Drug Dealer Chiropractor Not Allowed into Pretrial Intervention Program
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gu2igmKA and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gieZ_syz and at https://lnkd.in/gSXWSeSE and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4250 posts.
Posted on July 14, 2022 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v1c0dxh-guilty-of-using-stolen-prescription-pad-to-obtain-oxycodone.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=2 and at
The New Jersey Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) “is a diversionary program through which certain offenders are able to avoid criminal prosecution by receiving early rehabilitative services expected to deter future criminal behavior.” State v. Oguta, 468 N.J.Super. 100, 107 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 240 (1995)). Jason Mittleman appealed from an order denying his motion to compel his admission into the PTI program.
In State Of New Jersey v. Jason Mittleman, No. A-0925-20, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (June 22, 2022) the Chiropractor appealed the refusal to allow him in the PTI program.
FACTS
Mittleman is a chiropractor. In 2017, he was working at the Denville Medical and Sports Rehabilitation Center where he stole another doctor’s prescription pad. Over the next twenty-two months, Mittleman submitted false prescriptions to obtain thousands of oxycodone pills.
Mittleman’s theft and fraud came to light in 2019. During the ensuing police investigation, Mittleman admitted he stole the prescription pad, fraudulently filled out numerous prescriptions, and used those prescriptions to obtain oxycodone.
Mittleman was indicted for third-degree obtaining oxycodone by fraud; third-degree insurance fraud; third-degree receiving stolen property; and fourth-degree tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.
The PTI Program
Mittleman applied for admission into the PTI program. The Morris County Prosecutor’s Office rejected his application and set forth the reasons for that decision. An assistant prosecutor reviewed the seventeen factors set forth in the PTI statute and found ten aggravating factors, considered several mitigating factors, but determined that Mittleman was not a suitable candidate for the PTI program.
A Law Division judge heard arguments on Mittleman’s motion motion, denied the motion, and set forth the reason for that decision on the record. That same day, the Law Division judge entered an order denying Mittleman’s motion to compel his entry into the PTI program.
Guilty Plea
The following month, Mittleman pled guilty to third-degree insurance fraud. In accordance with the plea agreement, Mittleman was sentenced to one year probation with a condition that he surrender his chiropractic license during the probationary period. The other charges against Mittleman were dismissed.
Mittleman appealed from the order denying his motion to compel his entry into the PTI program. Mittleman’s arguments were rejected because they were not supported by the record.
DISCUSSION
Prosecutors are granted broad discretion to determine if any defendant, including Mittleman, should be diverted to PTI instead of being prosecuted. The scope of judicial review is severely limited by the statute.
To overturn a prosecutor’s rejection, a defendant must clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor’s decision constitutes a patent and gross abuse of discretion. A patent and gross abuse of discretion is a decision that has gone so wide of the mark sought to be accomplished by PTI that fundamental fairness and justice requires judicial intervention.
There is nothing in the record establishing that Mittleman had a lawful prescription for oxycodone. The material fact, which was undisputed, was that Mittleman fraudulently obtained oxycodone.
The prosecutor also considered Mittleman’s use of the oxycodone. In that regard, the prosecutor noted that Mittleman claimed he had ceased using oxycodone voluntarily and, therefore, the State noted that there was no clear demonstration of an addiction that could be better treated through rehabilitative programs like PTI.
There is nothing in the record indicating that the State incorrectly believed that Mittleman provided oxycodone pills to his girlfriend. Instead, the prosecutor in his rejection letter noted that Mittleman admitted to using his former girlfriend’s name on forged prescriptions so that he could obtain more prescriptions for himself. The prosecutor also pointed out that Mittleman admitted that sometimes he distributed the oxycodone pills to other individuals.
Records recovered during the criminal investigation showed that Mittleman received fraudulent prescriptions of oxycodone from April 2017 until February 2019. During that same period, he was treating patients. Accordingly, it is not pure speculation that Mittleman’s unprescribed use of oxycodone could have placed his patients at risk.
The appellate court rejected Mittleman’s arguments concerning factual errors by the prosecutor because those arguments were not supported by the record and affirmed the trial court’s decision.
ZALMA OPINION
For a health care provider to steal a prescription pad and obtain for his personal use and distribution to others oxycodone illegally to seek admission to the PTI program would have allowed him to avoid his admitted criminal conduct. That he appealed the denial after being allowed to plead guilty to only one count and be sentenced only to probation was unconscionable. He should have been sentenced to prison for such egregious conduct and abuse of his profession.
Just published
Random Thoughts on Insurance Volume XIV: A Collection of Blog Posts from Zalma on Insurance —
(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 and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.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/
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
BACKGROUND
See the video at https://rumble.com/v79dts2-crime-doesnt-pay.html and at https://youtu.be/dw0f4goCbxA, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Plaintiff:
Andrew J. Mitchell, an incarcerated individual proceeding pro se sued Pandit Law Firm, LLC, on behalf of a corporation that was controlled by Mitchell who had operated Mitchell Adjusting International LLC (MAI), a Texas limited liability company.
According to the US Attorney:
A Texas man (Mitchell) acting as an insurance adjuster who cheated an Albany church out of millions of dollars paid out by its insurance company to repair its facilities heavily damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018 was sentenced to serve more than 19 years in prison and ordered to pay nearly $4 million in restitution to victims in several states.
Andrew Mitchell, formerly Andrew Aga, 46, of Houston, Texas, was sentenced to serve 235 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $2,895,903.01 in restitution to the Brotherhood ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...