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.
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 ...
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 ...
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, ...
