Fraudsters Seem to Have Unlimited Funds to Fund Attempts to Change Conviction
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmxckaAC and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4150 posts.
The case involved fraudulently billing of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (“BCBS”) for hearing aids. On March 8, 2018, a jury convicted Terry Anderson of Counts One – Fifteen, and Rocky Anderson of Counts One – Four, Six, and Eight – Fifteen of the Superseding Indictment. The Court later found there was insufficient evidence to convict the Defendants on Counts One and Eight, acquitted the Defendants of those counts, and entered judgment on the other counts of conviction.
The Defendants appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment (ECF Nos. 252-53). The Defendants now move for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b), claiming newly discovered evidence, in United States Of America v. Terry Lynn Anderson (1) Rocky Freeland Anderson, No. 3:17-CR-00222-M, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division (April 15, 2022).
ANALYSIS
The Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial was untimely under Rule 33(b)(1) because the Defendants filed this Motion for New Trial three years and ten months after the jury returned its verdict. The time to file a motion for new trial could not be extended because Defendants did not show excusable neglect.
The Government had more than 38 potential witnesses, who testified or were interviewed about events that took place over a decade ago, and at least one of them is now dead. It is reasonable to assume that the surviving witnesses’ memories of the events in issue have diminished and would continue to deteriorate until a new trial occurred. These factors significantly prejudice the Government.
The Motion Fails on the Merits
Even if the Court reached the merits, the Motion would have been denied.
The Defendants were convicted of health care fraud for submitting insurance claims for hearing aids that were medically unnecessary and for which Defendants did not conduct the requisite examinations.
The Defendants contend that two pieces of information constitute newly discovered evidence that, if admitted, would result in an acquittal: first, they cite the end, in
January 2022, of a DOJ criminal investigation into the hearing aid company, Eargo, Inc.; and second, they reference an FDA rule proposed in October 2021, that would permit some hearing aids to be sold over-the-counter, without requiring an examination by a professional. None of this information is relevant to the Defendants’ convictions, would not be admitted at trial, would not require Brady/Giglio production, and thus, would not probably produce an acquittal.
The unrelated investigation into Eargo is not new evidence that would entitle Defendants to a new trial. Defendants contend that the Government has access to evidence underlying DOJ’s decision not to prosecute Eargo criminally that would exculpate Defendants, because Defendants were also investigated for insurance fraud due to submissions for reimbursement for hearing aids.
DISCUSSION
Evidence from an unrelated DOJ investigation in 2021-2022 is not relevant to the Defendants’ actions, state of mind, and criminal intent during 2011-2014, which was the subject of the case against the Andersons.
The second alleged new evidence, a proposed FDA rule that would establish a new category of hearing aids that could be sold over-the-counter, without a hearing test, also does not constitute evidence that would entitle Defendants to a new trial. First, a change in the law does not constitute newly discovered evidence. Even if it did, the proposed rule is not relevant to Defendants’ fraud scheme, because Defendants were not selling over-the-counter hearing aids, but rather, were providing traditional hearing aids, subject to reimbursement by insurance companies.
Since the proposed FDA rule would not be admissible at trial, and therefore would not result in an acquittal; thus, the Motion failed on the merits.
Because Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial was untimely, and further did not cite newly discovered admissible evidence which would probably result in an acquittal of Defendants, the Motion for New Trial was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance fraud is a highly profitable and unusually effective crime. Even when the fraud perpetrators are caught, convicted and sentenced they have access to the millions of dollars they took from the insurers and the government from the fraud scheme, they can fund an appeal and when that fails, a tardy motion for new trial based on fairly spurious grounds. The USDC took the motion seriously and wrote a detailed opinion explaining why the motion – obviously not warranted and filed late – was a ludicrous waste of the court’s time and should have resulted in sanctions. It did not.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].
Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
