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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Applicant for Insurance is Obligated to Advise Insurer in Material Changes After Application Was Signed
Post number 5371
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/physicians-malpractice-insurance-available-when-zalma-esq-cfe-fmpxc and https://zalma.com/blog.
Doctor Criminally Charged and License Suspended After Application Signed had Policy Rescinded for Failure to Advise Insurer of Change
In Xiang (Sean) Yuan, M.D. v. Positive Physicians Insurance Company, No. 1821 EDA 2025, No. J-A08033-26, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (May 29, 2026) Dr. Xiang (Sean) Yuan, a physician, sought renewal of his professional liability insurance policy with Positive Physicians Insurance Company (PPIC) in June 2020 and again in May 2021.
In the June 2020 renewal application, he answered “no” to questions asking whether he knew of any circumstances that might lead to a professional liability claim.
Two days after signing the 2020 renewal application, Dr. Yuan was charged with 36 criminal offenses, and...
Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons ...
Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons ...
