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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
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 ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
