any questions on this issue, please feel free to contact our Insurance Services Team at info@roiglawyers.com.

ROIG Lawyers is a minority-owned litigation firm with a primary focus on Insurance Defense Litigation. We serve as primary counsel for numerous national and regional carriers and corporations related to all aspects of insurance litigation from seven offices throughout the state of Florida. ROIG Lawyers does not intend 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. E-mail list/s from ROIG Lawyers are intended to provide information of general interest to the public and are not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems.  You should consult a lawyer with regard to specific legal issues that require attention.

Comments Off on Attorney Fee Multipliers in PIP and the Search for a Guiding Lodestar

Filed under auto insurance, Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Personal Injury Protection, PIP, PIP/No Fault, Uncategorized

Casselberry Residents Being Targeted by Windshield Replacement Scammers

Casselberry, Florida residents are victims of windshield replacement scammers. As reported by News 6, a Casselberry resident recently told police that two men came to her door claiming to work for the state government, insisting that a new law had been enacted that requires Floridians to replace their windshields every six months. As a result, the residents become victims, often times being exposed to an increased risk of a cheap windshield popping out and breaking during an accident. In turn, the scammers will contact the victim’s auto insurer and submit an inflated invoice for a service that was not necessary or properly done; potentially resulting in an increase in the victim’s auto insurance premium.

An increased premium is not the only risk insureds face with these scams, according to the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, insureds could face possible fines and, even worse, jail time. Making a repair claim for a windshield you know is undamaged could get you convicted of insurance fraud.

Red flags should go up if someone shows up at your door or chases you down in a parking lot offering to fix your windshield for free. If you believe your windshield has sustained damage and needs to be repaired or replaced, call your insurance company for a list of rebuttable windshield repair/replacement companies.

For more information regarding the windshield repair scams and what you can do to fight back, visit http://www.insurancefraud.org/scam-alerts-windshield.htm.

Click here to read full article.

Comments Off on Casselberry Residents Being Targeted by Windshield Replacement Scammers

Filed under Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Defense, Insurance Fraud, Uncategorized, Windshield, Windshield Damage Scam

New Florida Law Deems Ridesharing Drivers As Independent Contractors & Provides Minimum Insurance Requirements

You may or may not be aware that there is a new Florida law deeming Uber, Lyft and other ridesharing drivers as independent contractors and NOT employees that is going to be taking effect on July 1st. The new Florida law also provides for insurance coverage requirements that will now be mandatory for such drivers and companies. We want to make sure you know how this legislation is going to affect your business.

On May 9, 2017, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the Transportation Network Companies Act (HB 221), designating drivers for ridesharing companies in the on-demand or gig economy as “independent contractors” as long as the “transportation network company” meets four criteria that are currently met by Uber, Lyft, and other similar companies.

Under this newly enacted legislation, insurance coverage requirements are now also being made mandatory for the drivers and the ridesharing companies when they are engaged in the online application of the ridesharing company and/or in a prearranged ride. The coverage requirements under the new law can be satisfied in one of three ways. The new law also discusses the responsibilities of the driver’s personal auto insurance carrier when an accident occurs and provides avenues for the insurer to investigate the claim with the cooperation of the ridesharing company.

We recently presented a continuing education course at the 25th Annual Florida Insurance Fraud Education Committee (FIFEC) Conference called The Ridesharing Generation: Insurance Implications & Complications which discusses this topic. We are happy to provide a copy of the presentation to you if you are interested.

For questions, or to discuss this issue in greater detail, please feel free to contact Lissette Alvarez or Cecile Mendizabal.

For more information on how to schedule a complimentary continuing education course via webinar or live presentation, please contact the Marketing Department of ROIG Lawyers.

ROIG Lawyers is a minority-owned litigation firm with a primary focus on Insurance Defense Litigation. We serve as primary counsel for numerous national and regional carriers and corporations related to all aspects of insurance litigation. ROIG Lawyers does not intend 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. You should consult a lawyer with regard to specific law issues that requires attention.

Comments Off on New Florida Law Deems Ridesharing Drivers As Independent Contractors & Provides Minimum Insurance Requirements

Filed under Uncategorized

Undercover Investigation Led to Arrests of Bradenton Area Chiropractors

According to ABC Action News, an undercover investigation led to the arrests of two Bradenton area chiropractors and other staff. Detectives say chiropractors Richard Tambe and Yusef Barnes, along with chiropractic assistant Johncina Harrell, performed a fraction of the treatments listed on insurance claims and were billing for treatment never rendered to patients.

The arrests and undercover investigation took place at the Back on Track clinic in Bradenton, Florida. According to the arrest report, all three were booked at the Manatee County Jail on insurance fraud, a third degree felony. Tambe faces 12 counts. Barnes is charged with 8 and Harrell is charged with 13 counts. If convicted each suspect faces as much as 5 years in prison.

Click here for full story.

Comments Off on Undercover Investigation Led to Arrests of Bradenton Area Chiropractors

Filed under Florida, Insurance, Insurance Claims, Insurance Fraud, Uncategorized