CIGNA Obtains $14,371,384.95 Judgment Against Fraudulent Health Care Provider
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dtuTuYyF and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/dSR4NGaR and at https://lnkd.in/dGzzbcCn and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4300 posts.
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v1l3hcr-insurer-proactive-against... and at
Since police, prosecutors and state insurance fraud investigators are seldom willing to arrest or prosecute insurance fraud perpetrators it is necessary for insurers to be proactive and sue those who attempt or succeed in defrauding insurers.
In Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and CIGNA Health And Life Insurance Company v. Mike Ogbebor and Stafford Renal LLC, No. 3:21-cv-00954 (JAM), United States District Court, D. Connecticut (September 6, 2022) CIGNA successfully sued a fake provider and obtained a default judgment for almost $15 million against the corporate defendant and its alter ego individual.
FACTS
Stafford Renal LLC (Stafford) and its owner Mike Ogbebor, received insurance payments from the plaintiffs, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company (collectively, “Cigna”), for dialysis Stafford claims to have administered to two Cigna plan members. Cigna alleged that Stafford was not licensed to provide, and in fact, did not provide these dialysis treatments.
After Cigna filed its complaint Ogbebor submitted an answer on behalf of both defendants. The trial judge struck this answer with respect to Stafford because Ogbebor as a non-lawyer could not represent in court a limited liability company such as Stafford. Cigna then moved for a default entry against Stafford, which was granted based on Stafford’s failure to appear or respond.
As for Ogbebor, he has failed to object or respond in any way to Cigna’s discovery requests. Ogbebor also failed to respond to a motion to compel discovery, despite the Court’s discovery order warning him that such failure might result in sanctions including default judgment. Cigna now moves for default judgment against both Stafford and Ogbebor.
Because Stafford has altogether failed to respond and Ogbebor has responded but willfully failed to comply with his discovery obligations, the trial court accepted the allegations in Cigna’s complaint as true with respect to both defendants. On those facts, Stafford and Ogbebor are liable to Cigna for submitting fabricated claims on behalf of an unlicensed provider.
Ogbebor formed Stafford as a limited liability company organized under Texas law, and served as its owner, principal, and manager. Stafford held itself out to be a treatment facility for end stage renal disorder (ESRD). But Stafford did not have an ESRD license. In fact, Ogbebor was associated with another company known as Stafford Dialysis Renal, Inc., which operated a licensed ESRD facility. That license, however, expired in November 2016.
In 2017, Ogbebor submitted bills to Cigna for ESRD treatments purportedly provided by Stafford. Cigna learned that Stafford did not have an ESRD license. Stafford was therefore operating in violation of Texas licensing requirements.
Despite its unlicensed status, Stafford submitted and received claims totaling $4,790,461.65 from Cigna for supposed ESRD services to two Cigna members. When Cigna asked Stafford and Ogbebor to show proof of proper licensing, they failed to do so. Cigna then reduced or denied payment on other claims submitted by Stafford.
The defendants also allegedly fabricated a majority of the treatments for which they sought and obtained reimbursements from Cigna. Further, although Stafford supposedly provided services to one plan member on nearly every day from April 2018 through June 2020, Cigna learned from the member and confirmed with Medicare that she did not begin treatment until January 2019.
DISCUSSION
When a defendant defaults, it thereby admits all well-pleaded factual allegations contained in the complaint. The trial court found that default judgment is the appropriate sanction in this case and that any lesser sanction would be futile in light of Ogbebor’s willful and total refusal to cooperate with this litigation since he was first served in February 2022 with discovery requests concerning information in his possession that is essential for the resolution of Cigna’s claims against him.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Cigna sought a declaratory judgment against Stafford stating that it has no obligation to honor any claims submitted by Stafford for ESRD services. Because Stafford was not licensed to provide any of the claimed ESRD services it submitted to Cigna, it has no legal or contractual right to reimbursement, payment, or other consideration from Cigna.
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
The complaint alleged that the defendants falsely represented to Cigna that Stafford was licensed to provide ESRD treatments when it submitted claims seeking reimbursement for those services. When submitting these claims, the defendants knew that Stafford lacked the requisite license and that most of the claims were fabricated. Since Cigna’s claim for fraudulent misrepresentation is adequately alleged to support a default judgment its claim was granted.
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
The trial court concluded that Cigna’s allegations are adequate to support a default judgment for negligent misrepresentation.
CUTPA
The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act forbids any person from engaging in “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat § 42-110b. “Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by [CUTPA], may bring an action … to recover actual damages.”
Ogbebor is deemed to have admitted that he personally directed Stafford’s fraudulent conduct. Therefore, the complaint adequately alleges a CUTPA claim against both defendants to support a motion for default judgment.
CHIFA
The Connecticut Health Insurance Fraud Act punishes intentional fraud or deceit in connection with a claim for benefits under a health insurance policy.An insurer aggrieved as a result of an act of insurance fraud has a private right of action against the perpetrator of such fraud to recover all damages resulting. Cigna’s allegations are enough to support a default judgment.
CIVIL THEFT
A medical provider’s undisclosed failure to comply with licensing requirements constitutes fraud on the insurer. The defendants falsely represented to Cigna that Stafford was licensed to provide ESRD services by submitting claims for such services, they induced Cigna to issue payments on those claims. These claims were fraudulent because the defendants knew that Stafford was not licensed to perform the services for which it claimed reimbursement from Cigna, and in most instances had not performed those services at all. The trial court concluded that Cigna’s claim for civil theft is adequately alleged to support default judgment.
PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL
Under Texas law, holding an individual owner or manager of a company liable for acts of the company is appropriate (1) where a corporation is organized and operated as a mere tool or business conduit of another; and (2) there is such unity between corporation and individual that the separateness of the corporation has ceased and holding only the corporation liable would result in injustice. The trial court concluded that Ogbebor formed Stafford to further his scheme to commit insurance fraud. Accordingly, the trial court allowed Cigna to pierce the corporate veil and hold Ogbebor liable for Stafford’s conduct as well as his own.
DAMAGES
Cigna’s calculated damages are based on payments for dialysis supposedly provided to one plan member totaling $763,592.27, plus payments for medication for that same member, totaling $4,017,025.89. Cigna seeks an additional $9,843.49 for payments based on purported ESRD treatments, both dialysis and medication, to a second plan member. These figures are corroborated by a detailed spreadsheet Cigna has submitted along with its complaint, and they total $4,790,461.65. The trial court awarded that amount in actual damages. Further, because Cigna has adequately stated a claim for civil theft under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-564, the court applied treble damages for a total of $14,371,384.95.
CONCLUSION
Judgment was entered against Mike Ogbebor and Stafford Renal LLC in the joint and several amount of $14,371,384.95, as well as a declaratory judgment that the plaintiffs are absolved of any liability to pay past or future claims submitted by Stafford Renal LLC.
ZALMA OPINION
Although Cigna will have a difficult time collecting on this judgment its actions, and those of the District Court, should act as a deterrent to others attempting fraud. If Ogbebor has any of the money he obtained by fraud Cigna must aggressively seek to enforce the judgment and obtain any assets the fraudster still has. Other insurers should follow Cigna’s lead and work to take the profit out of insurance fraud.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Books-by-Barry-Zalma-Esq.-CFE-1024x576.jpg
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] 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.
Now available Barry Zalma’s newest book, The Tort of Bad Faith, available here. The new book is available as a Kindle book, a paperback or as a hard cover.
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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
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 ...