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/
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc
Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026
Post 4854
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.
When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.
Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...