Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Excel Imaging, P.C.
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
| Writing for the Court | JACK B. WEINSTEIN |
| Citation | Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Excel Imaging, P.C., 879 F. Supp. 2d 243 (E.D. N.Y. 2012) |
| Decision Date | 21 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–CV–5780.,11–CV–5780. |
| Parties | LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Liberty Insurance Corporations, The First Liberty Insurance Corporation, Liberty Mutual Mid–Atlantic Insurance Company, Liberty County Mutual Insurance Company, and LM Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, v. EXCEL IMAGING, P.C., and Mark D. Freilich, M.D., Faisal Abdus Sami, M.D., Tariq R. Khan, M.D., Pervez Iqbal Qureshi, M.D. a/k/a Pervaiz Qureshi, M.D., and Naiyer Imam, M.D. (the “Nominal Owner Defendants”) and Azfal M. Amanat, Mohammed Shafkat Ilahi, Claimnet L.L.C., and Amaar Holding Inc., (the “Management Defendants”), Defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Barry I. Levy, Glenn H. Egor, Michael A. Sirignano, Frank Peter Tiscione, Jr., Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Robert Adam Freilich, Rottenberg Lipman Rich P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant Mark D. Freilich, M.D.
Matthew J. Conroy, Maria Campese Diglio, Blodnick, Conroy, Fazio & Diglio, P.C., Garden City, NY, for Defendants.
I. Introduction
New York's no-fault insurance laws permit lawfully incorporated medical services corporations, as assignees of no-fault benefits, to collect payment from insurance companies for services provided to injured motorists. See Part 11(B), infra. As a prerequisite to reimbursement, these corporations must comply with state and local licensing requirements, such as being owned and operated by physicians who practice through the corporation. SeeN.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. tit. 11, § 65–3.16(a)(12).
Plaintiff insurance companies (“Liberty Mutual”) seek to recover payments already made to one such medical services corporation, Excel Imaging, P.C. (“Excel”), and for a declaratory judgment that Excel is not entitled to reimbursement for claims not yet paid. They do not allege that the defendants failed to provide radiology services to their insureds, or that these services were not medically necessary. Rather, they claim that Excel is not owned and operated by physicians—namely, defendants Mark Freilich, M.D., Faisal Abdus Sami, M.D., Tariq R. Kahn, M.D., Perez Iqbal Qureshi, M.D., and Naiyer Imam, M.D. (“Nominal Owner Defendants”)—as required by New York law, but by non-physicians Afzal M. Amanat and Mohammed Shakat Ilahi and their corporations, Claimnet L.L.C. and Amaar Holding, Inc. (“Management Defendants”). Plaintiffs assert that they were billed over $1.2 million in charges for radiology services that the defendants were not entitled to recover because their incorporation and operation violated New York statutes and regulations. They claim: 1) fraud and unjust enrichment under state law against all defendants; and 2) civil Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Relief Med., P.C.
... ... Conroy, Maria Campese, Schwartz, Conroy & Hack, PC, Garden City, NY, for Defendants Dai Mai Acupuncture, P.C., ... Comp. Codes R. & Regs. § 65-4.5 ); see also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Excel Imaging, P.C. , 879 F. Supp. 2d ... ...
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elzanaty
... ... costs for both courts and insureds.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallela, 372 F.3d 500, 503 (2d ... involving substantial concern to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hurlbut, 585 F.3d 639, 650 (2d Cir.2009) ... If plaintiff succeeds, the PC Defendants will not be able to provide medical services and ... Imaging, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 F.Supp.2d 907, 913 ... Oct. 16, 2012); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Excel Imaging, P.C., 879 F.Supp.2d 243 (E.D.N.Y.2012); Allstate ... ...
-
Downtown Acupuncture PC v. State Wide Ins. Co.
... ... State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Anikeyeva, 130 A.D.3d 1007, 1008, 14 N.Y.S.3d 458 ... Manhattan Med. Imaging P.C. v. State Farm Mut., 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51844(U), 20 Misc.3d 1144(A), ... Law § 6507(4)(c)(I). See, Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Excel Imaging, P.C., 879 F.Supp.2d 243, 256 ... ...
-
People v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC
... ... Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 96 N.Y.2d 201, 727 N.Y.S.2d 30, ... , deception and injury" ( see also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Excel Imaging, P.C., 879 ... ...
-
CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
...amended 2000 WL 32122507 (D. Md. Oct. 10, 2002). [65] See, e.g.: Second Circuit: Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Excel Imaging, P.C., 879 F. Supp.2d 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Eighth Circuit: Spine Imaging MRI, L.L.C. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 743 F. Supp.2d 1034 (D. Minn. 2010). State Cou......
-
Chapter 3
...amended 2000 WL 32122507 (D. Md. Oct. 10, 2002). [66] See, e.g.: Second Circuit: Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Excel Imaging, P.C., 879 F. Supp.2d 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Eighth Circuit: Spine Imaging MRI, L.L.C. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 743 F. Supp.2d 1034 (D. Minn. 2010). State Cou......
