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 non-ERISA health insurance plans, allege that Genesis and Metropolitan, along with unnamed parties, submitted fraudulent reimbursement claims under various health plans.
ISSUES
1. Whether Genesis, Metropolitan, and associated parties submitted fraudulent claims for reimbursement under the health plans administered by United and Oxford.
2. Whether the Counterclaim Defendants’ motion to dismiss all counterclaims should be granted in whole or in part.
3. Which specific counterclaims, if any, survive dismissal under federal and state law standards.
LAW
The case involves federal, state, and common law claims, including those under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for certain plans, and state law for non-ERISA plans.
The legal issues center on allegations of fraud, improper billing, and the submission of false claims for reimbursement under health insurance policies administered by United and Oxford.
DISCUSSION
The Counterclaim Defendants moved to dismiss all counterclaims asserted by United and Oxford, who opposed the motion and filed a reply. The Court decided the motion on the papers without oral argument. The allegations involve both ERISA-governed and non-ERISA health plans, implicating different legal standards.
ANALYSIS
The Court found that the motion to dismiss warranted a mixed outcome, granting it in part and denying it in part. This indicates that some of the counterclaims did not meet the threshold for dismissal at this stage, while others were sufficiently challenged to warrant dismissal.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court accepts all well-pled factual allegations as true, construes the complaint in the plaintiff’s favor, and determines whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, a plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.
Counterclaimants Seek Recoupment Of Overpayments Based Upon Three Sets Of Allegations, All Of Which Appear To Underlie Each Counterclaim.
Counterclaimants do not state any claim against Metropolitan, nor do they state any state law or common law claim The Court will therefore grant the Motion in part and will dismiss multiple counts. Counterclaimants do, however, state an ERISA claim and a claim for declaratory judgment based upon the Cash Price Allegations as those allegations relate to ERISA plans. The Court will therefore deny the Motion in part and permit Counts One and Ten to proceed.
ERISA preempts state law and common law claims based on the Cash Price Allegations. Counterclaimants’ State law claims based on Genesis’s posted cash price for COVID-19 testing are preempted by § 1144(a).
Counterclaimants Need Only Satisfy Plausibility, And They Have Done So Here With Respect To Genesis.
Because the CARES Act did not modify non-ERISA plans, Counterclaimants cannot plead facts that would make their Cash Price Allegations actionable in the context of non-ERISA plans.
Because Counterclaimants adequately plead a violation of ERISA against Genesis, however, Counterclaimants may proceed with Count One against Genesis for overpayments under ERISA plans based on the Cash Price Allegations. Counterclaimants fail to explain why any diagnostic test (such as a COVID-19 test) needed to have been performed “separately” or only pursuant to a physician’s orders.
Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion as to all claims based on the Ancillary Testing Allegations and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.
ZALMA OPINION
ERISA actions are singularly federal issues and if properly alleged can be stated in a federal court action. Other actions need to be pleaded carefully and the counterclaimants failed to do so and those allegations were dismissed without prejudice giving the parties the opportunity to try to plead their cases more carefully.
(c) 2026 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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
