Insurer Fights Back Against No-Fault Clinic Mills
Fraud Doesn’t Pay When Insurers Fight Back
Post number 5353
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g2YVfmQz and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
ISSUE:
Whether State Farm was entitled to a preliminary injunction staying pending no-fault arbitrations and collection actions, and barring new filings, while it litigated a federal RICO and fraud action alleging a large-scale no-fault insurance scheme.
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire And Casaulty Company v. Atlantic Medical & Diagnostic, P.C., Jonathan Landow, M.D., and Viviane Etienne, M.D., No. 26-CV-1084 (OEM) (JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (April 29, 2026) Plaintiffs alleged that Landow and Etienne operate Atlantic as a high-volume medical practice at more than 90 multi-disciplinary clinics that cater to individuals purportedly injured in automobile accidents.
At these No-Fault Clinic Mills, Plaintiffs contend that Atlantic conducts examinations that are not legitimately performed to determine the true nature and extent of patient injuries but rather are performed as a pretext to justify unnecessary treatment and services.
Plaintiffs further alleged that Atlantic secures patients through improper quid pro quo arrangements with the NoFault Clinic Mills where it operates.
RULE:
A preliminary injunction requires irreparable harm, either likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits plus a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant’s favor, and consistency with the public interest.
HOLDING:
Yes. The court granted State Farm’s motion and stayed all pending no-fault arbitrations and state-court collection proceedings, while also enjoining defendants from filing new ones during the federal case.
REASONING:
The court found irreparable harm because thousands of piecemeal proceedings would obscure the alleged fraud and risk preclusive rulings. State Farm also raised serious questions on the merits through detailed allegations and documentary support showing predetermined treatment, medically unnecessary services, and kickback-based referrals. The balance of hardships and public interest favored an injunction, and the court declined to require a bond.
According to the complaint, defendants allegedly:
1. Conducted examinations as a pretext to justify unnecessary treatment;
2. Referred patients and prescribed goods/services pursuant to kickback arrangements disguised as rent or service fees;
3. Submitted claims falsely representing that treatment was medically necessary and reimbursable; and
4. Filed thousands of no-fault arbitrations and state court collection actions when claims were denied.
State Farm claimed more than 7,000 collection proceedings had been filed and sought over $30 million in damages. It moved for a preliminary injunction to stay all pending no-fault arbitrations/lawsuits and bar defendants from filing new ones while the federal action proceeds.
LEGAL ISSUES
The court applied the Second Circuit standard for a preliminary injunction. To obtain one, the movant must show:
1. Irreparable harm;
2. Either likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going to the merits plus a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant’s favor; and
3. That the injunction is in the public interest.
Precedent recognized that, in large-scale no-fault fraud schemes, piecemeal arbitrations and collection actions can obscure the alleged fraud and create a risk of inconsistent or preclusive rulings, thereby supporting irreparable harm and injunctive relief.
The court also noted that under Rule 65(c) it had discretion to require no bond, or no bond at all, where there was no demonstrated likelihood of harm from an erroneous injunction.
BOTTOM LINE
The court held that recent Second Circuit authority strongly supports injunctive relief in large-scale no-fault RICO fraud cases where fragmented arbitrations and lawsuits would obscure the alleged scheme and risk inconsistent or preclusive rulings.
The services rendered by Atlantic, as alleged by Plaintiffs, result in a predetermined course of treatment for virtually every patient, regardless of their individual needs, conditions, or diagnoses.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[A] preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.’” Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. 155, 158 (2018) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)).
DISCUSSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a preliminary injunction was granted.
(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://Cwww.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 ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
