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/
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 ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...