UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Case No.: _________________ 

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO., 

GEICO INDEMNITY CO., GEICO GENERAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY and GEICO CASUALTY CO.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. 

TITAN WELLNESS CENTER OF FORT MYERS, L.L.C., 

HOA H. NGUYEN, D.C., ISO-DIAGNOSTICS TESTING, 

INC., DAVID BARUCH, JOEL D. STEIN, D.O., P.A., and 

JOEL D. STEIN, D.O.,

 

Defendants. 

_____________________________________________________/

Jury Trial Demanded

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO General 

Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Co. (collectively “GEICO” or “Plaintiffs”), sue 

Defendants and allege as follows: 

1. This action seeks to recover more than $2,800,000.00 that Defendants wrongfully 

obtained from GEICO by submitting thousands of fraudulent and unlawful no-fault (“no-fault”, 

“personal injury protection”, or “PIP”) insurance charges through Defendants Titan Wellness 

Center of Fort Myers, L.L.C. (“Titan Wellness”), ISO-Diagnostics Testing, Inc. (“ISODiagnostics”), and Joel D. Stein, D.O., P.A. (“Stein P.A.”) relating to medically unnecessary, 

illusory, unlawful, and otherwise non-reimbursable health care services and goods, including 

purported examinations, physical therapy services, chiropractic services, range of motion testing, 

muscle strength testing, ligament laxity testing, and home medical equipment (“HME”) 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 1 of 101
2 

(collectively, the “Fraudulent Services”), that purportedly were provided to Florida automobile 

accident victims (“Insureds”) who were eligible for coverage under GEICO no-fault insurance 

policies. 

2. In addition, GEICO seeks a declaration that it is not legally obligated to pay 

reimbursement of more than $75,000.00 in pending, fraudulent and unlawful PIP claims that 

Defendants have submitted through Titan Wellness, ISO-Diagnostics, and Stein P.A., because: 

(i) at all relevant times: (a) Titan Wellness, ISO-Diagnostics, and Stein P.A. operated 

in violation of the Florida Health Care Clinic Act, Fla. Stat. § 400.990 et seq. (the 

“Clinic Act”); (b) Titan Wellness, ISO-Diagnostics, and Stein P.A. operated in 

violation of Florida’s patient brokering act, Fla. Stat § 817.505 (the “Patient 

Brokering Act”); (c) Titan Wellness, ISO-Diagnostics, and Stein P.A. operated in 

violation of Florida’s anti-kickback statute, Fla. Stat. § 456.054 (the “AntiKickback Statute”); and (d) Titan Wellness operated in violation of Florida law 

governing home medical equipment provider licensure (the “HME Licensing 

Laws”), Fla. Stat. §§ 400.93 and 408.806; 

(ii) the underlying Fraudulent Services were not medically necessary, and were 

provided -- to the extent that they were provided at all -- pursuant to pre-determined 

fraudulent protocols designed to financially enrich Defendants, rather than to treat 

or otherwise benefit the Insureds who purportedly were subjected to them; 

(iii) in many cases, the Fraudulent Services never were provided in the first instance; 

and 

(iv) the billing codes used for the Fraudulent Services misrepresented and exaggerated 

the level of services that purportedly were provided in order to fraudulently inflate 

the charges submitted to GEICO. 

3. Each and every charge submitted through Titan Wellness, ISO-Diagnostics, and 

Stein, P.A. since at least 2017 has been fraudulent and unlawful for the reasons set forth herein. 

The charts annexed hereto as Exhibits “1” - “3” set forth a large and representative sample of the 

fraudulent and unlawful claims that have been identified to date that have been submitted to 

GEICO by mail through Titan Wellness, ISO-Diagnostics, and Stein, P.A. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 2 of 101
3 

4. The Defendants’ interrelated fraudulent schemes began no later than 2017, and 

have continued uninterrupted since that time. 

THE PARTIES

I. Plaintiffs

5. Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO 

General Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Co. (collectively, “GEICO”) are Nebraska 

corporations with their principal places of business in Chevy Chase, Maryland. GEICO is 

authorized to conduct business and to issue automobile insurance policies in Florida. 

II. Defendants

6. Defendant Hoa H. Nguyen, D.C. (“Nguyen”) resides in and is a citizen of Florida. 

7. Nguyen was licensed to practice chiropractic in Florida on September 18, 2009, but 

never has been licensed as a physician. 

8. Nguyen was the member and owner of Titan Wellness, purported to perform or 

directly supervise virtually all of the Fraudulent Services at Titan Wellness, and used Titan 

Wellness as a vehicle to submit fraudulent and unlawful PIP insurance billing to GEICO and other 

insurers.

9. Defendant Titan Wellness is a Florida limited liability company with its principal 

place of business in Fort Myers, Florida. 

10. Titan Wellness was organized in Florida on or about July 7, 2015, had Nguyen as 

its member and owner, and was used as a vehicle to submit fraudulent and unlawful PIP insurance 

billing to GEICO and other insurers. 

11. At all relevant times, Titan Wellness falsely purported to be exempt from health 

care clinic licensure requirements pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 400.9905(4)(g). 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 3 of 101
4

12. Defendant David Baruch (“Baruch”) resides in and is a citizen of Florida. 

13. Upon information and belief based on a review of Florida Department of Health 

records, Baruch is not a licensed physician or other licensed health care professional. 

14. Baruch owned and controlled ISO-Diagnostics, and used ISO-Diagnostics as a 

vehicle to submit fraudulent and unlawful no-fault insurance billing to GEICO and other insurers.

15. Defendant ISO-Diagnostics is a Florida corporation with its principal place of 

business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

16. ISO-Diagnostics was incorporated in Florida on or about April 10, 2005, was 

owned by Baruch, and was used as a vehicle to submit fraudulent and unlawful PIP insurance 

billing to GEICO and other insurers.

17. At all times, ISO-Diagnostics falsely purported to a properly licensed health care 

clinic that operated in compliance with the licensing and operating requirements set forth in the 

Clinic Act. 

18. Defendant Joel D. Stein, D.O. (“Stein”) resides in and is a citizen of Florida. 

19. Stein was licensed to practice medicine in Florida on June 30, 1984. 

20. Stein owned and controlled Stein P.A., purported to perform or directly supervise 

virtually all of the Fraudulent Services at Stein P.A., falsely purported to serve as medical director 

at ISO-Diagnostics, and caused fraudulent and unlawful PIP insurance billing to be submitted 

through Stein P.A. and ISO-Diagnostics to GEICO and other insurers. 

21. Defendant Stein P.A. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 4 of 101
5 

22. Stein P.A. was incorporated in Florida on or about March 16, 1987, was owned by 

Stein, and was used as a vehicle to submit fraudulent and unlawful PIP insurance billing to GEICO 

and other insurers.

23. At all relevant times, Stein P.A. falsely purported to be exempt from health care 

clinic licensure requirements pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 400.9905(4)(g). 

III. Other Relevant Individuals

24. Although GEICO has not named them as Defendants in this Complaint, Rosemary 

Sachs, A.P.R.N. (“Sachs”) and Kris Poncev (“Poncev”) are relevant to understanding Plaintiffs’ 

claims in this action. 

25. Sachs is licensed in Florida as an advanced practice registered nurse, and -- at Stein 

and Stein P.A.’s direction -- purported to perform many of the Fraudulent Services that were billed 

through Stein P.A. to GEICO. 

26. Upon information and belief based on a review of Florida Department of Health 

records, Poncev is not licensed to practice any health care profession. Even so, Poncev -- at Baruch, 

ISO-Diagnostics, and Stein’s direction -- purported to perform many of the Fraudulent Services 

that were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to GEICO.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

27. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(1) because the total matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the 

jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.00, and is between citizens of different states. 

28. This Court also has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims 

brought under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 

(“RICO”) Act). 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 5 of 101
6 

29. In addition, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 

claims asserted in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

30. Venue in this District is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the Southern 

District of Florida is the District where one or more of Defendants reside and because this is the 

District where a substantial amount of the activities forming the basis of the Complaint occurred. 

ALLEGATIONS

I. Brief Overview of Pertinent Law Governing No-Fault Insurance Reimbursement

31. Florida requires automobile insurers such as GEICO to provide PIP insurance 

benefits (“PIP Benefits”) to Insureds when they are injured in a motor vehicle accident. See Florida 

Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, Fla. Stat. §§ 627.730-627.7405 (the “No-Fault Law”). 

32. Under the No-Fault Law, a health care services provider that possesses a valid

assignment of PIP Benefits from an Insured and that provides medically necessary health care 

services to an Insured may submit claims directly to an insurance company in order to receive 

payment for medically necessary services, using the required claim forms, including the Health 

Care Financing Administration insurance claim form (known as the “HCFA-1500 form” or “CMS1500” form). 

33. In order for a health care service to be eligible for PIP reimbursement, it must be 

“lawfully” provided, medically necessary, and the bill for the service cannot misrepresent the 

nature or extent of the service that was provided. Furthermore, insurers such as GEICO are not 

required to pay anyone who knowingly submits a false or misleading statement relating to a PIP 

claim or charges. See Fla. Stat. § 627.736. 

34. PIP reimbursement for health care services is limited to $2,500.00 per injured 

person, unless a physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice registered nurse determines 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 6 of 101
7 

that the injured person suffered from an “emergency medical condition”, in which case health care 

providers can be reimbursed up to $10,000.00 for health care services. See Fla. Stat. § 627.736. 

35. Pursuant to the No-Fault Law, an “emergency medical condition” means a “medical 

condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, which may include severe 

pain, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result 

in any of the following: (a) serious jeopardy to patient health. (b) serious impairment to bodily 

functions. (c) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.” Fla. Stat. § 627.732. 

36. Additionally, in order for a health care service to be eligible for PIP reimbursement, 

the applicable claim form must set forth the professional license number of the provider who 

personally performed or directly supervised the underlying health care service, in the line or space 

provided for “Signature of Physician or Supplier, Including Degrees or Credentials.” See Fla. Stat. 

§ 627.736. 

37. Moreover, under Florida law, subject to limited exceptions not applicable here, 

entities providing home use durable medical equipment (“HME”) must be licensed by the Florida 

Agency for Health Care Administration. See Fla. Stat. § 400.93(1). Insurers such as GEICO are 

not required to pay PIP reimbursement to HME providers that unlawfully operate in violation of 

Florida HME licensure requirements. 

38. Furthermore, Florida’s Patient Brokering Act, Fla. Stat. § 817.505, broadly 

prohibits any person from offering, paying soliciting, or receiving any commission, bonus, rebate, 

kickback, or bribe -- directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind -- or from engaging in any fee-splitting 

arrangement of any type whatsoever, to either induce a patient referral or in exchange for a patient 

referral. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 7 of 101
8 

39. Likewise, Florida’s Anti-Kickback Statute, Fla. Stat. § 456.054, prohibits any 

health care provider from offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving a kickback, directly or 

indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, for referring or soliciting patients. Violations of 

the Anti-Kickback Statute also constitute violations of the Patient Brokering Act. 

40. Insurers such as GEICO are not required to make any payments of PIP Benefits to 

clinics and other health care providers that operate in violation of the Patient Brokering Act or 

Anti-Kickback Statute, whether or not the underlying health care services were medically 

necessary or actually provided. 

41. Subject to certain limited exceptions, a license issued by the Florida Agency for 

Health Care Administration is required in order to operate a health care clinic in Florida. See Fla. 

Stat. § 400.991(1)(a). 

42. However, the Clinic Act provides an exemption from the clinic licensing 

requirements for: 

A sole proprietorship, group practice, partnership, or corporation that provides health care 

services by licensed health care practitioners . . . that is wholly owned by one or more 

licensed health care practitioners, or the licensed health care practitioners set forth in this 

paragraph and the spouse, parent, child, or sibling of a licensed health care practitioner if 

one of the owners who is a licensed health care practitioner is supervising the business 

activities and is legally responsible for the entity's compliance with all federal and state 

laws. However, a health care practitioner may not supervise services beyond the scope of 

the practitioner's license ... . 

Fla. Stat. § 400.9905(4)(g)(emphasis added). 

43. In order to qualify for the “wholly owned” exemption under the Clinic Act, the 

licensed health care practitioner has a continuing obligation to supervise the business activities of 

the clinic and remain legally responsible for the entity’s compliance with all federal and state laws.

44. Pursuant to the Clinic Act, clinics operating in Florida without a valid exemption 

from the licensing requirements must -- among other things -- appoint a medical director who must 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 8 of 101
9 

“[c]onduct systematic reviews of clinic billings to ensure that the billings are not fraudulent or 

unlawful”, and take immediate corrective action upon discovery of a fraudulent or unlawful 

charge. See Fla. Stat. § 400.9935(1). In addition, a clinic medical director must “[e]nsure that all 

health care practitioners at the clinic have active appropriate certification or licensure for the level 

of care being provided.” See Fla. Stat. § 400.9935(1). 

45. Pursuant to the Clinic Act, “[a] charge or reimbursement claim made by or on behalf 

of a clinic that is required to be licensed . . . but that is not so licensed, or that is otherwise operating 

in violation of this part . . . is an unlawful charge.” See Fla. Stat. § 400.9935(3).

II. Defendants’ Interrelated Fraudulent Schemes 

46. Since at least 2017, and continuing through the present day, the Defendants 

masterminded and implemented interrelated fraudulent schemes in which they billed GEICO 

millions of dollars, or caused GEICO to be billed millions of dollars, for unlawful, medically 

unnecessary, illusory, and otherwise non-reimbursable services. 

A. The Unlawful Operation of Titan Wellness Without Supervision by Nguyen

47. Although Titan Wellness purported to be exempt from the Clinic Act’s health care 

clinic licensure requirements, Titan Wellness operated without a valid exemption and, as a result, 

operated as an unlicensed health care clinic in violation of the Clinic Act.

48. In particular, Nguyen failed to supervise Titan Wellness’s business activities -- as 

required by the Clinic Act -- and, as a result, Titan Wellness did not qualify for the “wholly owned” 

exemption from the Clinic Act’s health care clinic licensure requirements. 

49. Nguyen did not legitimately supervise the business activities of Titan Wellness, 

inasmuch as Nguyen never conducted reviews of the billing or treatment records from Titan 

Wellness to ensure that the billing was not fraudulent or unlawful, and -- to the contrary -- directed 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 9 of 101
10

the submission of the fraudulent and unlawful charges through Titan Wellness to GEICO and other 

insurers.

50. Indeed, given the fraudulent treatment and billing protocol described below --

which was pervasive across all of the billing submitted to GEICO through Titan Wellness -- there 

is simply no way that Nguyen could have legitimately supervised the business activities of Titan 

Wellness to ensure that the billing was not fraudulent or ensure compliance with all applicable 

federal and state laws as required by the Clinic Act.

51. Had Nguyen legitimately supervised the business activities of Titan Wellness, he

would have noted, among other things, that:

(i) Titan Wellness was -- as set forth herein -- operated in pervasive violation of, 

variously, the Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and 

HME licensing laws;

(ii) the Fraudulent Services purportedly provided by and billed through Titan Wellness

were not medically necessary, and were provided -- to the extent that they were 

provided at all -- pursuant to a pre-determined fraudulent protocol; 

(iii) in many cases, the Fraudulent Services purportedly provided by and billed through 

Titan Wellness were never provided in the first instance; and 

(iv) the billing codes used for the Fraudulent Services purportedly provided by and 

billed through Titan Wellness misrepresented and exaggerated the level of services 

that were provided in order to fraudulently inflate the charges submitted to GEICO. 

52. Accordingly, Titan Wellness never qualified for the “wholly owned” exemption 

from licensure as a “health care clinic” set forth in Section 400.9905(4)(g). Nor did Titan Wellness

qualify for any other exemption to the Clinic Act, or have a medical director as required for a 

health care clinic without an exemption. As a result, Titan Wellness operated -- at all relevant times 

-- in violation of the Clinic Act.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 10 of 101
11

B. The Unlawful Operation of Stein P.A. Without Supervision by Stein

53. Furthermore, Stein P.A. purported to be exempt from the Clinic Act’s health care 

clinic licensure requirements, but operated without a valid exemption and, as a result, operated as 

an unlicensed health care clinic in violation of the Clinic Act.

54. In particular, Stein failed to supervise Stein P.A.’s business activities -- as required 

by the Clinic Act -- and, as a result, Stein P.A. did not qualify for the “wholly owned” exemption 

from the Clinic Act’s health care clinic licensure requirements. 

55. Stein did not legitimately supervise the business activities of Stein P.A., inasmuch 

as Stein never conducted reviews of the billing or treatment records from Stein P.A. to ensure that 

the billing was not fraudulent or unlawful, and -- to the contrary -- directed the submission of the

fraudulent and unlawful charges through Stein P.A. to GEICO and other insurers.

56. Indeed, given the fraudulent treatment and billing protocol described below --

which was pervasive across all of the billing submitted to GEICO through Stein P.A. -- there is 

simply no way that Stein could have legitimately supervised the business activities of Stein P.A. 

to ensure that the billing was not fraudulent or ensure compliance with all applicable federal and 

state laws as required by the Clinic Act.

57. Had Stein legitimately supervised the business activities of Stein P.A., he would 

have noted, among other things, that:

(i) Stein PA. was -- as set forth herein -- operated in pervasive violation of, variously, 

the Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute;

(ii) the Fraudulent Services purportedly provided by and billed through Stein P.A. were 

not medically necessary, and were provided -- to the extent that they were provided 

at all -- pursuant to a pre-determined fraudulent protocol; 

(iii) in many cases, the Fraudulent Services purportedly provided by and billed through 

Stein P.A. were never provided in the first instance; and 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 11 of 101
12 

(iv) the billing codes used for the Fraudulent Services purportedly provided by and 

billed through Stein P.A. misrepresented and exaggerated the level of services that 

were provided in order to fraudulently inflate the charges submitted to GEICO. 

58. Accordingly, Stein P.A. never qualified for the “wholly owned” exemption from 

licensure as a “health care clinic” set forth in Section 400.9905(4)(g). Nor did Stein P.A. qualify 

for any other exemption to the Clinic Act, or have a medical director as required for a health care 

clinic without an exemption. As a result, Stein P.A. operated -- at all relevant times -- in violation 

of the Clinic Act.

C. The Unlawful Operation of ISO-Diagnostics Without a Legitimate Medical Director

59. Because Baruch was not a licensed health care professional, Baruch could not 

obtain a health care clinic license for ISO-Diagnostics, lawfully operate ISO-Diagnostics, or use 

ISO-Diagnostics as a vehicle to submit PIP billing to GEICO and other insurers, unless he retained 

a licensed physician to serve as ISO-Diagnostics’ medical director. See Fla. Stat. §§ 400.9905, 

440.9935. 

60. However, if Baruch recruited a legitimate physician to serve as a legitimate medical 

director at ISO-Diagnostics, the physician actually would be obligated to fulfill the statutory 

requirements applicable to a clinic medical director. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 400.9935(1). By 

extension, any such legitimate medical director would impede Baruch’s ability to use ISODiagnostics as a vehicle to submit a large amount of fraudulent and unlawful PIP billing to GEICO 

and other Florida automobile insurers. 

61. Accordingly, Baruch required a physician willing to falsely pose as the “medical 

director” at ISO-Diagnostics, but who -- in actuality -- would not even attempt to fulfill the 

statutory requirements applicable to a clinic medical director, and thereby permit Baruch to use 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 12 of 101
13 

ISO-Diagnostics as a vehicle to submit a large amount of fraudulent and unlawful PIP billing to 

GEICO and other insurers.

62. Therefore, Baruch retained Stein, a licensed physician who in exchange for 

compensation was willing to falsely pose as the legitimate medical director of ISO-Diagnostics.

63. In order to circumvent Florida law and induce the Florida Agency for Health Care 

Administration to maintain ISO-Diagnostics’ licensure and to permit ISO-Diagnostics to operate 

as a clinic, Baruch entered into a secret scheme with Stein. In exchange for compensation from 

Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein agreed to falsely represent, to the Florida Agency for Health 

Care Administration, to the Insureds who sought treatment at ISO-Diagnostics, and to the insurers 

including GEICO that received PIP claims from ISO-Diagnostics, that he was the true medical 

director at ISO-Diagnostics, and that he truly fulfilled the statutory requirements applicable to 

clinic medical directors at ISO-Diagnostics. 

64. However, Stein never genuinely served as medical director at ISO-Diagnostics. 

Instead, from the beginning of his association with ISO-Diagnostics as its phony “medical 

director”, Stein ceded decision-making and oversight regarding health care services at ISODiagnostics, and the resulting billing, to Baruch. 

65. Stein never legitimately served as medical director at ISO-Diagnostics, inasmuch 

as he never conducted systematic reviews of ISO-Diagnostics’ billings to ensure that the billings 

were not fraudulent or unlawful, and never even made any attempt to discover the unlawful charges 

submitted through ISO-Diagnostics, much less take any immediate corrective action. See Fla. Stat. 

§ 400.9935(1). 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 13 of 101
14

66. Had Stein legitimately served as ISO-Diagnostics’ medical director, Stein would 

have noted, among other things, that ISO-Diagnostics was operating in pervasive violation of the 

Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute.

67. In fact, true authority over the provision of health care services through ISODiagnostics, and the resulting billing -- including the authority that would, at a legitimate clinic, 

be vested in the medical director -- was held at all times by Baruch.

68. Stein unlawfully permitted Baruch to dictate the manner in which Insureds would 

be treated at ISO-Diagnostics, and to dictate the manner in which health care services at ISODiagnostics would be billed to GEICO and other insurers, because he wanted to continue profiting 

through ISO-Diagnostics’ fraudulent and unlawful PIP billing. 

69. Baruch used the façade of Stein’s “appointment” as ISO-Diagnostics’ phony

“medical director” to do indirectly what he was forbidden from doing directly -- namely: (i) to 

operate a clinic without a legitimate medical director; (ii) to engage in unlicensed medical decisionmaking with respect to the Insureds who sought treatment at ISO-Diagnostics; and (iii) to use ISODiagnostics as a vehicle to submit a large amount of fraudulent and unlawful PIP billing to GEICO 

and other insurers.

D. The Violations of the HME Licensing Law

70. At all relevant times, Titan Wellness purported to provide Insureds with HME as 

part of the Defendants’ fraudulent, pre-determined treatment protocol.

71. However, Titan Wellness never obtained an HME license to provide HME.

72. Accordingly, Titan Wellness operated -- at all relevant times -- in violation of the 

HME Licensing Laws.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 14 of 101
15

73. In the claims for HME identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen falsely 

represented that Titan Wellness was in compliance with the HME Licensing Laws and was entitled 

to be reimbursed on their HME charges, when in fact Titan Wellness was not in compliance with 

the HME Licensing Laws, and was not entitled to collect PIP Benefits, because Titan Wellness

purported to provide HME without proper licensure to do so.

E. The Violations of the Patient Brokering Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute

74. To the extent that the Insureds in the claims set forth in Exhibits “1” - “3” suffered 

any injuries at all in their automobile accidents, they virtually always were minor soft tissue 

injuries such as sprains or strains. These minor soft tissue injuries did not constitute legitimate 

“emergency medical conditions”.

75. For instance, and in keeping with the fact that the Insureds in the claims identified 

in Exhibits “1” - “3” did not legitimately suffer from any “emergency medical conditions”, in the 

substantial majority of the claims identified in Exhibits “1” - “3” the Insureds did not seek 

treatment at any hospital as the result of their accidents.

76. To the limited extent that the Insureds did report to a hospital after their accidents, 

they virtually always were briefly observed on an outpatient basis and then sent on their way after 

a few hours with, at most, a minor sprain, strain, or similar soft-tissue injury diagnosis.

77. Furthermore, in most cases, contemporaneous police reports indicated that the 

underlying accidents involved low-speed, low-impact collisions, that the Insureds’ vehicles were 

drivable following the accidents, and that no one was seriously injured in the underlying accidents, 

or injured at all.

78. Even so, Titan Wellness and Nguyen wanted to bill GEICO and other insurers for 

a large amount of expensive and medically unnecessary examinations, chiropractic, physical 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 15 of 101
16

therapy, testing, and HME, without regard for the fact that the Insureds had not suffered any 

injuries that would warrant these Fraudulent Services. 

79. However, Titan Wellness and Nguyen know that -- unless they could get a 

physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice registered nurse to falsely report that their 

patients suffered from “emergency medical conditions” -- they would be limited to recovering 

$2,500.00 in PIP Benefits per patient, as opposed to the $10,000.00 per patient they could 

potentially recover if the patient had an “emergency medical condition” diagnosis.

80. At the same time, Stein, Stein P.A., Baruch, and ISO-Diagnostics wanted to submit 

as much PIP billing as possible for expensive and medically unnecessary examinations and testing, 

without regard for the fact that the Insureds had not suffered any injuries that would warrant these 

examinations or tests. 

81. However, in order to bill GEICO and other insurers for medically unnecessary and 

illusory examinations and testing, Stein, Stein P.A., Baruch, and ISO-Diagnostics needed to obtain 

patient referrals from other health care providers, such as Titan Wellness and Nguyen.

82. Accordingly, Titan Wellness, Nguyen, Stein, Stein P.A., Baruch, and ISODiagnostics entered into a secret and unlawful patient brokering agreement, whereby:

(i) In exchange for patient referrals from Titan Wellness and Nguyen for expensive 

and medically unnecessary examinations and muscle strength testing, Stein and 

Stein P.A. provided the Insureds with phony “emergency medical condition” 

diagnoses, which enabled Titan Wellness and Nguyen to submit substantial 

additional PIP billing per Insured for medically unnecessary chiropractic, physical 

therapy, testing, and HME.

(ii) Then, after receiving these patient referrals from Titan Wellness and Nguyen in 

exchange for their phony “emergency medical condition” diagnoses, Stein and 

Stein P.A. referred the Insureds on to Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics for expensive 

and medically useless range of motion and muscle strength testing, in exchange for 

monetary compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 16 of 101
17

83. In reality, these were “pay-to-play” arrangements that caused Nguyen, Titan 

Wellness, Stein, and Stein P.A. to provide medically unnecessary patient referrals in violation of 

the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback Statute. 

84. For example:

(i) On or about April 10, 2019, Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred an Insured named 

JF to Stein P.A. and Stein for a medically unnecessary examination and muscle 

strength tests, which then were billed through Stein P.A. to GEICO. As unlawful 

compensation for the referral, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely diagnosed the Insured 

with an “emergency medical condition”, which enabled Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen to submit thousands of dollars in additional PIP billing through Titan 

Wellness to GEICO in connection with the medically unnecessary chiropractic, 

physical therapy, and other Fraudulent Services that they purported to provide to 

the Insured. Then, or about April 10, 2019, in exchange for unlawful monetary 

compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein P.A. and Stein caused the 

Insured to be referred to ISO-Diagnostics for medically unnecessary range of 

motion and muscle strength tests, which were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to 

GEICO. All of these referrals violated the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback 

Statute. 

(ii) On or about July 1, 2019, Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred an Insured named 

MI to Stein P.A. and Stein for a medically unnecessary examination and muscle 

strength tests, which then were billed through Stein P.A. to GEICO. As unlawful 

compensation for the referral, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely diagnosed the Insured 

with an “emergency medical condition”, which enabled Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen to submit thousands of dollars in additional PIP billing through Titan 

Wellness to GEICO in connection with the medically unnecessary chiropractic, 

physical therapy, and other Fraudulent Services that they purported to provide to 

the Insured. Then, or about July 1, 2019, in exchange for unlawful monetary 

compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein P.A. and Stein caused the 

Insured to be referred to ISO-Diagnostics for medically unnecessary range of 

motion and muscle strength tests, which were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to 

GEICO. All of these referrals violated the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback 

Statute.

(iii) On or about August 20, 2019, Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred an Insured 

named DE to Stein P.A. and Stein for a medically unnecessary examination and 

muscle strength tests, which then were billed through Stein P.A. to GEICO. As 

unlawful compensation for the referral, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely diagnosed the 

Insured with an “emergency medical condition”, which enabled Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen to submit thousands of dollars in additional PIP billing through Titan 

Wellness to GEICO in connection with the medically unnecessary chiropractic, 

physical therapy, and other Fraudulent Services that they purported to provide to 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 17 of 101
18

the Insured. Then, or about August 20, 2019, in exchange for unlawful monetary 

compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein P.A. and Stein caused the 

Insured to be referred to ISO-Diagnostics for medically unnecessary range of 

motion and muscle strength tests, which were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to 

GEICO. All of these referrals violated the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback 

Statute.

(iv) On or about January 9, 2020, Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred an Insured named 

MD to Stein P.A. and Stein for a medically unnecessary examination and muscle 

strength tests, which then were billed through Stein P.A. to GEICO. As unlawful 

compensation for the referral, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely diagnosed the Insured 

with an “emergency medical condition”, which enabled Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen to submit thousands of dollars in additional PIP billing through Titan 

Wellness to GEICO in connection with the medically unnecessary chiropractic, 

physical therapy, and other Fraudulent Services that they purported to provide to 

the Insured. Then, or about January 9, 2020, in exchange for unlawful monetary 

compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein P.A. and Stein caused the 

Insured to be referred to ISO-Diagnostics for medically unnecessary range of 

motion and muscle strength tests, which were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to 

GEICO. All of these referrals violated the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback 

Statute.

(v) On or about June 11, 2020 Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred an Insured named 

ME to Stein P.A. and Stein for a medically unnecessary examination and muscle 

strength tests, which then were billed through Stein P.A. to GEICO. As unlawful 

compensation for the referral, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely diagnosed the Insured 

with an “emergency medical condition”, which enabled Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen to submit thousands of dollars in additional PIP billing through Titan 

Wellness to GEICO in connection with the medically unnecessary chiropractic, 

physical therapy, and other Fraudulent Services that they purported to provide to 

the Insured. Then, or about June 11, 2020, in exchange for unlawful monetary 

compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein P.A. and Stein caused the 

Insured to be referred to ISO-Diagnostics for medically unnecessary range of 

motion and muscle strength tests, which were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to 

GEICO. All of these referrals violated the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback 

Statute.

(vi) On or about August 27, 2020, Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred an Insured 

named PB to Stein P.A. and Stein for a medically unnecessary examination and 

muscle strength tests, which then were billed through Stein P.A. to GEICO. As 

unlawful compensation for the referral, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely diagnosed the 

Insured with an “emergency medical condition”, which enabled Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen to submit thousands of dollars in additional PIP billing through Titan 

Wellness to GEICO in connection with the medically unnecessary chiropractic, 

physical therapy, and other Fraudulent Services that they purported to provide to 

the Insured. Then, or about August 27, 2020, in exchange for unlawful monetary 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 18 of 101
19

compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein P.A. and Stein caused the 

Insured to be referred to ISO-Diagnostics for medically unnecessary range of 

motion and muscle strength tests, which were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to 

GEICO. All of these referrals violated the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback 

Statute.

(vii) On or about September 16, 2020, Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred an Insured 

named JG to Stein P.A. and Stein for a medically unnecessary examination and 

muscle strength tests, which then were billed through Stein P.A. to GEICO. As 

unlawful compensation for the referral, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely diagnosed the 

Insured with an “emergency medical condition”, which enabled Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen to submit thousands of dollars in additional PIP billing through Titan 

Wellness to GEICO in connection with the medically unnecessary chiropractic, 

physical therapy, and other Fraudulent Services that they purported to provide to 

the Insured. Then, or about September 16, 2020, in exchange for unlawful monetary 

compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein P.A. and Stein caused the 

Insured to be referred to ISO-Diagnostics for medically unnecessary range of 

motion and muscle strength tests, which were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to 

GEICO. All of these referrals violated the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback 

Statute.

(viii) On or about March 2, 2021, Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred an Insured named 

KK to Stein P.A. and Stein for a medically unnecessary examination and muscle 

strength tests, which then were billed through Stein P.A. to GEICO. As unlawful 

compensation for the referral, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely diagnosed the Insured 

with an “emergency medical condition”, which enabled Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen to submit thousands of dollars in additional PIP billing through Titan 

Wellness to GEICO in connection with the medically unnecessary chiropractic, 

physical therapy, and other Fraudulent Services that they purported to provide to 

the Insured. Then, or about March 2, 2021, in exchange for unlawful monetary 

compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein P.A. and Stein caused the 

Insured to be referred to ISO-Diagnostics for medically unnecessary range of 

motion and muscle strength tests, which were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to 

GEICO. All of these referrals violated the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback 

Statute.

(ix) On or about May 27, 2021, Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred an Insured named 

CD to Stein P.A. and Stein for a medically unnecessary examination and muscle 

strength tests, which then were billed through Stein P.A. to GEICO. As unlawful 

compensation for the referral, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely diagnosed the Insured 

with an “emergency medical condition”, which enabled Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen to submit thousands of dollars in additional PIP billing through Titan 

Wellness to GEICO in connection with the medically unnecessary chiropractic, 

physical therapy, and other Fraudulent Services that they purported to provide to 

the Insured. Then, or about May 27, 2021, in exchange for unlawful monetary 

compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein P.A. and Stein caused the 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 19 of 101
20

Insured to be referred to ISO-Diagnostics for medically unnecessary range of 

motion and muscle strength tests, which were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to 

GEICO. All of these referrals violated the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback 

Statute.

(x) On or about May 27, 2021, Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred an Insured named 

GP to Stein P.A. and Stein for a medically unnecessary examination and muscle 

strength tests, which then were billed through Stein P.A. to GEICO. As unlawful 

compensation for the referral, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely diagnosed the Insured 

with an “emergency medical condition”, which enabled Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen to submit thousands of dollars in additional PIP billing through Titan 

Wellness to GEICO in connection with the medically unnecessary chiropractic, 

physical therapy, and other Fraudulent Services that they purported to provide to 

the Insured. Then, or about May 27, 2021, in exchange for unlawful monetary 

compensation from Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, Stein P.A. and Stein caused the 

Insured to be referred to ISO-Diagnostics for medically unnecessary range of 

motion and muscle strength tests, which were billed through ISO-Diagnostics to 

GEICO. All of these referrals violated the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback 

Statute.

85. These are only representative examples. In the claims identified in Exhibits “1” - “3”,

the Defendants routinely and unlawfully made and received patient referrals in exchange for 

compensation, in violation of the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback Statute. 

86. In this context, there are a substantial number of variables that can affect whether, 

how, and to what extent an individual is injured in a given automobile accident.

87. An individual’s age, height, weight, general physical condition, location within the 

vehicle, and the location of the impact all will affect whether, how, and to what extent an individual 

is injured in a given automobile accident.

88. As set forth above, in the claims identified in Exhibits “1” - “3”, almost all of the 

Insureds whom the Defendants purported to treat were involved in relatively minor accidents, and 

did not suffer any serious injuries in their accidents, to the extent that they suffered any injuries at 

all.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 20 of 101
21

89. It is highly improbable that any two or more Insureds involved in any one of the 

relatively minor automobile accidents in the claims identified in Exhibits “1” - “3” would: (i) suffer 

from injuries so similar that they would all require referrals from Nguyen and Titan Wellness to 

Stein and Stein P.A. on or about the same date; (ii) receive “emergency medical condition” 

diagnoses from Stein and Stein P.A.; and then (iii) require referrals from Stein and Stein P.A. to 

ISO-Diagnostics and Baruch for range of motion and muscle strength testing.

90. It is even more improbable -- to the point of impossibility -- that this would occur 

repeatedly within the cohort of Insureds who purportedly received treatment from the Defendants.

91. Even so -- and in keeping with the fact that the Defendants’ referrals were based 

upon unlawful compensation, rather than medical necessity -- this repeatedly occurred within the 

cohort of Insureds who purportedly received treatment from the Defendants.

92. For example:

(i) On September 11, 2018, two Insureds -- NG and MO -- were involved in the same 

automobile accident. These Insureds were different ages, in different physical 

condition, experienced the impact from different locations in the vehicle, and 

suffered different injuries in the accident, to the extent that they suffered any 

injuries at all. What is more, to the extent that these Insureds suffered any injuries 

in the accident, their injuries resolved or failed to resolve at different rates. These 

Insureds did not both require referrals from Titan Wellness and Nguyen to Stein 

and Stein P.A., and from Stein and Stein P.A. to Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, on 

or about the same date after their accident. Even so, on September 18, 2018, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen referred both of these Insureds to Stein and Stein P.A. for 

medically unnecessary examinations and muscle strength testing, and Stein and 

Stein P.A. referred both of these Insureds to ISO-Diagnostics and Baruch for 

medically unnecessary range of motion and muscle strength testing, pursuant to the 

Defendants’ unlawful patient brokering scheme.

(ii) On January 21, 2019, two Insureds -- DT and MT -- were involved in the same 

automobile accident. These Insureds were different ages, in different physical 

condition, experienced the impact from different locations in the vehicle, and 

suffered different injuries in the accident, to the extent that they suffered any 

injuries at all. What is more, to the extent that these Insureds suffered any injuries 

in the accident, their injuries resolved or failed to resolve at different rates. These 

Insureds did not both require referrals from Titan Wellness and Nguyen to Stein 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 21 of 101
22 

and Stein P.A., and from Stein and Stein P.A. to Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, on 

or about the same date weeks after their accident. Even so, on February 28, 2019, 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred both of these Insureds to Stein and Stein P.A. 

for medically unnecessary examinations and muscle strength testing, and Stein and 

Stein P.A. referred both of these Insureds to ISO-Diagnostics and Baruch for 

medically unnecessary range of motion and muscle strength testing, pursuant to the 

Defendants’ unlawful patient brokering scheme. 

(iii) On July 30, 2019, four Insureds -- VE, DE, JE, and JT -- were involved in the same 

automobile accident. These Insureds were different ages, in different physical 

condition, experienced the impact from different locations in the vehicle, and 

suffered different injuries in the accident, to the extent that they suffered any 

injuries at all. What is more, to the extent that these Insureds suffered any injuries 

in the accident, their injuries resolved or failed to resolve at different rates. These 

Insureds did not all require referrals from Titan Wellness and Nguyen to Stein and 

Stein P.A., and from Stein and Stein P.A. to Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, on or 

about the same date weeks after their accident. Even so, on August 20, 2019, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen referred all four of these Insureds to Stein and Stein P.A. for 

medically unnecessary examinations and muscle strength testing, and Stein and 

Stein P.A. referred all four of these Insureds to ISO-Diagnostics and Baruch for 

medically unnecessary range of motion and muscle strength testing, pursuant to the 

Defendants’ unlawful patient brokering scheme. 

(iv) On January 21, 2020, two Insureds -- SF and ES -- were involved in the same 

automobile accident. These Insureds were different ages, in different physical 

condition, experienced the impact from different locations in the vehicle, and 

suffered different injuries in the accident, to the extent that they suffered any 

injuries at all. What is more, to the extent that these Insureds suffered any injuries 

in the accident, their injuries resolved or failed to resolve at different rates. These 

Insureds did not both require referrals from Titan Wellness and Nguyen to Stein 

and Stein P.A., and from Stein and Stein P.A. to Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, on 

or about the same date weeks after their accident. Even so, on February 19, 2020, 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen referred both of these Insureds to Stein and Stein P.A. 

for medically unnecessary examinations and muscle strength testing, and Stein and 

Stein P.A. referred both of these Insureds to ISO-Diagnostics and Baruch for 

medically unnecessary range of motion and muscle strength testing, pursuant to the 

Defendants’ unlawful patient brokering scheme. 

(v) On May 15, 2021, three Insureds -- CD, GS, and HS -- were involved in the same 

automobile accident. These Insureds were different ages, in different physical 

condition, experienced the impact from different locations in the vehicle, and 

suffered different injuries in the accident, to the extent that they suffered any 

injuries at all. What is more, to the extent that these Insureds suffered any injuries 

in the accident, their injuries resolved or failed to resolve at different rates. These 

Insureds did not all require referrals from Titan Wellness and Nguyen to Stein and 

Stein P.A., and from Stein and Stein P.A. to Baruch and ISO-Diagnostics, on or 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 22 of 101
23

about the same date after their accident. Even so, on May 27, 2021, Titan Wellness 

and Nguyen referred all three of these Insureds to Stein and Stein P.A. for medically 

unnecessary examinations and muscle strength testing, and Stein and Stein P.A. 

referred all four of these Insureds to ISO-Diagnostics and Baruch for medically 

unnecessary range of motion and muscle strength testing, pursuant to the 

Defendants’ unlawful patient brokering scheme.

93. These are only representative examples. Pursuant to the Defendants’ unlawful patient 

brokering scheme, Titan Wellness and Nguyen routinely referred multiple Insureds who had been 

involved in the same accident to Stein and Stein P.A. for medically unnecessary examinations and 

muscle strength testing, and Stein and Stein P.A. routinely referred those same Insureds to ISODiagnostics and Baruch for medically unnecessary range of motion and muscle strength testing, 

despite the fact that the Insureds were differently situated and in any case did not require the 

Defendants’ Fraudulent Services. 

94. In the claims identified in Exhibits “1”--“3”, Titan Wellness, Nguyen, ISODiagnostics, Baruch, Stein P.A., and Stein routinely falsely represented that the underlying health 

care services were lawfully provided and reimbursable, when in fact they were neither lawfully 

provided nor reimbursable because they were provided -- to the extent that they were provided at 

all -- pursuant an illegal patient brokering and kickback scheme.

F. The Defendants’ Fraudulent Treatment and Billing Protocols

95. In the claims identified in Exhibits “1” -- “3”, almost none of the Insureds whom 

the Defendants purported to treat suffered from any significant injuries or health problems as a 

result of the relatively minor accidents they experienced.

96. Even so, in the claims identified in Exhibits “1” -- “3”, the Defendants purported 

to subject virtually every Insured to a medically unnecessary course of “treatment” that was 

provided pursuant to pre-determined, fraudulent protocols designed to maximize the billing that 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 23 of 101
24

they could submit to insurers, including GEICO, rather than to treat or otherwise benefit the 

Insureds who purportedly were subjected to them.

97. The Defendants purported to provide their pre-determined fraudulent treatment 

protocols to the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibits “1” -- “3” without regard for the 

Insureds’ individual symptoms or presentation, or -- in most cases -- the total absence of any actual 

continuing medical problems arising from any actual automobile accidents.

98. Each step in the Defendants’ fraudulent treatment protocols was designed to falsely 

reinforce the rationale for the previous step and provide a false justification for the subsequent 

step, and thereby permit the Defendants to generate and falsely justify the maximum amount of 

fraudulent PIP billing for each Insured.

99. No legitimate physician, chiropractor, clinic, or other health care provider would 

permit the fraudulent treatment and billing protocols described below to proceed under his, her, or 

its auspices.

100. The Defendants permitted the fraudulent treatment and billing protocols described 

below to proceed under their auspices because: (i) Titan Wellness, Stein P.A., and ISO-Diagnostics 

were, at all relevant times, operating in violation of the Clinic Act, without legitimate oversight or 

medical directors who legitimately fulfilled their statutory duties as medical directors; and (ii) the 

Defendants sought to profit from the fraudulent billing they submitted to GEICO and other 

insurers.

1. The Fraudulent and Unlawful Claims for Initial Examinations at Titan Wellness

101. As a first step in the Defendants’ fraudulent treatment and billing protocol, each of 

the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” purportedly received an initial examination at 

Titan Wellness, with Nguyen purporting to personally perform or directly supervise virtually all 

of the initial examinations.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 24 of 101
25

102. As set forth in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen then billed the initial 

examinations to GEICO, or caused them to be billed to GEICO, under CPT code 99203, typically 

resulting in a charge of $230.00 for each initial examination that they purported to provide. 

103. Pursuant to the American Medical Association’s CPT Assistant, which governs 

reimbursement of PIP claims, at all relevant times the use of CPT code 99203 to bill for an initial 

patient examination represented -- among other things -- that: (a) the patient presented with problems 

of moderate severity; (b) the physician or chiropractor who conducted the examination spent at least 

30 minutes of face-to-face time with the patient or the patient’s family during the examination; (c) 

the physician or chiropractor who performed the examination conducted a “detailed” physical 

examination; and (d) the physician or chiropractor who performed the examination engaged in 

legitimate “low complexity” medical decision-making.

104. In the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, the charges for the 

initial examinations were fraudulent in that they misrepresented Titan Wellness’ eligibility to 

collect PIP Benefits in the first instance.

105. In fact, and as set forth herein, Titan Wellness never was eligible to collect PIP 

Benefits, inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the licensing and operating requirements set 

forth in the Clinic Act, as well as the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback Statute.

106. As set forth below, the charges for the initial examinations identified in Exhibit “1” 

also were fraudulent in that they misrepresented the nature, extent, and results of the initial 

examinations.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 25 of 101
26

a. Misrepresentations Regarding the Severity of the Insureds’ Presenting Problems

107. To the extent that the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” had any 

presenting problems at all as the result of their typically-minor automobile accidents, the problems 

virtually always were low or minimal severity soft tissue injuries such as sprains and strains. 

108. Even so, in the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen falsely represented that the Insureds presented with problems of moderate 

severity. 

109. For example:

(i) On September 1, 2017, an Insured named MA was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that there was minor 

damage to MA’s vehicle, that there was minor damage to the other vehicle, and that 

MA’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The police report further 

indicated that MA was not injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. 

In keeping with the fact that MA was not seriously injured, MA did not visit any 

hospital emergency room following the accident. To the extent that MA

experienced any health problems at all as a result of the accident, they were of low 

or minimal severity. Even so, following a purported initial examination of MA by 

Nguyen on September 19, 2017, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for an 

initial examination using CPT code 99203, and thereby falsely represented that the 

initial examination involved presenting problems of moderate severity. 

(ii) On September 21, 2018, an Insured named RJ was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that RJ’s vehicle was 

drivable following the accident. The police report further indicated that RJ was not 

injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that 

RJ was not seriously injured, RJ did not visit any hospital emergency room 

following the accident. To the extent that RJ experienced any health problems at 

all as a result of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity. Even so, 

following a purported initial examination of RJ by Nguyen on September 28, 2018, 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for an initial examination using CPT 

code 99203, and thereby falsely represented that the initial examination involved 

presenting problems of moderate severity. 

(iii) On March 9, 2019, an Insured named WS was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to WS’s vehicle, that there was minor 

damage to the other vehicle, and that WS’s vehicle was drivable following the 

accident. The police report further indicated that WS was not injured and did not 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 26 of 101
27

complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that WS was not 

seriously injured, WS did not visit any hospital emergency room following the 

accident. To the extent that WS experienced any health problems at all as a result 

of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity. Even so, following a 

purported initial examination of WS on March 19, 2019, Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen billed GEICO for an initial examination using CPT code 99203, and 

thereby falsely represented that the initial examination involved presenting 

problems of moderate severity. 

(iv) On January 2, 2020, an Insured named MD was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to the vehicles involved in the accident, and 

that MD’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The police report further 

indicated that MD was not injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. 

In keeping with the fact that MD was not seriously injured, MD did not visit any 

hospital emergency room following the accident. To the extent that MD

experienced any health problems at all as a result of the accident, they were of low 

or minimal severity. Even so, following a purported initial examination of MD on 

January 3, 2020, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for an initial 

examination using CPT code 99203, and thereby falsely represented that the initial 

examination involved presenting problems of moderate severity. 

(v) On February 22, 2021, an Insured named KK was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rearend collision, that there was minor damage to the vehicles involved in the accident, 

and that KK’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The police report 

further indicated that KK was not injured and did not complain of any pain at the 

scene. In keeping with the fact that KK was not seriously injured, KK did not visit 

any hospital emergency room following the accident. To the extent that KK

experienced any health problems at all as a result of the accident, they were of low 

or minimal severity. Even so, following a purported initial examination of KK on 

February 24, 2021, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for an initial 

examination using CPT code 99203, and thereby falsely represented that the initial 

examination involved presenting problems of moderate severity. 

110. These are only representative examples. In the claims for initial examinations 

identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen virtually always falsely represented that the 

Insureds presented with problems of moderate severity in order to: (i) create a false basis for their 

charges for the examinations under CPT code 99203, because examinations billable under CPT 

code 99203 are reimbursable at higher rates than examinations involving presenting problems of 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 27 of 101
28

low severity, minimal severity, or no severity; and (ii) create a false basis for the other Fraudulent 

Services that the Defendants purported to provide to the Insureds.

b. Misrepresentations Regarding “Detailed” Physical Examinations

111. In addition, in the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, when

Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for putative initial examinations using CPT code 99203, 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen falsely represented that the health care provider who purported to 

conduct the examinations -- namely Nguyen -- conducted “detailed” physical examinations of the 

Insureds who purportedly received the examinations. 

112. In fact, with respect to the claims for initial examinations under CPT code 99203 

that are identified in Exhibit “1”, neither Nguyen nor any other chiropractor or health care provider 

associated with Titan Wellness ever conducted a “detailed” patient examination because: (i) 

pursuant to the CPT Assistant, a “detailed” physical examination requires -- among other things 

-- that the physician or other health care provider performing the examination document an 

extended examination of the affected body areas and other symptomatic or related organ systems; 

but (ii) neither Nguyen, nor any other physician or health care associated with Titan Wellness ever 

documented an extended examination of the Insureds’ musculoskeletal systems or any of the 

Insureds’ other systems. 

113. For example:

(i) On September 19, 2017, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO under CPT code 

99203 for an initial examination that Nguyen purported to perform on an Insured 

named MA, and thereby represented that Nguyen had provided a “detailed” 

physical examination to MA. However, Nguyen did not document an extended 

examination of MA’s musculoskeletal system, despite the fact that -- to the extent 

MA had any complaints at all as the result of her automobile accident -- they were 

limited to musculoskeletal complaints.

(ii) On March 19, 2019, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO under CPT code 

99203 for an initial examination that Nguyen purported to perform on an Insured 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 28 of 101
29

named WS, and thereby represented that Nguyen had provided a “detailed” 

physical examination to WS. However, Nguyen did not document an extended 

examination of WS’s musculoskeletal system, despite the fact that -- to the extent 

WS had any complaints at all as the result of her automobile accident -- they were 

limited to musculoskeletal complaints.

(iii) On May 2, 2019, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO under CPT code 99203 

for an initial examination that Nguyen purported to perform on an Insured named 

JL, and thereby represented that Nguyen had provided a “detailed” physical 

examination to JL. However, Nguyen did not document an extended examination 

of JL’s musculoskeletal system, despite the fact that -- to the extent JL had any 

complaints at all as the result of his automobile accident -- they were limited to 

musculoskeletal complaints.

(iv) On January 3, 2020, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO under CPT code 

99203 for an initial examination that Nguyen purported to perform on an Insured 

named JS, and thereby represented that Nguyen had provided a “detailed” physical 

examination to JS. However, Nguyen did not document an extended examination 

of JS’s musculoskeletal system, despite the fact that -- to the extent JS had any 

complaints at all as the result of her automobile accident -- they were limited to 

musculoskeletal complaints.

(v) On February 24, 2021, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO under CPT code 

99203 for an initial examination that Nguyen purported to perform on an Insured 

named KK, and thereby represented that Nguyen had provided a “detailed” physical 

examination to KK. However, Nguyen did not document an extended examination 

of KK’s musculoskeletal system, despite the fact that -- to the extent KK had any 

complaints at all as the result of his automobile accident -- they were limited to 

musculoskeletal complaints.

114. These are only representative examples. In the claims for initial examinations 

identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen virtually always falsely represented that they 

provided “detailed” physical examinations to the Insureds in order to create a false basis for their 

charges for the examinations under CPT code 99203, because examinations billable under CPT 

code 99203 are reimbursable at higher rates than examinations that are not “detailed”.

c. Misrepresentations Regarding the Extent of Medical Decision-Making

115. Moreover, in the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, when 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for putative initial examinations using CPT code 99203, 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 29 of 101
30

Titan Wellness and Nguyen falsely represented that the chiropractor who purported to conduct the 

examinations -- namely Nguyen -- engaged in some legitimate, low complexity medical decisionmaking in connection with the examinations. 

116. In actuality, the purported initial examinations did not involve any legitimate 

medical decision-making at all.

117. Rather, in the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “1”: (i) the initial 

examinations did not involve the retrieval, review, or analysis of any meaningful amount of 

medical records, diagnostic tests, or other information; (ii) there was no risk of significant 

complications or morbidity -- much less mortality -- from the Insureds’ minor soft-tissue injury 

complaints, to the extent that they ever had any complaints arising from automobile accidents at 

all; and (iii) Titan Wellness and Nguyen did not consider any significant number of diagnoses or 

treatment options for Insureds during the initial examinations, and provided a substantially similar, 

pre-determined sprain/strain or similar soft tissue injury “diagnoses” for every Insured, regardless 

of their true individual circumstances or presentation.

118. For example:

(i) On September 1, 2017, an Insured named MA was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that there was minor 

damage to MA’s vehicle, that there was minor damage to the other vehicle, and that 

MA’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The police report further 

indicated that MA was not injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. 

In keeping with the fact that MA was not seriously injured, MA did not visit any 

hospital emergency room following the accident. To the extent that MA

experienced any health problems at all as a result of the accident, they were of low 

or minimal severity. On September 19, 2017, Nguyen purported to conduct an 

initial examination of MA at Titan Wellness. To the extent that Nguyen performed 

the examination in the first instance, Nguyen did not retrieve, review, or analyze 

any significant amount of medical records, diagnostic tests, or other information in 

connection with the examination. Moreover, Nguyen did not consider any 

significant number of diagnoses or management options in connection with the 

examination. Instead, Nguyen provided MA with the same, phony, list of 

objectively unverifiable soft tissue injury “diagnoses” that he provided to virtually 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 30 of 101
31

every other Insured. Furthermore, neither MA’s presenting problems, nor the 

treatment plan provided to MA by Titan Wellness and Nguyen presented any risk 

of significant complications, morbidity, or mortality. To the contrary, MA did not 

need any significant treatment at all as a result of the accident, and the treatment 

plan provided by Titan Wellness and Nguyen consisted of medically unnecessary 

chiropractic and physical therapy services, which did not pose the least bit of risk 

to MA. Even so, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for the initial 

examination using CPT code 99203, and thereby falsely represented that Nguyen 

engaged in some legitimate, low complexity medical decision-making during the 

purported examination. 

(ii) On September 21, 2018, an Insured named PJ was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that PJ’s vehicle was 

drivable following the accident. The police report further indicated that PJ was not 

injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that 

PJ was not seriously injured, PJ did not visit any hospital emergency room 

following the accident. To the extent that PJ experienced any health problems at 

all as a result of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity. On September 

28, 2018, Nguyen purported to conduct an initial examination of PJ at Titan 

Wellness. To the extent that Nguyen performed the examination in the first 

instance, Nguyen did not retrieve, review, or analyze any significant amount of 

medical records, diagnostic tests, or other information in connection with the 

examination. Moreover, Nguyen did not consider any significant number of 

diagnoses or management options in connection with the examination. Instead, 

Nguyen provided PJ with the same, phony, list of objectively unverifiable soft 

tissue injury “diagnoses” that he provided to virtually every other Insured. 

Furthermore, neither PJ’s presenting problems, nor the treatment plan provided to 

PJ by Titan Wellness and Nguyen presented any risk of significant complications, 

morbidity, or mortality. To the contrary, PJ did not need any significant treatment 

at all as a result of the accident, and the treatment plan provided by Titan Wellness 

and Nguyen consisted of medically unnecessary chiropractic and physical therapy 

services, which did not pose the least bit of risk to PJ. Even so, Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen billed GEICO for the initial examination using CPT code 99203, and 

thereby falsely represented that Nguyen engaged in some legitimate, low 

complexity medical decision-making during the purported examination. 

(iii) On September 21, 2018, an Insured named RJ was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that RJ’s vehicle was 

drivable following the accident. The police report further indicated that RJ was not 

injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that 

RJ was not seriously injured, RJ did not visit any hospital emergency room 

following the accident. To the extent that RJ experienced any health problems at 

all as a result of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity. On September 

28, 2018, Nguyen purported to conduct an initial examination of RJ at Titan 

Wellness. To the extent that Nguyen performed the examination in the first 

instance, Nguyen did not retrieve, review, or analyze any significant amount of 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 31 of 101
32

medical records, diagnostic tests, or other information in connection with the 

examination. Moreover, Nguyen did not consider any significant number of

diagnoses or management options in connection with the examination. Instead, 

Nguyen provided RJ with the same, phony, list of objectively unverifiable soft 

tissue injury “diagnoses” that he provided to virtually every other Insured. 

Furthermore, neither RJ’s presenting problems, nor the treatment plan provided to 

RJ by Titan Wellness and Nguyen presented any risk of significant complications, 

morbidity, or mortality. To the contrary, RJ did not need any significant treatment 

at all as a result of the accident, and the treatment plan provided by Titan Wellness 

and Nguyen consisted of medically unnecessary chiropractic and physical therapy 

services, which did not pose the least bit of risk to RJ. Even so, Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen billed GEICO for the initial examination using CPT code 99203, and 

thereby falsely represented that Nguyen engaged in some legitimate, low 

complexity medical decision-making during the purported examination. 

(iv) On March 9, 2019, an Insured named WS was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to WS’s vehicle, that there was minor 

damage to the other vehicle, and that WS’s vehicle was drivable following the 

accident. The police report further indicated that WS was not injured and did not 

complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that WS was not 

seriously injured, WS did not visit any hospital emergency room following the 

accident. To the extent that WS experienced any health problems at all as a result 

of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity. On March 19, 2019, Nguyen 

purported to conduct an initial examination of WS at Titan Wellness. To the extent 

that Nguyen performed the examination in the first instance, Nguyen did not 

retrieve, review, or analyze any significant amount of medical records, diagnostic 

tests, or other information in connection with the examination. Moreover, Nguyen 

did not consider any significant number of diagnoses or management options in 

connection with the examination. Instead, Nguyen provided WS with the same, 

phony, list of objectively unverifiable soft tissue injury “diagnoses” that he 

provided to virtually every other Insured. Furthermore, neither WS’s presenting 

problems, nor the treatment plan provided to WS by Titan Wellness and Nguyen

presented any risk of significant complications, morbidity, or mortality. To the 

contrary, WS did not need any significant treatment at all as a result of the accident, 

and the treatment plan provided by Titan Wellness and Nguyen consisted of 

medically unnecessary chiropractic and physical therapy services, which did not 

pose the least bit of risk to WS. Even so, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO 

for the initial examination using CPT code 99203, and thereby falsely represented 

that Nguyen engaged in some legitimate, low complexity medical decision-making 

during the purported examination. 

(v) On January 2, 2020, an Insured named MD was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to the vehicles involved in the accident, and 

that MD’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The police report further 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 32 of 101
33 

indicated that MD was not injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. 

In keeping with the fact that MD was not seriously injured, MD did not visit any 

hospital emergency room following the accident. To the extent that MD

experienced any health problems at all as a result of the accident, they were of low 

or minimal severity. On January 3, 2020, Nguyen purported to conduct an initial 

examination of MD at Titan Wellness. To the extent that Nguyen performed the 

examination in the first instance, Nguyen did not retrieve, review, or analyze any 

significant amount of medical records, diagnostic tests, or other information in 

connection with the examination. Moreover, Nguyen did not consider any 

significant number of diagnoses or management options in connection with the 

examination. Instead, Nguyen provided MD with the same, phony, list of 

objectively unverifiable soft tissue injury “diagnoses” that he provided to virtually 

every other Insured. Furthermore, neither MD’s presenting problems, nor the 

treatment plan provided to MD by Titan Wellness and Nguyen presented any risk 

of significant complications, morbidity, or mortality. To the contrary, MD did not 

need any significant treatment at all as a result of the accident, and the treatment 

plan provided by Titan Wellness and Nguyen consisted of medically unnecessary 

chiropractic and physical therapy services, which did not pose the least bit of risk 

to MD. Even so, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for the initial 

examination using CPT code 99203, and thereby falsely represented that Nguyen 

engaged in some legitimate, low complexity medical decision-making during the 

purported examination. 

119. In keeping with the fact that these putative “diagnoses” were pre-determined and 

phony, Titan Wellness and Nguyen frequently issued substantially identical, phony “diagnoses”, 

on or about the same date, to two or more Insureds who had been involved in the same underlying 

accident, and recommended a substantially identical course of medically unnecessary “treatment” 

to the Insureds, despite the fact that they were differently situated.

For example:

(i) On September 12, 2017, three Insureds -- TL, TR, and LT -- were involved in the 

same automobile accident. Thereafter -- incredibly -- all three Insureds presented 

at Titan Wellness for initial examinations by Nguyen on the exact same date, 

September 21, 2017. TL, TR, and LT were different ages, in different physical 

conditions, located in different positions in the vehicle, and experienced the impact 

from different positions in the vehicle. To the extent that TL, TR, and LT suffered 

any injuries at all in their accident, the injuries were different. Even so, at the 

conclusion of the purported initial examinations, Titan Wellness and Nguyen 

provided TL, TR, and LT with substantially identical, phony soft tissue injury 

“diagnoses”, and recommended a substantially identical course of medically 

unnecessary treatment to all three of them.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 33 of 101
34 

(ii) On July 23, 2018, two Insureds -- JI and MM -- were involved in the same 

automobile accident. Thereafter -- incredibly -- both Insureds presented at Titan 

Wellness for initial examinations by Nguyen on the exact same date, August 23, 

2018. JI and MM were different ages, in different physical conditions, located in 

different positions in the vehicle, and experienced the impact from different 

positions in the vehicle. To the extent that JI and MM suffered any injuries at all in 

their accident, the injuries were different. Even so, at the conclusion of the 

purported initial examinations, Titan Wellness and Nguyen provided JI and MM

with substantially identical, phony soft tissue injury “diagnoses”, and 

recommended a substantially identical course of medically unnecessary treatment 

to both of them. 

(iii) On January 27, 2019, two Insureds -- KN and PN -- were involved in the same 

automobile accident. Thereafter -- incredibly -- both Insureds presented at Titan 

Wellness for initial examinations by Nguyen on the exact same date, February 8, 

2019. KN and PN were different ages, in different physical conditions, located in 

different positions in the vehicle, and experienced the impact from different 

positions in the vehicle. To the extent that KN and PN suffered any injuries at all 

in their accident, the injuries were different. Even so, at the conclusion of the 

purported initial examinations, Titan Wellness and Nguyen provided KN and PN

with substantially identical, phony soft tissue injury “diagnoses”, and 

recommended a substantially identical course of medically unnecessary treatment 

to both of them. 

(iv) On January 2, 2020, two Insureds -- MD and JS -- were involved in the same 

automobile accident. Thereafter -- incredibly -- both Insureds presented at Titan 

Wellness for initial examinations by Nguyen on the exact same date, January 3, 

2020. MD and JS were different ages, in different physical conditions, located in 

different positions in the vehicle, and experienced the impact from different 

positions in the vehicle. To the extent that MD and JS suffered any injuries at all in 

their accident, the injuries were different. Even so, at the conclusion of the 

purported initial examinations, Titan Wellness and Nguyen provided MD and JS

with substantially identical, phony soft tissue injury “diagnoses”, and 

recommended a substantially identical course of medically unnecessary treatment 

to both of them.

(v) On May 15, 2021, three Insureds -- CD, HP, and GP -- were involved in the same 

automobile accident. Thereafter -- incredibly -- all three Insureds presented at Titan 

Wellness for initial examinations by Nguyen on the exact same date, May 17, 2021. 

CD, HP, and GP were different ages, in different physical conditions, located in 

different positions in the vehicle, and experienced the impact from different 

positions in the vehicle. To the extent that CD, HP, and GP suffered any injuries at 

all in their accident, the injuries were different. Even so, at the conclusion of the 

purported initial examinations, Titan Wellness and Nguyen provided CD, HP, and 

GP with substantially identical, phony soft tissue injury “diagnoses”, and 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 34 of 101
35

recommended a substantially identical course of medically unnecessary treatment 

to all of them.

120. These are only representative examples. In the claims for initial examinations that 

are identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen frequently issued substantially identical 

“diagnoses”, on or about the same date, to more than one Insured involved in a single accident, 

and recommended a substantially identical course of medically unnecessary “treatment” to the 

Insureds, despite the fact that the Insureds were differently situated and, in any case, did not require 

the treatment. 

121. Titan Wellness and Nguyen routinely inserted these false “diagnoses” in their initial 

examination reports in order to create the false impression that the initial examinations required 

some legitimate medical decision-making, and in order to create a false justification for the other 

Fraudulent Services that the Defendants purported to provide to the Insureds. 

122. In the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen routinely falsely represented that the putative examinations involved legitimate, low 

complexity medical decision making in order to create a false basis to bill for the initial 

examinations under CPT code 99203, because examinations billable under CPT code 99203 are 

reimbursable at a higher rate than examinations or examinations that do not require any complex 

medical decision-making at all.

123. In this context, Nguyen -- who at all relevant times purported to own Titan Wellness

-- did not, and could not have, legitimately supervised the business activities of Titan Wellness.

124. Had Nguyen actually supervised the business activities of Titan Wellness, he would 

have noted -- among other things -- that Titan Wellness’ billing routinely fraudulently 

misrepresented that the putative initial examinations were legitimately and lawfully performed.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 35 of 101
36

125. Nguyen failed to do so, because he never actually supervised the business activities 

of Titan Wellness.

126. In the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness, and 

Nguyen routinely fraudulently misrepresented that the examinations were lawfully provided and 

eligible for PIP reimbursement, when in fact they were neither lawfully provided nor reimbursable, 

because:

(i) the putative examinations were illusory, with outcomes that were pre-determined 

to result in substantially identical, phony “diagnoses” and treatment 

recommendations, regardless of the Insureds’ true individual circumstances and 

presentation; 

(ii) the charges for the putative examinations misrepresented the nature, extent, and 

results of the examinations; and 

(iii) Titan Wellness never was eligible to collect PIP Benefits in connection with the 

examinations in the first instance, inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the 

Clinic Act, Patient Brokering Act, and Anti-Kickback Statute. 

2. The Fraudulent and Unlawful Charges for Follow-Up Examinations at Titan 

Wellness 

127. In addition to their fraudulent initial examinations, Titan Wellness and Nguyen

purported to subject the substantial majority of the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” 

to multiple, fraudulent follow-up examinations during the course of their fraudulent treatment 

protocol. 

128. Nguyen purported to personally perform the virtually all of the follow-up 

examinations in the claims identified in Exhibit “1”.

129. As set forth in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen then billed the follow-up 

examinations to GEICO under: (i) CPT code 99213, typically resulting in a charge of $150.00 for 

each putative examination; or (iii) 99214, typically resulting in a charge of $250.00 for each 

putative examination.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 36 of 101
37

130. Pursuant to the CPT Assistant, at all relevant times the use of CPT code 99213 to 

bill for a follow-up examination represented -- among other things -- that: (i) the patient presented 

with problems of low to moderate severity; and (ii) the physician performed at least two of the 

following three components during the examination: (a) took an “expanded problem focused” 

patient history; (b) conducted an “expanded problem focused physical examination”; and (c) 

engaged in medical decision-making of “low complexity”.

131. Pursuant to the CPT Assistant, at all relevant times the use of CPT code 99214 to 

bill for a follow-up examination represented -- among other things -- that: (i) the patient presented 

with problems of moderate to high severity; and (ii) the physician performed at least two of the 

following three components during the examination: (a) took a “detailed” patient history; (b) 

conducted a “detailed” physical examination; and (c) engaged in medical decision-making of 

“moderate complexity”.

132. In the claims for follow-up examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, the charges for 

the follow-up examinations were fraudulent in that they misrepresented Titan Wellness’ eligibility 

to collect PIP Benefits in the first instance.

133. In fact, and as set forth herein, Titan Wellness never was eligible to collect PIP 

Benefits, inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the licensing and operating requirements set 

forth in the Clinic Act.

134. As set forth below, the charges for the follow-up examinations identified in Exhibit 

“1” also were fraudulent in that they misrepresented the nature, extent, and results of the followup examinations.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 37 of 101
38

a. Misrepresentations Regarding the Severity of the Insureds’ Presenting Problems

135. To the extent that the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” suffered any 

injuries at all in their automobile accidents, the injuries almost always were minor soft tissue 

injuries such as sprains and strains, which were of low or minimal severity, even at their onset. 

136. Minor soft tissue injuries such as strains and sprains virtually always resolve after 

a short course of conservative treatment or no treatment at all. By the time the Insureds in the 

claims identified in Exhibit “1” presented for their putative follow-up examinations -- typically 

weeks or months after their minor accidents -- the Insureds either did not have any genuine 

presenting problems at all as the result of their minor automobile accidents, or else their presenting 

problems were minimal. 

137. Even so, in the claims for the follow-up examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen made the following misrepresentations:

(i) When billing GEICO for putative follow-up examinations using CPT code 99213 in 

the claims identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen falsely represented 

that the Insureds presented with problems of low to moderate severity, when in fact 

the Insureds’ problems were minimal severity soft tissue injuries such as sprains and 

strains, to the limited extent that they had any continuing problems at all at the time 

of the examinations. 

(ii) When billing GEICO for putative follow-up examinations using CPT code 99214 in 

the claims identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen falsely represented 

that the Insureds presented with problems of moderate to high severity, when in fact 

the Insureds’ problems were minimal severity soft tissue injuries such as sprains and 

strains, to the limited extent that they had any continuing problems at all at the time 

of the examinations.

138. For example:

(i) On September 21, 2018, an Insured named PJ was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that PJ’s vehicle was 

drivable following the accident. The police report further indicated that PJ was not 

injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that 

PJ was not seriously injured, PJ did not visit any hospital emergency room 

following the accident. To the extent that PJ experienced any health problems at

all as a result of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity at the outset, 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 38 of 101
39

and had resolved or were minimal within a few weeks of the accident. Even so, 

following purported follow-up examinations of PJ on October 15, 2018 and 

November 6, 2018, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for the follow-up 

examination using CPT codes 99213 and 99214 and thereby falsely represented 

that PJ presented with problems of low to moderate severity or moderate to high 

severity.

(ii) On March 9, 2019, an Insured named WS was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to WS’s vehicle, that there was minor 

damage to the other vehicle, and that WS’s vehicle was drivable following the 

accident. The police report further indicated that WS was not injured and did not 

complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that WS was not 

seriously injured, WS did not visit any hospital emergency room following the 

accident. To the extent that WS experienced any health problems at all as a result 

of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity at the outset, and had resolved 

or were minimal within a few weeks of the accident. Even so, following purported 

follow-up examination of WS on April 12, 2019 and May 10, 2019, Titan Wellness 

and Nguyen billed GEICO for the follow-up examination using CPT codes 99213 

and 99214 and thereby falsely represented that WS presented with problems of low 

to moderate severity or moderate to high severity.

(iii) On October 2, 2019, an Insured named PS was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to the vehicles involved in the accident, and 

that PS’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The police report further 

indicated that PS was not injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In 

keeping with the fact that PS was not seriously injured, PS did not visit any hospital 

emergency room following the accident. To the extent that PS experienced any 

health problems at all as a result of the accident, they were of low or minimal 

severity at the outset, and had resolved or were minimal within a few weeks of the 

accident. Even so, following purported follow-up examinations of PS on October 

31, 2019 and December 3, 2019, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for the 

follow-up examination using CPT codes 99213 and 99214 and thereby falsely 

represented that PS presented with problems of low to moderate severity or 

moderate to high severity.

(iv) On January 2, 2020, an Insured named JS was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to JS’s vehicle, that there was minor damage 

to the other vehicle, and that JS’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The 

police report further indicated that JS was not injured and did not complain of any 

pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that JS was not seriously injured, JS did 

not visit any hospital emergency room following the accident. To the extent that 

JS experienced any health problems at all as a result of the accident, they were of 

low or minimal severity at the outset, and had resolved or were minimal within a 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 39 of 101
40

few weeks of the accident. Even so, following purported follow-up examinations 

of JS on January 15, 2020 and February 19, 2020, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed 

GEICO for the follow-up examinations using CPT codes 99213 and 99214, and 

thereby falsely represented that JS presented with problems of low to moderate 

severity or moderate to high severity.

(v) On September 9, 2020, an Insured named MA was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that MA was not injured 

and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that MA

was not seriously injured, MA did not visit any hospital emergency room following 

the accident. To the extent that MA experienced any health problems at all as a 

result of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity at the outset, and had 

resolved or were minimal within a few weeks of the accident. Even so, following 

purported follow-up examinations of MA on September 24, 2020 and October 16, 

2020, Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for the follow-up examination 

using CPT codes 99213 and 99214 and thereby falsely represented that MA

presented with problems of low to moderate severity or moderate to high severity.

139. These are only representative examples. In virtually all of the claims for follow-up 

examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen falsely represented that the 

Insureds presented with problems of low to moderate severity or moderate to high severity, when 

in fact the Insureds either did not have any genuine presenting problems at all as the result of their 

minor automobile accidents at the time of the follow-up examinations, or else their presenting 

problems were minimal.

140. In the claims for follow-up examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness, 

and Nguyen virtually always falsely represented that the Insureds presented with problems of 

either low to moderate severity or moderate to high severity in order to: (i) create a false basis for 

their charges for the examinations under CPT codes 99213 or 99214, because examinations 

billable under CPT codes 99213 and 99214 are reimbursable at higher rates than examinations 

involving presenting problems of minimal severity, or no severity; and (ii) create a false basis for 

the other Fraudulent Services that the Defendants purported to provide to the Insureds.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 40 of 101
41

b. Misrepresentations Regarding the Nature, Extent, and Results of the Follow-Up 

Examinations 

141. What is more, in the claims for follow-up examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, 

neither Nguyen, nor any other chiropractor associated with Titan Wellness, ever took any 

legitimate patient histories, conducted any legitimate physical examinations, or engaged in any 

legitimate medical decision-making at all. 

142. Rather, following the purported follow-up examinations, Nguyen simply: (i) 

reiterated the false, boilerplate “diagnoses” from the Insureds’ initial examinations; and either (ii) 

referred the Insureds for even more medically unnecessary chiropractic and physical therapy 

services, despite the fact that the Insureds purportedly already had received extensive chiropractic 

and physical therapy services that supposedly had not been successful in resolving their purported 

pain symptoms; or (iii) discharged the Insureds from “treatment”, to the extent that their PIP 

Benefits had been exhausted.

143. The phony “follow-up examinations” that Titan Wellness and Nguyen purported to 

provide to the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” therefore were medically useless, 

and played no legitimate role in the treatment or care of the Insureds, because the putative “results” 

of the examinations were prearranged to comport with the medically unnecessary treatment plan 

that was pre-determined for each Insured from the moment they walked into Titan Wellness’ 

offices.

c. The Fraudulent Charges for Illusory Follow-Up Examinations

144. Additionally, Titan Wellness and Nguyen routinely billed GEICO for multiple 

putative follow-up examinations under CPT codes 99213 and 99214 contemporaneous with their 

supposed provision of chiropractic manipulation and physical therapy services.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 41 of 101
42

145. However, these supposed “examinations” were never truly separate services from 

the putative physical therapy and chiropractic services that were provided to the Insureds on the 

same dates as the supposed examinations.

146. Pursuant to the CPT Assistant, a separate examination may be billed independent 

of charges for chiropractic manipulation only if the patient’s condition requires an examination 

above and beyond the usual pre- and post- manipulation assessment associated with chiropractic 

services. 

147. However, virtually none of the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” 

required additional examination services above and beyond the usual pre- and post- manipulation 

assessments that they received as a component of the chiropractic manipulation they received on 

the same dates of service as the purported examinations.

148. Even so, Titan Wellness and Nguyen routinely billed GEICO for putative followup examinations under CPT codes 99213 or 99214, despite the fact that the examinations 

purportedly were provided contemporaneously with putative chiropractic manipulation and 

physical therapy services.

149. In keeping with the fact that the follow-up examinations were illusory, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen never submitted any additional reports, notes, or substantiating 

documentation in connection with the phony follow-up examinations billed under CPT codes 

99213 and 99214.

150. Even so, Titan Wellness and Nguyen routinely submitted charges under CPT codes 

99213 and 99214 for illusory follow-up examinations. 

151. For example:

(i) Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for a purported follow-up examination 

under CPT code 99213 that was supposedly provided to an Insured named JA

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 42 of 101
43

contemporaneously with chiropractic manipulation and physical therapy services 

on July 17, 2017. This, despite the fact that: (a) no legitimate, separate follow-up 

examination was provided; (b) the patient’s condition did not require examination 

above and beyond the usual pre- and post- manipulation assessment associated with 

chiropractic services; and (c) to the extent that Titan Wellness and Nguyen provided 

any patient assessments at all, they were part and parcel of the chiropractic and 

physical therapy services billed to GEICO that same date.

(ii) Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for a purported follow-up examination 

under CPT code 99213 that was supposedly provided to an Insured named ES 

contemporaneously with chiropractic manipulation and physical therapy services 

on February 23, 2018. This, despite the fact that: (a) no legitimate, separate followup examination was provided; (b) the patient’s condition did not require 

examination above and beyond the usual pre- and post- manipulation assessment 

associated with chiropractic services; and (c) to the extent that Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen provided any patient assessments at all, they were part and parcel of the 

chiropractic and physical therapy services billed to GEICO that same date.

(iii) Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for a purported follow-up examination 

under CPT code 99213 that was supposedly provided to an Insured named JF

contemporaneously with chiropractic manipulation and physical therapy services 

on September 23, 2019. This, despite the fact that: (a) no legitimate, separate 

follow-up examination was provided; (b) the patient’s condition did not require 

examination above and beyond the usual pre- and post- manipulation assessment 

associated with chiropractic services; and (c) to the extent that Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen provided any patient assessments at all, they were part and parcel of the 

chiropractic and physical services billed to GEICO that same date.

(iv) Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for a purported follow-up examination

under CPT code 99213 that was supposedly provided to an Insured named MD

contemporaneously with chiropractic manipulation and physical therapy services 

on January 15, 2020. This, despite the fact that: (a) no legitimate, separate followup examination was provided; (b) the patient’s condition did not require 

examination above and beyond the usual pre- and post- manipulation assessment 

associated with chiropractic services; and (c) to the extent that Titan Wellness and 

Nguyen provided any patient assessments at all, they were part and parcel of the 

chiropractic and physical therapy services billed to GEICO that same date.

(v) Titan Wellness and Nguyen billed GEICO for a purported follow-up examination 

under CPT code 99213 that was supposedly provided to an Insured named JS

contemporaneously with chiropractic manipulation and physical therapy services 

on February 19, 2020. This, despite the fact that: (a) no legitimate, separate followup examination was provided; (b) the patient’s condition did not require 

examination above and beyond the usual pre- and post- manipulation assessment 

associated with chiropractic services; and (c) to the extent that Titan Wellness and 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 43 of 101
44

Nguyen provided any patient assessments at all, they were part and parcel of the 

chiropractic and physical therapy services billed to GEICO that same date.

152. These are only representative examples. Titan Wellness and Nguyen routinely 

submitted charges for illusory follow-up examinations, despite the fact that: (i) no legitimate 

follow-up examination services were provided; (ii) the patient’s condition did not require 

examination above and beyond the usual pre- and post- manipulation assessment associated with 

chiropractic services; and (iii) a pre-manipulation patient assessment was part and parcel of the 

putative chiropractic manipulation services billed by Titan Wellness and Nguyen under CPT codes 

98940, 98941, and 98943.

153. Titan Wellness and Nguyen submitted charges for the duplicative and illusory 

follow-up examinations in order to maximize the amount of fraudulent billing they could submit 

to insurers, including GEICO.

154. In this context, Nguyen, who at all relevant times purported to own Titan Wellness,

did not, and could not have, legitimately supervised the business activities of Titan Wellness.

155. Had Nguyen actually supervised the business activities of Titan Wellness, he would 

have noted -- among other things -- that Titan Wellness routinely fraudulently misrepresented that 

the putative follow-up examinations were legitimately and lawfully performed.

156. Nguyen failed to do so, because he never actually supervised the business activities 

of Titan Wellness.

157. In the claims for follow-up examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness 

and Nguyen routinely fraudulently misrepresented that the examinations were lawfully provided 

and reimbursable, when in fact they were neither lawfully provided nor reimbursable, because:

(i) the putative examinations were illusory, with outcomes that were pre-determined 

to result in substantially-identical, phony “diagnoses” and treatment

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 44 of 101
45

recommendations, regardless of the Insureds’ true individual circumstances and 

presentation; 

(ii) the charges for the putative examinations misrepresented the nature and extent of 

the examinations; and 

(iii) Titan Wellness never was eligible to collect PIP Benefits in connection with the 

examinations in the first instance, inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the 

Clinic Act, Patient Brokering Act, and Anti-Kickback Statute.

3. The Fraudulent and Unlawful Charges for Health and Behavior Assessments at Titan 

Wellness

158. In addition to their other Fraudulent Services, Titan Wellness and Nguyen subjected 

many Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” to medically useless and illusory “health and 

behavior assessments”, generally on the same dates when they purported to subject the Insureds to 

initial or follow-up examinations.

159. Nguyen purported to perform virtually all of the purported “health and behavior 

assessments” in the claims identified in Exhibit “1”, and then Nguyen and Titan Wellness billed 

them to GEICO under CPT codes 96150, 96151, and 96156, resulting in charges of between $40.00 

and $55.00 for each assessment they purported to provide.

160. Like Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s charges for the other Fraudulent Services, the 

charges for the purported “health and behavior assessments” were fraudulent in that they 

misrepresented Titan Wellness’ eligibility to collect PIP Benefits in the first instance.

161. In fact, and as set forth herein, Titan Wellness never was eligible to collect PIP 

Benefits, inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the licensing and operating requirements set 

forth in the Clinic Act, as well as the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback Statute.

162. The charges for the purported “health and behavior assessments” in the claims 

identified in Exhibit “1” also misrepresented the nature, extent, and medical necessity of the 

supposed assessments. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 45 of 101
46 

163. The purported “health and behavior assessments” that Titan Wellness and Nguyen

purported to provide Insureds were simply pre-printed, checklist questionnaires on which the 

Insureds were invited to report the symptoms they purportedly were experiencing, and the impact 

of those symptoms on their lives, and did not involve any actual assessments of the Insureds by 

any actual health care providers. 

164. Since a patient history and physical examination must be conducted as an element 

of a soft-tissue trauma patient’s initial and follow-up examinations, health care providers cannot 

conduct and bill for an initial examination or follow-up examination, then bill separately for 

contemporaneously-provided “health and behavior assessments”. 

165. The information gained through the use of the “health and behavior assessments” 

that Titan Wellness and Nguyen purported to provide was not significantly different from the 

information that Titan Wellness and Nguyen purported to obtain during virtually every Insured’s 

initial examination and follow-up examinations. 

166. Under the circumstances employed by Titan Wellness and Nguyen, the “health and 

behavior assessments” represented purposeful and unnecessary duplication of the patient histories 

and examinations purportedly conducted during the Insured’s initial examination and follow-up 

examinations. The “health and behavior assessments” were part and parcel of the Defendants’ 

fraudulent scheme, inasmuch as the “service” was rendered pursuant to a pre-determined protocol 

that: (i) in no way aided in the assessment and treatment of the Insureds; and (ii) was designed 

solely to financially enrich the Defendants. 

167. Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s use of CPT codes 96150, 96151, and 96156 to bill 

for the “health and behavior assessments” also constituted a deliberate misrepresentation of the 

nature and extent of the service that was provided. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 46 of 101
47 

168. Pursuant to the CPT Assistant, the use of CPT codes 96150, 96151, and 96156 

represents -- among other things -- that a health care provider actually spent at least 15 minutes of 

face to face time with the patient performing some sort of assessment of the psychological, 

behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and social factors directly affecting the patient's physical health 

and well-being. 

169. Though Titan Wellness and Nguyen routinely submitted billing for the “health and 

behavior assessments” under CPT codes 96150, 96151, and 96156, in the claims identified in 

Exhibit “1” no actual health care provider spent any time performing any sort of assessment of the 

psychological, behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and social factors directly affecting the Insureds’ 

physical health and well-being. 

170. Indeed, the “health and behavior assessments” did not require any actual 

“assessments” at all, inasmuch as the “assessments” simply were questionnaires that were 

completed by the Insureds, and then never incorporated into the Insureds’ treatment plans. 

4. The Fraudulent and Unlawful Charges for Ligament Laxity Testing at Titan Wellness

171. As part of the Defendants’ fraudulent scheme, Titan Wellness and Nguyen directed 

the majority of Insureds to receive putative “ligament laxity testing” services at Titan Wellness. 

172. Nguyen purported to perform virtually all of the ligament laxity testing services at 

Titan Wellness.

173. As set forth in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen then billed the purported 

ligament laxity testing to GEICO under CPT code 76499, resulting in a charge of $450.00 for each 

purported round of tests. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 47 of 101
48

174. Like Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s charges for the other Fraudulent Services, the 

charges for the purported ligament laxity tests were fraudulent in that they misrepresented Titan 

Wellness’ eligibility to collect PIP Benefits in the first instance.

175. In fact, and as set forth herein, Titan Wellness never was eligible to collect PIP 

Benefits, inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the licensing and operating requirements set 

forth in the Clinic Act, as well as the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback Statute.

176. As set forth below, the charges for the putative ligament laxity testing also were 

fraudulent because the ligament laxity testing services were medically unnecessary and were 

provided -- to the extent they were provided at all -- pursuant to the Defendants’ pre-determined 

fraudulent treatment and billing protocol, and not to treat or otherwise benefit the Insureds who 

were subjected to it. 

177. In a legitimate clinical setting, the laxity -- or instability -- of spinal ligaments may 

be assessed and diagnosed through a routine MRI.

178. By contrast, supposed ligament laxity testing purports to use a digital x-ray device 

to quantify the extent of ligament laxity in particular spinal levels. 

179. There is a dearth of quality supportive scientific evidence for the use of ligament 

laxity testing to diagnose soft tissue injuries in patients involved in automobile accidents.

180. What is more, even assuming that there was some diagnostic value for the ligament 

laxity testing (and there was not), the ligament laxity testing was duplicative of the MRIs that the 

Insureds received and that, in any case, provided far more specific, sensitive, and reliable 

diagnostic information than the ligament laxity testing that Titan Wellness and Nguyen purported 

to provide. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 48 of 101
49

181. Moreover, and in keeping with the fact that the ligament laxity testing purportedly 

provided at Titan Wellness was medically unnecessary, whatever supposed quantitative findings 

the ligament laxity testing generated were never legitimately incorporated into any of the Insureds’ 

courses of treatment at Titan Wellness.

182. Instead, following the putative ligament laxity testing, Titan Wellness and Nguyen 

routinely directed the Insureds identified in Exhibit “1” to continue to receive a virtually identical 

course of treatment as had been recommended for that Insured prior to the supposed ligament 

laxity testing.

183. For example:

(i) On May 12, 2017, an Insured named GA was involved in an automobile accident. 

Thereafter, on May 18, 2017, GA presented to Titan Wellness for an initial 

examination by Nguyen. At the conclusion of the putative examination, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen provided GA with substantially the same soft tissue injury 

“diagnoses” they provided to virtually every Insured, and recommended that GA

begin substantially the same course of medically unnecessary “treatment” they 

recommended to virtually every other Insured. Then, on May 24, 2018, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen purported to provide GA with a ligament laxity test at Titan 

Wellness. However -- and in keeping with the fact that the ligament laxity test was 

medically unnecessary -- the “results” of the ligament laxity testing were never 

incorporated into GA’s supposed “treatment” plan, and GA thereafter received 

substantially the same treatment as had been recommended to GA prior to the 

ligament laxity testing being provided.

(ii) On March 15, 2018, an Insured named KI was involved in an automobile accident. 

Thereafter, on March 23, 2018, KI presented to Titan Wellness for an initial 

examination by Nguyen. At the conclusion of the putative examination, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen provided KI with substantially the same soft tissue injury 

“diagnoses” they provided to virtually every Insured, and recommended that KI

begin substantially the same course of medically unnecessary “treatment” they 

recommended to virtually every other Insured. Then, on May 9, 2018, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen purported to provide KI with a ligament laxity test at Titan 

Wellness. However -- and in keeping with the fact that the ligament laxity test was 

medically unnecessary -- the “results” of the ligament laxity testing were never 

incorporated into KI’s supposed “treatment” plan, and KI thereafter received 

substantially the same treatment as had been recommended to KI prior to the 

ligament laxity testing being provided.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 49 of 101
50

(iii) On April 21, 2019, an Insured named JB was involved in an automobile accident. 

Thereafter, on April 26, 2019, JB presented to Titan Wellness for an initial 

examination by Nguyen. At the conclusion of the putative examination, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen provided JB with substantially the same soft tissue injury 

“diagnoses” they provided to virtually every Insured, and recommended that JB

begin substantially the same course of medically unnecessary “treatment” they 

recommended to virtually every other Insured. Then, on April 30, 2019, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen purported to provide JB with a ligament laxity test at Titan 

Wellness. However -- and in keeping with the fact that the ligament laxity test was 

medically unnecessary -- the “results” of the ligament laxity testing were never 

incorporated into JB’s supposed “treatment” plan, and JB thereafter received 

substantially the same treatment as had been recommended to JB prior to the 

ligament laxity testing being provided.

(iv) On January 2, 2020, an Insured named MD was involved in an automobile accident. 

Thereafter, on January 3, 2020, MD presented to Titan Wellness for an initial 

examination by Nguyen. At the conclusion of the putative examination, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen provided MD with substantially the same soft tissue injury 

“diagnoses” they provided to virtually every Insured, and recommended that MD

begin substantially the same course of medically unnecessary “treatment” they 

recommended to virtually every other Insured. Then, on January 7, 2018, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen purported to provide MD with a ligament laxity test at Titan 

Wellness. However -- and in keeping with the fact that the ligament laxity test was 

medically unnecessary -- the “results” of the ligament laxity testing were never 

incorporated into MD’s supposed “treatment” plan, and MD thereafter received 

substantially the same treatment as had been recommended to MD prior to the 

ligament laxity testing being provided.

(v) On February 4, 2021, an Insured named MF was involved in an automobile 

accident. Thereafter, on February 23, 2021, MF presented to Titan Wellness for an 

initial examination by Nguyen. At the conclusion of the putative examination, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen provided MF with substantially the same soft tissue injury 

“diagnoses” they provided to virtually every Insured, and recommended that MF

begin substantially the same course of medically unnecessary “treatment” they 

recommended to virtually every other Insured. Then, on March 9, 2021, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen purported to provide MF with a ligament laxity test at Titan 

Wellness. However -- and in keeping with the fact that the ligament laxity test was 

medically unnecessary -- the “results” of the ligament laxity testing were never 

incorporated into MF’s supposed “treatment” plan, and MF thereafter received 

substantially the same treatment as had been recommended to MF prior to the 

ligament laxity testing being provided.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 50 of 101
51

184. These are only representative examples. In the claims identified in Exhibit “1”,

Titan Wellness and Nguyen routinely misrepresented the medical necessity of the putative 

ligament laxity testing.

185. In fact, the ligament laxity testing was never medically necessary, as Titan Wellness 

and Nguyen never incorporated the results of the putative “tests” into the diagnosis or treatment 

of the Insureds who presented to Titan Wellness.

5. The Fraudulent and Unlawful Charges for Physical Therapy and Chiropractic 

Treatment at Titan Wellness

186. In addition to their other Fraudulent Services, Titan Wellness and Nguyen virtually 

always purported to subject each of the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” to medically 

unnecessary physical therapy and chiropractic treatment and billed GEICO for the purported 

physical therapy and/or chiropractic services under CPT codes 97010, 97012, 97014, 97016, 

97035, 97110, 97112, 97140, 98941, and 98943.

187. Nguyen purported to perform or directly supervise virtually all of the purported

physical therapy and chiropractic services in the claims identified in Exhibit “1”.

188. Like Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s charges for the other Fraudulent Services, the 

charges for the purported physical therapy and chiropractic services were fraudulent in that they 

misrepresented Titan Wellness’ eligibility to collect PIP Benefits in the first instance.

189. In fact, and as set forth herein, Titan Wellness never was eligible to collect PIP 

Benefits, inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the licensing and operating requirements set 

forth in the Clinic Act, as well as the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback Statute.

190. The charges for the physical therapy and chiropractic services also were fraudulent 

in that they misrepresented the nature and medical necessity of the services. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 51 of 101
52

191. In a legitimate clinical setting, each individual patient’s physical therapy and/or 

chiropractic treatment schedule, and the specific treatment modalities that will be used, must be 

tailored to the specific patient’s circumstances, symptomatology, and presentation. 

192. In a legitimate clinical setting, the nature of, extent of, and schedule for physical 

therapy is constantly adjusted for each individual patient based on each patient’s treatment 

progress, as assessed during each patient’s follow-up examinations and on an ongoing basis as 

they receive the physical therapy.

193. In keeping with the fact that the purported physical therapy and chiropractic 

services that were billed through Titan Wellness to GEICO were not medically necessary, Titan 

Wellness and Nguyen did not tailor the chiropractic and physical therapy services they purported 

to provide to each Insured’s individual circumstances and presentment. 

194. There are a large number of individual types of physical therapy and chiropractic 

services that potentially can be provided to a patient, depending on the patient’s individual 

symptomatology and needs. 

195. However, Titan Wellness and Nguyen virtually always purported to provide the 

same handful of chiropractic and physical therapy “treatments” to virtually every Insured in the 

claims identified in Exhibit “1”, on substantially the same schedule, without regard for the 

Insureds’ individual circumstances. 

196. Specifically, Titan Wellness and Nguyen purported to provide the majority of 

Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibits “1” with one-to-two months of chiropractic and

physical therapy services, virtually always consisting of chiropractic adjustments, hot/cold pack 

application, mechanical traction, vasopneumatic devices, ultrasound, therapeutic exercises, 

neuromuscular reeducation, manual therapy, therapeutic activities, and electric stimulation. This, 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 52 of 101
53

despite the fact that the Insureds were differently situated, and could not possibly all have required 

a substantially-similar course of physical therapy treatment. 

6. The Fraudulent and Unlawful Charges for HME at Titan Wellness

197. As part of their fraudulent scheme, at the conclusion of their initial examinations, 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen purported to provide many Insureds with HME.

198. In particular, and as set forth in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen prescribed

many Insureds with HME -- namely, lumbar-sacral orthotics (“LSO”) -- and then billed GEICO 

for the LSOs under HCPCS code L0637, typically resulting in a charge of $1,932.00 for each LSO 

they supposedly provided.

199. Like Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s charges for the other Fraudulent Services, the 

charges for the LSOs were fraudulent in that they misrepresented Titan Wellness’ eligibility to 

collect PIP Benefits in the first instance.

200. In fact, and as set forth herein, Titan Wellness never was eligible to collect PIP 

Benefits, inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the licensing and operating requirements set 

forth in the Clinic Act, as well as the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback Statute.

201. The charges for the LSOs also misrepresented Titan Wellness’ eligibility to bill for 

HME, considering that Titan Wellness never complied with the Florida HME licensure 

requirements.

202. Moreover, Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s charges for the LSOs identified in Exhibit 

“1” also were fraudulent in that they misrepresented the medical necessity of the LSOs.

203. An LSO is a rigid, custom-fitted, lower-back brace designed to restrict the 

movement of the patient’s torso and support the patient’s lumbar spine. Because of its rigidity and 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 53 of 101
54

required placement on a patient’s lower back, an LSO must be custom-fitted in order for it to be 

properly utilized by the patient.

204. In a legitimate clinical setting, an LSO can be used for patients who exhibit spinal 

instability or for patients who have recently undergone spinal surgery.

205. Because LSOs are designed to limit a patient’s lumbar spine range of motion, the 

use of an LSO is inconsistent with treatment designed to restore and increase range of motion and 

functionality of the lumbar spine.

206. Along similar lines, use of an LSO is counterproductive to the goals of physical 

therapy and chiropractic treatment modalities, which seek to restore movement and functionality 

to the lumbar spine. 

207. In fact, the medically unnecessary use of an LSO -- and resulting immobilization 

of the lumbar spine -- may put the patient at considerable risk of weakening muscles or even 

muscle atrophy of muscles in the lower back.

208. Moreover, in a legitimate clinical setting, an LSO should not be prescribed to a 

patient before that patient failed a legitimate course of conservative treatment.

209. Virtually none of the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” suffered from 

spinal instability. In fact, virtually none of the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” 

suffered any serious injuries at all, much less health problems requiring spinal surgery and 

subsequent immobilization of their spine.

210. None of the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” had attempted and failed 

a legitimate course of conservative treatment prior to their receipt of an LSO from Titan Wellness 

and Nguyen.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 54 of 101
55

211. Even so, following their fraudulent initial examinations, boilerplate examination 

reports, and duplicative and medically-impossible diagnoses, Titan Wellness and Nguyen 

purported to prescribe many Insureds with an LSO, despite that fact that:

(i) virtually none of the Insureds suffered from spinal instability or were recovering 

from spinal surgery; 

(ii) the Insureds had not yet failed any legitimate course of conservative treatment and, 

in fact, were prescribed the LSO within days -- and, in some instances, the very 

same day -- of their minor accidents; 

(iii) neither Nguyen, nor any other individual associated with Titan Wellness, ever 

legitimately measured or fitted the device for the Insureds; and

(iv) the Insureds were supposedly receiving physical therapy and chiropractic treatment 

at Titan Wellness, supposedly for improving the range of motion and functionality 

of, among other things, the Insureds’ lumbar spines.

212. For example: 

(i) On December 17, 2017, an Insured named JR was involved in an automobile 

accident. On December 26, 2017, JR presented to Titan Wellness for an initial 

examination by Nguyen. At the conclusion of the purported initial examination, 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen prescribed JR with a medically unnecessary LSO, 

despite the fact that JR: (a) was never legitimately fitted for the device; (b) did not 

suffer from spinal instability and was not recovering from spinal surgery; (b) had 

not yet failed a legitimate course of conservative treatment, and, (c) in fact, was 

concomitantly referred by Nguyen for physical therapy and chiropractic treatment 

at Titan Wellness, the putative purpose of which was to increase, rather than 

decrease, JR’s range of motion. Titan Wellness and Nguyen then submitted a bill 

to GEICO under HCPCS code L0637, seeking reimbursement of $1,932.00 for the 

medically unnecessary LSO.

(ii) On November 28, 2018, an Insured named MB was involved in an automobile 

accident. On December 11, 2018, MB presented to Titan Wellness for an initial 

examination by Nguyen. At the conclusion of the purported initial examination, 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen prescribed MB with a medically unnecessary LSO, 

despite the fact that MB: (a) was never legitimately fitted for the device; (b) did not 

suffer from spinal instability and was not recovering from spinal surgery; (b) had 

not yet failed a legitimate course of conservative treatment, and, (c) in fact, was 

concomitantly referred by Nguyen for physical therapy and chiropractic treatment 

at Titan Wellness, the putative purpose of which was to increase, rather than 

decrease, MB’s range of motion. Titan Wellness and Nguyen then submitted a bill 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 55 of 101
56

to GEICO under HCPCS code L0637, seeking reimbursement of $1,932.00 for the 

medically unnecessary LSO.

(iii) On August 28, 2019, an Insured named JF was involved in an automobile accident. 

On September 4, 2019, JF presented to Titan Wellness for an initial examination 

by Nguyen. At the conclusion of the purported initial examination, Titan Wellness 

and Nguyen prescribed JF with a medically unnecessary LSO, despite the fact that 

JF: (a) was never legitimately fitted for the device; (b) did not suffer from spinal 

instability and was not recovering from spinal surgery; (b) had not yet failed a 

legitimate course of conservative treatment, and, (c) in fact, was concomitantly 

referred by Nguyen for physical therapy and chiropractic treatment at Titan 

Wellness, the putative purpose of which was to increase, rather than decrease, JF’s 

range of motion. Titan Wellness and Nguyen then submitted a bill to GEICO under 

HCPCS code L0637, seeking reimbursement of $1,932.00 for the medically 

unnecessary LSO.

(iv) On January 2, 2020, an Insured named JS was involved in an automobile accident. 

The next day, January 3, 2020, JS presented to Titan Wellness for an initial 

examination by Nguyen. At the conclusion of the purported initial examination, 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen prescribed JS with a medically unnecessary LSO, 

despite the fact that JS: (a) did not suffer from spinal instability and was not 

recovering from spinal surgery; (b) had not yet failed a legitimate course of 

conservative treatment, and, (c) in fact, was concomitantly referred by Nguyen for 

physical therapy and chiropractic treatment at Titan Wellness, the putative purpose 

of which was to increase, rather than decrease JS’s range of motion. Titan Wellness 

and Nguyen then submitted a bill to GEICO under HCPCS code L0637, seeking 

reimbursement of $1,932.00 for the medically unnecessary LSO. 

(v) On January 24, 2021, an Insured named MC was involved in an automobile 

accident. On January 27, 2021, MC presented to Titan Wellness for an initial 

examination by Nguyen. At the conclusion of the purported initial examination, 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen prescribed MC with a medically unnecessary LSO, 

despite the fact that MC: (a) was never legitimately fitted for the device; (b) did not 

suffer from spinal instability and was not recovering from spinal surgery; (b) had 

not yet failed a legitimate course of conservative treatment, and, (c) in fact, was 

concomitantly referred by Nguyen for physical therapy and chiropractic treatment 

at Titan Wellness, the putative purpose of which was to increase, rather than 

decrease, MC’s range of motion. Titan Wellness and Nguyen then submitted a bill 

to GEICO under HCPCS code L0637, seeking reimbursement of $1,932.00 for the 

medically unnecessary LSO.

213. These are only representative examples. In virtually all of the claims for LSOs 

identified in Exhibit “1”, Titan Wellness and Nguyen falsely represented that the prescribed LSOs 

were medically necessary, when in fact they were not.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 56 of 101
57

7. The Fraudulent and Unlawful Charges for Initial Examinations at Stein P.A.

214. After receiving a patient referral from Titan Wellness and Nguyen pursuant to the 

Defendants’ unlawful referral scheme, Stein and Stein P.A. purported to provide each of the 

Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “2” with a purported initial examination. 

215. Virtually all of the initial examinations in the claims identified in Exhibit “2” 

purportedly were performed either by Stein, or by Sachs under Stein’s supposed supervision. 

216. As set forth in Exhibit “2”, Stein P.A. and Stein then billed the initial examinations 

to GEICO, or caused them to be billed to GEICO, under CPT codes 99204 or 99205, typically 

resulting in a charge of between $350.00 and $450.00 for each initial examination that they 

purported to provide. 

217. Pursuant to the CPT Assistant, at all relevant times:

(i) the use of CPT code for 99204 to bill for an initial patient examination represented –

among other things – that: (a) the patient presented with problems of moderate to 

high severity; (b) the physician who conducted the examination spent at least 45

minutes of face-to-face time with the patient or the patient’s family during the 

examination; (c) the physician who performed the examination conducted a 

“comprehensive” physical examination; and (d) the physician who performed the 

examination engaged in “moderate complexity” medical decision-making.

(ii) the use of CPT code for 99205 to bill for an initial patient examination represented –

among other things – that: (a) the patient presented with problems of moderate to 

high severity; (b) the physician who conducted the examination spent at least 60 

minutes of face-to-face time with the patient or the patient’s family during the 

examination; (c) the physician who performed the examination conducted a 

“comprehensive” physical examination; and (d) the physician who performed the 

examination engaged in “high complexity” medical decision-making.

218. In the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “2”, the charges for the 

initial examinations were fraudulent in that they misrepresented Stein P.A.’s eligibility to collect 

PIP Benefits in the first instance.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 57 of 101
58

219. In fact, and as set forth herein, Stein P.A. never was eligible to collect PIP Benefits, 

inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the licensing and operating requirements set forth in 

the Clinic Act, as well as the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback Statute.

220. As set forth below, the charges for the initial examinations identified in Exhibit “2” 

also were fraudulent in that they misrepresented the nature, extent, and results of the initial 

examinations.

a. Misrepresentations Regarding the Severity of the Insureds’ Presenting Problems

221. To the extent that the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “2” had any 

presenting problems at all as the result of their typically-minor automobile accidents, the problems 

virtually always were low or minimal severity soft tissue injuries such as sprains and strains. 

222. Even so, when billing GEICO for initial examinations using CPT code 99204 or 

99205 in the claims identified in Exhibit “2”, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely represented that the 

Insureds presented with problems of moderate to high severity, when in fact the Insureds’ problems 

were low or minimal severity soft tissue injuries such as sprains and strains, to the limited extent that 

they had any presenting problems at all at the time of the examinations. 

223. For example:

(i) On September 21, 2018, an Insured named PJ was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that PJ’s vehicle was 

drivable following the accident. The police report further indicated that PJ was not 

injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that 

PJ was not seriously injured, PJ did not visit any hospital emergency room 

following the accident. To the extent that PJ experienced any health problems at 

all as a result of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity. Even so, 

following a purported initial examination of PJ on September 28, 2018, Stein P.A. 

and Stein billed GEICO for the initial examination using CPT code 99205, and 

thereby falsely represented that the initial examination involved presenting 

problems of moderate to high severity. 

(ii) On January 21, 2019, an Insured named MT was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that MT was not injured and 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 58 of 101
59

did not complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that MT was not 

seriously injured, MT did not visit any hospital emergency room following the 

accident. To the extent that MT experienced any health problems at all as a result 

of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity. Even so, following a 

purported initial examination of MT on February 28, 2019, Stein P.A. Stein, and 

Sachs billed GEICO for the initial examination using CPT code 99205, and thereby 

falsely represented that the initial examination involved presenting problems of 

moderate to high severity. 

(iii) On August 28, 2019, an Insured named JF was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to JF’s vehicle, that there was minor damage 

to the other vehicle, and that JF’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The 

police report further indicated that JF was not injured and did not complain of any 

pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that JF was not seriously injured, JF did 

not visit any hospital emergency room following the accident. To the extent that 

JF experienced any health problems at all as a result of the accident, they were of 

low or minimal severity. Even so, following a purported initial examination of JF

by Sachs on September 10, 2019, Stein P.A. Stein, and Sachs billed GEICO for the

initial examination using CPT code 99205, and thereby falsely represented that the 

initial examination involved presenting problems of moderate to high severity. 

(iv) On January 2, 2020, an Insured named JS was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to the vehicles involved in the accident, and 

that JS’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The police report further 

indicated that JS was not injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In 

keeping with the fact that JS was not seriously injured, JS did not visit any hospital 

emergency room following the accident. To the extent that JS experienced any 

health problems at all as a result of the accident, they were of low or minimal 

severity. Even so, following a purported initial examination of JS by Sachs on 

January 9, 2020, Stein P.A. Stein, and Sachs billed GEICO for the initial 

examination using CPT code 99205, and thereby falsely represented that the initial 

examination involved presenting problems of moderate to high severity. 

(v) On September 9, 2020, an Insured named MA was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that MA was not injured 

and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that MA

was not seriously injured, MA did not visit any hospital emergency room following 

the accident. To the extent that MA experienced any health problems at all as a 

result of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity. Even so, following a 

purported initial examination of MA by Sachs on September 16, 2020, Stein P.A., 

Stein, and Sachs billed GEICO for the initial examination using CPT code 99205, 

and thereby falsely represented that the initial examination involved presenting 

problems of moderate to high severity. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 59 of 101
60

224. These are only representative examples. In the claims for initial examinations 

identified in Exhibit “2”, Stein P.A. and Stein virtually always falsely represented that the Insureds 

presented with problems of moderate to high severity in order to: (i) create a false basis for their 

charges for the examinations under CPT codes 99204 and 99205, because examinations billable 

under CPT codes 99204 and 99205 are reimbursable at higher rates than examinations involving 

presenting problems of low severity, minimal severity, or no severity; and (ii) create a false basis 

for the other Fraudulent Services that the Defendants purported to provide to the Insureds.

b. Misrepresentations Regarding the Extent of Medical Decision-Making

225. Moreover, in the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “2”, when 

Stein P.A. and Stein billed GEICO for the purported examinations using CPT code 99204, they

falsely represented that the physicians or health care providers who purported to conduct the 

examinations -- namely Stein and Sachs -- engaged in some legitimate, moderate complexity medical 

decision-making in connection with the examinations. 

226. When Stein P.A. and Stein billed GEICO for the purported initial examinations

using CPT code 99205, they falsely represented that the physicians or health care providers who 

purported to conduct the examinations -- i.e., Stein and Sachs -- engaged in some legitimate, high

complexity medical decision-making in connection with the examinations. 

227. In actuality, the purported initial examinations did not involve any legitimate 

medical decision-making at all.

228. Rather, in the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “2”: (i) the initial 

examinations did not involve the retrieval, review, or analysis of any meaningful amount of 

medical records, diagnostic tests, or other information; (ii) there was no risk of significant 

complications or morbidity -- much less mortality -- from the Insureds’ minor soft-tissue injury 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 60 of 101
61

complaints, to the extent that they ever had any complaints arising from automobile accidents at 

all; and (iii) Stein P.A., Stein, and Sachs did not consider any significant number of diagnoses or 

treatment options for Insureds during the initial examinations, and provided a substantially similar, 

pre-determined sprain/strain or similar soft tissue injury “diagnoses” for every Insured, regardless 

of their true individual circumstances or presentation.

229. For example:

(i) On January 21, 2019, an Insured named MT was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that MT was not injured and 

did not complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that MT was not 

seriously injured, MT did not visit any hospital emergency room following the 

accident. To the extent that MT experienced any health problems at all as a result 

of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity. On February 28, 2019, Sachs 

purported to conduct an initial examination of MT at Stein P.A. To the extent that 

Sachs performed the examination in the first instance, Sachs did not retrieve, 

review, or analyze any significant amount of medical records, diagnostic tests, or 

other information in connection with the examination. Moreover, Sachs did not 

consider any significant number of diagnoses or management options in connection 

with the examination. Instead, Sachs provided MT with the same, phony, list of 

objectively unverifiable soft tissue injury “diagnoses” that she provided to virtually 

every other Insured. Furthermore, neither MT’s presenting problems, nor the 

treatment plan provided to MT by Stein P.A., Stein, and Sachs presented any risk 

of significant complications, morbidity, or mortality. To the contrary, MT did not 

need any significant treatment at all as a result of the accident, and the treatment 

plan provided by Stein P.A., Stein, and Sachs consisted of medically unnecessary 

chiropractic services, as well as pain management injections, none of which – if 

properly performed – posed the least bit of risk to MT did. Even so, Stein P.A. and

Stein billed GEICO for the initial examination using CPT code 99205, and thereby 

falsely represented that Sachs engaged in some legitimate, high complexity medical 

decision-making during the purported examination. 

(ii) On August 28, 2019, an Insured named JF was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to JF’s vehicle, that there was minor damage 

to the other vehicle, and that JF’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The 

police report further indicated that JF was not injured and did not complain of any 

pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that JF was not seriously injured, JF did 

not visit any hospital emergency room following the accident. To the extent that 

JF experienced any health problems at all as the result of the accident, they were of 

low or minimal severity. On September 10, 2019, Stein purported to conduct an 

initial examination of JF at Stein P.A. To the extent that Stein performed the 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 61 of 101
62

examination in the first instance, Stein did not retrieve, review, or analyze any 

significant amount of medical records, diagnostic tests, or other information in 

connection with the examination. Moreover, Stein did not consider any significant 

number of diagnoses or management options in connection with the examination. 

Instead, Stein provided JF with the same, phony, list of objectively unverifiable soft 

tissue injury “diagnoses” that he provided to virtually every other Insured. 

Furthermore, neither JF’s presenting problems, nor the treatment plan provided to 

JF by Stein P.A. and Stein presented any risk of significant complications, 

morbidity, or mortality. To the contrary, JF did not need any significant treatment 

at all as a result of the accident, and the treatment plan provided by Stein P.A. and 

Stein consisted of medically unnecessary chiropractic services, which did not pose 

the least bit of risk to JF. Even so, Stein P.A. and Stein billed GEICO for the initial 

examination using CPT code 99205, and thereby falsely represented that Stein 

engaged in some legitimate, high complexity medical decision-making during the 

purported examination. 

(iii) On January 2, 2020, an Insured named JS was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that the accident was a rear-end 

collision, that there was minor damage to the vehicles involved in the accident, and 

that JS’s vehicle was drivable following the accident. The police report further 

indicated that JS was not injured and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In 

keeping with the fact that JS was not seriously injured, JS did not visit any hospital 

emergency room following the accident. To the extent that JS experienced any 

health problems at all as a result of the accident, they were of low or minimal 

severity. On January 9, 2020, Sachs purported to conduct an initial examination of 

JS at Stein P.A. To the extent that Stein performed the examination in the first 

instance, Sachs did not retrieve, review, or analyze any significant amount of 

medical records, diagnostic tests, or other information in connection with the 

examination. Moreover, Stein did not consider any significant number of diagnoses 

or management options in connection with the examination. Instead, Sachs

provided JS with the same, phony, list of objectively unverifiable soft tissue injury 

“diagnoses” that she provided to virtually every other Insured. Furthermore, neither 

JS’s presenting problems, nor the treatment plan provided to JS by Stein P.A., Stein, 

and Sachs presented any risk of significant complications, morbidity, or mortality. 

To the contrary, JS did not need any significant treatment at all as a result of the 

accident, and the treatment plan provided by Stein P.A., Stein, and Sachs consisted 

of medically unnecessary chiropractic services, which did not pose the least bit of 

risk to JS. Even so, Stein P.A. and Stein billed GEICO for the initial examination 

using CPT code 99205, and thereby falsely represented that Sachs engaged in some 

legitimate, high complexity medical decision-making during the purported 

examination. 

(iv) On September 9, 2020, an Insured named MA was involved in an automobile 

accident. The contemporaneous police report indicated that MA was not injured 

and did not complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that MA

was not seriously injured, MA did not visit any hospital emergency room following 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 62 of 101
63

the accident. To the extent that MA experienced any health problems at all as a 

result of the accident, they were of low or minimal severity. On September 16, 

2020, Sachs purported to conduct an initial examination of MA at Stein P.A. To the 

extent that Sachs performed the examination in the first instance, Sachs did not 

retrieve, review, or analyze any significant amount of medical records, diagnostic 

tests, or other information in connection with the examination. Moreover, Sachs

did not consider any significant number of diagnoses or management options in 

connection with the examination. Instead, Sachs provided MA with the same, 

phony, list of objectively unverifiable soft tissue injury “diagnoses” that she 

provided to virtually every other Insured. Furthermore, neither MA’s presenting 

problems, nor the treatment plan provided to MA by Stein P.A., Stein, and Sachs 

presented any risk of significant complications, morbidity, or mortality. To the 

contrary, MA did not need any significant treatment at all as a result of the accident, 

and the treatment plan provided by Stein P.A., Stein, and Sachs consisted of 

medically unnecessary chiropractic and physical therapy services, as well as pain 

management injections, none of which –if properly performed – posed the least bit 

of risk to MA. Even so, Stein P.A., Stein, and Sachs billed GEICO for the initial 

examination using CPT code 99205, and thereby falsely represented that Sachs 

engaged in some legitimate, high complexity medical decision-making during the 

purported examination. 

(v) On January 28, 2021, an Insured named JP was involved in an automobile accident. 

The contemporaneous police report indicated that JP was not injured and did not 

complain of any pain at the scene. In keeping with the fact that JP was not seriously 

injured, JP did not visit any hospital emergency room following the accident. To 

the extent that JP experienced any health problems at all as a result of the accident, 

they were of low or minimal severity. On February 4, 2021, Stein purported to 

conduct an initial examination of JP at Stein P.A. To the extent that Stein performed 

the examination in the first instance, Stein did not retrieve, review, or analyze any 

significant amount of medical records, diagnostic tests, or other information in 

connection with the examination. Moreover, Stein did not consider any significant 

number of diagnoses or management options in connection with the examination. 

Instead, Stein provided JP with the same, phony, list of objectively unverifiable soft 

tissue injury “diagnoses” that he provided to virtually every other Insured. 

Furthermore, neither JP’s presenting problems, nor the treatment plan provided to 

JP by Stein P.A. and Stein presented any risk of significant complications, 

morbidity, or mortality. To the contrary, JP did not need any significant treatment 

at all as a result of the accident, and the treatment plan provided by Stein P.A. and

Stein consisted of medically unnecessary chiropractic and physical therapy 

services, none of which –if properly performed – posed the least bit of risk to JP. 

Even so, Stein P.A. and Stein billed GEICO for the initial examination using CPT 

code 99205, and thereby falsely represented that Stein engaged in some legitimate, 

high complexity medical decision-making during the purported examination. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 63 of 101
64 

230. In keeping with the fact that these putative “diagnoses” were pre-determined and 

phony, Stein P.A. and Stein frequently issued substantially identical, phony “diagnoses”, on or 

about the same date, to two or more Insureds who had been involved in the same underlying 

accident, and recommended a substantially identical course of medically unnecessary “treatment” 

to the Insureds, despite the fact that they were differently situated. 

For example:

(i) On December 29, 2016, three Insureds – JS, RV, and XV – were involved in the 

same automobile accident. Thereafter – incredibly – all three Insureds presented at 

Stein P.A. for initial examinations on the exact same date, January 9, 2017. JS, RV, 

and XV were different ages, in different physical conditions, located in different 

positions in the vehicle, and experienced the impact from different positions in the 

vehicle. To the extent that JS, RV, and XV suffered any injuries at all in their 

accident, the injuries were different. Even so, at the conclusion of the purported 

initial examinations, Stein P.A. and Stein provided JS, RV, and XV with 

substantially identical, phony soft tissue injury “diagnoses”, and recommended a 

substantially identical course of medically unnecessary treatment to all three of 

them.

(ii) On September 11, 2018, two Insureds – NG and MO – were involved in the same 

automobile accident. Thereafter – incredibly – both Insureds presented at Stein P.A. 

for initial examinations on the exact same date, September 18, 2019. NG and MO

were different ages, in different physical conditions, located in different positions 

in the vehicle, and experienced the impact from different positions in the vehicle. 

To the extent that NG and MO suffered any injuries at all in their accident, the 

injuries were different. Even so, at the conclusion of the purported initial 

examinations, Stein P.A. and Stein provided NG and MO with substantially 

identical, phony soft tissue injury “diagnoses”, and recommended a substantially 

identical course of medically unnecessary treatment to both of them. 

(iii) On April 20, 2019, two Insureds – KF and TF – were involved in the same 

automobile accident. Thereafter – incredibly – both Insureds presented at Stein P.A. 

for initial examinations on the exact same date, April 25, 2019. KF and TF were 

different ages, in different physical conditions, located in different positions in the 

vehicle, and experienced the impact from different positions in the vehicle. To the 

extent that KF and TF suffered any injuries at all in their accident, the injuries were 

different. Even so, at the conclusion of the purported initial examinations, Stein 

P.A. and Stein provided KF and TF with substantially identical, phony soft tissue 

injury “diagnoses”, and recommended a substantially identical course of medically 

unnecessary treatment to both of them. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 64 of 101
65 

(iv) On February 14, 2021 two Insureds – GC and LC – were involved in the same 

automobile accident. Thereafter – incredibly – both Insureds presented at Stein P.A. 

for initial examinations on the exact same date, March 8, 2021. GC and LC were 

different ages, in different physical conditions, located in different positions in the 

vehicle, and experienced the impact from different positions in the vehicle. To the 

extent that GC and LC suffered any injuries at all in their accident, the injuries were 

different. Even so, at the conclusion of the purported initial examinations, Stein 

P.A. and Stein provided GC and LC with substantially identical, phony soft tissue 

injury “diagnoses”, and recommended a substantially identical course of medically 

unnecessary treatment to both of them. 

(v) On March 27, 2021, two Insureds – BB and EB – were involved in the same 

automobile accident. Thereafter – incredibly – both Insureds presented at Stein P.A. 

for initial examinations on the exact same date, April 23, 2021. BB and EB were 

different ages, in different physical conditions, located in different positions in the 

vehicle, and experienced the impact from different positions in the vehicle. To the 

extent that BB and EB suffered any injuries at all in their accident, the injuries were 

different. Even so, at the conclusion of the purported initial examinations, Stein 

P.A. and Stein provided BB and EB with substantially identical, phony soft tissue 

injury “diagnoses”, and recommended a substantially identical course of medically 

unnecessary treatment to both of them. 

231. These are only representative examples. In the claims for initial examinations that 

are identified in Exhibit “2”, Stein P.A. and Stein frequently issued substantially identical

“diagnoses”, on or about the same date, to more than one Insured involved in a single accident, 

and recommended a substantially identical course of medically unnecessary “treatment” to the 

Insureds, despite the fact that the Insureds were differently situated and, in any case, did not require 

the treatment. 

232. Stein P.A. and Stein routinely inserted these false “diagnoses” in their initial 

examination reports in order to create the false impression that the initial examinations required 

some legitimate medical decision-making, and in order to create a false justification for the other 

Fraudulent Services that the Defendants purported to provide to the Insureds. 

233. In the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “2”, Stein P.A. and Stein

routinely falsely represented that the putative examinations involved legitimate, moderate or high 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 65 of 101
66

complexity medical decision making in order to create a false basis to bill for the initial 

examinations under CPT codes 99204 and 99205, because examinations billable under CPT codes 

99204 and 99205 are reimbursable at a higher rate than examinations or examinations that do not 

require any complex medical decision-making at all.

234. In this context, Stein -- who at all relevant times purported to own Stein P.A. -- did 

not, and could not have, legitimately supervised the business activities of Stein P.A.

235. Had Stein actually supervised the business activities of Stein P.A., he would have 

noted -- among other things -- that Stein P.A.’s billing routinely fraudulently misrepresented that 

the putative initial examinations were legitimately and lawfully performed.

236. Stein failed to do so, because he never actually supervised the business activities of 

Stein P.A.

237. In the claims for initial examinations identified in Exhibit “1”, Stein P.A. and Stein

routinely fraudulently misrepresented that the examinations were lawfully provided and eligible 

for PIP reimbursement, when in fact they were neither lawfully provided nor reimbursable, 

because:

(i) the putative examinations were illusory, with outcomes that were pre-determined 

to result in substantially identical, phony “diagnoses” and treatment 

recommendations, regardless of the Insureds’ true individual circumstances and 

presentation; 

(ii) the charges for the putative examinations misrepresented the nature, extent, and 

results of the examinations; and 

(iii) Stein P.A. never was eligible to collect PIP Benefits in connection with the 

examinations in the first instance, inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the 

Clinic Act, Patient Brokering Act, and Anti-Kickback Statute. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 66 of 101
67

c. The Fraudulent and Unbundled Charges for Muscle Strength Testing, “Self Care 

Training”, and “Community/Work Reintegration Training”

238. To maximize their fraudulent charges for their phony initial examinations, in the 

claims identified in Exhibit “2” Stein and Stein P.A. frequently submitted separate charges for 

medically useless and illusory muscle strength testing under CPT codes 95851 and 97750, “self 

care training” under CPT code 97535, and “community/work reintegration training” under CPT 

code 97537, together with their examination charges under CPT codes 99204 or 99205. 

239. Either Stein, or Sachs working under Stein’s purported direct supervision, 

purported to perform virtually all of the purported muscle strength testing, self-care training, and 

community/work reintegration training in the claims identified in Exhibit “2”.

240. Like Stein and Stein P.A.’s charges for the other Fraudulent Services, the charges 

for the purported muscle strength testing, self-care training, and community/work reintegration 

training were fraudulent in that they misrepresented Stein P.A.’s eligibility to collect PIP Benefits 

in the first instance.

241. In fact, and as set forth herein, Stein P.A. never was eligible to collect PIP Benefits, 

inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the licensing and operating requirements set forth in 

the Clinic Act, as well as the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback Statute.

242. The charges for the purported muscle strength testing, self-care training, and 

community/work reintegration training in the claims identified in Exhibit “1” also misrepresented 

the nature, extent, and medical necessity of the supposed services. 

243. Physical examinations performed on patients with soft-tissue trauma necessarily 

require muscle strength tests, inasmuch as these tests provide a starting point for injury assessment 

and treatment planning. Unless a physician knows the extent of a given patient’s muscle strength 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 67 of 101
68

impairment, there is no way to properly diagnose or treat the patient’s injuries. Evaluation of 

muscle strength is an essential component of the “hands-on” examination of a trauma patient. 

244. Since muscle strength tests must be conducted as an element of a soft-tissue trauma 

patient’s examination, muscle strength tests are to be reimbursed as an element of the examination.

245. In other words, healthcare providers cannot conduct and bill for an initial 

examination or follow-up examination, then bill separately for contemporaneously-provided 

muscle strength tests.

246. To the extent that Stein P.A. and Stein actually provided patent examinations in the 

first instance, Stein P.A., Stein, and/or Sachs purported to conduct muscle strength tests on 

Insureds during the examinations.

247. Despite the fact that their charges for the muscle strength tests were part and parcel 

of the charges that were submitted through Stein P.A. for purported initial examinations under CPT 

codes 99204 and 99205, Stein P.A. and Stein routinely submitted separate charges for purported 

muscle strength testing under CPT codes 95831 and 97750, and thereby falsely represented that 

they had performed some muscle strength testing that constituted a separate service from the initial 

examinations that they contemporaneously purported to provide. 

248. Stein P.A. and Stein’s charges for purported self-care training and community/work 

reintegration training also falsely represented that they had provided at least 15 minutes of 

separately-identifiable training to the Insureds regarding “self-care” or “community/work 

reintegration”, beyond the initial examination service that was contemporaneously billed under 

CPT code 99205. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 68 of 101
69

d. Misrepresentations of the Treatment Location for the Purported Examinations

249. To the extent that Stein and Stein P.A. actually provided any of the examinations 

identified in Exhibit “2” at all, they provided the examinations at Titan Wellness’ offices in Fort 

Myers, Florida, pursuant to the Defendants’ unlawful kickback and referral scheme. 

250. The Defendants were concerned that, if Stein and Stein P.A. accurately listed Titan 

Wellness’ offices as the treatment location for the examinations, it would draw attention to their 

unlawful referral scheme. 

251. Accordingly, in each of the claims for initial examinations that are identified in 

Exhibit “2”, Stein P.A. and Stein falsely represented that the examinations had been provided at 

Stein P.A.’s offices, rather than at Titan Wellness’ offices. 

252. Stein and Stein P.A.’s false representations that the examinations had been 

performed at Stein P.A.’s offices violated the No-Fault Laws, which require that PIP bills 

accurately set forth the locations where the underlying services were performed. 

8. The Fraudulently Unbundled Charges for Range of Motion and Muscle Strength 

Testing at ISO-Diagnostics

253. After receiving a patient referral from Stein and Stein P.A. pursuant to the 

Defendants’ unlawful referral scheme, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein purported to provide 

the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “3” with purported range of motion testing and 

additional muscle strength testing. 

254. Virtually all of the purported range of motion testing and additional muscle strength 

testing in the claims identified in Exhibit “3” supposedly were performed by Poncev at Titan 

Wellness’ offices, under Stein’s supposed supervision. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 69 of 101
70

255. As set forth in Exhibit “3”, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein then billed the range 

of motion and muscle strength tests to GEICO, or caused them to be billed to GEICO, under CPT 

codes 95831, 95832, and 95851, typically resulting in a hundreds of dollars in charges per Insured.

256. The charges for the purported range of motion and muscle strength tests were 

fraudulent in that they misrepresented ISO-Diagnostics’ eligibility to collect PIP Benefits in the 

first instance.

257. In fact, and as set forth herein, ISO-Diagnostics never was eligible to collect PIP 

Benefits, inasmuch as it was operated in violation of the licensing and operating requirements set 

forth in the Clinic Act, as well as the Patient Brokering Act and Anti-Kickback Statute.

258. The charges for the purported range of motion and muscle strength tests also were 

fraudulent in that they misrepresented the nature and medical necessity of the tests. 

259. Physical examinations performed on patients with soft-tissue trauma necessarily 

require range of motion and muscle strength tests, inasmuch as these tests provide a starting point 

for injury assessment and treatment planning. Unless a physician knows the extent of a given 

patient’s joint or muscle strength impairment, there is no way to properly diagnose or treat the 

patient’s injuries. Evaluation of range of motion and muscle strength is an essential component of 

the “hands-on” examination of a trauma patient. 

260. All of the Insureds in the claims identified in Exhibit “3” supposedly received range 

of motion and muscle strength testing during each of the initial and follow-up examinations 

provided by Titan Wellness and Nguyen, and during each of the initial examinations provided by 

Stein P.A. and Stein.

261. The charges for the range of motion and muscle strength tests were part and parcel 

of the charges that were submitted through Titan Wellness for purported examinations under CPT 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 70 of 101
71

codes 99203, 99213, and 99214, and through Stein P.A. for purported examinations under CPT codes 

99204 and 99205. 

262. Despite the fact that virtually every Insured already purportedly had undergone range 

of motion and muscle strength testing during their contemporaneously-provided initial examinations

and/or follow-up examinations, Stein P.A. and Stein nonetheless referred the Insureds in the claims 

identified in Exhibit “3” to ISO-Diagnostics for medically useless, range of motion and muscle 

strength testing, pursuant to the Defendants’ unlawful referral scheme. 

263. Not only did ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein deliberately purport to provide 

duplicative, medically unnecessary range of motion tests, they also unbundled their billing for 

range of motion and muscle strength testing, which maximized the fraudulent charges that they 

could submit to GEICO. 

264. Pursuant to the CPT Assistant, when range of motion testing and muscle strength 

testing are performed on the same date of service, all of the testing should be reported and billed 

using CPT code 97750.

265. CPT code 97750, described as “Physical performance test or measurement (e.g., 

musculoskeletal, functional capacity), with written report, each 15 minutes” (the “Physical 

Performance Test”), identifies a number of tests and measurements of physical performance of a 

select area or number of areas, including range of motion and muscle strength testing. 

266. CPT code 97750 is a “time-based” code that that allows for a separate charge for 

every 15 minutes of testing that is performed.

267. Thus, if a health care provider performed 15 minutes of range of motion and muscle 

testing, it would be permitted a single charge under CPT code 97750. If the provider performed 30 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 71 of 101
72

minutes of range of motion and muscle testing, it would be permitted to submit two charges under 

CPT code 97750, and so forth.

268. In the claims for range of motion and muscle strength testing that are identified in 

Exhibit “3”, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein routinely purported to provide the range of 

motion and muscle strength testing to individual Insureds on the same dates of service. 

269. To the extent that ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein actually provided the range 

of motion and muscle tests to Insureds in the first instance, the range of motion and muscle tests 

-- together -- virtually never took more than 15 minutes to perform. Thus, even if the range of 

motion and muscle tests that ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein purported to provide were 

medically necessary, and performed in the first instance, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein 

would be limited to a single, time-based charge under CPT code 97750 for each date of service on 

which they performed range of motion and muscle tests on an Insured. 

270. However, in order to maximize their fraudulent billing for the range of motion and 

muscle tests, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein routinely unbundled what should have been -- at 

most -- a single charge under CPT code 97750 for both computerized range of motion and muscle 

testing into: (i) multiple charge under CPT codes 95831 and 95832 (for the muscle tests); and (ii) 

multiple charges under CPT code 95851 (for the range of motion tests). 

271. By unbundling what should -- at most -- have been a single charge under CPT code 

97750 into multiple charges under CPT codes 95851, 95831, and 95832, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, 

and Stein routinely further inflated the fraudulent range of motion and muscle strength tests 

charges that they submitted to GEICO.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 72 of 101
73 

III. The Fraudulent Claims the Defendants Submitted or Caused to be Submitted to 

GEICO

272. To support their fraudulent charges, the Defendants systematically submitted or 

caused to be submitted thousands of bills and treatment reports through Titan Wellness, ISODiagnostics, and Stein P.A. to GEICO, containing thousands of individual charges, seeking 

payment for the Fraudulent Services for which the Defendants were not entitled to receive 

payment. 

273. The claims that the Defendants submitted or caused to be submitted to GEICO were 

false and misleading in the following, material respects:

(i) The HCFA-1500 forms and treatment reports submitted or caused to be submitted 

by the Defendants uniformly misrepresented to GEICO that Titan Wellness, ISODiagnostics, and Stein P.A. were in compliance with Florida law and therefore were 

eligible to collect PIP Benefits in the first instance. In fact, Titan Wellness, ISODiagnostics, and Stein P.A. were never eligible for collect PIP Benefits in the first 

instance because: (a) Titan Wellness, ISO-Diagnostics, and Stein P.A. operated in 

violation of the Clinic Act; (b) Titan Wellness, ISO-Diagnostics, and Stein P.A. 

operated in violation of the Patient Brokering Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute; 

and (c) Titan Wellness operated in violation of the HME Licensing Laws. 

(ii) The HCFA-1500 forms and treatment reports submitted or caused to be submitted 

by the Defendants uniformly misrepresented to GEICO that the Fraudulent Services 

were lawfully provided and eligible for PIP reimbursement. In fact, the Fraudulent 

Services were not lawfully provided, and were not eligible for PIP reimbursement, 

because they were provided -- to the extent that they were provided at all -- pursuant 

to the Defendants’ unlawful referral scheme, and were medically unnecessary. 

(iii) The HCFA-1500 forms and treatment reports submitted or caused to be submitted 

by the Defendants uniformly misrepresented to GEICO that the Fraudulent Services 

were medically necessary and, in many cases, misrepresented to GEICO that the 

Fraudulent Services actually were performed. In fact, the Fraudulent Services 

frequently were not performed at all and, to the extent that they were performed, 

they were not medically necessary and were performed as part of a pre-determined 

fraudulent treatment and billing protocol designed solely to financially enrich the 

Defendants, not to benefit the Insureds who supposedly were subjected to them. 

(iv) The HCFA-1500 forms reports submitted by and on behalf of the Defendants 

frequently misrepresented and exaggerated the level of the Fraudulent Services and 

the nature of the Fraudulent Services that purportedly were provided. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 73 of 101
74 

IV. The Defendants’ Fraudulent Concealment and GEICO’s Justifiable Reliance

274. The Defendants were legally and ethically obligated to act honestly and with 

integrity in connection with their performance of the Fraudulent Services and their submission of 

charges to GEICO. Even so, the Defendants knowingly misrepresented and concealed facts related 

to Titan Wellness, ISO-Diagnostics, and Stein P.A. in an effort to prevent discovery that the 

Defendants operated in pervasive violation of the Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, the AntiKickback Statute, and to prevent discovery that the Fraudulent Services were medically 

unnecessary and, in many cases, illusory. 

275. GEICO is under statutory and contractual obligations to promptly and fairly process 

claims within 30 days. The facially-valid documents submitted to GEICO in support of the 

fraudulent charges at issue, combined with the material misrepresentations and acts of concealment 

described above, were designed to and did cause GEICO to rely upon them. As a result, GEICO 

has incurred damages of more than $2,800,000.00. 

276. GEICO did not discover and could not reasonably have discovered that its damages 

were attributable to fraud until shortly before it commenced this action. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Titan Wellness

(Declaratory Judgment -- 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202) 

277. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above. 

278. There is an actual case in controversy between GEICO and Titan Wellness 

regarding more than $75,000.00 in pending fraudulent claims for the Fraudulent Services that have 

been submitted to GEICO. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 74 of 101
75 

279. Titan Wellness has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because it was unlawfully operated in violation of the Clinic Act, HME Licensing laws, 

Patient Brokering Act, and the Anti-Kickback statute.

280. Titan Wellness has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because the underlying Fraudulent Services were not lawfully provided or billed to 

GEICO.

281. Titan Wellness has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because the underlying Fraudulent Services were not medically necessary and were 

provided -- to the extent that they were provided at all -- pursuant to pre-determined fraudulent 

protocols designed solely to financially enrich the Defendants, rather than to treat or otherwise 

benefit the Insureds who purportedly were subjected to them. 

282. Titan Wellness has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because, in many cases, the Fraudulent Services never were provided in the first instance.

283. Titan Wellness has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because the billing codes used for the underlying Fraudulent Services misrepresented and 

exaggerated the level of services that purportedly were provided in order to inflate the charges 

submitted to GEICO.

284. Accordingly, GEICO requests a judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment 

Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, declaring that Titan Wellness has no right to receive payment 

for any pending bills submitted to GEICO. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Nguyen

(Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c))

285. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 75 of 101
76

286. Titan Wellness is an ongoing “enterprise,” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 

1961(4), that engages in activities that affect interstate commerce.

287. Nguyen knowingly has conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the 

conduct of Titan Wellness’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of repeated 

violations of the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, based upon the use of the United 

States mails to submit or cause to be submitted thousands of fraudulent charges on a continuous 

basis for over four years seeking payments that Titan Wellness was not eligible to receive under 

the No-Fault Law because: (i) Titan Wellness unlawfully was operated in violation of the Clinic 

Act, the Patient Brokering Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the HME Licensing Laws; (ii) the 

underlying Fraudulent Services were not lawfully provided; (iii) the underlying Fraudulent Services 

were not medically necessary and were provided -- to the extent that they were provided at all --

pursuant to a pre-determined fraudulent protocol designed solely to financially enrich the 

Defendants, rather than to treat or otherwise benefit the Insureds who purportedly were subjected 

to them; (iv) in many cases, the Fraudulent Services never were provided in the first instance; and 

(v) the billing codes used for the underlying Fraudulent Services misrepresented and exaggerated 

the level of services that purportedly were provided in order to inflate the charges submitted to 

GEICO.

288. A representative sample of the fraudulent bills and corresponding mailings 

submitted to GEICO that comprise, in part, the pattern of racketeering activity identified through 

the date of this Complaint are described, in part, in the chart annexed hereto as Exhibit “1”.

289. Titan Wellness’s business is racketeering activity, inasmuch as the enterprise exists 

for the purpose of submitting fraudulent charges to insurers. The predicate acts of mail fraud are 

the regular way in which Nguyen operated Titan Wellness, inasmuch as Titan Wellness was not 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 76 of 101
77 

engaged in a legitimate health care practice, and acts of mail fraud therefore were essential in order 

for Titan Wellness to function. Furthermore, the intricate planning required to carry out and 

conceal the predicate acts of mail fraud implies a threat of continued criminal activity, as does the 

fact that the Defendants continue to attempt collection on the fraudulent billing submitted through 

Titan Wellness to the present day.

290. Titan Wellness is engaged in inherently unlawful acts, inasmuch as it continues to 

submit and attempt collection on fraudulent billing submitted to GEICO and other insurers. These 

inherently unlawful acts are taken by Titan Wellness in pursuit of inherently unlawful goals --

namely, the theft of money from GEICO and other insurers through fraudulent no-fault billing. 

291. GEICO has been injured in its business and property by reason of the abovedescribed conduct in that it has paid at least $1,300,000.00 pursuant to the fraudulent bills 

submitted through Titan Wellness. 

292. By reason of its injury, GEICO is entitled to treble damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Nguyen, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, Stein P.A., and Stein

(Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) 

293. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above. 

294. Titan Wellness is an ongoing “enterprise,” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 

1961(4), that engages in activities that affected interstate commerce.

295. Nguyen, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, Stein P.A., and Stein are employed by or 

associated with the Titan Wellness enterprise.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 77 of 101
78

296. Nguyen, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, Stein P.A., and Stein knowingly have agreed, 

combined and conspired to conduct and/or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of Titan 

Wellness’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of repeated violations of 

the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, based upon the use of the United States mails to 

submit or cause to be submitted thousands of fraudulent charges on a continuous basis for over 

four years seeking payments that Titan Wellness was not eligible to receive under the No-Fault 

Law because: (i) Titan Wellness unlawfully was operated in violation of the Clinic Act, the Patient 

Brokering Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the HME Licensing Laws; (ii) the underlying 

Fraudulent Services were not lawfully provided; (iii) the underlying Fraudulent Services were not 

medically necessary and were provided -- to the extent that they were provided at all -- pursuant 

to a pre-determined fraudulent protocol designed solely to financially enrich the Defendants, rather 

than to treat or otherwise benefit the Insureds who purportedly were subjected to them; (iv) in 

many cases, the Fraudulent Services never were provided in the first instance; and (v) the billing 

codes used for the underlying Fraudulent Services misrepresented and exaggerated the level of 

services that purportedly were provided in order to inflate the charges submitted to GEICO.

297. A representative sample of the fraudulent bills and corresponding mailings 

submitted to GEICO that comprise, in part, the pattern of racketeering activity identified through 

the date of this Complaint are described, in part, in the chart annexed hereto as Exhibit “1”. Each 

such mailing was made in furtherance of the mail fraud scheme.

298. Nguyen, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, Stein P.A., and Stein knew of, agreed to and 

acted in furtherance of the common and overall objective (i.e., to defraud GEICO and other 

automobile insurers of money) by submitting or facilitating the submission of the fraudulent 

charges to GEICO. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 78 of 101
79 

299. GEICO has been injured in its business and property by reason of the abovedescribed conduct in that it has paid at least $1,300,000.00 pursuant to the fraudulent bills 

submitted through the Titan Wellness enterprise.

300. By reason of its injury, GEICO is entitled to treble damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Titan Wellness and Nguyen

(Under Fla. Stat. 501.201 et. seq.) 

301. GEICO incorporates, as fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above.

302. Titan Wellness and Nguyen are actively engaged in trade and commerce in the State 

of Florida.

303. GEICO and its Insureds are “consumers” as defined by Fla. Stat. 501.203.

304. Titan Wellness and Nguyen engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts 

or trade practices in their trade or commerce in the pursuit and execution of their scheme to 

illegally-obtain PIP Benefits from GEICO. 

305. The bills and supporting documents submitted by Titan Wellness and Nguyen to 

GEICO in connection with the Fraudulent Services were fraudulent in that they misrepresented: 

(i) Titan Wellness’s eligibility to collect PIP Benefits in the first instance; (ii) that the Fraudulent 

Services were lawfully provided; (iii) that the Fraudulent Services were medically necessary; and 

(iv) that the Fraudulent Services actually were performed in the first instance. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 79 of 101
80 

306. Such acts and practices offend public policy and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, 

and unscrupulous. Additionally, the conduct of Titan Wellness and Nguyen has been materially 

injurious to GEICO and its Insureds. 

307. The conduct of Titan Wellness and Nguyen was the actual and proximate cause of 

the damages sustained by GEICO.

308. Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s unfair and deceptive acts have caused GEICO to 

sustain damages of at least $1,300,000.00. 

309. By reason of Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s conduct, GEICO is also entitled to 

recover costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. 501.211(2). 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Titan Wellness and Nguyen 

(Common Law Fraud)

310. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above.

311. Titan Wellness and Nguyen intentionally and knowingly made false and fraudulent 

statements of material fact to GEICO and concealed material facts from GEICO in the course of 

their submission of thousands of fraudulent bills through Titan Wellness for the Fraudulent 

Services. 

312. The false and fraudulent statements of material fact and acts of fraudulent 

concealment include: (i) in every claim, the representation that that Titan Wellness was in 

compliance with the Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the 

HME Licensing Laws, and eligible to collect PIP Benefits in the first instance, when in fact Titan 

Wellness never was in compliance with the Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, the AntiKickback Statute, and the HME Licensing Laws, and never was eligible to collect PIP Benefits; 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 80 of 101
81 

(ii) in every claim, the representation that the Fraudulent Services were lawfully provided and 

eligible for PIP reimbursement, when in fact the Fraudulent Services were not lawfully provided, 

and were not eligible for PIP reimbursement; (iii) in every claim, the representation that the 

Fraudulent Services were medically necessary, when in fact they were not medically necessary; 

and (iv) in many claims, the representation that the Fraudulent Services actually were performed, 

when in many cases they were not actually performed. 

313. Titan Wellness and Nguyen intentionally made the above-described false and 

fraudulent statements and concealed material facts in a calculated effort to induce GEICO to pay 

charges submitted through Titan Wellness that were not reimbursable. 

314. GEICO justifiably relied on these false and fraudulent representations and acts of 

fraudulent concealment, and as a proximate result has been injured in its business and property by 

reason of the above-described conduct in that it has paid at least $1,300,000.00 pursuant to the 

fraudulent bills that were submitted or caused to be submitted by the Titan Wellness and Nguyen

through Titan Wellness. 

315. Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s extensive fraudulent conduct demonstrates a high 

degree of moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty that entitles GEICO to recover punitive damages.

316. Accordingly, by virtue of the foregoing, GEICO is entitled to compensatory and 

punitive damages, together with interest and costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Titan Wellness and Nguyen 

(Unjust Enrichment) 

317. GEICO incorporates, as fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 81 of 101
82 

318. As set forth above, Titan Wellness and Nguyen have engaged in improper, unlawful, 

and/or unjust acts, all to the harm and detriment of GEICO. 

319. When GEICO paid the bills and charges submitted or caused to be submitted by 

Titan Wellness and Nguyen through Titan Wellness, it reasonably believed that it was legally 

obligated to make such payments based on Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s improper, unlawful, 

and/or unjust acts. 

320. Titan Wellness and Nguyen have been enriched at GEICO’s expense by GEICO’s 

payments which constituted a benefit that Titan Wellness and Nguyen voluntarily accepted 

notwithstanding their improper, unlawful, and unjust billing scheme. 

321. Titan Wellness and Nguyen’s retention of GEICO’s payments violates fundamental 

principles of justice, equity and good conscience. 

322. By reason of the above, Titan Wellness and Nguyen have been unjustly enriched in 

an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $1,300,000.00. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Stein P.A.

(Declaratory Judgment -- 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202) 

323. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above. 

324. There is an actual case in controversy between GEICO and Stein P.A. regarding 

more than $75,000.00 in pending fraudulent claims for the Fraudulent Services that have been 

submitted to GEICO.

325. Stein P.A. has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because it was unlawfully operated in violation of the Clinic Act, Patient Brokering Act, 

and the Anti-Kickback statute.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 82 of 101
83 

326. Stein P.A. has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because the underlying Fraudulent Services were not lawfully provided or billed to 

GEICO.

327. Stein P.A. has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because the underlying Fraudulent Services were not medically necessary and were 

provided -- to the extent that they were provided at all -- pursuant to pre-determined fraudulent 

protocols designed solely to financially enrich the Defendants, rather than to treat or otherwise 

benefit the Insureds who purportedly were subjected to them. 

328. Stein P.A. has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because, in many cases, the Fraudulent Services never were provided in the first instance.

329. Stein P.A. has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because the billing codes used for the underlying Fraudulent Services misrepresented and 

exaggerated the level of services that purportedly were provided in order to inflate the charges 

submitted to GEICO.

330. Accordingly, GEICO requests a judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment 

Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, declaring that Stein P.A. has no right to receive payment for any 

pending bills submitted to GEICO. 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Stein

(Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c))

331. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above. 

332. Stein P.A. is an ongoing “enterprise,” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), 

that engages in activities that affect interstate commerce.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 83 of 101
84

333. Stein knowingly has conducted and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the 

conduct of Stein P.A.’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of repeated 

violations of the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, based upon the use of the United 

States mails to submit or cause to be submitted thousands of fraudulent charges on a continuous 

basis for over four years seeking payments that Stein P.A. was not eligible to receive under the 

No-Fault Law because: (i) Stein P.A. unlawfully was operated in violation of the Clinic Act, the 

Patient Brokering Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute; (ii) the underlying Fraudulent Services were 

not lawfully provided; (iii) the underlying Fraudulent Services were not medically necessary and 

were provided -- to the extent that they were provided at all -- pursuant to a pre-determined 

fraudulent protocol designed solely to financially enrich the Defendants, rather than to treat or 

otherwise benefit the Insureds who purportedly were subjected to them; (iv) in many cases, the 

Fraudulent Services never were provided in the first instance; and (v) the billing codes used for 

the underlying Fraudulent Services misrepresented and exaggerated the level of services that 

purportedly were provided in order to inflate the charges submitted to GEICO.

334. A representative sample of the fraudulent bills and corresponding mailings 

submitted to GEICO that comprise, in part, the pattern of racketeering activity identified through 

the date of this Complaint are described, in part, in the chart annexed hereto as Exhibit “2”.

335. Stein P.A.’s business is racketeering activity, inasmuch as the enterprise exists for 

the purpose of submitting fraudulent charges to insurers. The predicate acts of mail fraud are the 

regular way in which Stein operated Stein P.A., inasmuch as Stein P.A. was not engaged in a 

legitimate health care practice, and acts of mail fraud therefore were essential in order for Stein 

P.A. to function. Furthermore, the intricate planning required to carry out and conceal the predicate 

acts of mail fraud implies a threat of continued criminal activity, as does the fact that the 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 84 of 101
85 

Defendants continue to attempt collection on the fraudulent billing submitted through Stein P.A. 

to the present day.

336. Stein P.A. is engaged in inherently unlawful acts, inasmuch as it continues to 

submit and attempt collection on fraudulent billing submitted to GEICO and other insurers. These 

inherently unlawful acts are taken by Stein P.A. in pursuit of inherently unlawful goals -- namely, 

the theft of money from GEICO and other insurers through fraudulent no-fault billing.

337. GEICO has been injured in its business and property by reason of the abovedescribed conduct in that it has paid at least $900,000.00 pursuant to the fraudulent bills submitted 

through Stein P.A. 

338. By reason of its injury, GEICO is entitled to treble damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper. 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Stein, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, Titan Wellness, and Nguyen

(Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) 

339. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above. 

340. Stein P.A. is an ongoing “enterprise,” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), 

that engages in activities that affected interstate commerce.

341. Stein, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, Titan Wellness, and Nguyen are employed by or 

associated with the Stein P.A. enterprise.

342. Stein, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, Titan Wellness, and Nguyen knowingly have 

agreed, combined and conspired to conduct and/or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct 

of Stein P.A.’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of repeated violations 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 85 of 101
86

of the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, based upon the use of the United States mails 

to submit or cause to be submitted thousands of fraudulent charges on a continuous basis for over 

four years seeking payments that Stein P.A. was not eligible to receive under the No-Fault Law 

because: (i) Stein P.A. unlawfully was operated in violation of the Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering 

Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute; (ii) the underlying Fraudulent Services were not lawfully 

provided; (iii) the underlying Fraudulent Services were not medically necessary and were provided 

-- to the extent that they were provided at all -- pursuant to a pre-determined fraudulent protocol 

designed solely to financially enrich the Defendants, rather than to treat or otherwise benefit the 

Insureds who purportedly were subjected to them; (iv) in many cases, the Fraudulent Services 

never were provided in the first instance; and (v) the billing codes used for the underlying 

Fraudulent Services misrepresented and exaggerated the level of services that purportedly were 

provided in order to inflate the charges submitted to GEICO.

343. A representative sample of the fraudulent bills and corresponding mailings 

submitted to GEICO that comprise, in part, the pattern of racketeering activity identified through 

the date of this Complaint are described, in part, in the chart annexed hereto as Exhibit “2”. Each 

such mailing was made in furtherance of the mail fraud scheme.

344. Stein, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, Titan Wellness, and Nguyen knew of, agreed to 

and acted in furtherance of the common and overall objective (i.e., to defraud GEICO and other 

automobile insurers of money) by submitting or facilitating the submission of the fraudulent 

charges to GEICO. 

345. GEICO has been injured in its business and property by reason of the abovedescribed conduct in that it has paid at least $900,000.00 pursuant to the fraudulent bills submitted 

through the Stein P.A. enterprise.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 86 of 101
87 

346. By reason of its injury, GEICO is entitled to treble damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper. 

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Stein P.A. and Stein

(Under Fla. Stat. 501.201 et. seq.) 

347. GEICO incorporates, as fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above.

348. Stein P.A. and Stein are actively engaged in trade and commerce in the State of 

Florida.

349. GEICO and its Insureds are “consumers” as defined by Fla. Stat. 501.203.

350. Stein P.A. and Stein engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts or trade 

practices in their trade or commerce in the pursuit and execution of their scheme to illegally-obtain 

PIP Benefits from GEICO. 

351. The bills and supporting documents submitted by Stein P.A. and Stein to GEICO 

in connection with the Fraudulent Services were fraudulent in that they misrepresented: (i) Stein 

P.A.’s eligibility to collect PIP Benefits in the first instance; (ii) that the Fraudulent Services were 

lawfully provided; (iii) that the Fraudulent Services were medically necessary; and (iv) that the 

Fraudulent Services actually were performed in the first instance. 

352. Such acts and practices offend public policy and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, 

and unscrupulous. Additionally, the conduct of Stein P.A. and Stein has been materially injurious 

to GEICO and its Insureds.

353. The conduct of Stein P.A. and Stein was the actual and proximate cause of the 

damages sustained by GEICO.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 87 of 101
88 

354. Stein P.A. and Stein’s unfair and deceptive acts have caused GEICO to sustain 

damages of at least $900,000.00. 

355. By reason of Stein P.A. and Stein’s conduct, GEICO is also entitled to recover 

costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. 501.211(2).

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Stein P.A. and Stein

(Common Law Fraud)

356. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above.

357. Stein P.A. and Stein intentionally and knowingly made false and fraudulent 

statements of material fact to GEICO and concealed material facts from GEICO in the course of 

their submission of thousands of fraudulent bills through Stein P.A. for the Fraudulent Services. 

358. The false and fraudulent statements of material fact and acts of fraudulent 

concealment include: (i) in every claim, the representation that that Stein P.A. was in compliance 

with the Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute, and eligible to 

collect PIP Benefits in the first instance, when in fact Stein P.A. never was in compliance with the 

Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute, and never was eligible to 

collect PIP Benefits; (ii) in every claim, the representation that the Fraudulent Services were 

lawfully provided and eligible for PIP reimbursement, when in fact the Fraudulent Services were 

not lawfully provided, and were not eligible for PIP reimbursement; (iii) in every claim, the 

representation that the Fraudulent Services were medically necessary, when in fact they were not 

medically necessary; and (iv) in many claims, the representation that the Fraudulent Services 

actually were performed, when in many cases they were not actually performed.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 88 of 101
89 

359. Stein P.A. and Stein intentionally made the above-described false and fraudulent 

statements and concealed material facts in a calculated effort to induce GEICO to pay charges 

submitted through Stein P.A. that were not reimbursable. 

360. GEICO justifiably relied on these false and fraudulent representations and acts of 

fraudulent concealment, and as a proximate result has been injured in its business and property by 

reason of the above-described conduct in that it has paid at least $900,000.00 pursuant to the 

fraudulent bills that were submitted or caused to be submitted by Stein P.A. and Stein through Stein 

P.A.

361. Stein P.A. and Stein’s extensive fraudulent conduct demonstrates a high degree of 

moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty that entitles GEICO to recover punitive damages. 

362. Accordingly, by virtue of the foregoing, GEICO is entitled to compensatory and 

punitive damages, together with interest and costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper. 

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Stein P.A. and Stein

(Unjust Enrichment) 

363. GEICO incorporates, as fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above.

364. As set forth above, Stein P.A. and Stein have engaged in improper, unlawful, and/or 

unjust acts, all to the harm and detriment of GEICO. 

365. When GEICO paid the bills and charges submitted or caused to be submitted by 

Stein P.A. and Stein through Stein P.A., it reasonably believed that it was legally obligated to make 

such payments based on Stein P.A. and Stein’s improper, unlawful, and/or unjust acts. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 89 of 101
90 

366. Stein P.A. and Stein have been enriched at GEICO’s expense by GEICO’s payments 

which constituted a benefit that Stein P.A. and Stein voluntarily accepted notwithstanding their 

improper, unlawful, and unjust billing scheme. 

367. Stein P.A. and Stein’s retention of GEICO’s payments violates fundamental 

principles of justice, equity and good conscience. 

368. By reason of the above, Stein P.A. and Stein have been unjustly enriched in an 

amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $900,000.00. 

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against ISO-Diagnostics 

(Declaratory Judgment -- 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202) 

369. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above. 

370. There is an actual case in controversy between GEICO and ISO-Diagnostics 

regarding more than $75,000.00 in pending fraudulent claims for the Fraudulent Services that have

been submitted to GEICO. 

371. ISO-Diagnostics has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because it was unlawfully operated in violation of the Clinic Act, Patient Brokering Act, 

and the Anti-Kickback statute.

372. ISO-Diagnostics has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because the underlying Fraudulent Services were not lawfully provided or billed to 

GEICO.

373. ISO-Diagnostics has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because the underlying Fraudulent Services were not medically necessary and were 

provided -- to the extent that they were provided at all -- pursuant to pre-determined fraudulent 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 90 of 101
91 

protocols designed solely to financially enrich the Defendants, rather than to treat or otherwise 

benefit the Insureds who purportedly were subjected to them. 

374. ISO-Diagnostics has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because, in many cases, the Fraudulent Services never were provided in the first instance.

375. ISO-Diagnostics has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to 

GEICO because the billing codes used for the underlying Fraudulent Services misrepresented and 

exaggerated the level of services that purportedly were provided in order to inflate the charges 

submitted to GEICO.

376. Accordingly, GEICO requests a judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment 

Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, declaring that ISO-Diagnostics has no right to receive payment 

for any pending bills submitted to GEICO. 

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Baruch and Stein

(Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c))

377. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above. 

378. ISO-Diagnostics is an ongoing “enterprise,” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 

1961(4), that engages in activities that affect interstate commerce.

379. Baruch and Stein knowingly have conducted and/or participated, directly or 

indirectly, in the conduct of ISO-Diagnostics’ affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity 

consisting of repeated violations of the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, based upon 

the use of the United States mails to submit or cause to be submitted thousands of fraudulent 

charges on a continuous basis for over four years seeking payments that ISO-Diagnostics was not 

eligible to receive under the No-Fault Law because: (i) ISO-Diagnostics unlawfully was operated 

in violation of the Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute; (ii) the 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 91 of 101
92

underlying Fraudulent Services were not lawfully provided; (iii) the underlying Fraudulent Services 

were not medically necessary and were provided -- to the extent that they were provided at all --

pursuant to a pre-determined fraudulent protocol designed solely to financially enrich the 

Defendants, rather than to treat or otherwise benefit the Insureds who purportedly were subjected 

to them; (iv) in many cases, the Fraudulent Services never were provided in the first instance; and 

(v) the billing codes used for the underlying Fraudulent Services misrepresented and exaggerated 

the level of services that purportedly were provided in order to inflate the charges submitted to 

GEICO.

380. A representative sample of the fraudulent bills and corresponding mailings 

submitted to GEICO that comprise, in part, the pattern of racketeering activity identified through 

the date of this Complaint are described, in part, in the chart annexed hereto as Exhibit “3”.

381. ISO-Diagnostics’ business is racketeering activity, inasmuch as the enterprise 

exists for the purpose of submitting fraudulent charges to insurers. The predicate acts of mail fraud 

are the regular way in which Baruch and Stein operated ISO-Diagnostics, inasmuch as ISODiagnostics was not engaged in a legitimate health care practice, and acts of mail fraud therefore 

were essential in order for ISO-Diagnostics to function. Furthermore, the intricate planning 

required to carry out and conceal the predicate acts of mail fraud implies a threat of continued 

criminal activity, as does the fact that the Defendants continue to attempt collection on the 

fraudulent billing submitted through ISO-Diagnostics to the present day.

382. ISO-Diagnostics is engaged in inherently unlawful acts, inasmuch as it continues 

to submit and attempt collection on fraudulent billing submitted to GEICO and other insurers. 

These inherently unlawful acts are taken by ISO-Diagnostics in pursuit of inherently unlawful 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 92 of 101
93 

goals -- namely, the theft of money from GEICO and other insurers through fraudulent no-fault 

billing. 

383. GEICO has been injured in its business and property by reason of the abovedescribed conduct in that it has paid at least $600,000.00 pursuant to the fraudulent bills submitted 

through ISO-Diagnostics. 

384. By reason of its injury, GEICO is entitled to treble damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper. 

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Baruch, Stein P.A., Stein, Titan Wellness, and Nguyen 

(Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) 

385. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above. 

386. ISO-Diagnostics is an ongoing “enterprise,” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 

1961(4), that engages in activities that affected interstate commerce.

387. Baruch, Stein P.A., Stein, Titan Wellness, and Nguyen are employed by or 

associated with the ISO-Diagnostics enterprise.

388. Baruch, Stein P.A., Stein, Titan Wellness, and Nguyen knowingly have agreed, 

combined and conspired to conduct and/or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of ISODiagnostics’ affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of repeated violations of 

the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, based upon the use of the United States mails to 

submit or cause to be submitted thousands of fraudulent charges on a continuous basis for over 

four years seeking payments that ISO-Diagnostics was not eligible to receive under the No-Fault 

Law because: (i) ISO-Diagnostics unlawfully was operated in violation of the Clinic Act, the 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 93 of 101
94

Patient Brokering Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute; (ii) the underlying Fraudulent Services were 

not lawfully provided; (iii) the underlying Fraudulent Services were not medically necessary and 

were provided -- to the extent that they were provided at all -- pursuant to a pre-determined 

fraudulent protocol designed solely to financially enrich the Defendants, rather than to treat or 

otherwise benefit the Insureds who purportedly were subjected to them; (iv) in many cases, the 

Fraudulent Services never were provided in the first instance; and (v) the billing codes used for 

the underlying Fraudulent Services misrepresented and exaggerated the level of services that 

purportedly were provided in order to inflate the charges submitted to GEICO.

389. A representative sample of the fraudulent bills and corresponding mailings

submitted to GEICO that comprise, in part, the pattern of racketeering activity identified through 

the date of this Complaint are described, in part, in the chart annexed hereto as Exhibit “3”. Each 

such mailing was made in furtherance of the mail fraud scheme.

390. Baruch, Stein P.A., Stein, Titan Wellness, and Nguyen knew of, agreed to and acted 

in furtherance of the common and overall objective (i.e., to defraud GEICO and other automobile 

insurers of money) by submitting or facilitating the submission of the fraudulent charges to 

GEICO. 

391. GEICO has been injured in its business and property by reason of the abovedescribed conduct in that it has paid at least $600,000.00 pursuant to the fraudulent bills submitted 

through the ISO-Diagnostics enterprise.

392. By reason of its injury, GEICO is entitled to treble damages, costs, and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 94 of 101
95 

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein 

(Under Fla. Stat. 501.201 et. seq.) 

393. GEICO incorporates, as fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above.

394. ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein are actively engaged in trade and commerce in 

the State of Florida.

395. GEICO and its Insureds are “consumers” as defined by Fla. Stat. 501.203.

396. ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein engaged in unfair, deceptive, and 

unconscionable acts or trade practices in their trade or commerce in the pursuit and execution of 

their scheme to illegally-obtain PIP Benefits from GEICO. 

397. The bills and supporting documents submitted by ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and 

Stein to GEICO in connection with the Fraudulent Services were fraudulent in that they 

misrepresented: (i) ISO-Diagnostics’ eligibility to collect PIP Benefits in the first instance; (ii) that 

the Fraudulent Services were lawfully provided; (iii) that the Fraudulent Services were medically 

necessary; and (iv) that the Fraudulent Services actually were performed in the first instance. 

398. Such acts and practices offend public policy and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, 

and unscrupulous. Additionally, the conduct of ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein has been 

materially injurious to GEICO and its Insureds.

399. The conduct of ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein was the actual and proximate 

cause of the damages sustained by GEICO.

400. ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein’s unfair and deceptive acts have caused GEICO 

to sustain damages of at least $600,000.00. 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 95 of 101
96 

401. By reason of ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein’s conduct, GEICO is also entitled 

to recover costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. 501.211(2). 

SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein 

(Common Law Fraud)

402. GEICO incorporates, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above.

403. ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein intentionally and knowingly made false and 

fraudulent statements of material fact to GEICO and concealed material facts from GEICO in the 

course of their submission of thousands of fraudulent bills through ISO-Diagnostics for the 

Fraudulent Services. 

404. The false and fraudulent statements of material fact and acts of fraudulent 

concealment include: (i) in every claim, the representation that that ISO-Diagnostics was in 

compliance with the Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute, and 

eligible to collect PIP Benefits in the first instance, when in fact ISO-Diagnostics never was in

compliance with the Clinic Act, the Patient Brokering Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute, and 

never was eligible to collect PIP Benefits; (ii) in every claim, the representation that the Fraudulent 

Services were lawfully provided and eligible for PIP reimbursement, when in fact the Fraudulent 

Services were not lawfully provided, and were not eligible for PIP reimbursement; (iii) in every 

claim, the representation that the Fraudulent Services were medically necessary, when in fact they 

were not medically necessary; and (iv) in many claims, the representation that the Fraudulent 

Services actually were performed, when in many cases they were not actually performed.

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 96 of 101
97 

405. ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein intentionally made the above-described false 

and fraudulent statements and concealed material facts in a calculated effort to induce GEICO to 

pay charges submitted through ISO-Diagnostics that were not reimbursable. 

406. GEICO justifiably relied on these false and fraudulent representations and acts of 

fraudulent concealment, and as a proximate result has been injured in its business and property by 

reason of the above-described conduct in that it has paid at least $600,000.00 pursuant to the 

fraudulent bills that were submitted or caused to be submitted by the ISO-Diagnostics and Baruch

through ISO-Diagnostics. 

407. ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein’s extensive fraudulent conduct demonstrates a 

high degree of moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty that entitles GEICO to recover punitive 

damages.

408. Accordingly, by virtue of the foregoing, GEICO is entitled to compensatory and 

punitive damages, together with interest and costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper. 

EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein 

(Unjust Enrichment) 

409. GEICO incorporates, as fully set forth herein, each and every allegation in 

paragraphs 1-276, above.

410. As set forth above, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein have engaged in improper, 

unlawful, and/or unjust acts, all to the harm and detriment of GEICO. 

411. When GEICO paid the bills and charges submitted or caused to be submitted by 

ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein through ISO-Diagnostics, it reasonably believed that it was 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 97 of 101
98 

legally obligated to make such payments based on ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein’s improper,

unlawful, and/or unjust acts. 

412. ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein have been enriched at GEICO’s expense by 

GEICO’s payments which constituted a benefit that ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein voluntarily 

accepted notwithstanding their improper, unlawful, and unjust billing scheme. 

413. ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein’s retention of GEICO’s payments violates 

fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. 

414. By reason of the above, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, and Stein have been unjustly 

enriched in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $600,000.00. 

JURY DEMAND

415. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., 

GEICO General Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Co. demand that a Judgment be entered 

in their favor:

A. On the First Cause of Action against Titan Wellness, a declaration pursuant to the 

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, that Titan Wellness has no right to receive 

payment for any pending bills submitted to GEICO; 

B. On the Second Cause of Action against Nguyen, compensatory damages in favor 

of GEICO in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of $1,300,000.00, together with 

treble damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) plus interest; 

C. On the Third Cause of Action against Nguyen, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, Stein 

P.A., and Stein, compensatory damages in favor of GEICO in an amount to be determined at trial 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 98 of 101
99

but in excess of $1,300,000.00, together with treble damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) plus interest; 

D. On the Fourth Cause of Action against Titan Wellness and Nguyen, compensatory 

damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of $1,300,000.00, together with costs 

and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. 501.211(2);

E. On the Fifth Cause of Action against Titan Wellness and Nguyen, compensatory 

damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of $1,300,000.00, together with 

punitive damages, costs, interest and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and 

proper; 

F. On the Sixth Cause of Action against Titan Wellness and Nguyen, more than 

$1,300,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus costs and interest and such other and further relief 

as this Court deems just and proper. 

G. On the Seventh Cause of Action against Stein P.A., a declaration pursuant to the 

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, that Stein P.A. has no right to receive 

payment for any pending bills submitted to GEICO; 

H. On the Eighth Cause of Action against Stein, compensatory damages in favor of 

GEICO in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of $900,000.00, together with treble 

damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) plus interest; 

I. On the Ninth Cause of Action against Stein, ISO-Diagnostics, Baruch, Titan 

Wellness, and Nguyen, compensatory damages in favor of GEICO in an amount to be determined 

at trial but in excess of $900,000.00, together with treble damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ 

fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) plus interest; 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 99 of 101
100

J. On the Tenth Cause of Action against Stein P.A. and Stein, compensatory damages 

in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of $900,000.00, together with costs and 

reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. 501.211(2);

K. On the Eleventh Cause of Action against Stein P.A. and Stein, compensatory 

damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of $900,000.00, together with punitive 

damages, costs, interest and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper; 

L. On the Twelfth Cause of Action against Stein P.A. and Stein, more than 

$900,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus costs and interest and such other and further relief as 

this Court deems just and proper. 

M. On the Thirteenth Cause of Action against ISO-Diagnostics, a declaration pursuant 

to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, that ISO-Diagnostics has no right 

to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to GEICO; 

N. On the Fourteenth Cause of Action against Baruch and Stein, compensatory 

damages in favor of GEICO in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of $600,000.00, 

together with treble damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) 

plus interest; 

O. On the Fifteenth Cause of Action against Baruch, Stein P.A., Stein, Sachs, Titan 

Wellness, and Nguyen, compensatory damages in favor of GEICO in an amount to be determined 

at trial but in excess of $600,000.00, together with treble damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ 

fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) plus interest; 

P. On the Sixteenth Cause of Action against ISO-Diagnostic, Baruch, and Stein, 

compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of $600,000.00, 

together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. 501.211(2);

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 100 of 101
101 

Q. On the Seventeenth Cause of Action against ISO-Diagnostic, Baruch, and Stein, 

compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in excess of $600,000.00, 

together with punitive damages, costs, interest and such other and further relief as this Court deems 

just and proper; 

R. On the Eighteenth Cause of Action against ISO-Diagnostic, Baruch, and Stein, 

more than $600,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus costs and interest and such other and 

further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: September 2, 2022 

/s/ John P. Marino 

John P. Marino (FBN 814539) 

Lindsey R. Trowell (FBN 678783) 

Kristen L. Wenger (FBN 92136) 

SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP 

50 North Laura Street, Suite 2600 

Jacksonville, Florida 32202 

Phone: (904) 598-6100 

Facsimile: (904) 598-6204 

ltrowell@sgrlaw.com

jmarino@sgrlaw.com 

kwenger@sgrlaw.com 

-andYonatan Bernstein (FBN 1035899) 

RIVKIN RADLER LLP

926 RXR Plaza

Uniondale, New York 11556 

Phone: (516) 357-3000 

Facsimile: (516) 357-3333 

yonatan.bernstein@rivkin.com 

 Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 101 of 101