BROADCASTS.com

b'

Res Judicata Requires Fraudster to Lose Again After it Sues Again\\n\\nForcing Two Courts to Deal With a $366.64 Fraudulent Claim is Chutzpah\\n\\nIntegrated Pain Management, PLLC, sought $366.64 in no-fault insurance \\nbenefits for medical services it rendered to assignor Mikwan Murphy on \\nAugust 16, 2018 although the insurer had already obtained a judgment \\nthat the claim was fraudulent.\\n\\nIn Integrated Pain Management, PLLC, as assignee of Mikwam Murphy v. \\nEmpire Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 2023 NY Slip Op 50219(U), \\nIndex No. CV-712234-21/BX, Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx \\nCounty (March 22, 2023) the services allegedly provided by Integrated \\nconsisted of treatment for injuries Murphy allegedly sustained in an \\nautomobile accident on July 22, 2018. Defendant moved for summary \\njudgment contending that plaintiff was barred by the doctrines of res \\njudicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case from relitigating the\\n issue of coverage for this claim. Plaintiff ignored the motion.\\n\\nPRIOR ACTION\\n\\nIn 2019, Empire Fire commenced a declaratory judgment action in Kings \\nCounty Supreme Court against Integrated Pain Management and Murphy, \\namong others. In that case, Empire Fire alleged that Integrated Pain \\nManagement and Murphy participated in an insurance fraud scheme in which\\n rented vehicles would intentionally get into "accidents" with \\nunsuspecting third-party drivers. The drivers and passengers in the \\nrented vehicles would receive payments of up to $1,500, and in exchange \\nfor those payments would seek medical treatment from certain designated \\nmedical providers, who would seek reimbursement under Empire Fire\'s \\nno-fault insurance policy.\\n\\nOn April 8, 2021, Supreme Court granted default judgment for Empire \\nFire, ruling in relevant part that Empire Fire was not contractually \\nobligated to reimburse Integrated Pain Management for the services it \\nrendered to Murphy arising from the July 22, 2018 accident because the \\nalleged losses were not the result of an "accident" as contemplated by \\nthe insurance policy.\\n\\nDISCUSSION\\n\\nGiven Supreme Court\'s ruling that contractually there is no no-fault \\ncoverage for the July 22, 2018 purported "accident." Since Integrated \\nPain Management and Murphy were both parties to the Brooklyn Action and \\nthe claims again from the very same "accident" at issue in that case.\\n\\nUnder res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars \\nfuture actions between the same parties on the same cause of action. The\\n doctrine applies if the issue in the second action is identical to an \\nissue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first \\naction, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate \\nthe issue in the earlier action.\\n\\nThe Court found that defendant met its prima facie burden for summary \\njudgment under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. \\nPlaintiff sought to wrongfully relitigate the identical issue raised and\\n decided against it in the Brooklyn Action.\\n\\nDefendant\'s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the \\ncomplaint was granted and the case was dismissed with prejudice.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nFraud perpetrators in the state of New York, like the Plaintiff, have \\nthe unmitigated gall to sue an insurer twice for the same fraudulent \\nscheme, waste the time of the courts by causing the courts to rule twice\\n on the same issue and, in my opinion, should face sanctions and \\npunishment from the court and a referral to the prosecutors for criminal\\n prosecution.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.\\n\\nConsider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808\\n