Insurance Felon Fails to Get Early Release Because of Covid
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g6kBEcFK and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gw7kTt4w and at https://lnkd.in/g8NBBPRT and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4250 posts.
Courts across the United States have provided unvaccinated and ill prisoners compassionate release from jail ignoring the fact that the prisoner, if infected, might pass the disease to the public.
Brian Stone, proceeding pro se, moved for compassionate release claiming he suffers from long Covid. In United States of America v. Brian Stone, No. 2:16-cr-00038-KJM-3, United States District Court, E.D. California (July 5, 2022) the USDC kept him in jail.
BACKGROUND
After being disbarred as an attorney, Mr. Stone participated in a multi-fire arson and insurance fraud scheme. Mr. Stone was convicted of multiple counts of both mail fraud and wire fraud. In September 2018, he was sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment. According to the Bureau of Prisons, Mr. Stone is eligible to be placed in a halfway house, and this placement has already happened or will happen soon.
In 2020, the then-presiding Judge of this court denied Mr. Stone’s first motion for compassionate release. Mr. Stone again seeks compassionate release based on the following circumstances and allegations:
He is suffering from health issues relating to long COVID, including headaches, body aches, extreme fatigue, brain fog, elevated heartrate, and cramping.
Stone has experienced these symptoms for over a year and has not received treatment for his symptoms because Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Lompoc, where he is incarcerated, has classified him as fully recovered.
COVID-19 “has spread like wildfire” at FCI Lompoc and Mr. Stone is “at heightened risk for serious illness or death” from COVID due to his serious underlying health conditions. These conditions include hypertension, diabetes, unspecified depressive disorder, Binswanger’s Disease (a form of dementia), and residual symptoms of a stroke.
His sentence has been harsher as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has a viable release plan and support from family. Mr. Stone’s projected release date is November 12, 2022, based upon application of Good Conduct Time and First Step Act Earned Time Credits.
The government opposed his motion based primarily on its analysis of his medical conditions. Mr. Stone has been fully vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19, and his medical records indicate he is being treated for several health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, dementia, and essential (primary) hypertension. The government also argued that an early release would be inappropriate given the severity and complexity of his crimes and his criminal history. Mr. Stone is in his early 60s. Mr. Stone has not filed a reply to the government’s March 30, 2022 opposition.
ANALYSIS
If a defendant is vaccinated, as Mr. Stone is, the USDC court has employed a rebuttable presumption that the risk of severe harm from COVID-19 is not an “extraordinary and compelling” reason under the code. A defendant can rebut this presumption by offering evidence of an elevated personal risk of severe harm despite the protections of vaccination.
When defendants offer no evidence that vaccination will not protect them against severe harm from COVID-19 and do not show the facilities where they are currently incarcerated are experiencing a surge in infections caused by a SARS-CoV-2 variant, courts deny motions more often than not.
Although Mr. Stone’s health conditions and age likely put him at risk of severe COVID-19 if he were not vaccinated, he did not cite evidence showing he remains at risk. While he alleges COVID-19 is spreading in the facility where he is housed, the Bureau of Prisons’ COVID-19 webpage indicates that zero inmates and three staff are currently infected with COVID-19 at FCI Lompoc.
Finally, Mr. Stone has been, or soon will be, released to a halfway house, where the population will be smaller and thus less conducive to the spread of COVID-19. He has not carried his burden to show his health conditions and risk of reinfection are extraordinary and compelling circumstances.
The motion was denied without prejudice to renewal with evidence of an elevated personal risk of severe harm despite the protections of vaccination.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance criminals, like disbarred lawyer Stone, have no honor. Although scheduled for release for good behavior to a half-way house, insisted on bothering the District Court with a motion for compassionate release without providing sufficient evidence. His effort failed although the court allowed him to try again.
Just published
Random Thoughts on Insurance Volume XIV: A Collection of Blog Posts from Zalma on Insurance —
No alt text provided for this image
(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/
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 ...
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 ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
