Refusal to Provide Workers’ Compensation is Expensive
Post 5240
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/guC9dnqA, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gVxz-qmk and at https://lnkd.in/gUTAnCZw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In Illinois Department of Insurance, Insurance Compliance Department v.USA Water And Fire Restoration, Inc., And Nicholas Pacella, Individually And As Officer, Nos. 23WC021808, 18INC00228, No. 25IWCC0467, the Illinois Department of Insurance (Petitioner) initiated an investigation after the Injured Workers’ Benefit Fund (IWBF) was added to a pending workers’ compensation claim. The claim alleged a work-related injury during employment with the Respondents who failed to maintain workers’ compensation Insurance.
Company Overview:
USA Water & Fire Restoration, Inc. was incorporated on January 17, 2014, and dissolved on June 14, 2019, for failure to file annual reports and pay franchise taxes. It then operated under assumed names including USA Board Up & Glass Co. and USA Plumbing and Sewer. The business involved rehabilitating structures damaged by fire or water (e.g., remodeling, repairs), subjecting it to automatic coverage under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (Act).
Officers/Agents:
Tad Christensen (who was later identified as the true officer) had a history of fraud (e.g., 2005 insurance fraud charges under Action Fire Restoration; prior imprisonment). The Commission took judicial notice of Christensen’s criminal history.
Employee Evidence:
Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) quarterly wage reports showed employees (up to 6) from Feb. 2016–Aug. 2017 and Oct. 2017–Apr. 2018; zero reported in Sep. 2017. Illinois Department of Revenue records confirmed business activity (e.g., 2017 tax return signed by Christensen) but incomplete filings.
Violation Periods:
145 total days without coverage while doing business and employing workers.
Key Testimonies
Antonio Smith (Petitioner Investigator, 8 years experience) confirmed company’s subjection to Act; that there was no insurance during violation periods.
Summary of Law - Jurisdiction and Coverage
Section 3(1) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/3):
Automatically subjects employers to the Act if engaged in “erection, maintaining, removing, remodeling, altering or demolishing of any structure.” The company’s fire/water restoration (remodeling damaged structures) qualified.
Section 4(a) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/4(a)):
Requires all covered employers to secure workers’ compensation coverage via insurance or Commission-approved self-insurance.
Penalties and Culpability
Section 4(d) of the Act (820 ILCS 305/4(d)): For knowing/willful failure to comply with §4(a):
1. Civil penalty up to $500 per day per violation (post-1989 amendments).
2. Minimum $10,000.
3. Each day is a separate offense.
4. Personal liability for corporate officers/directors (e.g., Christensen) if they knowingly/willfully failed; primary liability on employer, secondary on officers if unpaid after 30 days.
Penalty Factors
1. Duration of violation (here: 145 days—significant but not continuous).
2. Number of claims (1 pending).
3. Prior awareness.
4. Number of employees (up to 6).
5. Ability to secure/pay coverage (no evidence of inability).
6. Mitigating circumstances (none alleged; intermittent prior coverage noted in mitigation).
7. Ability to pay penalty (no evidence presented).
Decision and Rationale
Findings:
The Company and Christensen knowingly/willfully violated §4(a) and Rule 9100.90 during 145 days (employees present, business active, no coverage/self-insurance). Violation was “knowing/willful” by inference from ignored notices, history of lapses, and non-appearance.
Penalty Assessed:
Maximum $500/day × 145 days = $72,500 against USA Water & Fire Restoration, Inc., and Tad Christensen (personally as officer). Exceeds minimum $10,000; justified by duration, claim, and awareness, tempered slightly by non-continuous lapses.
Enforcement:
Payable within 30 days by certified check/money order to Commission. Enforceable as circuit court judgment; judicial review per §19(f) of Act (bond fixed at $75,000). Debt owed to State.
ZALMA OPINION
Workers’ Compensation systems allow injured workers to obtain compensation for work related injuries without needing to prove anyone was responsible for the injury. It is a crime in almost every state to fail to report accurately employees for workers’ compensation insurance and a failure to provide any coverage requires punishment.
(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 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 InsuranceClaims 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...
