On this episode of the Deep Dive, we unpack a sweeping federal complaint brought by Federal Express Corporation that pulls back the curtain on what is alleged to be a highly coordinated, multi-layered fraud enterprise. At the center of the case is an intricate network of attorneys and medical providers accused of engineering staged motor vehicle accidents—most notably the notorious “swoop-and-squat” tactic—designed to target commercial carriers with significant insurance exposure.
But the collision is only the beginning.

According to the filing, what follows is a calculated and repeatable playbook: claimants are funneled into a controlled pipeline of treatment, where medical necessity is allegedly manufactured through exaggerated diagnoses, unnecessary surgical interventions, and manipulated diagnostic reporting. These elements are then leveraged to meet statutory thresholds and support high-value personal injury claims.

FedEx contends that this operation rises far beyond isolated fraud—invoking the power of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to argue that the defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, utilizing mail and wire fraud as tools to systematically extract settlements through sham litigation.

This is not just a story about fraudulent claims—it’s about the alleged weaponization of both the legal and healthcare systems, where minor accidents are transformed into multi-million dollar cases through coordination, deception, and systemic abuse.

We break down the complaint, the players, the tactics, and what this case signals for the broader fight against organized insurance fraud.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

On this episode of the Deep Dive…
We examine a newly unsealed federal indictment detailing an alleged multi-year, multi-million-dollar no-fault insurance fraud scheme centered around Zhan Petrosyants, also known as “Johnny.” Prosecutors allege that between 2018 and 2023, Petrosyants orchestrated a sophisticated operation designed to exploit New York’s no-fault insurance system—submitting claims for treatments that were never rendered, medically unnecessary, or grossly inflated.

At the core of the alleged scheme: shell medical entities that appeared legitimate on paper but were not owned or controlled by licensed professionals, as required by law. These entities, paired with the recruitment of credentialed clinicians whose identities were used to legitimize fraudulent billing, created a pipeline for tens of millions of dollars in illicit claims.

But the operation didn’t stop at billing. According to the indictment, the scheme leveraged funding companies to accelerate cash flow—securing advances on fraudulent claims and layering the proceeds through shell corporations and business accounts to conceal their origin.

This case pulls back the curtain on the organized, calculated nature of modern insurance fraud—where medical, financial, and corporate structures are weaponized in concert. It also highlights a critical reality: these aren’t isolated incidents—they’re coordinated enterprises designed to exploit systemic vulnerabilities.

As the government moves to seize assets tied to the alleged fraud, this indictment serves as both a roadmap of the scheme and a stark reminder of the scale, sophistication, and impact of no-fault abuse on the broader system.

Let's Dive In.

Support the show

This court order from the Supreme Court of New York details the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit filed by an orthopedic surgeon against The Willis Law Group and their clients. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ public statements regarding a federal racketeering and insurance fraud case were slanderous and damaging to their professional reputation. 

However, the judge ruled that the legal action was a SLAPP suit, intended to stifle public participation on matters of significant community interest. Because the defendants' communications were protected by litigation privilege and summarized existing legal allegations rather than stating false facts, the court dismissed the complaint entirely. Consequently, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' attorney's fees and legal costs following a scheduled hearing.

Let's dive in.

Support the show

On this episode of the iFraud Deep Dive, we examine a case that underscores a hard truth in modern litigation—your digital footprint can make or break your claim.

At the center is a New York Supreme Court ruling stemming from a personal injury lawsuit filed after a motor vehicle accident. While the court found enough conflicting testimony to keep questions of liability alive, the real turning point came from something far outside the crash itself—the destruction of evidence.

The plaintiff allegedly deleted social media and YouTube accounts that were directly relevant to claims of physical disability. And in today’s world, that’s not just a misstep—it’s spoliation. The court determined that this deletion severely prejudiced the defense’s ability to assess the truth behind the injuries being claimed.

The result? A significant sanction—the dismissal of claims against The New York Foundling—effectively removing the non-profit from the case altogether.

In this episode, we break down the legal reasoning behind the ruling, the growing role of digital evidence in personal injury litigation, and what this means for claimants, attorneys, and carriers alike. Because when evidence disappears, so does credibility—and in a system built on proof, that can be the difference between a case moving forward… or falling apart.

Let’s dive in.

Support the show

Today’s Deep Dive is a reflection of the objectivity and neutrality the foundation stands for.

Independent Medical Examinations and expert medical testimony are critical tools in claims defense. When done right, they bring clarity, credibility, and truth to complex cases. But like any system, there are those who uphold that standard, and those who fall short, bending it to serve their own interests.

Our role in combating fraud is simple: call out misconduct wherever it exists. It doesn’t matter which side of the claim you’re on. Whether it’s wage theft, the manipulation of medical opinions, a personal injury firm, or a litigation services provider, alleged wrongdoing must be brought into the light.

In this episode, we break down the legal arguments, examine what this means for expert witness credibility, and explore the broader implications for a system that depends on truth and not tactics to function. Because when testimony is scripted, justice becomes a performance… and the consequences extend far beyond a single case.

We don’t get to pick and choose which bad actors to hold accountable. If we’re serious about fighting insurance fraud and dismantling the narratives that allow it to persist, accountability has to be universal.

Let's dive into it.

Support the show

In this episode of Deep Dive, we take you inside one of the most disturbing and coordinated insurance fraud schemes ever uncovered in the United States—Operation Sideswipe.

What started as suspicious crashes on the streets of New Orleans unraveled into a decade-long criminal enterprise—where over 150 staged collisions with commercial tractor-trailers were not accidents at all… but carefully orchestrated events.

At the center of it? Personal injury attorneys and their firms—now found guilty of engineering these crashes, fueling a system designed to manufacture claims, inflate damages, and exploit the legal process at scale.

But the fallout goes far beyond the courtroom.

Dozens of federal charges. Lives of innocent truck drivers destroyed. Careers wiped out. And in one chilling turn—violence spilling over into murder to protect the scheme.

And this wasn’t a siloed operation. The allegations point to a broader network—where medical providers played a critical role, supplying unnecessary treatments to legitimize fraudulent claims.

This is the Fraudemic in its rawest form—organized, calculated, and deeply embedded.

So the question becomes: if Louisiana can take this head-on… why aren’t other states doing the same?

Let’s get into it.

Support the show

In this episode of Deep Dive, we break down a significant court ruling that keeps a high-stakes insurance fraud case alive in New York.

At the center is a lawsuit brought by Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company against Citimed Complete Medical Care and Dr. Regina Moshe—alleging a coordinated scheme built on falsified medical reports, engineered to drive insurance payouts and sustain a pipeline of patient referrals. The defendants pushed to have the case dismissed. But the court said not so fast.

Judge Natasha C. Merle ruled that the fraud allegations were detailed enough—and serious enough—to move forward into discovery, signaling that the claims warrant a closer, evidence-driven examination. At the same time, the court trimmed the case, dismissing claims for unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment as duplicative of the core fraud allegations.

What remains is the heart of the dispute: whether there was a deliberate pattern of misrepresentation—and how much financial damage it caused.
This is exactly the kind of case that sits at the intersection of medical billing, litigation strategy, and the broader “Fraudemic” impacting the insurance ecosystem.

Let’s dive into it.

Support the show

What happens when a routine trip-and-fall case turns into something far more complex—something engineered?

In this episode, we break down a legal filing out of the Supreme Court of the State of New York that pulls back the curtain on what’s alleged to be a coordinated medical billing and litigation-financing scheme. At the center: claims that certain providers weren’t just treating patients—they were manufacturing value. From so-called “phantom” surgeries to templated operative reports, the filing paints a picture of care that may never have happened, but was billed as if it did.

But it doesn’t stop there.

Those inflated medical receivables were allegedly packaged and sold to third-party funding entities—turning questionable treatment into immediate cash, and dramatically increasing the stakes of the underlying lawsuit. Even more striking, the complaint suggests that large “write-offs” weren’t acts of leniency—they were strategic moves designed to conceal non-recourse financing arrangements tied to the outcome of the case.

This isn’t just about one claim. It’s about a system—where medicine, money, and litigation intersect in ways that may distort justice itself.

Let’s dive into it.

Support the show

On this episode of the Deep Dive we discuss the NYS Senate's "One-House Budget Resolution". Every year in Albany, the most consequential policy battle in New York isn’t fought on the campaign trail — it happens inside the state budget. When the Governor releases the Executive Budget, it sets the agenda for how hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars could be spent. But under the New York Constitution, the Legislature has the authority to reshape that plan. The result is a comprehensive response that completely striped the Governor’s proposals, restores funding for programs the Legislature believes were cut too deeply, and introduces its own priorities on issues like housing, healthcare, education, and environmental policy. Coincidentally, all very closely in-line with proposals by NYC Mayor Mandami, and supported by the Trial Lawyers.

Important to note, that this isn’t the final budget, It is the opening move in Albany’s annual fiscal chess match. Over the coming weeks, the Senate, the Assembly, and the Governor will negotiate line by line to determine what ultimately becomes law. But this is a clear demonstration of the power of the Trial Lawyers lobby and their impact on NY State Government. Which should be concerning to all New Yorkers.

Let's Dive In.

Support the show

In this episode of the Deep Dive, we’re examining a federal court decision that sheds light on how insurers are increasingly using the courts to challenge alleged medical fraud schemes. At the center of the case is a lawsuit brought by Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company against a radiology practice and one of its physicians, accusing them of orchestrating a years-long effort to generate inflated insurance settlements through falsified reports and unnecessary diagnoses. 

The court recently ruled that the insurer presented sufficient allegations of financial harm to move forward with its core fraud and unjust enrichment claims, allowing the case to proceed into discovery. While some defendants were dismissed due to insufficient allegations, the decision leaves the central accusations intact—setting the stage for a closer examination of how these alleged practices operate and how the legal system evaluates claims of organized medical fraud.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

On this episode of the Deep Dive we’re breaking down a piece of proposed legislation that could mark a turning point in New York’s fight against staged accidents and fabricated injury claims — the FRAUD Act.

As insurance premiums continue to climb, lawmakers are zeroing in on one of the most persistent cost drivers: organized construction site schemes and orchestrated motor vehicle collisions designed to exploit the system. The FRAUD Act would elevate intentional fabrication of these incidents to a Class E felony, impose restitution and civil penalties, and temporarily bar convicted individuals from collecting insurance benefits.

But this bill goes beyond punishment. It signals a broader shift toward accountability — requiring greater cooperation between insurers and law enforcement and reinforcing that fraud is not a business strategy, it’s a crime.

In this episode, we’ll examine what the legislation actually does, what it means for policyholders and employers, and whether it has the teeth to meaningfully impact New York’s liability landscape.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

On this episode of the Deep Dive…

We examine a powerful report challenging the defense industry’s long-standing habit of treating litigation fraud as just another cost of doing business. At the center is what’s been labeled the “Subin Blueprint” — a repeatable model of manufactured claims that persists despite high-profile RICO actions and mounting judicial scrutiny. Through a detailed case study involving alleged witness tampering and suborned perjury, the report argues that for certain actors, deception remains standard operating procedure. But it also spotlights a recent defense verdict as proof that disciplined investigation, coordinated carrier backing, and a refusal to capitulate can dismantle even well-constructed fraudulent narratives. The message is direct: stop negotiating with corruption. In a modern, predatory litigation environment, outdated claims philosophies don’t just fail — they fund the problem.

Support the show

Fresh off the release of the 2025 Annual Report from the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, this episode of the iFraud Deep Dive examines what the data really tells us about the direction of the system.

The report outlines the Board’s continued push toward digital modernization through the OnBoard initiative—an effort credited with reducing hearing delays and accelerating the resolution of medical disputes. It highlights sector trends, noting that health care and public administration continue to generate the highest claim volumes. Legislative updates expand coverage for work-related stress and increase minimum benefit levels, while the Board emphasizes education efforts and initiatives to attract more medical providers into the program.

But what do these changes mean in practice—for injured workers, employers, carriers, and the broader cost structure of the system?

Are efficiency gains translating into cost containment? How does expanded coverage impact long-term exposure? And where do fraud prevention, medical oversight, and administrative modernization intersect?

On this episode, we break down the numbers, the reforms, and the real-world implications for New York’s workers’ compensation ecosystem.

Let's Dive In.

Support the show

On this episode of The Deep Dive, we examine a high-stakes personal injury lawsuit where the defense alleges far more than a routine accident claim.

Court filings from litigation involving The 89 Bonnie Realty Corporation accuse the plaintiff of being tied to a broader staged-accident network, pointing to conflicting versions of how the incident occurred and alleged connections to a known “runner” previously identified in RICO litigation.

We break down the defense’s strategy: claims of a repeat treatment “protocol” designed to inflate damages, a fight over summary judgment to delay depositions, and a motion to amend the pleadings to assert fraud counterclaims.

Is this a standard liability dispute — or part of a coordinated litigation blueprint? Let’s dive in.

Support the show

In this episode of The Deep Dive, we break down a significant federal memorandum decision dismissing a racketeering lawsuit filed by Roosevelt Road Re Ltd. and Tradesman Program Managers against a law firm they accused of orchestrating a construction injury fraud scheme.

The plaintiffs alleged a coordinated effort to fabricate workplace injuries and exploit insurance claims. But the court never reached the substance of the fraud allegations. Instead, it focused on standing under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Because the plaintiffs operated as reinsurers, the judge found their financial injuries too remote from the alleged misconduct to satisfy RICO’s direct injury requirement. Applying collateral estoppel, the court emphasized that these same parties had already lost on identical standing grounds in prior litigation. Reframing the theory without changing their commercial status wasn’t enough.

The result? Federal RICO claims dismissed with prejudice—and the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

This episode examines the limits of RICO standing, the power of collateral estoppel, and what this ruling means for insurers, reinsurers, and fraud-driven litigation strategy moving forward.

Time to Dive In.

Support the show

Before the Deep Dive Debate…

A January 15, 2026 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court put expert credibility front and center in Buestan v. 550 Washington Owner LLC and Turner Construction.

The key issue? Whether the defense can question the plaintiffs’ spinal surgery expert about the Workers’ Compensation Board’s denial of his reauthorization to treat injured workers.

The defense calls it evidence of bias and credibility. Plaintiffs argue it’s non-final and prejudicial. The Court allows limited inquiry—drawing a careful line between impeachment and improper character attack.

When regulatory findings intersect with courtroom testimony, where should that line be drawn?

That’s the debate.

Support the show

Right from the press, this episode of the Deep Dive takes on a headline grabbing New York debate: auto insurance reform.

A recent press release from Citizens for Affordable Rates points to overwhelming public support—citing Beacon Research data showing that 86% of voters, across party lines and regions of the state, favor Governor Hochul’s proposal to reduce car insurance premiums. With rates continuing to climb, many New Yorkers say the system feels unsustainable—and they’re demanding legislative action.

But beneath the polling numbers lies a more complicated question.
What’s truly driving skyrocketing premiums? Is it corporate pricing? Regulatory structure? Or the ongoing impact of insurance fraud, staged accidents, inflated medical billing, and litigation abuse that honest drivers ultimately pay for?

On this episode, we break down the data, the politics, and the real economic forces at play. We examine how fraud distorts the marketplace, why public perception matters, and whether proposed reforms address root causes—or just symptoms.  Because when 86% of voters agree on something, it’s worth digging deeper.

Let's Dive In, follow the facts, expose the schemes, and separate reform from rhetoric.

Support the show

On this episode of the Deep Dive…

What happens when the plaintiff’s own medical expert becomes the focal point of a fraud investigation?

In this episode, we unpack a explosive legal motion in which the defense seeks permission to introduce evidence of what it describes as a systemic fraudulent billing scheme tied to the plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Sebastian Lattuga. According to court filings, the defense alleges that Dr. Lattuga and his practice, New York Spine Specialist, performed medically unnecessary spinal surgeries, inflated charges far beyond New York’s No-Fault fee schedules, and used questionable financial mechanisms — including alleged improper benefit revocations and private lien agreements — to extract excessive payments and high-interest returns from personal injury claimants.

At the heart of the motion is a strategic legal question: Should the jury hear about these alleged prior bad acts to evaluate the doctor’s credibility and potential financial motive? The defense argues that this isn’t just about treatment decisions — it’s about bias, profit, and whether expert testimony is being shaped by financial incentives tied to litigation outcomes.

If permitted, the cross-examination could fundamentally shift the trajectory of the case — transforming what appears to be a standard injury claim into a broader examination of litigation-driven medicine, fee schedule manipulation, and the intersection of medical testimony and alleged insurance fraud.

This isn’t just a fight over one surgery. It’s a fight over credibility, motive, and the integrity of expert evidence in high-stakes personal injury litigation.

Let’s dive in.

Support the show

This episode of the Deep Dive discusses a newly filed complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York that alleges a sweeping, coordinated insurance fraud scheme involving the Subin law firms and a network of medical providers.

At the center of the lawsuit, brought by New York Marine & General Insurance Company, is what the plaintiff describes as a calculated “blueprint” — a repeatable model designed to steer claimants toward unnecessary spinal surgeries, manipulate medical narratives, and artificially inflate the value of personal injury settlements.

The complaint goes further, alleging falsified medical documentation, collusive litigation tactics, and the exploitation of a mentally ill claimant who underwent surgery despite conflicting medical evidence and prior hospital clearances. According to the filing, this was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of systemic abuse.

The insurer is seeking treble damages and punitive awards under Judiciary Law § 487 and General Business Law § 349, arguing that the conduct represents chronic deceit that undermines both the legal system and the integrity of the claims process.

In this episode, we break down the allegations, the legal strategy behind pursuing attorneys personally, and what this case could mean for fraud enforcement, litigation abuse, and accountability within New York’s personal injury ecosystem.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

Right from the press, this episode of The Deep Dive breaks down a stunning Newsday investigation uncovering a sophisticated insurance fraud network operating across Long Island.

The report details an alleged web of staged car accidents and slip-and-fall schemes involving dozens of doctors, law firms, and recruited participants, designed to generate millions of dollars in fraudulent insurance billings. Legal filings point to unnecessary and unwarranted medical procedures, including surgeries performed at select facilities, used to artificially inflate personal injury claims.

Even more damning, investigators cite social media footage showing claimants engaging in strenuous physical activity while simultaneously claiming total disability. Authorities say the case highlights coordinated racketeering efforts that exploit both the legal and healthcare systems, costs that ultimately land on the backs of honest policyholders.

This is not an isolated incident...it’s a pattern. And today, we’re taking a closer look.  Let's Dive In!

Support the show

They say that art imitates life, but really it seems lately that life is imitating art in the form of a Grisham novel.  This episode of the Deep Dive we are discussing Ali Najmi, a prominent attorney and close associate of Mayor Zohran Mamdani.  He is facing scrutiny over his dual roles in New York City’s government and a private legal practice. While serving as the head of the committee responsible for selecting local judges, Najmi also acts as a "special adviser" to Liakas Law, a firm currently battling a federal lawsuit for allegedly orchestrating massive insurance fraud. Ethics experts warn that this arrangement mirrors the corruption of former official Sheldon Silver, suggesting that Najmi could potentially influence the bench to benefit his firm's legal interests. 

Critics are particularly concerned because the firm frequently sues the city, creating significant conflicts of interest for a top mayoral aide. Despite the firm’s denial of the fraud allegations, observers worry that the administration is allowing private legal actors to exert undue control over the judicial appointment process.

Grab your popcorn and let's dive in.

Support the show

This episode of the Deep Dive we're discussing  a third-party complaint filed by 4640 Broadway LLC against a group of medical providers and clinics. The filing alleges a sophisticated insurance fraud scheme involving staged or exaggerated accidents and medically unnecessary spinal surgeries. 

What's interesting is the indication that central to the claim is the "Subin Blueprint," a purported collaboration between a law firm and doctors to maximize legal settlements through high-cost, preplanned treatments. The defendants are accused of fraud, kickbacks, and deceptive business practices that exploit vulnerable patients for financial gain. Furthermore, the complaint highlights specific instances where patients received invasive procedures despite contradictory medical imaging or severe mental health concerns. Ultimately, the property owner seeks indemnification and damages, arguing that the underlying personal injury lawsuit is a product of manufactured evidence.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This Deep Dive discusses and op-ed by Tom Stebbins, Executive Director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of NY.  

Discussing the reform which Governor Kathy Hochul is spearheading, it is a comprehensive legislative agenda to lower auto insurance premiums by targeting systemic legal and criminal fraud. The state currently faces insurance costs far above the national average due to staged collisions and a no-fault system that incentivizes unnecessary litigation and medical inflation. The proposed reforms aim to tighten injury definitions and limit payouts for bad actors, mirroring successful measures that recently reduced rates in Florida. Additionally, advocates are calling for increased transparency regarding third-party lawsuit funding to expose the financial incentives behind coordinated fraud rings. Ultimately, these measures seek to prioritize financial relief for families over the profits of personal injury attorneys who benefit from the status quo.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This Deep Dive discusses the incredible legal complaint filed by Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company (GNY) against an extensive network of defendants for allegedly orchestrating a massive insurance fraud scheme. GNY claims that Subin Associates and other law firms collaborated with medical providers, litigation funders, and "runners" to recruit claimants for staged or exaggerated accidents. These claimants were reportedly directed to undergo medically unnecessary surgeries and invasive treatments solely to artificially inflate the value of personal injury and workers' compensation lawsuits. The lawsuit alleges that these parties functioned as a racketeering enterprise that utilized mail and wire fraud to extort settlements from insurers. GNY seeks to dismantle this operation, citing violations of the RICO Act and state laws regarding insurance fraud and deceptive business practices. Based on the detailed accounts of multiple "exemplar" claimants, the plaintiff argues that this coordinated misconduct undermines the legal system and increases insurance costs for the general public.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

Buckle up for this episode of the Deep Dive as Greater NY Insurance (GNY) enters the RICO battle!  We'll be discussing the complaint filed by the Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company which details an extensive racketeering and fraud scheme involving staged accidents and falsified medical claims. GNY alleges that a network of law firms, medical providers, and "runners" collaborated to recruit claimants and perform unnecessary surgeries to inflate settlement values. According to the suit, these participants utilized fraudulent documentation and predatory practices that directly contradict the insurance company’s founding principles of fairness and protection. The lawsuit identifies specific "wheels" of activity where recruiters organized fake trip-and-fall incidents, primarily targeting vulnerable immigrant populations.  

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This Deep Dive discusses the Uber and FedEx suit against the law firm of Simon and Simon.  They allege that the law firm Simon & Simon orchestrated a massive racketeering scheme to inflate the value of personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs claim that attorney Marc Simon collaborated with a network of corrupt medical providers, including doctors and chiropractors, to fabricate fraudulent medical records and perform unnecessary procedures. These medical defendants allegedly diagnosed non-existent injuries and projected exorbitant future care costs to secure artificially high settlements. The filing details numerous specific examples where minor traffic accidents were transformed into million-dollar claims through systematic mail and wire fraud. Consequently, the companies are seeking treble damages and equitable relief under the RICO Act to stop the ongoing conspiracy.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This Deep Dive looks at the corruption investigation currently being conducted by Federal authorities into "Power Broker" Frank Carone, the influential former chief of staff to Eric Adams. Prosecutors and the F.B.I. are specifically examining Carone’s consulting business and his previous tenure at City Hall to identify potential illegal activity.  We'll look at the almost unbelievable connection to the NY Fraudemic activities and allegations made by a major insurance carrier.  This developing case highlights the intersection of private business interests and government power in New York’s political landscape.

Sit back and get ready to Dive In!

Support the show

Our Deep Dive takes a look at the proposed regulatory changes to the New York Workers’ Compensation system, specifically regarding the cross-examination and deposition of medical witnesses. Under these updates, judges would transition from mandatory to discretionary authority when deciding whether to grant hearing adjournments for physician testimony. Furthermore, employers and insurance carriers would be required to coordinate all depositions and shoulder every associated cost, regardless of which party requested the testimony. 

The regulations also introduce a tiered fee structure for medical professionals that increases significantly based on the duration of the testimony and the timeliness of the payment. Critics of these measures argue that placing the entire financial and administrative burden on the defense could incentivize excessive requests for medical depositions.

Let's Dive In.

Support the show

Our Deep Dive takes us to Colorado to discuss the federal indictment of Thomas Sandgaard and Anna Lucsok, two former leaders of the medical device firm Zynex, Inc., for their roles in a massive $873 million fraud scheme. Prosecutors allege the pair manipulated financial records and submitted fraudulent insurance claims for unnecessary supplies to artificially inflate the company's stock value. The charges include identity theft and securities fraud, alongside accusations that Sandgaard engaged in bizarre retaliation against a journalist who covered the company. In response to these crimes, federal authorities are moving to seize luxury assets, including high-end real estate and a private jet. This case highlights a significant effort by law enforcement to address the exploitation of healthcare systems and the fraudulent activities of private investors.

Medical device fraud is very often overlooked.  It is an area that should be focused on and this is a perfect example as to why.  Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This Deep Dive looks at the New York Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to Integon National Insurance Company in a large-scale insurance fraud case. The court determined that Integon is not required to provide coverage or reimbursements for eight automobile accidents that were found to be intentionally staged. An extensive investigation revealed numerous "red flags," including identical accident circumstances, common medical and legal providers, and oversight by facilitators who coordinated the scheme.

The ruling affects a wide array of defendants, including drivers, passengers, and numerous healthcare providers who sought payment for unnecessary medical services. Ultimately, the court found that the insurer proved the collisions were not legitimate accidents, thereby nullifying any obligation to pay no-fault insurance benefits.

Turn your dash cam on and let's dive in!

Support the show

This Deep dive looks at the False Claims Act lawsuit filed against Liakas Law and its principals for allegedly defrauding the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The plaintiff, acting on behalf of the government, asserts that the firm falsely certified financial need to secure over one million dollars in forgivable loans during the pandemic. Evidence presented in the complaint includes numerous high-value settlement announcements on social media, suggesting the firm was highly profitable and did not require emergency federal aid. The suit further alleges that while claiming economic hardship, the defendants used these public funds for personal luxury purchases and business expansions. Ultimately, the relator seeks treble damages and civil penalties, arguing that the firm knowingly exploited a program intended for struggling small businesses.

Support the show

In this Deep Dive we look at a legal order, Judge Loretta A. Preska grants a motion allowing the defense to cross-examine Dr. Sebastian Lattuga regarding his alleged participation in medical fraud schemes. The defendants aim to challenge the doctor's credibility and motives by highlighting past accusations of performing unnecessary procedures and inflating costs for financial gain. While the plaintiff argued that such evidence was unfairly prejudicial, the court determined that the information is highly probative of potential witness bias. To ensure a fair trial, the judge noted that a limiting instruction could be used to prevent the jury from misusing these prior allegations. Ultimately, the ruling prioritizes the defense's right to investigate the professional integrity of a key medical witness.

Support the show

In this episode we're discussing NY Governor Kathy Hochul's plan for launching a comprehensive statewide initiative to combat the rising financial burden of staged automobile accidents. This strategic crackdown aims to dismantle organized fraud rings involving dishonest drivers and medical providers who artificially inflate insurance premiums for ordinary citizens. 

By coordinating efforts between law enforcement and state regulatory agencies, the government intends to prosecute those responsible for these deceptive scams. The governor highlights that these fraudulent activities currently add hundreds of dollars to the annual cost of living for New York motorists. Ultimately, the proposal seeks to enhance affordability by eliminating the systemic costs associated with illegal insurance claims and out-of-state registration loopholes. This aggressive policy shift represents a significant move toward protecting taxpayers from the economic impact of criminal insurance schemes.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

Today we look at the reply affirmation submitted by Daniel Johnston defendants’ counsel in the case of Moreno v. Key Food, seeking to dismiss the lawsuit or amend their legal response. The defendants allege that the plaintiff committed fraud upon the court by providing perjured testimony regarding his criminal history, employment record, and medical treatment. Supporting evidence includes surveillance footage suggesting the accident was staged and medical records that show unnecessary surgeries were recommended almost immediately. Counsel argues that the plaintiff failed to provide any sworn factual rebuttal or medical affidavits to dispute these serious allegations of dishonesty and litigation misconduct. Ultimately, the defense contends that the plaintiff’s actions undermine the integrity of the judicial process, justifying either a total dismissal or the inclusion of fraud-based counterclaims.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

Season 2 of the Deep Dive kicks off with a look at Los Angeles County and Uber Technologies massive legal actions targeting the Downtown LA Law Group over allegations of wide-ranging insurance and litigation fraud. 

Downtown LA Law Group allegedly utilized "recruiters" (aka Cappers or Runners) to pay individuals to fabricate or exaggerate sexual abuse claims involving county juvenile facilities to exploit a multi-billion dollar settlement. Similarly, Uber has filed a federal racketeering lawsuit claiming the firm collaborated with medical providers to generate inflated billing for non-existent injuries. 

In response to these scandals, legal advocacy groups and officials are demanding state bar investigations and stricter vetting processes to protect legitimate victims. These combined controversies have sparked a broader push for legislative reform regarding attorney solicitations and insurance coverage mandates in California. Consequently, the integrity of some of the largest settlements in United States history now faces intense judicial and public scrutiny.

Let's dive in to Season 2 of iFraud's Deep Dive!

Support the show

This Deep Dive looks at the strong move taken by New York with their recent  Consumer Litigation Funding Act.  This is a proposed New York law designed to regulate the third-party financing industry by establishing strict consumer protections and oversight. Under this bill, companies that provide cash advances to plaintiffs in exchange for a portion of their legal settlements must register with the state and adhere to mandatory licensing and reporting standards. The legislation mandates transparent contract terms, including a ten-day right of rescission and a cap on total charges at 25% of the gross recovery. To preserve the integrity of the legal process, the act prohibits referral fees between funders and attorneys while ensuring that lawyers maintain exclusive control over legal strategy and settlement decisions. Violations of these rules may result in the forfeiture of all fees and significant civil penalties.

Support the show

This Deep Dive jumps into an affidavit from an investigator named Harry Reimer, filed in a New York Supreme Court case involving Bienvenido Robert Polanco Salas as the plaintiff and multiple defendants and third-party defendants. Reimer explains he received an audio recording from a confidential informant, a former employee of the Roytblat Law Group, which represents the plaintiff. Breaking down the audio recording, where an unidentified speaker discusses allegations of fraud in the personal injury case, including a client being caught on video making the hole that caused the alleged accident. The speaker details how the law firm learned to handle its cases based on the Subin blueprint, and despite warnings from the defense attorney and internal colleagues, resisted dropping the case and is now facing consequences, including inquiries from investigative reporter Kristin Thorne (formerly) at Channel 7 News and potential exposure to fraud and FBI investigation. The conversation also reveals the firm's attempt to use a young associate to lie during a video deposition to protect one of the implicated individuals, Wilson.

Dive in with us!

Support the show

We take a Deep Dive into Third Party Litigation Funding based on a formal letter sent to New York Governor Kathy Hochul urging crucial amendments to the proposed Consumer Litigation Funding Act (S.1104A / A.804C). A broad coalition of organizations representing business, housing, and industry sectors including the iFraud Foundation, insists that the legislation must be modified to mandate the disclosure of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) agreements to both judges and opposing parties. The coalition argues that TPLF currently operates without transparency, contributing to prolonged and costly legal disputes—termed "zombie litigation"—which ultimately drives up insurance costs. Furthermore, the letter explicitly claims that these undisclosed financial arrangements are connected to a "sprawling ecosystem" undergirding fraudulent civil litigation schemes involving organized crime and the staging of accidents. 

The organizations stress that transparency is essential for the court to expose potential fraud and enforce the bill’s consumer protection measures. They conclude that passing the legislation without mandatory disclosure would undermine judicial integrity and leave consumers unprotected from the excesses of the secretive lawsuit-funding industry.

Support the show

This Deep Dive is based straight from the editorial from the New York Post which strongly urges Governor Kathy Hochul to veto a package of "lawsuit-boosting bills" that the Legislature is preparing to send to her desk. The authors contend that New York's legal system is already fiscally irresponsible, citing a recent $50 million jury award in a negligence case as evidence of excessive judicial payouts. This overly litigious atmosphere is framed as a serious affordability crisis because it forces insurance companies to raise rates, making health, auto, and general coverage drastically more expensive for all residents. 

We will specifically discuss several bills, including measures that would grant automatic jurisdiction over foreign companies doing business in the state and dramatically expand liability under the controversial "Grieving Families Act." These legislative changes would ultimately benefit only trial lawyers while further inflating living expenses for New York taxpayers.

Dive In and share your thoughts!

Support the show

This episode takes a look at a case that is not necessarily about fraud but we pay attention to the defense's pre-trial disclosures which inadvertently highlight the relationship between powerful plaintiff firms and the surgeon.

We're diving into the detail pre-trial disclosures and motions in the New York Supreme Court case, Newark Rehabilitation Center, PA, et al. v. Ashley Simela, D.O., and Yaciris Gonzalez.  Examining the Defendants’ Initial Proposed Witness and Exhibit Lists, which includes an extensive roster of 174 potential witnesses—including many doctors, lawyers, and legal personnel.  

Dr. Simela's affirmation explains that many witnesses are crucial because they serve as "referral sources" for patients or are the contested patients themselves, countering the Plaintiffs' allegations that Simela illegally solicited former patients. 

Let's dive in to this case that albeit unintentional, exposes the inappropriate referral relationship and ongoing communications between injury attorneys and physicians that are either complicit, willfully ignorant, or perhaps even willfully compliant.

Support the show

Our Deep Dive today takes a look at a civil Complaint filed by GEICO against PULSE MEDICAL CARE, P.C., Dr. Adnan Qureshi, and Irshad Syed, alongside an exhibit cataloging the disputed bills. The insurance carrier alleges a protracted, multi-year scheme to defraud it of over $1.6 million by utilizing New York's No-Fault system through the submission of thousands of medically unnecessary claims via the mail. The core mechanism of the fraud allegedly involved illegal patient referral arrangements and the illegitimate operation of the medical practice by unlicensed individuals. 

The lawsuit specifies that the billed services, documented in the accompanying schedule of claims, include exaggerated consultation complexity, medically unwarranted diagnostic ultrasounds (CPT 76881), and high-risk interventional procedures like Percutaneous Disc Decompressions performed by Qureshi, who allegedly lacked surgical qualifications.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This Deep Dive takes a look into the Affirmation in Support filed by MIDAS CONTRACTORS NYC CORP. in a New York Supreme Court construction accident lawsuit initiated by plaintiff Jose Hualpa Chisag. Midas seeks judicial permission to amend its pleading to include an affirmative defense and a counterclaim for fraud against Mr. Chisag, arguing that the plaintiff intentionally misrepresented and exaggerated his injuries. Midas alleges that Chisag, who initially sustained only a minor wrist fracture, fraudulently sought extensive medical treatment, including an unnecessary cervical fusion surgery, to maximize the value of his claim. The defense asserts that Chisag's case is part of a widespread, orchestrated scheme of litigation involving over 30 interconnected individuals, including family members, who filed similar lawsuits using the same attorneys and treatment protocols shortly after their alleged accidents. The motion highlights that the pattern of injuries, specialized treatments, and specific medical providers used by the plaintiff closely track allegations detailed in two federal RICO Fraud actions against the plaintiff’s law firm and his physicians. 

Ultimately, Midas requests leave to amend its answer and to conduct additional discovery concerning the alleged fraudulent conduct.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This episode of the Deep Dive takes look at the official decision and order from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department. This appellate ruling addresses an appeal in the case of Steven Antonio Cadena Lituma et al. v. Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages LLC et al. The court unanimously affirmed a lower court's order that granted the defendants' motion to vacate the note of issue and ordered further discovery. 

As you'll hear, the justices agreed that unusual and unanticipated circumstances, including evidence of suspected fraud connecting the plaintiffs to other suspicious accidents, justified reopening discovery. Furthermore, the court upheld the order allowing defendants to seek materials related to the funding of the plaintiffs' litigation, concluding this information is material and necessary to potentially uncover a financial motive for fabricating the accident.

Maybe this will be the beginning of a change in discovery rules regarding TPLF in NY.

Support the show

The Deep Dive looks into a pattern of significant spending by winning Bronx Civil Court judicial candidates on two political consulting firms, London House and Collado Consultants & Company, which are closely linked to Bronx Democratic Party chair Jamaal Bailey. An analysis of campaign disclosures reveals that since 2021, these firms have collected nearly half of the total campaign spending by successful candidates, often in races where the primary election was canceled due to a lack of competition. 

This arrangement suggests that hiring these specific, party-connected consultants is a de facto requirement for securing the highly sought-after judgeships, which carry a substantial salary and ten-year term, leading some observers to characterize the process as opaque and potentially nepotistic. Furthermore, the article notes that the Bronx Democratic Party itself has paid nearly $300,000 to London House under Bailey’s leadership, though the purpose of these payments remains largely undefined. 

The situation raises concerns about the integrity of the judicial selection process, especially since some candidates approved by the party despite the firms' involvement were rated "not approved" by an independent bar association.

Let's Dive In.

Support the show

This episode of the Deep Dive discusses an excerpt from a judicial opinion issued by the Appellate Division, First Department of the New York Supreme Court, decided on November 6, 2025, concerning the case of Taveras v Tuck-It-Away Assoc., L.P. The court unanimously affirmed a lower court's order that permitted the defendants, The Trustees of Columbia University, to amend their verified answer to include additional affirmative defenses centered on allegations of fraud and fraud on the court. The appellate decision justifies this allowance by noting that the plaintiff's testimony appeared inconsistent with evidence, particularly regarding her alleged injuries and her purported unawareness of a similar accident and lawsuit involving her daughter, who was represented by the same law firm. Furthermore, the court found the delay in amending the answer was not prejudicial to the plaintiff, especially since the note of issue had not yet been filed, allowing the defendants to raise serious claims related to the plaintiff's spinal surgery and potential misrepresentations about the cause and extent of her injuries.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This Deep Dive Debate our hosts take their positions on a dispute within a larger civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, involving Shawna Levy, Sholom Day Care, Inc., David N. Kushmakov, Ian Davey, and Alexios Apazidis, MD. 
Position 1: Argues that the Sholom Day Care, In,, et al. have standing for fraud and violation of General Business Law (GBL) § 349 are legally sufficient and adequately pleaded. 

Position 2:  Holds that the  Counterclaim Defendant's (Alexios Apazidis, MD) motion to dismiss the counterclaims, asserting that the Sholom Parties lack standing and have failed to plead fraud with the requisite specificity as mandated by CPLR § 3016(b). 

Both positions center on whether Dr. Apazidis's alleged conduct—knowingly performing unnecessary surgery and using templated operative reports—constitutes actionable fraud or a consumer-oriented deceptive practice under New York law.

Where do you stand on this debate?  Time to Dive In!

Support the show

The Deep Dive discusses excerpts from an American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) report titled "Sanctionable" outline a growing concern over unsupported, exaggerated, and fraudulent claims within the civil justice system, particularly in personal injury and mass tort litigation. Discussing the  various schemes, such as staged automobile accidents and the fabrication of injuries, citing numerous instances where these actions led to criminal prosecutions and the filing of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) actions by businesses and insurers seeking to recover damages. Furthermore, the report addresses the significant problem of unsupported claims in multidistrict litigation (MDLs), where questionable scientific evidence can sometimes fuel mass torts, and concludes with a call for stronger government enforcement, increased accountability through judicial disciplinary actions, and legislative reforms to combat frivolous lawsuits. The pervasive nature of these unsupported claims, the report argues, harms legitimate claimants and increases costs for consumers and businesses alike.

Support the show

This episode of the Deep Dive is an extensive overview of New York City's classification as a "Judicial Hellhole" due to rampant lawsuit abuse, which has made is the epicenter of the national "Fraudemic".  In fact, New York has its own specific "NY Fraudemic" label tied to its systemic fraud schemes, particularly within the construction and automobile insurance industries.  Exploiting laws like the Scaffold Law and the state's No-Fault system.  Our source highlights the prevalence of nuclear verdicts and various forms of litigation including ADA lawsuits, asbestos litigation, and no-injury consumer class actions, which contribute to rising costs for businesses and residents.

Furthermore, the text details the significant political spending by plaintiffs' law firms to maintain a favorable legal and environment and criticizes Judes for allegedly enabling the abuse by turning a blind eye when presented with evidence of suspicious cases.

Fasten your seat belts, hold on to the reigns tight and let's dive in to what in NY is the wildest of rides!

Support the show

This episode of the Deep Dive we dive into the latest RICO suit filed in the ongoing battle against insurance fraud.   Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company against numerous defendants, including law firms, medical practices, and individual doctors. This civil action, brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleges that the defendants participated in a large-scale "Fraud Scheme" operating since at least 2018. The core allegation is that the defendants formed an "association-in-fact enterprise" to recruit claimants, stage accidents, use confederate medical providers to provide unnecessary and costly healthcare services (including surgeries), and then file fraudulent lawsuits to extort money from the insurance company through inflated settlements. The complaint provides detailed case studies of four claimants to illustrate the pattern of racketeering activity, which includes mail fraud, wire fraud, Travel Act violations, and Hobbs Act violations, and seeks trebled damages, fees, and injunctive relief against the accused parties.

Support the show

This episode of discusses the Brody Law Group's letter  to the Kings County Supreme Court and an excerpt of a deposition transcript from non-party witness Jeiner Barboza. The letter, dated October 16, 2025, from Scott A. Brody, advocates for a pending motion to dismiss the underlying personal injury action, Candor v. QB Development Owner LLC and Omnibuild Construction Inc., alleging that the plaintiff, Freddy Daniel Moyano Candor, engaged in fraudulent conduct. To support this claim, the letter introduces the transcript of Jeiner Barboza's deposition, which contains testimony suggesting that Candor intentionally staged his accident due to a large debt, even offering Barboza money to assist in the fraud. The deposition itself details Barboza's account of the incident, his belief that Candor had a prior knee injury he planned to blame on the worksite incident, and Barboza's own admission that he had faked his separate, subsequent accident on the same day under the influence of "bad friends" before dropping his resulting lawsuit.

Another day in the life of NYC Construction.  Let's Dive In!

Support the show

On this episode we dive into an excerpt from a New York State Appellate Division decision in the case Matter of Weiner v New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, which was decided on October 16, 2025.  As a reminder Dr. Weiner is the co-owner of Allboro Medical, a facility that has alleged ties to Russian organized crime and MS-13.  However, we are focusing on the proceeding initiated by doctor Kevin Weiner, challenging the determination of a Hearing Committee that suspended his medical license for two years due to sustained charges of professional medical misconduct. Weiner's central argument was that the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) failed to satisfy a "condition precedent" under Public Health Law § 230, arguing he was not properly informed of all issues under investigation before his required pre-charge interview. 

The court ultimately confirmed the Hearing Committee's determination and dismissed Weiner's petition, ruling that the purpose of the law was to expedite the disciplinary process and that Weiner was afforded sufficient notice of the broader issues, including his alleged failure to properly render diagnoses.

Support the show

This Deep Dive addresses requests made by a staged accident coalition in NY to the U.S. Attorneys for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) and the Southern District of New York (SDNY), respectfully urging both offices to prioritize enforcement against organized schemes involving staged or fabricated construction-site accidents. The coalition representing New York's business, construction, and insurance communities claims that a profit-driven conspiracy, potentially involving organized crime, is fabricating falls and utilizing unnecessary medical procedures to inflate damages under New York Labor Law, leading to drastically increased insurance costs. The letters request specific actions, including deploying racketeering and fraud theories, formalizing joint task forces with federal and state partners, and using data-driven subpoenas to investigate referral networks.

Support the show

Today's Episode of The Deep Dive explores a contentious lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, involving the Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company against Michael Mahan, Esq., "John Doe, Esq.," and William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C. We discuss the Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss, arguing for the dismissal of claims, including violations of Judiciary Law § 487 and aiding and abetting fraud, by characterizing the suit as an unlawful Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) intended to bully defense counsel. Then we'll dive into the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which provides extensive counter-arguments and granular factual allegations intended to demonstrate the Defendants' knowing use of false evidence and collusion with a doctor to deceive the court.  We're look at their argument that anti-SLAPP protections do not apply to fraudulent conduct.

Support the show

This episode of the Deep Dive discusses the lawsuit Cecilia Okoroama v. Alla Kleban, Esq., et al., currently before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens. The first document, an Affidavit of Plaintiff in Opposition of the Motion to Dismiss, details the plaintiff's claims that her attorneys, Alla Kleban and Eric Subin, allegedly pressured her into predatory legal funding agreements with high-interest rates, sometimes exceeding 600%, by disguising loans as sales of property and breaching their fiduciary duties, resulting in a significantly reduced settlement payout. The second document is an Affidavit of Alla Kleban, Esq., filed in support of her motion to dismiss, in which she denies having any ownership interest in the funding companies or receiving any fees or compensation from them in connection with the litigation funding obtained by the plaintiff.  The interesting part is that despite their denials, the facts appear to be showing a very different story.  Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This Episode we dive into a complex legal dispute between two New York personal injury law firms, Ginarte Gallardo Gonzalez & Winograd, LLP and William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C. The allegations are that William Schwitzer engaged in client poaching from Joseph Ginarte by offering clients a "briefcase full of cash," specifically $2,000 or $3,000, and free Uber rides to switch attorneys. While Schwitzer's firm characterized these allegations as "baseless" and motivated by "professional jealously," later documents confirm the existence of a Settlement Agreement and General Release dated January 17, 2023, which resolved the underlying action. However, a letter from Ginarte's counsel, dated August 26, 2025, notifies the court that the Schwitzer parties have defaulted on the agreement by failing to pay $150,000 of the $625,000 owed to the Ginarte Firm from the settlement of a related case, thus requesting the court revive and reopen the original action. 

Finally, affidavits from individuals like Mignolia Pena denying involvement in the poaching scheme, and an affidavit from Wilmer Oswaldo Uguna Collaguazo closing his case with Schwitzer's firm, provide glimpses into the claims and client interactions relevant to the litigation.

Support the show

In this episode, we take a hard look at the pervasive and costly issue of insurance fraud through staged accidents. These schemes, often orchestrated by organized criminal rings with the help of complicit attorneys and medical providers, cost the industry billions each year and drive up premiums for everyday policyholders.

We explore why commercial vehicles are prime targets due to their high policy limits, and we spotlight several massive fraud rings that have made headlines. To frame the issue, we even touch on how insurance fraud has been portrayed in film before turning to the real-world impact—where lives and livelihoods are at stake.

From there, we shift into solutions: legislative reform, lowering policy limits, and insurers ramping up litigation to combat this violent and growing trend. We also examine why fraudulent claims are concentrated in hot-spot states like California, New York, and Florida, and what that means for the future of risk management.

If you want to understand how staged accidents fuel the fraud epidemic—and what’s being done to stop it—this is the episode you can’t afford to miss.

Support the show

This Deep Dive is based off an editorial alleging the Workers Rights Alliance (WRA) is not a genuine advocacy group, but rather a fabricated public relations tool. The document claims the WRA was established in February 2025 with no prior history or verifiable presence, suggesting it was created to counter the efforts of the iFraud Foundation. Furthermore, it accuses Glick Strategy, Inc. of being the true force behind the WRA, citing financial connections, website creation, and the promotion of WRA content through Glick Strategy's accounts. The editorial highlights a lack of transparency within the WRA, noting anonymous authorship and an incomplete website. Ultimately, the editorial concludes that the WRA serves as a façade for Glick Strategy's clients to manage reputations and discredit opposition.

Support the show

Welcome to iFraud's Deep Dive Debate.  Our hosts address a legal dispute where on once side we have Alexandre B. de Moura and his legal team with  allegations of defamation against the Willis Law Group and associated entities. Dr. Alexandre B. de Moura claims that the defendants initiated a frivolous RICO action against him and the New York Spine Institute, then publicly disseminated false and damaging statements through social media and other channels, accusing him of participating in a "massive fraud scheme." 

On the other side, we have The Willis Law Group, who in response, argues that de Moura's lawsuit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), asserting that their statements are protected by litigation privilege and relate to matters of public concern, namely a widespread "fraudemic" in workers' compensation, and are thus requesting the case's dismissal with attorney's fees.

Welcome to the debate - what do you think?

Support the show

This deep dive is based off an op-ed that scrutinizes a New York-based organization calling itself the “Workers Rights Alliance,” raising concerns about its legitimacy. The article highlights the group's striking resemblance in name to a reputable Washington State nonprofit, suggesting an attempt to borrow credibility. However, the New York entity lacks verifiable legal status, with no records found in IRS or New York state databases. Furthermore, its online presence is sparse and anonymous, offering no details on leadership or a clear mission. The author implies that these discrepancies, combined with recent legal actions against similar groups, suggest the New York "Workers Rights Alliance" may not be a genuine advocacy organization. Ultimately, the piece calls for transparency from the group regarding its legal documents, leadership, and funding to establish its credibility.

Too many red flags to not say beware and who are they really?  Let's dive in!

Support the show

This Deep Dive based on an article from Legal News, details a concerning trend in New York's legal and medical systems, focusing on how undocumented immigrants are allegedly exploited in personal injury lawsuits. It highlights cases where individuals, like Julio Cesar Puac, who sustain minor workplace injuries, are purportedly subjected to numerous medically unnecessary surgeries by doctors with ties to plaintiff attorneys. These procedures, often based on disputed radiology diagnoses, are said to inflate the value of lawsuits under New York's unique "Scaffold Law," turning simple claims into multi-million dollar cases. The article suggests a collaborative effort between attorneys, radiologists, and surgeons to generate extensive medical bills and maximize legal settlements, with insurers and defendants alleging fraudulent practices and even instances of surgeries being claimed but not performed. This practice, it claims, has transformed injured workers into "pincushions" while enriching legal and medical professionals.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This Deep Dive reviews how injury lawyers have become the new Ellis Island! We examine New York's controversial legal landscape, particularly concerning personal injury lawsuits filed by undocumented immigrants.  We look at how plaintiff lawyers, often in collaboration with lenders and medical providers, allegedly exploit New York's unique Scaffold Law and lax workers' compensation regulations. 

This system, which some insurers label a racketeering conspiracy, involves high-interest loans to plaintiffs, potentially unnecessary medical procedures, and significantly inflated settlement values, with a substantial portion of the awards going to legal teams, lenders, and doctors rather than the injured individuals. We look at the rising insurance premiums for construction companies and legislative efforts to reform the Scaffold Law, while also presenting examples of individual cases and accusations of fraud against specific law firms and medical professionals.

Support the show

This Deep Dive take a look into a case of workers' compensation fraud where Randi L. Magpie stole over $42,000 in benefits intended for his deceased mother, Linda Chaney. After Chaney's death in 2022, Magpie deposited 43 checks into his personal account through 2023, even falsely claiming his mother was "out of town" to prolong the scheme. The fraud was uncovered when the insurance company, NJM, obtained Chaney's death certificate after repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact her. Magpie pleaded guilty to grand and petit larceny, agreeing to probation and restitution, with the potential to withdraw his felony plea after fulfilling the terms.

Support the show

This Deep Dive takes a look at an Affirmation in Opposition and its supporting exhibits, from a New York Supreme Court case, Chantel McLaurin v. Andrew Walcott, et al. The affirmation, filed by Plaintiff's counsel, Frank Melendez, Esq., challenges Defendant Walcott's motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, citing an alleged conflict of interest stemming from unsubstantiated RICO allegations against the firm and Plaintiff. Additionally, the affirmation opposes Defendant's request for a change of venue based on counsel's marriage to a judge. 

What did the court decide? Let's dive in.

Support the show

This episode of the Deep Dive takes a look at the contesting by Dr. Vadim Lerman of the New York State Worker's Compensation Board's denial of his authorization to treat injured workers in the State of New York.  This denial stems from the WCB's determination of deviations from Medical Treatment Guidelines (MTGs), including performing unapproved surgeries and insufficient documentation to support medical necessity. Dr. Lerman contests this decision, with unfounded claims of his own, asserting that the WCB was unduly influenced by self-interested insurance companies, specifically citing pending federal civil litigation involving what he calls "shadow insurance" operators like Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd. and Ionian Re, LLC.  The WCB's official explanation details numerous instances of Dr. Lerman's purported non-compliance.  We chime in on this one,  in defense of the WCB's authority, duty, independence, and to highlights the importance of thorough and compliant medical documentation in all cases.

Let's dive in!

Support the show

Recently there has been a mass uncovering of professional misconduct and fraud within the New York healthcare system. This Deep Dive we take a look at two Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decisions to deny license renewals for medical doctors, Joseph Weinstein, D.O., and Vadim Lerman, D.O., citing their consistent failure to adhere to Medical Treatment Guidelines (MTGs), engage in medically unjustified procedures, exhibit poor record-keeping, and engage in billing irregularities. 

We also dive into a report from the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), which highlights the broader issue of healthcare fraud in New York State, outlining various types of fraud, the volume of reported incidents, and the collaborative efforts undertaken to combat such illicit activities. 

Let's start unmasking and dive in!

Support the show

This Deep Dive comes hot off the presses today as we discuss a summons and verified complaint filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County. Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company is suing Michael Mahan, Esq., "John Doe, Esq.," and William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C., alleging deceit, collusion, and aiding and abetting common law fraud. The plaintiff claims the defendants, a law firm and two attorneys, knowingly presented false medical reports and affirmations prepared by Dr. Alexios Apazidis to bolster a damages claim in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. Despite being notified of the alleged falsity and having an opportunity to withdraw the evidence, the defendants continued to rely on and argue for the use of the falsified documents, leading to the current action seeking treble damages and punitive damages for the plaintiff's incurred legal expenses and other losses.

So let's dive in to this incredible ongoing saga.

Support the show

The Deep Dive will discuss two opposing viewpoints regarding proposed New York legislation (S7950/A8429) aimed at combating workers' compensation employer fraud. One source, a letter from the iFraud Foundation, expresses strong opposition to the bill, arguing it creates duplicative structures, implements uncapped assessments on employers, and introduces governance conflicts of interest within the proposed fraud assessment commission. Conversely, the legislative text of A8429-B outlines the bill's intent to establish a fraud assessment commission and a new assessment on employers to fund investigations and prosecutions, specifically targeting employer workers' compensation premium fraud. The bill details the composition of the commission and the creation of a "workers' compensation fraud investigation fund" to which these new assessments would be credited, emphasizing the need for additional resources to combat widespread fraud and wage theft in the construction industry.

Support the show

This Deep Dive takes a look at the Third Supplemental Request to Consider Supplemental Exhibits submitted by The Willis Law Group, PLLC to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The request centers on the case of Toribio, et al. v. 1936 Bath v. Apazidis, seeking the court's consideration of new evidence. This evidence includes Affirmations from Crystal Hodgson and William Hodgson, along with Record Excerpts, detailing Ms. Hodgson's medical ordeal following a surgery performed by Dr. Alexios Apazidis. The affirmations recount how Dr. Apazidis allegedly instructed Ms. Hodgson to bypass workers' compensation authorization by presenting through an emergency room for a cervical surgery, which subsequently led to severe complications including arterial dissection, blood clots, an aneurysm, and multiple strokes. Both Ms. Hodgson and her husband affirm that Dr. Apazidis dismissed their concerns, attributing her symptoms to Percocet, and that the operative report for her surgery was a generic, "copy-pasted" document identical to many others.

A horrific detailing of potential medical malpractice and fraud.

Support the show

This is a Deep, Deep Dive so grab your notebook as we break down the First Amended Complaint details a civil action brought by Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company against numerous defendants, including legal service providers, runners/support entities, funding companies, and medical providers. The lawsuit alleges a widespread fraud scheme involving staged accidents, fabricated injuries, unnecessary medical treatments (including surgeries), and fraudulent billing practices. The plaintiff asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), claiming that the defendants conspired to defraud insurance companies through a sophisticated enterprise designed to generate illicit profits. The complaint seeks damages, including treble damages for certain claims, citing instances of mail fraud, wire fraud, bribery, and money laundering as predicate acts within the alleged racketeering activity.

Support the show

This Deep Dive breaks down an amended complaint filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. against multiple law firms and medical professionals, alleging a fraudulent scheme. The complaint asserts that these defendants conspired to exploit individuals involved in minor vehicle collisions, fabricating or exaggerating injuries, including medically unnecessary surgeries like spinal fusions, to induce inflated settlements from Uber and other entities. Uber claims to be a victim of this widespread racketeering activity, which allegedly involves wire fraud, mail fraud, and bribery, leading to substantial defense costs and harm to their business. The plaintiff seeks equitable relief, monetary damages, and a jury trial to address this purported misconduct.

Support the show

This Deep Dive looks at a denial from the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB)  to Joseph Weinstein, DO, denying the renewal of his authorization to treat injured workers. The WCB cites multiple instances where Dr. Weinstein's treatment deviated from established Medical Treatment Guidelines (MTGs), including performing unjustified invasive surgeries, providing inadequate and inconsistent medical documentation, and engaging in billing irregularities. The denial is highlighting issues such as unnecessary procedures, failure to exhaust conservative treatments, improper documentation of patient progress, and repeated submission of denied authorization requests without escalation or new justification. Ultimately, the WCB concludes that Dr. Weinstein's conduct constitutes professional misconduct, leading to the denial of his authorization renewal and requiring him to transition his current patients to other authorized providers.

Let's Dive In!

Support the show

This Deep Dive is a follow up to the foundations video about the legal complaint filed by the State of Alabama against South Alabama Medical & Rehab LLC (SAMR), two law firms, and several individuals, alleging violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act. We break down the claims that the defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive accident victims into receiving "free" and inadequate medical treatment at SAMR, which then pressured them to sign retainer agreements with the associated law firms. Discussing the allegations that these firms maximized settlement values through inflated medical liens rather than prioritizing patient well-being, often without the victims' full understanding or consent.

Support the show

This Deep Dive breaks down the legal correspondence from The Willis Law Group, PLLC to the Supreme Court of the State of New York regarding a request to consider a supplemental exhibit in the case of Toribio, et al. v. 1936 Bath v. Apazidis.  The letter highlights the discovery of a 25th operative report, which is substantially identical to 24 others already submitted, yet includes a "Neurolysis of Adhesions" billing, despite no difference in content.

Support the show

This episode of the Deep Dive discusses various aspects of fraud within the legal system, particularly focusing on insurance fraud and staged accidents. We highlight recent criminal charges against individuals involved in a large-scale fraud ring and discuss how insurance companies are actively pursuing legal action to uncover fraudulent activities. We also touch on evolving defense strategies against such fraud, and note the impact of legal reforms in Florida on reducing auto insurance costs. Lastly, we address a peculiar tactic used by plaintiff attorneys regarding undocumented plaintiffs in jury selection and trial.

Support the show

This Deep Dive discusses several federal statutes that attorneys may violate by filing lawsuits with the knowledge or suspicion of fraudulent client identities. It highlights offenses such as fraud and related activities concerning identification documents, including the possession or transfer of false IDs with intent to defraud the U.S. government. Additionally, it covers making false statements or entries to federal agencies, healthcare fraud, and major fraud against the United States, particularly concerning large-value federal assistance or contracts. Finally, we discuss laws against possessing false papers to defraud the U.S. and penalties related to misrepresenting Social Security numbers for illicit gains.

Support the show

This episode of the Deep Dive discusses the  lawsuit filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. against several defendants, including two law firms and a medical practice, alleging a widespread fraudulent scheme. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, accuses the defendants of orchestrating fake personal injury claims stemming from minor traffic incidents involving Uber vehicles. Specifically, the suit claims attorneys directed clients to specific medical providers for unnecessary treatments and inflated billing on a lien basis, concealing secret agreements to discount these bills.

Support the show

This deep dive breaks down the "Second Amended Complaint" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd. and Tradesman Program Managers, LLC (the Plaintiffs) against Subin Associates, LLP, and several individuals including Herbert S. Subin, Eric D. Subin, and Jorge Arturo Gonzalez Lupi, among others. The core of the complaint alleges a widespread fraud scheme involving staged construction accidents, fraudulent workers' compensation and personal injury claims, and unnecessary medical treatments designed to illicitly obtain payments from insurance carriers. The Plaintiffs claim damages resulting from this scheme, asserting that they were forced to incur substantial costs in defending against these fraudulent claims and paying out inflated settlements. The lawsuit includes RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) violations and common law fraud charges, demanding treble damages and injunctive relief to stop the alleged unlawful conduct.

Support the show

Get ready for this Deep Dive!  This episode breaks down the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit brought by Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company against Liakas Law, P.C., and Dean Liakas.  We discuss the Defendants'  request for a pre-motion conference to dismiss the complaint.

In response, Plaintiff's counsel from Willis Law Group not only refutes these points, asserting Union Mutual's direct injury as an insurer, they detail specific of the allegations and it details an unbelievable story of alleged fraud, connections, and an incredible and complex web of fraudulent activity, medical negligence, and so much more!  All in all emphasizing the sufficiency and detail of their RICO pleading, and distinguishing cited case law regarding litigation activity as a predicate act in this context.

Support the show

This mega sized Deep Dive breaks down the amazing Fraudemic Updates #69 issued by Khana Feld and their team of expert.  From New York to Florida this deep dive is packed with information!  Pull up a seat and get ready because there is a lot of information.

Support the show

This Deep Dive Virtual takes a look into the civil action Law Offices of Lawrence Perry Biondi, P.C. vs. Horn, Anteorkidia et al. in Westchester Supreme Court, focusing on alleged "ambulance-chasing" and unlawful client solicitation by the defendant firm, Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro & Halpern, LLP (WRSH). Taking a look at the plaintiff's claims for tortious interference, defamation, unfair competition, civil RICO, and conspiracy, asserting that Wingate (WRSH) engaged in a systemic campaign of poaching clients through financial inducements and deceptive tactics. It further summarizes extensive discovery, including affidavits and depositions from both sides, which either corroborate or deny allegations of cash offers, disparagement of Biondi, and coordination with medical providers like Air-On Physical Therapy to steer clients. We also discuss the procedural chronology of the case, highlighting numerous motions and judicial rulings, including the partial dismissal of some claims and the eventual stipulation of discontinuance, the reasons for which remain unknown but possibly related to evidentiary challenges regarding foreign witnesses.

Support the show

This Deep Dive looks at the Justice Department's 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, a record-breaking enforcement action that resulted in criminal charges against 324 defendants, including medical professionals, for schemes involving over $14.6 billion in intended loss. The takedown also involved significant asset seizures totaling over $245 million and prevented an additional $4 billion in fraudulent payments. It highlights various fraud types, such as transnational criminal organizations exploiting patient identities and AI, fraudulent wound care, prescription opioid trafficking, and telemedicine and genetic testing fraud. This collaborative effort by multiple federal and state agencies, including the FBI and HHS-OIG, underscores a whole-of-government approach to combating healthcare fraud and emphasizes the use of advanced data analytics and a new Data Fusion Center to detect and prosecute these widespread schemes.

Support the show

This Deep Dive discusses how Liberty Mutual and its affiliated insurance companies are suing PARS Medical P.C., CADS Anesthesia Services PLLC, and several individuals for an alleged long-running scheme to commit no-fault insurance fraud in New York. The plaintiffs claim the defendants billed for services not rendered, medically unnecessary procedures, and at excessive rates, along with engaging in an unlawful referral and kickback arrangement with numerous other clinics. These alleged fraudulent activities, including various injections and "surgeries" often performed under unnecessary anesthesia, led to Liberty Mutual being wrongfully induced into paying over $827,000 for claims the defendants were not lawfully entitled to receive. The lawsuit accuses the defendants of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, common-law fraud, and unjust enrichment, seeking both damages and a declaration that they are not obligated to make further payments.

Support the show

This Deep Dive discusses the details of the Memorandum & Order from the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, concerning the case of Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd. and Tradesman Program Managers, LLC v. Herbert S. Subin, Eric D. Subin, Jorge Arturo Gonzalez Lupi, and John Does 1-50. The court ultimately dismissed the RICO claims because the plaintiffs failed to adequately demonstrate direct injury and proximate causation as required under RICO law, finding their injuries too attenuated from the alleged fraud. Additionally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, while also addressing a minor issue of plagiarism by the defendants' counsel for which no sanctions were imposed.

Support the show

In this episode, we explore the powerful role of strategic surveillance in the fight against insurance fraud. Join us for a Deep Dive into recent findings shared by Tradesman Program Managers, highlighting how effective surveillance led to significant savings on fraudulent and exaggerated claims

Support the show

This Deep Dive examines the Civil RICO suit filed by Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd. and Tradesman Program Managers, LLC against 

We'll discuss the mechanics, the players and breakdown this massive alleged fraud scheme.  

Support the show

On this episode of the Deep Dive we look at Lawsuit Lending (aka Third Party Litigation Funding or Litigation Financing) and the recent Consumer Litigation Funding Act - NY Senate Bill 1104A 

Support the show

This Deep Dive takes a look at bill HR 2542 otherwise known as the Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2023.  What it's intended use is, where it is at today.

Support the show

This deep dive looks at the press release from Congressman Langworthy and the proposed changes to NY's Labor Law.

Originally Aired: May 23, 2005

Support the show

This Deep Dive brings you up to speed on an excerpt from Holton vs NYC Transit Authority and the discussion over Dr. Gerling.

We will look at the main points of discussion and unpack the important pieces providing you with a good understanding of the source material in this case.

Originally Aired: May 12, 2025

Support the show

Today's deep dive looks at how Third Party Litigation Funding or Litigation Financing are taking their toll on the Cyber Insurance industry.  

Originally Aired: May 29, 2025

Support the show

This episode dives into the Civil RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act) suit filed by Utica Mutual against the Subin Law Firm and others.

Originally aired: May 13, 2025

Support the show

This episode takes a look at the recent statements and calll to action by Chubb Insurance CEO Evan Greenberg.

Originally aired: May 11, 2025

Support the show