![]() |
||
|
Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY |
||
Thursday, February 14, 2008State Farm Hit With Civil RICO Claim Over Sham Medical Exams State Farm has been sued for racketeering in New York with a claim that it conspired with "Independent Medical Exam" companies and medical practitioners to produce fraudulent and sham medical reports. The suit, filed January 30th in the Eastern District of New York, is brought under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). (This story has not been previously reported.)State Farm acted in concert with "IME" companies and doctors to furnish fraudulent and boilerplate reports, according to the suit. The objective was to procure "scientifically dishonest reports in order to terminate benefits." The Complaint is here: McGee-v-StateFarm-RICO-Complaint.pdf Of particular interest is that the plaintiff is not an injured accident victim that was wrongfully deprived of insurance benefits, but John McGee, a physician practicing rehabilitative medicine. The physiatrist asserts that claims submitted to State Farm are being wrongfully denied, thus depriving him of the revenue he should be receiving for the treatment he rendered. He alleges that "sham" examinations were done by the defendants to procure false findings so as to cut off the benefits, resulting in the claims he submitted being denied. The Complaint alleges that State Farm and the other defendants communicated that the evaluations and reports must deny that its insureds needed future treatment and that there was a lack of medical necessity for prior treatment. The Complaint goes on to state that State Farm engaged the other defendants with the expectation that reports received would be favorable to the insurance carrier, and to the detriment of the insured. McGee states that "State Farm made it known to the other defendants that if they did not provide sufficient denials within the evaluation reports then State Farm would not use their IME services." The defendant "IME" companies are Independent Physical Exam Referrals, Inc., and Metro Medical Services, LLC. According to the website of Independent, they play no role in the production of the report: We have addressed the "independent" part of the examinations by requiring all reports to be independently processed by the medical provider, typed and forwarded on their own stationary. IPER does not participate in the production of the reports, thus ensuring an arms length transaction for our clients. IPER reviews all reports by a registered nurse only to ensure that essential components of the report are present and that your questions are answered. The medical opinions rendered are those of the examining physician and based upon his/her clinical assessment and review of medical records.This description, however, is directly at odds with the allegations of the complaint, which states that "boilerplate medical evaluation reports" are used. That may be an easy thing to prove if identical language is used in many different reports. Whether these companies are like Integrated Risk Services Inc. -- a company I wrote about Tuesday that specifically states it doesn't want information favorable to the plaintiff included -- remains to be seen. (See: How to Fool a Jury (Is It Insurance Fraud?)) Another part of the Complaint alleges that State Farm pays an excessive fee to the IME company for the doctor's services, and that the money is then shared with the IME company or a kick-back is given to non-medical personnel. The complaint sets forth (in paragraph 19) that felonies have been committed with respect to the sharing of medical fees with non-medical personnel. Thanks to my anonymous tipster for the heads up. The plaintiff is represented by Bruce Rosenberg of Bellmore, New York. Update 3/2/08 -- Allstate was just hit with a similar suit: Allstate Slammed With RICO Charge Over Sham Medical Exams Update 3/3/08 -- A Doctor Sued, In Insurance Company RICO Suit, Responds To The Charge Labels: Insurance Industry
Comments:
I assume New York also has the rule that communications with an expert are not privileged - i.e. the expert can be deposed and asked "Did you talk to anyone about this case", "What did you and Mr. Defensecounsel discuss," etcetera?
There is no privilege attached to attorney-expert communications.
But there are also no depositions in state court. So the trial attorneys rely on doing the high-wire dance in front of the jury in the vast majority of cases without really knowing the answers that may come out. This particular RICO suit, however, was filed in federal court so that type of discovery would be allowed.
Very interesting post, Eric. We tried something similar here in Kentucky under our states "bad faith" statute; however, the court ruled that a 3rd party physician did not have standing to sue the insurance carrier.
Hans Poppe www.PoppeLawFirm.com/Blog
TY, Eric. We who practice in workers' comp are well familiar with the "usual suspects" from the two IME companies, especially Drs. Amato, Cole, and Diamond. Oy Vey is Mir!!! "Independent" is not in their dictionary nor in the medical criteria they use.
Jim McCarthy
Thank God somebody is finally looking into this sham system that has been existance for decades! When this is straightened out, hopefully in favor of the patients that have the most to lose,another system should be put into place.I have been saying for years that a simple lottery system would work great. It would eliminate the need for middle-man IME companies(there by saving that money) and it would remove the financial incentive to "say the right thing" so more IME's would be sent to your office.A simple standardized exam form could be faxed back and the Dr. recieves a scheduled fee for the service. Patients would be sent to participating Dr's close to their home. Dr's would be chosen totally be computor and randomized. I truely believe this would make the exams accurate and not in any shape or form money-motivated. Do you think the insurance co.s would allow this system? We all know the answer to that question, but what would be their arguement against it? I would love to know.
Peter M. Swerz D.C. pmswerz@aol.com
The Independent Medical Exam is the only tool the regulation gives insurance companies to evaluate medical necessity and reasonableness of treatment. Without the ability to compel an IME the insurance companies would have to pay as presented and rely on the treating physician to be ethical in their evaluations. It may be a "few bad apples" type scenario (many bad apples?) but there is too much no-fault fraud being perpetrated by unscrupulous medical providers who did not take the Hippocratic oath seriously. In my experience there is no collusion between the insurance companies and the IME vendors, but I haven't worked with all insurance companies. This is a frivolous suit brought by a chump who can't get by on $33.00 per visit.
Milton Waddams, Esq
This is a response to the anonymous doctor in the civil RICO suit.
First of all, State Farm, Allstate and GEICO are currently "investigating" hundreds of providers for insurance fraud. I have been investigated by State Farm for years and have had to sue them in order to get my fees paid. I have never lost a suit to State Farm or Allstate, and am batting about 98% with GEICO. I am talking about hundreds of claims. No, insurance companies do not have the right to "freeze" payments when they suspect fraud. They must either deny the bill or pay it in 30 days - that is the statute. Is "anonymous" serious about the attorney general? How about the obverse - if Dr. Mcgee is guilty of fraud why not contact the local District Attorney - huh? I would not like an "independent" medical examiner who has been told by insurance companies or even thinks that I run "bill mills" to review my work. Last week I received a IME approval for treatment from an examiner who works for State Farm who has been denying my claims 100%for the last 10 years. I think that this is an amazing coincidence (with the filing of the suit). Isn't it really difficult to believe that this person has found that over a ten year period, in every case referred to him of mine, that the procedures I administered were not medically necessary - not one. This is also true of several other IME people in my field. Do you realize that now according to the current No-Fault statute, if a patient does not want further treatment by a particular specialty, is called for an IME by that specialty, and does not show up because he is no longer interested in treatment, that this would be a policy violation, all treatment of any kind would be denied and all of his bills would not be paid? The fact that anyone could defend State Farm is laughable. A large percentage of NYC clinics will not accept State Farm patient's any more - which just goes to show how successful State Farm's approach has been. According to State Farm almost everyone who works at a large clinic has been fraudulently incorporated or is committing some other kind of fraud. Sure there's fraud - but it is arguable whether no-fault fraud approaches the level of fraud and lack of good faith practiced by State Farm. Everyone knows this including the Insurance Department but very little has been done. I have no way of knowing how valid the RICO cases against State Farm and Allstate are but I know this should have been done years ago and I applaud the effort.
I will say this happens a lot. I know because I video tape several IME's for people and all but one IME doctor has written in their reports that they performed several procedures when they clearly, on video, have not. Also I have as of late had clients denied their right to have me present, as a witness and to video the exam(s). In NY just look under section 137, number 6 and 7 about those rights. I feel 100% that everyone who must attend an IME, should if it's within the law, video the exam(s) to protect against doctors that put money ahead of someone's health. It's your right so don't be afraid to protect yourself.
Last I think that this will help all the "good" doctors out there in the future. Also the laws should change so that the courts should assign IME's and not the insurance companies to make it truly what an IME stands for, "Independent".
Update: I have new news about the video taping of IME cases that I posted about. First the Insurance is AIG, the second issue is since I last posted, my client has been issued a court date requesting that their payments be suspended. AIG claims that three times they (AIG) sent my client to IMEs and all three times my client didn't show for the exams. So based upon that they want to suspend any and all payments.
Great, because all three (a total of four, first IME was video taped with the doctors doing the exams) appointments were video taped and all appointments were denied by the doctor(s) and the office manager on tape. So it's not just the doctors committing "fraud" it's also the insurance company at this point. Thankfully my client had been to court prior to this to have their pay set otherwise AIG, by law, could have just cut them off until said court date. At this time the two doctors that performed the first set of exams on video, are/have been suspended from performing IMEs and are being investigated for fraud which could end up with them losing their license. Word of advise for NY exams is to call or check the IME suspended list of doctors (do a search IME doctors suspended) before you go to one and also after you attend an exam. Reason to check even every day is this, the case I'm involved with has been going on for 8-9 months and the doctors just got suspended. They "have" been under investigation this whole time while performing other IME exams and this "could" be used in other cases where they performed other exams that had complaints but no video evidence. Cases could be over turned but if one doesn't look the insurance companies win and the injured people hurt much more than words or dollars even mean. Good luck to all and I'll keep posting with new info as I can.
Maybe yu should confirm that the examiner as well as the IME entity actually have a license to adjust these claiems (INS Law 2108)
Post a Comment
Links to this post: << Home
The New York Personal Injury Law Blog does not accept advertising banners, pop up ads or other distractions from its content. But since The Turkewitz Law Firm is the sole sponsor, it may be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained. Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice. Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.
|
Subscribe by EmailAbout the authorEric Turkewitz has litigated New York personal injury and medical malpractice cases for 20 years, and is the founder of The Turkewitz Law Firm in New York. His firm's website is at www.TurkewitzLaw.com. View by Label
Welcome New Visitors
|
|
|
Copyright © 2007 Eric Turkewitz & The Turkewitz Law Firm |
||
|
About the New York Personal Injury Law Blog: |
||
|
|
Design by Lidija Tomas Design / Studio 4D |