More Arrests In Insurance Fraud Ring


Seven workers from New York City hospitals and one lawyer were arrested today in a continuing probe by AG Andrew Cuomo regarding the sale of patient information.

The workers all came from city-owned hospitals in the Bronx; six from Lincoln Hospital and one from Jacobi. The lawyer comes from Dinkes & Schwitzer, a Manhattan firm that handles personal injury and medical malpractice matters.

I had covered this probe previously, along with similar matters, here:

Ambulance Chasers, Runners and Other Creeps (August 3, 2009)

Whether these individuals are guilty of the charges against them remains to be seen. If they are not, they should have their names cleared. But if they are, I’d like to see a very long stay at the gray bar hotel.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. How to Fool a Jury (Is It Insurance Fraud?)
  2. Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring
  3. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is "Client #9" in Prostitution Ring
  4. Progressive Insurance Spies On Church Groups
  5. Why New York Medical Malpractice Insurance Jumped 14%

Tags:

One Response Leave a comment

  • Anonymous 2010.1.27 at 16:28 | Quote

    It will be interesting to see if any of the other partners at that firm go down or if it will remain limited to Hamel. Surely the named partner, William Schwitzer knew what was going on or at the least should have known. Hopefully, all parties involved, whether named right now or not will be brought to justice.

Leave a Reply


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might 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.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

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Some of the commentary may be become outdated.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.