Detail Charging Defendant for Fraud is Sufficient
Post 5242
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g_HVw36q, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gpBd-XTg and at https://lnkd.in/gzCnBjgQ and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Charges that Advises the Defendant of the Crime Cannot be Set Aside
In United States Of America v. Lourdes Navarro, AKA Lulu, No. 25-661, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (December 4, 2025) Lourdes Navarro appealed the district court’s denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment and enter final judgment was in error.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The indictment alleged that insurers reimburse only for medically necessary services. Navarro performed unnecessary respiratory pathogen panel (RPP) tests on nasal swabs collected from asymptomatic individuals for COVID-19 screening.
Navarro billed over $455 million to insurers for those additional RPP tests that she knew to be medically unnecessary. These allegations constituted a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and the indictment had adequate detail to inform the defendant of the charge.
Navarro contended that regulations in effect during the COVID-19 pandemic lifted the statutory requirement that participating providers are required to ensure that any services rendered to Medicare recipients are supported by sufficient evidence of medical necessity. But the regulations did nothing to alter the medical-necessity requirement; they merely suspended the traditional physician-order requirement for otherwise necessary COVID-19 testing.
ANALYSIS
When HHS published § 410.32(a)(3), it explained that it did nothing “to permanently or temporarily waive the reasonable and necessary statutory requirement, which . . . cannot be waived.” [85 Fed. Reg. 27550, 27595.] The COVID-19 regulations and guidance Navarro cited neither waived the medical-necessity requirement nor authorized the mass testing of healthy individuals for additional illnesses. Since the indictment was facially sufficient, and Navarro’s guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud was valid.
Navarro also contended that RPP tests on asymptomatic individuals in high-risk settings were, in fact, medically necessary (and therefore not fraudulent). Because the indictment alleged the RPP tests were unnecessary and fraudulent – and nothing in the regulations or guidance establishes the contrary proposition – the indictment placed the matter of medical necessity properly in dispute for trial.
Had Navarro pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial, it would have been for a jury to decide whether the tests were medically unnecessary and, if so, whether Navarro billed for them with the requisite scienter.
Navarro’s arguments based on regulations and extrinsic sources may have yielded viable arguments at trial, but they were not grounds to dismiss the facially sufficient indictment.
CONCLUSIONS
The district court correctly rejected Navarro’s argument that § 1347 is unconstitutionally vague. Navarro failed to identify any ambiguous term in the plain text of the statute. Navarro’s concerns with regulatory ambiguity were inapt because neither the indictment nor the statute relies on or incorporates any regulatory standard.
Finally, § 1347’s requirement that a jury find that Navarro “knowingly and willfully” committed healthcare fraud is a scienter requirement that alleviates vagueness concerns, narrows the scope of the statute’s prohibition, and limits prosecutorial discretion.
Inclusion of a willfulness-scienter requirement mitigates a law’s vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed.
The District Court was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Fraud Perpetrators seem to have no concern over reality nor concern for the time of the court who must deal with serious problems. Navarro pleaded guilty to one count of fraud and then moved the District Court to let her go and dismiss the indictment to which she had pleaded guilty. The District Court rejected her move and she appealed to the Ninth Circuit who also rejected her arguments because they had no basis in the facts or the law. This conduct should be considered by the sentencing judge when deciding how long she spend in Federal 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 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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
