Health Care Providers Created Fraudulent Billing for Covid Instant Tests
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insurer-sues-fraudsters-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and see the full video at https://rumble.com/v1ll4ep-insurer-sues-fraudsters.html and at
and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4300 posts.
In OPEN MRI AND IMAGING OF RP VESTIBULAR DIAGNOSTICS, P.A. v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY, Civ. No. 21-10991 (WJM), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (September 19, 2022) an insurer sued for not paying bills cross-claimed for fraud damages and violation of the the New Jersey Insurance Frauds Prevent Act (IFPA).
Open MRI and Imaging of RP Vestibular Diagnostics, P.A. sued Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey (“Horizon”) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., based on Horizon’s alleged failure to pay insurance claims for COVID-19 rapid testing.
Horizon’s operative pleading, which the Court refers to as the Second Amended Consolidated Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint, asserts twelve counts for violations of the common law and the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, N.J.S.A. 17:33A-1, et seq., based on an alleged scheme to defraud Horizon. Horizon brings its claims against Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Open MRI et al (collectively, the “Third-Party Defendants”).
BACKGROUND
Horizon is an insurance company with its principal place of business in Newark, New Jersey. It provides healthcare benefits for insured subscribers pursuant to a variety of healthcare plans and policies issued or administered throughout the state.
Open MRI and others are medical practices all located in Rochelle Park, New Jersey.
The Alleged Scheme to Defraud Horizon
In April of 2020, as the novel COVID-19 virus spread throughout the United States, Open began offering rapid COVID-19 tests to members of the public at their joint practice location. Overall, these rapid test “appointments” at Open MRI as reported by Horizon members, were very brief, taking no longer than five minutes and involved little to no interaction with a licensed physician. Open MRI charged patients $35 at the time of service and then submitted claims to Horizon for further payment.
To submit a health insurance claim, healthcare providers must complete standard billing forms. The billing forms require providers to use specific numeric codes that describe the services for which the provider seeks payment. Federal regulations designate the standard code systems that providers use in order to ensure that health insurance claims are processed efficiently and consistently. In turn, insurance companies like Horizon rely on providers to input codes that most appropriately and accurately describe the services provided to patients so that the insurer can adjudicate claims and secure reimbursement pursuant to the patient’s health benefits plan.
According to Horizon, from April of 2020 onward, the cross-defendants submitted insurance claims seeking grossly inflated billed charges for medical services that were performed unlawfully or not performed at all, and that were unnecessary or inappropriate to administering rapid COVID-19 tests.
Billing for Services Rendered Unlawfully
From April of 2020 through September of 2020, the cross-defendants were not certified as “Authorized Laboratories” under the Comprehensive Laboratory Improvement Act (“CLIA”), and thus were not permitted to administer rapid COVID-19 tests. Nonetheless the cross defendants, administered rapid COVID-19 tests to patients and then submitted claims to Horizon for reimbursement. Horizon ultimately paid more than $140,000, and these claims for services that were rendered unlawfully.
Billing for Services That Were Not Rendered
Each time the cross-defendants submitted a claim for a rapid COVID-19 test rendered on a Horizon member, they also billed for “specimen handling,” which requires the sample collected for testing to be transferred from the provider’s office to a laboratory. Rapid COVID-19 tests, however, do not require transfer of the patients’ specimens to a laboratory for testing because they are “point of care tests” performed in the provider’s office. Yet, the cross-defendants knowingly submitted claims for “specimen handling” services that never occurred and were unnecessary in administering rapid tests. Horizon collectively paid them more than $7,000 on these claims.
Additionally, each time the cross-defendants submitted a claim for a rapid COVID-19 test rendered on a Horizon member, they also billed for moderate- and high-level evaluation and management (“E&M”) services. These moderate- and high-level E&M billing codes are to be used where a healthcare provider spends thirty to sixty minutes face-to-face with a patient, takes a detailed medical history and performs a detailed examination, and utilizes medical decision making of low, moderate, or high complexity. Even though Horizon members’ minutes-long encounters for a rapid COVID-19 test involved only a temperature check, a few “prescreen” questions, and a nasal swab, and cross-defendants nonetheless billed Horizon for more significant E&M services that were not actually rendered. Horizon collectively paid them in excess of $300,000 on these claims.
Horizon’s Claims Against the Third-Party Defendants
Horizon asserts twelve causes of action against the Third-Party Defendants all involving illegal or fraudulent billing.
DISCUSSION
A claim for common law fraud resembles a private action brought by an insurance company under the IFPA, but because the IFPA New Jersey Insurance Frauds Prevent Act (IFPA) sweeps more broadly than common law fraud plaintiffs are required to establish fewer elements when alleging fraud in violation of the statute. Unlike common law fraud, the IFPA does not require proof of reliance on the false statement or resultant damages, nor proof of intent to deceive. A plaintiff need only establish that (1) defendant presented false or misleading information in connection with submitting an insurance claim; (2) defendant knew the information was false or misleading; and (3) information was material to a claim for reimbursement under an insurance policy.
Horizon has pleaded ample details of the who, what, when, where, and how of the underlying fraudulent scheme to state a claim for common law fraud and violations of the IFPA.
ZALMA OPINION
Horizon should be commended for using the IFPA to defeat fraud related to alleged COVID-19 testing and medical treatment that was neither rendered nor necessary. The group of testers and physicians had the unmitigated gall to sue for payment of claims that they new or should have known were not appropriate, were provided by unlicensed professionals and were were inflated billing for 30 minutes face to face with a patient when they never spent more than 5 minutes if any time at all. Fraud will only be defeated or deterred if the profit motive is taken from the act and hopefully the evidence collected in this civil action is also evidence of multiple crimes.
(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] 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
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer
Who’s on First to Get Life Insurance Proceeds
Post 5184
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyxQfnUz and at https://lnkd.in/gAd3wqWP, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer
In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Selena Sanchez, et al, No. 2:24-cv-03278-TLN-CSK, United States District Court, E.D. California (September 3, 2025) the USDC applied interpleader law.
Case Overview
This case involves an interpleader action brought by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Plaintiff-in-Interpleader) against Selena Sanchez and other defendants (Defendants-in-Interpleader).
Key Points
Plaintiff-in-Interpleader’s Application:
The Plaintiff-in-Interpleader...
A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182
It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.
Case Background:
This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...
A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182
It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.
Case Background:
This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...
Barry Zalma: Insurance Claims Expert Witness
Posted on September 3, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive ...
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive and became a consultant and expert witness for lawyers representing insurers and lawyers ...
APPRAISAL AWARD SETS AMOUNT OF DAMAGES RECOVERED FROM INSURER
Post 5180
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence
Evidence Required to Prove Breach of Contract
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evidence-required-prove-breach-contract-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-rfelc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence
In Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes v. Homeowners Of America Insurance Company, No. 01-23-00844-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (August 26, 2025) Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes filed a claim under their homeowner’s insurance policy with Homeowners of ...