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, United States Of America v. Surgery Center Management, LLC, Nos. 23-1719, 23-1959, 23-194, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (January 16, 2025) ruled forfeiture was proper.
BACKGROUND
The “Get Thin” Scheme
Before Ozempic and similar “wonder drugs,” medically-assisted weight loss had to happen the old-fashioned way- surgical intervention.
The Wizard of Loss was Dr. Julian Omidi. Omidi helmed a massive health insurance fraud scheme called “Get Thin.” Omidi’s scheme promised dramatic weight loss through Lap-Band surgery and other medical procedures. Using catchy radio jingles and ubiquitous billboard ads, Omidi urged potential patients to call 1-800-GET-THIN and “Let Your New Life Begin.”
Through the 800 number and an associated call center, Get Thin funneled patients to a network of consultants whom Omidi tasked to “close a sale.” Irrespective of medical need the sales people were tasked to unearth comorbidities that could help get the lucrative Lap-Band surgery pre-approved by insurers.
Once patients were successfully recruited, Omidi directed his employees to falsify patient data, fabricate diagnoses, and misrepresent the extent of physician involvement in their treatments to deceive insurance companies into paying for thousands of sleep studies, endoscopies, Lap-Band insertions, and other costly treatments.
A grand jury indicted Omidi and SCM for mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and other related charges arising from the Get Thin scheme. After three-and-a-half years of pretrial litigation and a 48-day jury trial, the jury convicted Omidi and SCM of all charges. The district court sentenced Omidi to 84 months’ imprisonment and fined SCM over $22 million.
The government argued, in addition to imprisonment and fines, that the total proceeds of Get Thin’s business during the fraud period – $98,280,221 – should be forfeited because the whole business was “permeated with fraud.” Applying the requisite preponderance standard (and after hearing weeks of trial testimony), the district court agreed with the government. Reviewing the relevant statutes and persuasive out-of-circuit authority, it agreed that the $98,280,221 in proceeds were directly or indirectly derived from the fraudulent Get Thin scheme.
DISCUSSION
Fraud convictions frequently require multiple determinations: the appropriate sentence, the restitution amount which compensates victims for the harm caused, and the forfeiture judgment which punishes defendants by depriving them of the proceeds of their crime. Forfeiture is imposed as punishment for a crime; restitution makes the victim whole again. The Ninth Circuit examined forfeiture, and found that it serves an entirely different purpose than restitution.
Because the very nucleus of the defendants’ business model was rotten and malignant and any money generated through a few potentially legitimate sales resulted directly or indirectly from the fraudulent scheme. Thus, forfeiture of money generated through supposedly legitimate transactions was appropriate. The Ninth Circuit concluded that all Get Thin proceeds were derived from a single intake process that, by design, disregarded medical necessity in favor of profit as part of the larger fraudulent billing scheme.
All proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a health care fraud scheme like Get Thin-even if a downstream legitimate transaction conceivably generated some of those proceeds-must be forfeited. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in so concluding.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit found that all proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a health care fraud scheme like Get Thin – even if a downstream legitimate transaction conceivably generated some of those proceeds – must be forfeited.
ZALMA OPINION
If health insurance fraud, or fraud of any kind, is to be deterred or defeated it is essential that the profit is taken out of the crime. The crimes perpetrated by Omidi and SCM garnered almost $100 million. By using forfeiture of $100 million the crime was punished more effectively than the 84 months in prison since there will be none of the proceeds of the crime available when Omidi is released from prison.
(c) 2025 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/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
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://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
