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.