Thursday, March 6, 2025
HomeBusinessInsuranceChiropractor Sues to Get Share of Fraudulent Bills

Chiropractor Sues to Get Share of Fraudulent Bills


Post 5008

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6q633q-chiropractor-sues-to-get-share-of-fraudulent-bills.html and at https://youtu.be/yo6xbEK6Xc0

Chutzpah: Attempt to Use Federal Court to Obtain a Share of the Proceeds of an Insurance Fraud

Tyanna Dodson is a chiropractor who sought compensation from ExamWorks, L.L.C.’s (“ExamWorks”), a medical billing and scheduling provider. Dodson alleged that ExamWorks over-billed her patients’ insurers for her services to insurers for independent medical exams (IME) she conducted.

In Tyanna Dodson, Doctor of Chiropractic v. ExamWorks, L.L.C., No. 24-50248, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (on February 28, 2025) Dodson contended that the IME’s she conducted to help insurers defeat attempted insurance fraud were billed by ExamWorks fraudulently overcharging he insurer clients. She sued EamWorks for half of the excessive billing and damages because she faced discipline and charges of insurance fraud. The District Court found that she had no standing to bring the suit and ignored the fact that she sued in federal court to gain a share of the proceeds of a fraud.

FACTS

Dodson had entered into a contract with Landmark Exams in 2015, which was later acquired by ExamWorks. She terminated her agreement with ExamWorks in 2018, claiming mishandling of billing for over 80 IMEs (Independent Medical Examinations) she conducted in 2017 and 2018. Dodson sued ExamWorks for overbilling insurers and billing for services she did not perform, bringing claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and declaratory judgment. She alleged injury from ExamWorks’s failure to give her half of its allegedly ill-gotten gains and the risk of professional discipline and criminal liability.

ExamWorks moved to dismiss Dodson’s First Amended Complaint for lack of standing and for judgment on the pleadings. The district court dismissed the case. Dodson’s appeal contended that the district court erroneously concluded she lacked standing and abused its discretion by denying her motion to amend the judgment.

DECISION

The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Dodson failed to demonstrate a sufficient injury-in-fact. Dodson’s claims of harm from ExamWorks withholding her cut of proceeds from fraudulent billing and the risk of future civil and criminal liability were deemed insufficient.

ANALYSIS

To satisfy Article III standing, a plaintiff must show that:

(1) she has suffered an “injury in fact,”

(2) that the injury “likely was caused or likely will be caused” by the defendant, and

(3) the injury is likely to be “redressed by the requested judicial relief.”

Dodson presents a long list of purported injuries which essentially collapse into two for standing purposes: (1) ExamWorks withheld Dodson’s cut of its proceeds from fraudulent billing, and (2) she now faces a risk of harm from potential future civil and criminal liability.

DEMAND FOR CUT OF FRAUDULENT CLAIMS

For her cut of the purportedly ill-gotten gains, Dodson alleged that she suffered “benefit of the bargain damages” from ExamWorks’s alleged breach of contract. She stated that ExamWorks breached its contract when it “fraudulently billed and overbilled for [her IMEs] and related services without . . . providing [her] with the appropriate fee(s) which she was entitled to as per the parties’ contract.”

Dodson already received all the proceeds that she could legally receive under her contract. Even if Dodson had suffered such harm, it would not have been to a legally protected interest. To the extent that Dodson seeks to use federal courts to pursue her cut of allegedly illegally obtained funds, does not suffice for Article III standing.

ExamWorks observed that the time bar eliminates Dodson’s risk of any professional discipline related to her allegations, which all allegedly occurred in 2018 and before. Any risk of injury that Dodson faces from potential future action by regulators is too speculative for Article III purposes.

Because she has not pleaded sufficient injury for Article III standing, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of this case and its denial of Dodson’s motion to alter or amend the judgment.

“Chutzpah” is a Yiddish term that has found its way into the English language. It is defined as unmitigated gall and defined by the example of a person convicted of murdering his parents and seeking mercy from the court because he is an orphan. Dr. Dodson’s claim for half of the illegally obtained fees by filing suit in the federal courts is, on its face, not only a claim without standing, it is conduct asking the court to assist her in obtaining “her share” of fraudulent billing.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

About Barry Zalma

An insurance coverage and claims handling author, consultant and expert witness with more than 48 years of practical and court room experience.

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Skip to toolbar