After Health Provider Entity's Management is Arrested for Fraud Reporting Suspicion to Beneficiaries is not Defamation
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gvC28cS4, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/giQW_bJK and at https://lnkd.in/gYSqE46x, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
BrainBuilders, LLC appealed from an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Optum, Inc., et al (collectively, defendants) in Brainbuilders, LLC v. Optum, Inc., Optum Services, Inc., et al, No. A-0621-22, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (April 19, 2024) resolved claims of defamation.
FACTS
Letters dated July 25, 2017 and August 2017 sent by the Optum entities to BrainBuilders' patients following an investigation into purported fraud by individuals associated with BrainBuilders.
BrainBuilders provides healthcare services to children on the autism spectrum. As an out-of-network or non-participating healthcare provider, BrainBuilders receives reimbursement for claims only if a patient's health insurance plan allowed "out-of-network benefits" or the insurer made a "single case agreement" for the patient's care.
The Optum entities are the health claims administrator for health plans issued or administered by the Oxford entities and UHC entities. The Optum entities do not sell or issue health insurance policies. Rather, they provide support for defendants who issued health insurance policies to individual insureds. The Optum entities also evaluate insurance claims submitted by providers to its affiliated insurers, including BrainBuilders. The Optum entities often investigate whether a provider has requested reimbursement beyond the provider's entitlement, such as by misrepresenting or inflating the services provided.
In June 2017, four individuals related to the management of BrainBuilders were arrested and charged with conspiracy to defraud Medicaid. A criminal complaint, alleging misappropriation of funds, was filed against several individuals affiliated with BrainBuilders. The arrests were reported in the news media and the Optum entities learned of the arrests on July 14, 2017.
Subsequently the Optum entities sent letters to BrainBuilders' patients insured by the Oxford and UHC entities (July 2017 letters). The July 2017 letters explained the Optum entities were suspending payment for services provided by BrainBuilders due to potential insurance fraud and other violations of state and federal law.
BrainBuilders sued defendants asserting the following causes of action:
1 conspiracy;
2 tortious interference with business relations;
3 tortious interference with prospective economic advantage;
4 negligence trade libel;
5 defamation, libel, and slander; and
6 unjust enrichment and
7 quantum meruit.
BrainBuilders alleged the statements in the July and August 2017 letters were false and defamatory. Defendants moved for summary judgment and the motion judge granted defendants' motion and dismissed BrainBuilders' claims with prejudice. Further, around the same time period, the judge noted the Optum entities "separately uncovered evidence suggesting BrainBuilders was engaged in fraud, waste, or abuse." Thus, the judge concluded, "[w]hen read with context, no reasonable person" could interpret the July or August 2017 letters "as fallacious or injurious.
The law of defamation is grounded on the principle that people should be free to enjoy their reputations unimpaired by false and defamatory attacks. To prevail on a defamation claim, a party must demonstrate: (1) the assertion of a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) the unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party; and (3) fault amounting at least to negligence by the publisher.
True Statements are not Actionable as Defamation.
Our courts have stated that true statements are absolutely protected under the First Amendment from liability for defamation. The allegedly defamatory statements in the July and August 2017 letters related to BrainBuilders' "potential fraud," potential "violations of state and federal law," and concerns for "quality of care or member safety." It is uncontroverted that several of BrainBuilders' officers were arrested for conspiracy to defraud Medicaid in association with "income they received from BrainBuilders." These individuals were arrested because they potentially committed fraud. Additionally, the arrests raised legitimate concerns regarding the quality of care rendered by BrainBuilders.
Moreover, BrainBuilders claimed it conferred only benefits to the insured members and not defendants. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Division was satisfied BrainBuilders failed to proffer any support for its unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims.
ZALMA OPINION
It takes a certain amount of unmitigated gall to sue for defamation an entity that reported that the plaintiffs officers were arrested for Medicaid fraud, a major felony. Their officers were arrested - albeit I could find no report on the result of the charges - for insurance fraud, telling their customers about the arrests in good faith is not defamation since the statements were true.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; 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://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Lawyer Referral Company Files Qui Tam Suit Against Multiple Insurers for Violating Federal Law Protecting Medicare
Post 4980
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/injury-violation-fca-conspiracy-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-bbymc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Qui tam relators MSP WB, LLC and Michael Angelo sued 316 private insurers and an insurance-industry service provider, Insurance Services Office, Inc., purportedly on behalf of the United States of America and several states. Relators alleged that Defendants had engaged in a scheme to defraud Medicare and Medicaid in violation of the False Claims Act and related state false claims acts. The district court granted the motion to dismiss.
In United States Of America ex rel. State Of Michigan, et al., No. 24-1379, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (January 15, 2025) resolved the dispute....
Attempt to Avoid Marijuana Exclusion with Claim of Business Interruption Fails
Post 4979
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/attempt-avoid-marijuana-exclusion-claim-business-zalma-esq-cfe-kzmec, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
No Coverage for Fire at Marijuana Farm Because Marjiuana was Excluded as were Growing Crops
No Coverage for Fire at Marijuana Farm Because Marjiuana was Exclluded as were Growing Crops
When a fire damaged its facility, equipment, and hundreds of marijuana plants, Plaintiff Theraplant, LLC (“Theraplant”) submitted several claims pursuant to its commercial insurance policy. Defendant National Fire & Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) denied Theraplant’s claim for business income loss.
In Theraplant, LLC v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, No. 3:22-CV-1095 (VDO), United States ...
Ninth Circuit Takes the Profit Out of Health Care Fraud
Post 4978
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gsxEMT8c, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g_4h6Q4m and at https://lnkd.in/gSFn_syq, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
FRAUD WILL BE DEFEATED & DETERRED BY TAKING THE PROFIT OUT OF THE CRIME
Julian Omidi and his business, Surgery Center Management, LLC (“SCM”), appealed from the district court’s forfeiture judgment of nearly $100 million, which came after a lengthy criminal health insurance fraud trial and years of litigation where Omidi and SCM were convicted of charges arising from their “Get Thin” scheme in which Omidi and SCM defrauded insurance companies by submitting false claims for reimbursement. The Ninth Circuit dealt with Omidi’s claim that the trial court erred when it allowed forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C).
In United States Of America v. Julian Omidi, aka Combiz Julian Omidi, aka Combiz Omidi, aka Kambiz Omidi, aka Kambiz Beniamia Omidi, aka Ben Omidi, ...
What is the Meaning of “Void”
An article For Subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling You can Subscribe for only $5 a month to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
“Void” can mean either void or voidable. Void is defined as “of no legal force or effect and so incapable of confirmation or ratification.”
Voidable is defined as “capable of being adjudged void, invalid and of no force (a voidable contract may be set aside usually at the option of one party).”[1] The Restatement 2d of Contracts defines a “voidable contract” as a valid transaction with legal consequences until the power of avoidance is exercised.
Although jurisdictions are split as to the meaning of void in this context the distinction is largely semantic since the actions required of insurers wishing to dispose of a void or voidable insurance contract are ultimately the same.
The full article is available only to subscribers to Excellence in Claims ...
What is the Meaning of “Void”
An article For Subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling You can Subscribe for only $5 a month to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
“Void” can mean either void or voidable. Void is defined as “of no legal force or effect and so incapable of confirmation or ratification.”
Voidable is defined as “capable of being adjudged void, invalid and of no force (a voidable contract may be set aside usually at the option of one party).”[1] The Restatement 2d of Contracts defines a “voidable contract” as a valid transaction with legal consequences until the power of avoidance is exercised.
Although jurisdictions are split as to the meaning of void in this context the distinction is largely semantic since the actions required of insurers wishing to dispose of a void or voidable insurance contract are ultimately the same.
The full article is available only to subscribers to Excellence in Claims ...
ZIFL Volume 28 No. 22
Post 4939
Read the full article at Read the full article at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdfand at https://zalma.com/blog.
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ZIFL-12-01-2024.pdf
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 28th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
The EUO is a Material Condition Precedent
A Key Tool in the Effort to ...
