Posted on April 7, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Alleged No Fault Fraudsters Enjoined from Claims, Arbitration or Suit to Collect Benefits
Post number 5318
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gDVBjCn7 and at https://lnkd.in/g-MYNe8b and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, and Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company v. Jonathan S. Landow, M.D., Viviane Etienne, M.D., Atlantic Medical & Diagnostic, P.C., Birch Medical & Diagnostic, P.C., Eastern Medical Practice, P.C., Empire Medical Services, P.C., Macintosh Medical, P.C. Paramount Medical Services, P.C., Preferred Medical, P.C., Sovereign Medical Services, P.C., Spruce Medical & Diagnostic, P.C., Summit Medical Services, P.C., Urban Medical, P.C., Roman Matatov, Uriyel Mirzakandov, and Ruben Levy a/k/a Ruben Leviyev, No. 24-CV-2010 (DLI) (JRC), United States District Court, E.D. New York (March 30, 2026) Plaintiffs filed a 187-page complaint, including dozens of pages of exhibits, detailing a scheme of kickbacks for patient referrals, operation of clinics by laypersons, lack of medical care provided by the M.D. Defendants, and predetermined and trumped up medical treatments.
FACTS
Allstate Insurance Company and related entities (“Plaintiffs”) sued multiple defendants, including physicians, medical professional corporations, and managerial individuals (“Defendants”). The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants collectively participated in a scheme to defraud them by exploiting New York’s No Fault insurance system, submitting illegal or inflated medical costs through various medical professional corporations. The action involves claims of violations of the Federal RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.
Allstate sued Jonathan S. Landow and multiple (“M.D. Defendants”), Urban Medical, P.C. (collectively, “PC Defendants”), Roman Israilov a/k/a Roman Matatov, (collectively, “Managerial Defendants”)The suit alleged violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs alleged that all Defendants collectively engaged in a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs via New York’s No Fault insurance statutory framework (“No Fault”).
LAW
The case centers on New York’s No Fault statutory framework, which is designed to provide prompt compensation for necessary medical expenses resulting from motor vehicle accidents, up to $50,000 per person. The laws allow claimants to assign benefits to licensed healthcare providers, who then submit claims to insurers for payment. Providers must be operated by licensed professionals, and any fraudulent activity — including submitting materially false claims or receiving kickbacks — is prohibited under relevant New York statutes. Failure to comply with licensing requirements renders providers ineligible for reimbursement.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to stay all current No Fault arbitrations and prevent Defendants from filing new arbitrations or state court collection suits during the litigation. The court reviewed the statutory requirements and allegations, focusing on whether Defendants’ conduct violated the No Fault laws and related regulations.
ANALYSIS
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show:
1. irreparable harm;
2. either a likelihood of success on the merits or both serious questions on the merits and a balance of hardships decidedly favoring the moving party; and
3. that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.
The court examined the statutory prerequisites for medical providers to claim No Fault benefits, emphasizing the necessity of licensure and prohibition of fraudulent practices. Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants operated unlicensed or fraudulently managed medical corporations and submitted improper claims were found to raise serious questions under both federal and state law. The procedural history and unopposed motion supported granting the requested relief.
CONCLUSION
The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in its entirety, staying pending No Fault arbitrations and state court litigation against Plaintiffs and enjoining Defendants from initiating new proceedings during the pendency of the action. The decision underscores the importance of compliance with New York’s No Fault laws and the legal consequences for fraudulent or unlicensed conduct in the insurance and medical services context.
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was granted.
ZALMA OPINION
The “No Fault Law” was created to avoid litigation, make benefits available promptly and avoid fraud. Unfortunately, it created a cottage industry for fraud perpetrators who created fake medical bills to obtain the maximum recovery for people who were uninjured and for health care providers who had no morals nor a willingness to follow the law. Allstate, and other insurers are using injunctions to take the profit out of the fraud since the authorities have failed to prosecute the scofflaws.
(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://gbarryzalma.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.
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 ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
Plaintiff May Try Again to get a Judgment
Posted on May 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Just Because a Defendant Defaults Evidence is Needed to get a Judgment
Even on a Default Motion the Plaintiff Must Do More Than Rely on Conclusory Allegations.
Post number 5356
The Commissioners Of The State Insurance Fund v. Capcon Construction Industries Corp., Capcon Construction Supply Corp., Jab Masonry Corp., Agra Masonry Inc., Agra Industries Usa Corp, A & A Masonry Corp., Alexander Shvartsberg, Darren Caputo, Maryann Furman, Index No. 452680/2024, MOTION SEQ. No. 003, 2026 NY Slip Op 31767(U), Supreme Court, New York County (April 20, 2026)
FACTS
The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund (SIF) had already obtained two judgments for unpaid workers’ compensation insurance premiums: one against A\&A Masonry Corp. and another, much larger one, against Agra Masonry Inc. SIF then brought this action against several related corporations and individuals, alleging that they all operated as a single de facto enterprise and that assets had ...
Defaulting Fraud Perpetrator Lets Insurer Defeat Fraud
Post number 5355
Posted on May 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. John Joseph Egan, et al., No. 25-cv-06167-JD, United States District Court, N.D. California (May 12, 2026) Transamerica Life Insurance Company issued John Egan a life insurance policy with a long-term care rider that covered in-home skilled nursing or other professional care if he qualified as chronically ill.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2023, Egan submitted a claim alleging severe pain, major loss of daily functioning, and limited mobility following an auto accident. Transamerica approved coverage and paid benefits based on those representations and repeated proofs of loss describing in-home care services. After later surveillance in 2024 and 2025 showed Egan working, driving, shopping, and otherwise functioning without visible impairment — and showed no evidence of in-home care — Transamerica concluded that the claim was fraudulent and filed suit.
Transamerica surveilled ...
Defaulting Fraud Perpetrator Lets Insurer Defeat Fraud
Post number 5355
Posted on May 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. John Joseph Egan, et al., No. 25-cv-06167-JD, United States District Court, N.D. California (May 12, 2026) Transamerica Life Insurance Company issued John Egan a life insurance policy with a long-term care rider that covered in-home skilled nursing or other professional care if he qualified as chronically ill.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2023, Egan submitted a claim alleging severe pain, major loss of daily functioning, and limited mobility following an auto accident. Transamerica approved coverage and paid benefits based on those representations and repeated proofs of loss describing in-home care services. After later surveillance in 2024 and 2025 showed Egan working, driving, shopping, and otherwise functioning without visible impairment — and showed no evidence of in-home care — Transamerica concluded that the claim was fraudulent and filed suit.
Transamerica surveilled ...
