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
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 ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
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.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Statutory Benefits vs. Rights of an Indispensable Party
Posted on July 31, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 5415
In Yairi Vazquez De La Cruz v. Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan, No. 413 EDA 2025, No. J-A10037-26, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (July 29, 2026) the court was called upon to decide if Yairi Vazquez de la Cruz, who was injured in an April 16, 2019 motor vehicle accident in Pennsylvania while riding in a vehicle driven by Carol Castro was entitled to benefits from the Pennsylvania Assigned Claims Plan.
The vehicle was owned and insured by Wineska Navarro-Agosta through American Independent Insurance Company (AIIC), but Castro was not listed as a driver on the policy.
Appellee obtained a default judgment against the at-fault party, but no responsible party had insurance from which she could recover. She then, because there was no way to collect from the responsible party, he sought benefits from the Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan.
LAW
Under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1752(a), a ...
Missing Insurance Check Resulted in More than 200 Page Pro Se Complaint
Post 5414
Defendants Needed to Wade Through a Thicket Of Background Detail And Evidentiary Matter” To Identify Which Specific Claims Are Brought Against Them
In Keith P. Sequeira et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al., Civil Action No. 25-1929 (RK) (JTQ), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (July 20, 2026) this matter is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiffs Keith P. Sequeira and Helen D. Sequeira’s (“Plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint. (“FAC”).
Plaintiffs alleged claims arising from a missing $17,558.32 insurance check issued after water damage to their New Jersey home and from a later sheriff’s sale/foreclosure concerning that property. Their First Amended Complaint asserted hundreds of counts against numerous defendants, including insurers, mortgage-related entities, banks, law firms, attorneys, and public officials.
BACKGROUND:
Plaintiffs originally filed suit in the District of Columbia, after ...
Missing Insurance Check Resulted in More than 200 Page Pro Se Complaint
Post 5414
Posted on July 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Defendants Needed to Wade Through a Thicket Of Background Detail And Evidentiary Matter” To Identify Which Specific Claims Are Brought Against Them
In Keith P. Sequeira et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al., Civil Action No. 25-1929 (RK) (JTQ), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (July 20, 2026) this matter is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiffs Keith P. Sequeira and Helen D. Sequeira’s (“Plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint. (“FAC”).
Plaintiffs alleged claims arising from a missing $17,558.32 insurance check issued after water damage to their New Jersey home and from a later sheriff’s sale/foreclosure concerning that property. Their First Amended Complaint asserted hundreds of counts against numerous defendants, including insurers, mortgage-related entities, banks, law firms, attorneys, and public officials.
BACKGROUND:
Plaintiffs originally filed suit...
