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.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
