Chutzpah From Convicted Dentist
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gF7fG4Mj; sd at https://lnkd.in/g6DBszdk and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4800 posts.
Post 4817
THE LICENSE REVOCATION
The Board of Dental Examiners revoked Seth Lookhart’s dental license after he was convicted of dozens of crimes perpetrated in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme of staggering proportions that jeopardized the health and safety of his patients. Lookhart appealed the Board’s revocation of his license, arguing that his punishment was inconsistent with past Board decisions. On appeal, the superior court concluded that the Board properly exercised its discretion by revoking Lookhart’s dental license.
In a case of Chutzpah (unmitigated gall) called Seth Lookhart v. State Of Alaska, Division Of Corporations, Business, & Professional Licensing, Board Of Dental Examiners, No. S-18466, No. 7702, Supreme Court of Alaska (May 24, 2024) he asked for his license to practice dentistry from jail, the time of the Supreme Court was wasted as it resolved the issues raised by Lookhart.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Seth Lookhart was issued an Alaska dental license in June 2014 and a parenteral sedation permit in May 2015. Between May 2016 and March 2017, Lookhart systematically and unnecessarily sedated his patients in a manner that allowed him to fraudulently bill the maximum amount covered by Alaska’s Medicaid program, overcharging Medicaid by more than $1.6 million. Lookhart routinely billed Medicaid for sedation that was not performed, billed Medicaid at higher rates than other insurers, and created false dates of service to maximize his wrongful reimbursements. During this same period Lookhart also stole an additional $412,500 from a business partner.
In order to maximize his billings to Medicaid, Lookhart engaged in a series of standard-of-care violations: He sedated patients beyond the scope of his training and permit, sedated multiple patients simultaneously, billed Medicaid for sedation during routine cleanings, and sedated patients with underlying chronic diseases that made sedation dangerous. He allowed his unlicensed office manager to sedate patients, pressured patients into unwanted sedation, and left sedated patients to drive themselves home.
On two occasions, Lookhart’s patients nearly lost their lives as a direct consequence of his reckless sedation practices. Lookhart also extracted one deeply sedated patient’s tooth while riding a hoverboard, and then sent a video of the unsafe extraction to his friends and family members without the patient’s consent.
After a six-week bench trial ending in January 2020, he was convicted on 46 charges, including 11 felony counts of medical assistance fraud, three felony counts of scheming to defraud, one count of felony theft. The trial court also issued an order finding that the State had proven 13 sentencing aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court found that the evidence against Lookhart was “overwhelming.” He was ultimately sentenced to 20 years in prison with eight years suspended.
Dental Board Proceedings
Following Lookhart’s convictions, the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing filed a 17-count accusation seeking to revoke Lookhart’s dental license. Lookhart stipulated to the facts contained in the accusation, leaving it to an administrative law judge (ALJ).
The ALJ concluded that Lookhart’s “astonishing range of misconduct” was “more wide-ranging and severe” than in any prior case in which the Board imposed a lesser sanction. Taken as a whole, the ALJ concluded that revocation was the “clear and obvious sanction,” adopting the Division’s contention that, “[i]f this case does not require it, no future case will.”
The Superior Court’s Decision
The trial court noted that “no Alaska case is factually comparable to the sheer scale of malfeasance here,” that the Board “painstakingly detailed” Lookhart’s misconduct, and that it had “carefully considered and rejected any comparison with prior Board cases.”
DISCUSSION
As relevant to this case the statute which provides for license revocation in cases of fraud and providing the same for standard-of-care violations, would be rendered meaningless.
No Prior Dental Board Decision Involves Similar Facts.
Lookhart stole millions of dollars from the state program that provides medical care for the indigent, while simultaneously defrauding a business partner of several hundred thousand more, and committing an egregious string of standard-of-care violations that not only jeopardized the safety, privacy, and autonomy of his patients, but also brought the dental profession into disrepute.
Lookhart stole millions of dollars from Medicaid. In furtherance of this massive fraud, he repeatedly subjected his patients to great risk of harm. There are no cases in the Board’s history comparable to Lookhart’s.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion by revoking Lookhart’s license. None of the Board’s prior licensing cases involved misconduct of the scope and severity in this case, so there was no applicable precedent to limit the Board’s exercise of its discretion.
ZALMA OPINION
“Chutzpah” is a Yiddish word for unmitigated gall usually explained as a person convicted of murdering his parents who asks for clemency because he is an orphan. Lookhart, a dentist about to serve 20 years in state prison had the chutzpah to demand his license to practice dentistry reinstated. The Supreme Court gave his claim short-shrift and by doing so protected his fellow prisoners from being treated by a vicious person who almost killed a patient while extracting a tooth balancing on a hoverboard and stealing from Medicaid.
(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 & Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
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
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Flood Policy Limitation of Action Provision Destroys Bad Faith Suit
Post number 5376
Flood Policy Limitation of Action Provision Followed Strictly
Posted on June 19, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Wayne Gularte, et al. v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company, No. 5:26-cv-01426-PCP, United States District Court, N.D. California (June 15, 2026) Wayne and Doris Gularte alleged that their property sustained flood damage between January 17 and March 23, 2023. They submitted claims to Wright National Flood Insurance Company, which paid part of the claim but denied additional claimed structural losses by email on June 18, 2023.
The Gularte plaintiffs filed suit in state court on December 30, 2025, seeking $12,500 for unpaid structural losses. Wright removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss.
LAW:
A complaint in Federal Court must plead enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when the complaint lacks a ...
Bad Faith With No Breach of Contract
Post number 5375
Essential Condition of a Tort of Bad Faith Ignored in California
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/payment-all-policy-benefits-does-defeat-bad-faith-zalma-esq-cfe-yhnec and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Jennifer Bornoff v. State Farm General Insurance Company, B339796, California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division (May 1, 2026) Bornoff’s business suffered two burglaries in March 2022. She submitted claims promptly, and State Farm never disputed coverage, only valuation.
After months of delay and poor communication, State Farm paid the property-loss benefits about four months later, shortly after Bornoff sued.
ISSUE:
Whether State Farm was entitled to summary adjudication of Bornoff’s bad-faith claim when it had paid all policy benefits but allegedly caused extracontractual economic loss through unreasonable delay.
RULE:
In California, an insurer may be liable for bad faith if it unreasonably delays payment of...
Post number 5374
The Government Must Remove a Noncitizen Within 90 Days of Detention
In Jean Marcel Perez Garcia v. Warden, Florida Side South Detention Facility, et al., No. 2:26-cv-788-JES-DNF John E. Steele United States District Judge United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 10, 2026) Jean Marcel Perez Garcia, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States in 2003. After convictions for a drug offense and felony insurance fraud, he was ordered removed in 2018 but was later released under supervision.
ICE revoked that supervision in December 2025 and detained him again to execute the removal order. In February 2026, ICE transported him to the U.S.–Mexico border and sought to have him depart to Mexico, but he refused. ICE then continued to detain him for more than six months without showing that any country had agreed to accept him or that travel documents had been secured.
LAW
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), the government must remove a noncitizen within 90 days after the ...
