UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO.: 0:22-cv-61648- SINGHAL/DAMIAN

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO., GEICO 

INDEMNITY CO., GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY and GEICO CASUALTY CO., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

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

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

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

JOEL D. NGUYEN, D.O.,

Defendants.

 /

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE TO COURT REGARDING 

TITAN WELLNESS DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs, Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO 

General Insurance Company, and GEICO Casualty Company (collectively, “GEICO” or “Plaintiffs”), 

respectfully submit this notice to the Court that – for the reasons set forth below – it is withdrawing its 

claims against Titan Wellness Center of Fort Myers, L.L.C. (“Titan Wellness”) and Hoa Nguyen 

(“Nguyen”)(collectively the “Titan Wellness Defendants”), solely to the extent they are predicated on 

GEICO’s allegations that Titan Wellness provided home medical equipment (“HME”) without being 

properly licensed under Fla. Stat. §§ 400.93 and 408.806 (the “HME Licensing Laws”). See ECF 

No. 1, ¶¶ 70-73, 201. 

GEICO does not withdraw its claims against the Titan Wellness Defendants to the extent that 

they are based on GEICO’s many other allegations against the Titan Wellness Defendants, including 

allegations to the effect that the Titan Wellness Defendants misrepresented the nature, extent, results, 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2023 Page 1 of 4
2

and medical necessity of their purported healthcare services, and operated in pervasive violation of 

Florida’s Health Care Clinic Act, Fla. Stat. § 400.990 et seq. (the “Clinic Act”), Florida’s Patient 

Brokering Act, Fla. Stat § 817.505, and Florida’s Anti-Kickback Statute, Fla. Stat. § 456.054. See

ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 46-52, 74-200, 202-213, and passim. 

In this context, GEICO alleges in its Complaint – among many other things – that the Titan 

Wellness Defendants provided many insureds with lumbar-sacral orthotics (“LSOs”), and then 

billed GEICO for the LSOs under HCPCS code L0637. See ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 197-198. GEICO alleges 

that the charges for the provision of these LSOs were fraudulent – and thus not eligible for payment –

for three, independent, reasons.

First, GEICO alleges that the Titan Wellness Defendants were not entitled to receive nofault insurance (“personal injury protection” or “PIP”) payment for these LSOs because Titan 

Wellness operated in violation of the licensing and operating requirements set forth in the Clinic 

Act, as well as in violation of Florida’s Patient Brokering Act and Florida’s Anti-Kickback Statute,

which disqualified the Titan Wellness Defendants from receiving PIP reimbursement. See ECF No. 

1, ¶¶ 199-200.

Second, GEICO alleges that the charges for the LSOs were fraudulent and unlawful 

because they misrepresented the medical necessity for the LSOs. See ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 202-213.

Third, GEICO alleges that the charges for the LSOs were fraudulent and unlawful because 

Titan Wellness was not licensed under the HME Licensing Laws, and therefore could not lawfully 

provide LSOs to patients. See ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 70-73, 201.

On February 6, 2023 – after the close of briefing on the Titan Wellness Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss – the Titan Wellness Defendants notified Plaintiffs via letter, for the first time, that they 

“recently learned” that Titan Wellness was not required to be licensed under the HME Licensing 

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2023 Page 2 of 4
3

Laws, because “Florida Statute 400.925(6)” provides an exception for the specific type of LSO 

provided by Titan Wellness to its patients.

The Titan Wellness Defendants are correct with respect to this narrow point, and 

accordingly, GEICO respectfully withdraws its claims against the Titan Wellness solely to the 

extent that they are based on allegations that Titan Wellness provided the LSOs without the 

necessary HME licensure – namely the third reason set forth above. (The substantive paragraphs 

containing these allegations can be found in paragraphs 70-73, and 201 of GEICO’s Complaint).1

However, to avoid any possible confusion, it is important to emphasize that GEICO is not

withdrawing its claims with respect to the fraudulent provision of the LSOs as a general matter 

and instead maintains its claims that the Titan Wellness Defendants’ charges for the LSOs were 

fraudulent and non-reimbursable for the first two reasons set forth above (e.g., the charges for the 

LSOs misrepresented that the LSOs were medically necessary, and that Titan Wellness was 

eligible to receive payment, when in fact it was not because it was not in compliance with the 

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

Respectfully submitted,

/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

jmarino@sgrlaw.com

ltrowell@sgrlaw.com

kwenger@sgrlaw.com

 1 References to this allegation can also be found in paragraphs 2(i)(d), 51, 273(i)( c), 279, 287(i), 

296 (i), and 312 (i).

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2023 Page 3 of 4
4

and

Max Gershenoff (FBN 1038855)

 Yonatan 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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on February 8, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the counsel of 

record in this case. 

/s/ John P. Marino

Attorney

Case 0:22-cv-61648-AHS Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/08/2023 Page 4 of 4