Allstate Sues Chiropractor Daniel Dahan for Fraud...transact business in, and/or maintain their...

2

3

4

5

6

l 7

8

.......... 9 c.

so --' ...< 10

Q 11 z " L.LI ~ 12 Vl

~

~ ~ 13

u ~

' 14 z

~ ~ 15 0 ~

>< ~ 16 ~

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

, .. , 25

26 <:}

27

t:: 28

• Thomas E. Fraysse- SBN 104436 R. Patrick Snook- SBN 129912 KNOX RICKSEN LLP 1300 Clay Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612-1427 Telephone: (510) 285-2500 Facsimile: (510) 285-2505

• Los ANf:L{ ~ft D

ERIOR COURT

SEP. 0 8 2008 K JOHNA C

KE, CLERK BYSHAUN

SLEY, 0Ep Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ury PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rei., ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATEINSURANCECOMPANY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rei. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DANIEL H. DAHAN, an individual; PROGRESSIVE DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES ONE through FIVE HUNDRED, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 8C397695 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT, VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION ACT, FRAUD AND DECEIT, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, AND EQUITABLE LIEN; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

FILED IN CAMERA AND UNDER SEAL

Plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter "Allstate") and People of the State of

California, ex rel. Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter collectively "plaintiffs"), allege as

follows:

1.

I. INTRODUCTION ;g~g~~ n-<-to-t !'T'I:::a::I'T'II"T'I .......

CgJ'"Q!:(:~ onnog};:~-;::R

This is an action by Allstate Insurance Company to reco~~ -ge~ <1!\cf. cjjtil ••c;:l••:=-t: Co.l ('")

I'T1 •• N 0 CN

penalties on its own behalf and on behalf of the People of the State of Calif~rnia ex l'd.~~si'ate C) :5fXR --a

(,.,1 ci ~ ( . .11

Insurance Company, arising from an insurance fraud scheme planned and ca$ed ou'f §'@le g ~~;;,

defendants involving the production of false and misleading medical reports and bills tci!suPiort c.:-'1 ..

0 a-personal injury claims against insurance companies. As a direct result of the defendan!if'?fonduct,

. I .

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT, VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA

UNFAIR COMPETITION ACT, FRAUD AND DECEIT, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, AND EQUITABLE LIEN; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 c.. -' ---' 10

11 z " '-L.l ~ 12 VJ

~

~ < 13

u 0

~ 14 - z e<:: ~

0 15

~

>< ~ 16 ~

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

, .. , 25 "' --

26 .-

27

28

-

• • false and fraudulent claims have been made against insurance policies issued by Allstate and other

insurance companies. As a further direct result of the defendants' conduct, Allstate has incurred

substantial financial losses. Allstate, therefore, brings this action on its own behalf as well as on

behalf of the People of the State of California to recover monetary damages and to enjoin, deter,

and/or prevent the defendants, and each of them, from engaging in such conduct in the future.

2. The defendants have knowingly engaged in these illegal and fraudulent practices

since 2001. Defendants' conduct was and is in direct violation of California law including, but not

limited to, California Penal Code Section 550; the Moscone-Knox Professional Corporations Act,

codified as California Corporations Code Section 13400 et seq.; the California Insurance Frauds

Prevention Act, codified as California Insurance Code Section I 871.7; the California Unfair

Competition Act, codified as California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.;

California Business and Professions Code Section 2052; as well as common law causes of action

for fraud and deceit.

3. At all times herein relevant the defendants engaged in the conduct herein alleged

with the intent to present or to cause to be presented false or fraudulent claims for the payment of a

loss or injury under a contract of insurance. The defendants prepared, made, subscribed to writings,

or allowed such writings to be presented to Allstate and other insurance companies in support of

false or fraudulent claims. In doing so, the defendants aided, abetted, solicited, or conspired with

one another to engage in such conduct, all for financial gain.

4. The California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act, Article 1, Section 1871, et seq.,

was originally enacted in 1989. In 1993, the Act was amended to add Section 1871.7. This section

allows the Attorney General, a County District Attorney, the Insurance Commissioner, or any other

interested party to enhance the government's ability to prosecute violations of, and recover losses

from, certain specified fraudulent insurance practices. In enacting Section 1871.7, the California

Legislature envisioned that insurance companies, working with law enforcement agencies, could

contribute to efforts to combat the prevalent and serious problem of insurance fraud. As such,

Insurance Code section 1871.7 provides for a qui tam civil action permitting individuals to

prosecute proscribed conduct in a civil action without fear of reprisal or government inaction.

-2-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 c.. -' -' 10

11 z ~

t-U < 12 Vl

1-

~ < 13

u ~ 14 z

0::: ~ 15 0 1-

>< ;- 16 <

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

-::., 25 ..a.

' 26 i:"'

27

... 28

• • 5. Insurance Code section 1871.7 provides that anyone who violates Penal Code

section 550 is liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each claim plus an assessment up to

three times the amount of the damages sustained by the victim in addition to any other penalties that

might be prescribed by law.

6. Section 1871.7 allows any interested person, including an insurer, to bring a civil

action for violation of the section for that person and the State of California. The complaint is to be

filed in camera and under seal for 60 days to allow the government to conduct its own investigation

without the knowledge of defendants, and to determine whether to join in the suit. Further, a copy

of the complaint and written disclosure of substantially all material evidence shall be served on the

District Attorney and Insurance Commissioner.

7. Allstate has complied with the requirements of Insurance code section 1871.7.

Simultaneously with the filing of this action, Allstate provided all material information regarding

the allegations contained in this complaint to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office

and to the Insurance Commissioner of the State of California. Allstate has also offered complete

cooperation in any potential investigation instituted by the above-referenced government entities.

8. This complaint for damages arises from an investigation that Allstate initiated in

2007. As a result of the investigation, Allstate uncovered an insurance fraud scheme that was

originated, planned and developed by defendant Daniel H. Dahan and carried out by him and other

defendants through his wholly-owned general corporation and alter ego, defendant Progressive

Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. In substance, the scheme involves the preparation of medical

documentation by the defendants that contains misleading, false and fraudulent information,

knowing that such documentation would be submitted to insurance companies in support of claims

made under policies of insurance. The conduct of the defendants, and each of them, was

undertaken with the intent to deceive insurance carriers for financial gain and with a conscious

disregard of the rights of Allstate and other insurance carriers, to accommodate the needs of

plaintiff personal injury attorneys and law firms in the business of representing individuals with

personal injury claims against insurance companies and their insureds, and to purportedly enhance

the ability of chiropractors to increase personal injury work.

- 3-COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT, VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 0.

.... .... 10

11 z " 1-U < 12 Vl

>-

~ < 13

u >- 14 ~

0:::: ~ 15 0 >-

>< >- 16 <

0 17 z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

::::~· 25 ; ..

26 u:

27

,., 28

• • 9. Allstate, Allstate policyholders, other insurance companies and their insureds, the

motoring public, and the State of California were and are the direct victims of the illegal and

fraudulent scheme conducted by defendants, and each of them.

I 0. Allstate is the original source for all of the information contained in this complaint.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

II. This is a civil action arising under the laws of the State of California to redress

violations of California law including but not limited to, California Penal Code Section 550; the

Moscone-Knox Professional Corporations Act, codified as California Corporations Code Section

13400 et seq.; the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act, codified as California Insurance

Code Section 1871 et seq.; the California Unfair Competition Act, codified as California Business

and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; as well as common law causes of action for fraud and

deceit. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this civil claim pursuant to the

California Constitution Article VI, Section 10; Insurance Code Section 1871.7; as well as California

Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

12. Jurisdiction over the person and venue are proper in this district pursuant to Los

Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.0(c) and because defendants reside in, can be found in,

transact business in, and/or maintain their principal office in Los Angeles County; and while in the

County of Los Angeles, the defendants engaged in illegal and fraudulent conduct prohibited by

Penal Code Section 550, Insurance Code Section 1871.7, Business and Professions Code Section

17200 et seq., as well as common law fraud and deceit.

III. PARTIES

13. Allstate is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois

with its principal place of business in the State of Illinois. Allstate is an insurance company which,

inter alia, issues automobile insurance policies and is licensed to conduct business in the State of

California. It brings this action for its own benefit and for the benefit of the People of the State of

California under the provisions of California Insurance Code Section 1871.7(e)(l).

14. Defendant Daniel H. Dahan, ("Dahan") is a resident of the City of Long Beach,

County of Los Angeles, State of California.

-4-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 c.. -' .... 10

11 z ~

'-U < 12 Vl

~ < 13

u ~

~ 14 2

cG ~ 15 0

>< ~ 16 <

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

\'~·j 25

-'~ 26

27

,-.~ 28

·.....::

• • 15. Defendant Progressive Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. ("PDI") is and at all times herein

relevant, was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its

principal place of business in the City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California

that is and was owned, operated, and controlled or directed by Dahan at all times herein relevant.

16. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,

of defendants sued herein as DOES ONE through FNE HUNDRED, inclusive, are unknown to

Allstate, who therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and

believes and upon such information and belief alleges that each of the defendants designated herein

as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the conduct herein alleged.

17. DOES ONE HUNDRED AND ONE through TWO HUNDRED were or are

individuals or entities acting as agents or employees of Dahan and/or PDI, acting within the scope

of agency or employment and engaging in the conduct hereinafter alleged. Each individual acted

with full knowledge ofthe illegality of the activities and conduct undertaken in connection with the

aforementioned entities, and conspired in, acquiesced, ratified, or approved of the conduct herein

alleged undertaken by the other defendants.

18. DOES TWO HUNDRED AND ONE through THREE HUNDRED were or are

individuals or entities that owned or operated PDI.

19. DOES THREE HUNDRED AND ONE through FIVE HUNDRED were or are

individuals or entities who aided, abetted, assisted, otherwise participated in, or were or are

involved in the fraudulent conducted hereinafter described; and aided, abetted, or assisted the other

defendants with full knowledge of the illegality of the activities and conduct.

20. Defendants knowingly, willfully, and intentionally conspired with each other

defendant and agreed to a course of action to defraud Allstate and other similarly situated insurance

companies through illegal schemes as well as fraudulent and/or unlawful claims made against

insurance policies, including, but not limited to, automobile liability policies, as hereinafter alleged.

21. Allstate is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times herein

relevant, there was a unity of interest and ownership between PDI and Dahan such that any

individuality and separateness between this entity and individual has ceased.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 "-~

---' 10

11 2 ~

t..U < 12 Vl

>-::0.:: < 13

u r 14 - 2

0::: " 15 c .-

>< >- 16 <

0 17 2 ::0.::

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

; .. c 25 "

26 t3

27

28 -,_:

• • 22. PDI is, therefore, the alter ego of Dahan, and is and was a mere shell,

instrumentality, and conduit through which Dahan carries on his business.

23. Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of PDI, as distinct from Dahan,

would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege, and would promote injustice by protecting Dahan

from liability for the wrongful acts committed by him under the name of PDI. Any references or

allegations regarding or relating to PDI apply equally to Dahan.

24. Allstate is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that PDI and Dahan

have common supervision, control, management, officers, and a unity of interest in ownership,

which is reflected in the pooling of their earnings, expenses, and losses, such that for all intents and

purposes they are one and the same and but the alter ego of one another.

25. The "alternative" alter ego relationship between Dahan and PDI should be

recognized to prevent an injustice. If the alter ego relationship between such defendants should not

be recognized, an inequity would result because an entity responsible for wrongdoing would be

shielded from liability. When considering an award of punitive damages, the entire net worth of a

defendant is considered. If the corporate structure of the alter ego defendants, and each of them, is

disregarded, punitive damages will be based solely on the assets of the "fronting" entity; assets

which are much smaller than the other entities' assets. Because punitive damages are meant to

punish and make an example of the wrongdoer, it would be inequitable to allow entities responsible

for the wrongdoing complained of to shield their assets and escape punitive damages liability.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. History of Defendants' Conduct

26. At all times herein relevant and since at least 200 I, PDI was and is engaged in the

business of preparing and generating false and fraudulent medical documentation to support

personal injury claims submitted to insurance companies and to purportedly enhance the ability of

chiropractors to increase personal injury work. This insurance fraud scheme was originated by

Dahan, a chiropractor licensed by the State of California, and carried out by him through PDI, a

general corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, which, at all times herein

relevant, was wholly-owned by Dahan. The false and fraudulent medical reports created by Dahan



0.

-' -'

z ~

W-l <

Vl ~

~ <

u ~

/.

cc: " 0 ~

>< r <

0 z ~

i}

,.-, '.:..-'

<:.:· -~.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• • and unlicensed "technicians" purport to interpret and analyze x-rays through the use of alleged

"patented technology." Though the purported medical reports usually bear the name and signature

of a licensed physician, they are uniformly prepared without the input, review, approval or

knowledge of the licensed physician whose name appears on the report. Instead the purported

medical reports are generated by a computer software application utilized by an unlicensed

employee of defendants. To create the appearance of legitimacy, however, defendants intentionally

and willfully place the name of a practicing physician or other health care provider on the purported

medical report and billing statement, without the knowledge or authorization of the physician, and

forge that physician's signature. The purported medical documentation is then furnished to the

referring chiropractor, knowing that such documentation will be submitted to insurance companies

in support of a claim against a policy of insurance.

27. The bogus medical reports prepared by defendants contain medical diagnoses,

medical findings, and medical opinions, including opinions concerning permanent impairment of

individuals, purportedly based on the American Medical Association Guide to the Evaluation of

Permanent Impairment. The purported medical reports, as well as the diagnoses, findings, and

opinions contained therein, are not generated by a licensed physician as is consistently represented

by the defendants through the placement of the name and/or signature of a licensed physician or

other health care provider on the reports, but by a software program, the involvement of Dahan, and

by untrained, unlicensed technicians, at least one of which has nothing more than a high school

degree. The bogus medical reports contain multiple material misrepresentations of fact, which were

and are known to be false by the defendants, yet were and are submitted to Allstate and other

insurance carriers with them intent to deceive them into believing such reports to be true. At all

times herein relevant, Allstate reasonably relied on such reports submitted in support of claims

made under policies of insurance issued by Allstate and as a consequence, paid POI's bills, and

considered the findings, opinions and diagnoses in evaluating personal injury claims, including, but

not limited to bodily injury claims, uninsured motorist claims and underinsured motorist claims.

The purported medical reports prepared by defendants had the effect of fraudulently increasing the

settlement value of claims, causing Allstate to pay substantially more than would have been paid,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 ~ ... ... 10

11 z ~

w.l < 12 Vl

~

13 ~ <

u >- 14 z

0::: " 15 0 ~

>< ~ 16 <

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

,,, 25 •:.;

~

/ 26

u 27

u 28 _-,. __ ,

• • had Allstate known that the purported medical reports were false and fraudulent.

28. At all times herein relevant, defendants and each of them, were aware that they were

producing false and fraudulent medical reports, and knew that the reports were being submitted to

insurance companies in support of claims made on policies of insurance.

29. In addition to producing bogus medical documentation, defendants submitted and

continue to submit fraudulent billing statements to give the appearance that a licensed physician

actually performed professional services when, in fact, no licensed physician or other health care

provider performed such professional services. Defendants have consistently engaged in fraudulent

billing practices in connection with PDI, including, but not limited to, billing for services which

were not provided, up-coding, double and triple billing for services rendered, and billing for the

interpretation of more films than exist for a particular patient. Like the bogus medical reports,

defendants used the names of licensed physicians without authorization on billing statements to

give the appearance that the licensed physician had actually performed the professional services.

30. At all times herein relevant, defendants, and each of them, were aware that they were

producing false and fraudulent medical billings, and knew that such billings were being submitted

to insurance companies in support of claims made on policies of insurance.

31. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in this insurance fraud scheme with the

intent to bilk money out of Allstate and other similarly situated insurance companies, to create the

appearance of a serious injury or impairment where it does not otherwise exist, and to falsely and

fraudulently inflate the value of claims submitted to insurance companies. The fraudulent conduct

of defendants has caused substantial financial losses to Allstate, other insurance companies, the

motoring public, and the State of California.

B. The Manufacture of Bogus Medical Reports

32. The defendants solicit business from chiropractors across the United States by

offering services including the reading and interpreting of x-ray films by board certified radiologists

and tout POI's "patented" report-generating software applications as being helpful to the treating

chiropractor in obtaining business from personal injury attorneys and payment by insurance

companies. They advertise the advantage of utilizing PDI's services as including increased



"-

"""' """'

z ~

U-l ~

V1 ~

~ <

u ,_

z ct:: ~

0 c

>< ,_ <

0 z ~

u -

u ~'

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• • personal injury referrals and the ability to provide attorneys with professional documentation. At

all times herein relevant, PDI has held itself out as "the nation's technological leader in x-ray

interpretation and analysis reporting and documentation." Defendants do business in this fashion

with extensive advertising to chiropractors across the country and also as part of other businesses

owned and operated by Dahan, including, but not limited to a chiropractic consulting business

entitled "Practice Perfect."

33. At all times herein relevant, the defendants' advertising for PDI was false,

fraudulent, and misleading, designed to lure and entice chiropractors into using PDI for x-ray

analysis and interpretation. When defendants represent that a "doctor" uses PDI's "patented

technology" to produce reports, the representation was and is false. When defendants represent

that, "Our radiologist reads the films for pathologies and produces a biomechanical report," the

representation was and is false. From its inception in or about 2001, to the present, defendants have

consistently utilized false, fraudulent and misleading advertising for PDI, calculated to induce and

entice chiropractors and other health care providers to refer x-rays for interpretation and analysis.

34. To manufacture the fraudulent medical reports, unlicensed PDI employee(s) scan

and "digitize" x-rays sent via FedEx from locations throughout the United States. Once digitized,

PDI, as directed and controlled by Dahan, undertakes two separate and distinct report-generating

processes that are subsequently made to appear as having all been part of the same process. One

step is to send, via e-mail, the digitalized image of an x-ray made from scanning the actual x-ray

film, to a "reading" radiologist, usually a board-certified radiologist working as an independent

contractor, who is paid a flat rate to interpret or read the scanned digital image. The "reading"

radiologist reviews the digitalized image and dictates a standard x-ray report that contains findings

for each film or series of films for different regions of the patient's body. A flat rate paid by PDI to

the radiologist is often as little as $8 to $10 per x-ray or "pathology" report.

35. The other process undertaken by PDI after the x-rays are scanned and digitized does

not involve a licensed physician or the "reading" radiologist. PDI independently prepares its own

purported radiology reports using PDI's computer software application which is operated by an

unlicensed technician. This alleged radiology report is created without the knowledge, authority or


UNFAIR COMPETITION ACT, FRAUD AND DECEIT. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, AND EQUITABLE LIEN; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

"---' --'

z :: 1-U ~

Vl ,_ ~ <

u > - z 0::: ~

0 .-

>< ,_ <

0 z ~

''; '~~·

..

L:

;:J

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• • ratification of the "reading" radiologist and more often than not, the computer-generated radiology

reports are created at PDI before the "reading" radiologist has reviewed the digitized x-ray received

from PDI for review. Without any involvement or input by the "reading" radiologist, the purported

radiology reports prepared by PDI contain medical findings, medical opinions, and medical

diagnoses relating to various medical conditions and often include permanent impairment ratings

purportedly based upon utilization of the American Medical Association Guide to the Evaluation of

Permanent Impairment. Despite the fact that the "reading" radiologist has no knowledge of and has

never seen the PDI computer-generated reports for review or approval, the defendants intentionally

affix the "reading" radiologist's name and/or signature to the radiology reports to give the

appearance that the reports were authored by a licensed physician or board-certified radiologist.

Defendants have knowingly created thousands of bogus medical reports bearing the name of a

licensed physician or other health care provider knowing that the use of the licensed physician's

name and signature was not authorized, permitted or approved by the physician. As a result of the

practices of defendants, Allstate has received in excess of 450 claims supported by purported

medical documentation generated by defendants through PDI.

36. PDI's bogus radiology reports frequently feature an opinion regarding permanent

impairment, often as high as a 25% "whole person" impairment, represented by defendants as

being based on the American Medical Association Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent

Impairment. In setting forth a purported medical impairment rating, including representing that the

rating is based on the AMA guidelines, and affixing the name and/or signature of a licensed

physician who never authorized, saw or performed an impairment evaluation of the patient,

defendants falsely and fraudulently represent to insurers and anyone reviewing the reports that the

medical report reflects the professional medical judgment, opinions and conclusion of the

healthcare professional whose name appears on the report, when in fact the report was prepared by

an unlicensed employee of the defendants. The representations were and are material, and were and

are made intentionally and with the intent to deceive anyone reviewing the reports, including

insurance companies, their representatives and medical utilization reviewers. At all times herein

relevant, Allstate and other insurers reasonably relied on the false representations to their detriment.

- 10-



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 c.. _, .... 10

11 z ::= 1-U < 12 Vl

~

~ < 13

u ~

c- 14 z

p::: ~ 15 0 ~

>< ~ 16 <

0 17 z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 ":l ""

26 ,-,_ .. , ·~ 27

28 ~-"

'·v'

• • As a direct consequence of the material misrepresentation of fact as herein alleged, Allstate has

suffered substantial financial loss.

C. Illegal Practice of Medicine

37. Defendants, through PDI, engage in the practice of medicine despite being

prohibited from doing so by California law. The bogus medical reports created by PDI contain

medical findings, medical opinions, and medical diagnoses of medical conditions. These findings,

opinions, and diagnoses are literally manufactured by a computer software application and an

untrained, unlicensed technician in the employ of defendants, acting at the direction and control of

Dahan and other defendants. The conduct of defendants in rendering medical findings, medical

opinions and medical diagnoses constituted and continue to constitute the illegal practice of

medicine in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 2052.

D. Illegal Ownership of a Medical Practice

38. By virtue of the fact that defendant, through PDI, provide professional medical

services, form medical diagnoses and offer opinions on permanent impairment, defendants were

and are engaged in the practice of medicine. Under the laws of the State of California, PDI was and

is required to be organized as a professional corporation, not a general corporation, subject to strict

ownership requirements designed to protect the public from lay-ownership of medical practices.

Defendants organized PDI as a general corporation in violation of California law. Under California

law, Dahan could hold an ownership interest in a professional medical corporation, but only up to

49%, as a chiropractor licensed by the State of California. A chiropractor may not, under California

law, have a I 00% interest in a professional medical corporation. At all times herein relevant, and to

the present, no licensed physician in the State of California has held an interest in PDI. As such,

PDI is an illegally-owned medical corporation under the laws of the State of California and any

billing statements generated by POI were and are void.

E. Fraudulent Billing Practices

39. The defendants, through PDI, have, at all times herein relevant, routinely engaged in

fraudulent billing practices including improper use of CPT Codes on billing statements for medical

services purportedly rendered by PDI. Such improper use of CPT Codes includes, but is not limited

- II -

COMPLArNT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA rNSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT, VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA


• • to, double and triple billing for services rendered, billing for services which PDI does not perform,

and billing for the interpretation of more films than exist for a particular patient. In addition, the

billing statements submitted to Allstate for payment or as support for a personal injury claim were

and are false and fraudulent as the billing statement represents that the service was rendered by a

licensed professional, which was false.

40. "Reading" radiologists whose names appear on purported radiology reports prepared

by defendants deny that they performed services listed on the billing statements and report that they

did not prepare the billing statements submitted by PDI and did not authorize the use of their names

on the billing statements.

41. At all times herein relevant, defendants have prepared billing statements that include

charges for professional medical services involving face-to-face consultations, using CPT Codes

that include a face-to-face evaluation as a component to the service rendered. Neither the "reading"

radiologists' review of digitized x-rays, nor PDI's creation of computer-generated radiology reports

involves face-to-face time with a patient. PDI has never been engaged in any face-to-face

evaluation, meeting, or even telephone conversation with a patient. Indeed, a "reading"

radiologist's review of digitized x-rays could never, under any circumstance, be described to

include a face-to-face evaluation with the patient. Yet, defendants routinely billed for services

which involve a face-to-face evaluation, knowing that such services were never rendered by a

licensed physician. Defendants were, at all times, knowledgeable concerning billing and use of

CPT codes and knowingly included such charges on billing statements to falsely give the

appearance that such services were, in fact, rendered by a licensed physician. Defendants,

nonetheless, produced such billing statements with intent to defraud and deceive insurance

companies, including Allstate. Allstate, at all times herein relevant, reasonably relied on the

representations contained in the PDI billing statements and as a consequence, suffered significant

financial losses.

42. At all times herein relevant, defendants have included charges in PDI billing

statements under a CPT Code for the delivery, fitting, and adjustment of a device, including

orthotics. At no time, however, did PDI perform any service that involved the delivery, fitting and

- 12-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 "---' ... 10

11 z ;;:

W-1 < 12 VJ r

~ < 13

u ~

r 14 ~

z p:; " 0

15 r

>< ,_ 16 <

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

,.-· 25 -~

' 26

L.

27

'~ 28

--'e

• • adjustment of a device, including orthotics, in connection with the work done by the "reading"

radiologists and the generation of false and fraudulent medical reports. The charges, as such were

material misrepresentation of fact intended to deceive insurance companies.

43. At all times herein relevant, defendants have routinely included charges in PDI

billing statements for the interpretation of more x-rays than actually exist for a given patient. For

example in instances in which the treating chiropractors had exposed the patient to only four or five

views, a PDI billing statement will be generated in which PDI bills for review of a full seven view

Davis Series_ In creating billing statements through PDI, defendants routinely billed and continue

to bill for services which were not rendered, including, but not limited to billing for the review of

more x-rays than were supplied to PDI by the treating chiropractor for review. The billing for

services not rendered was not the result of mistake, neglect or inadvertence, but was part of a

scheme to charge insurance companies for work that had not been performed. The PDI billing

statements, were, at all times herein relevant, carefully crafted by defendants to falsely give the

appearance that work was actually performed and that such services were rendered by a licensed

professional, knowing at all times that such representations were not true. They, nonetheless,

generated false and fraudulent medical documentation and billing statements knowing that the

medical documentation and billing statements were false and fraudulent and that they would be

submitted to an insurance company in support of a claim. The billing statements were produced by

defendants as part of the scheme or plan to create false and fraudulent documentation to assist

persons making personal injury claims and to purportedly help chiropractors increase their personal

injury referrals from attorneys.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act)

(California Insurance Code § 1871. 7) (Alleged Against All Defendants by Plaintiffs)

44. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 43 above as though fully

set forth herein.

45. This is a claim for damages and penalties nnder the Insurance Frauds Prevention

Act, California Insurance Code § 1871.7.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 0.

--" ... 10

11 z ::: u..J ~ 12 VJ >-

~ ~ 13

u r 14 ~

z a:: ~ 15

0 e-

X e- 16 <

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

~· 25 ' " 26

~d 27

28

-;,

• • 46. By virtue of the conduct alleged herein, defendants, and each of them, intentionally

and repeatedly violated California Insurance Code Section 1871.7(b) in that defendants, and each of

them, knowingly violated California Penal Code Sections 5 50. As of the time of filing this

complaint, Allstate has identified in excess of 650 claims in which defendants have engaged in

some or all of the following conduct:

A. Knowingly presented or cause to be presented false or fraudulent claims for

the payment of a loss of injury under a contract of insurance; and/or

B. Knowingly prepared, made or subscribed writings, with the intent to present

or use them, or allow them to be presented, in support of a false or fraudulent claim; and/or

C. Presented or caused to be presented written or oral statements as part of, or in

support of claims for payment or other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy, knowing that the

statement contains false or misleading information concerning material facts; and/or

D. Prepared or made any written or oral statements that were intended to be

presented to an insurer in connection with, or in support of, claims or benefit pursuant to an

insurance policy, knowing that the statements contain false or misleading information concerning

material facts; and/or

E. Aiding, abetting, soliciting, assisting or conspiring with any person to engage

in A through D above.

47. As a result of such conduct on the part of the defendants, plaintiffs have been

damaged in substantial amounts, and are entitled to damages and penalties in accordance with

California Insurance Code Section 1871.7, to be determined at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (California Unfair Competition Act)

(California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.) (Alleged Against All Defendants by Plaintiff Allstate only)

48. Allstate re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 4 7 above as though fully

set forth herein.

49. California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. was enacted by the

California State Legislature in 1933 to protect businesses from the unfair business practices of

- 14-COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT. VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 c. .... .... 10

11 z " (..U < 12 U) ,_ ~ < 13

u ~ 14 z

0::: ~ 15 c ,_

>< ,_ 16 <

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 ,_

26

27

-. 28 ·'·-.

• • competitors. By the late 1970's the statute was expanded to protect consumers from any "unlawful,

unfair or fraudulent business act or practice" and any "unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading

advertising."

50. Under California Business and Professions Code Section 17203, "[a]ny person who

engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any court of

competent jurisdiction. The court may make such orders or judgments, including the appointment

of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by any person of any practice

which constitutes unfair competition, as defined in this chapter, or as may be necessary to restore to

any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by

means of such unfair competition."

51. Under California Business and Professions Code Section 17201, Allstate is a

"person" as defined by the statute.

52. The conduct of defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, constitutes "unfair

competition" under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, which includes, "any

unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading

advertising .... "

53. As a result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein,

Allstate has suffered the loss of substantial amounts of money. Under California Business and

Professions Code Section 17204, Allstate is a "person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost

money or property as a result of such unfair competition." Accordingly, Allstate asks this court to

issue orders and enter judgment in favor of Allstate and against defendants as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud and Deceit)

(Alleged Against All Defendants by Plaintiff Allstate only)

54. Allstate re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 above as though fully

set forth herein.

55. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in the conduct alleged herein with the intent

to defraud and deceive insurance companies, including Allstate, and the general public as to the true

nature of the business conducted by defendants, and each of them. The multiple misrepresentations

. 15 . COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT, VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 0.

--' --' 10

11 z ~

w ~ 12 Vl

~

~ < 13

u ~ 14 z

cG ~ 15 0 ~

>< ~ 16 <

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 ~

26

8 27 _.i

, .. ; 28 ~-,

''---''

• • of fact concerning the practices of the defendants, and each of them, including specific

representations made in records, narrative reports, billings statements, and other documents

generated by defendants, and each of them, at all times herein relevant, were intentional and made

with the intent to have insurance companies, including Allstate, rely on such representations. At all

times herein relevant, the representations made by defendants, and each of them, as to the practices

of the defendants, and each of them, were false and misleading and the falsity of the representations

was known to the defendants, and each of them, at the time such representations were made.

56. Defendants, and each of them, repeatedly made misrepresentations of fact

concerning the nature of the services rendered and/or the billings for such services; and/or

concealed from Allstate material facts concerning the nature of the services rendered and/or the

billings in records and bills provided to Allstate; all in connection with claims for the payment of

benefits under contracts of insurance, as herein alleged. Affirmative representations were

repeatedly made in connection with services and billing which were untrue, and known to be untrue

by defendants, and each of them, at the time such affirmative representations were made, as herein

alleged.

57. At all times herein relevant, Allstate reasonably relied on the representations made

by defendants. Had Allstate known the true facts concerning the services and billing, it would have

materially affected its analysis and payment of claims made under contracts of insurance.

58. As a result of the conduct of the defendants, and each of them, Allstate has suffered

substantial financial injury through the payment of claims that would not have otherwise been paid.

59. In engaging in such fraudulent conduct, as herein alleged, defendants acted with

malice, oppression, or fraud sufficient warrant the imposition of punitive damages.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Constructive Trust)

(Alleged Against All Defendants by Plaintiffs)

60. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 59 above as though fully

set forth herein.

61. On information and belief, with monies and proceeds from the conduct alleged

above, defendants, and each of them, have acquired title to real property, personal property, and



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 ,_

--' 10

11 z ~

i-Ll < 12 Vl ;-

~ < 13

u ~ 14 - L

0::: ~ 15 0 ;-

>< ;- 16 <

0 17 z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

::::! 25

26

L' 27

28 ---::

• • have deposited funds into various accounts including, but not limited to, checking accounts, savings

accounts, mutual fund accounts, and other accounts. Thus, defendants, and each of them, are

involuntary trustees holding said property and profits in constructive trust for Plaintiffs with the

duty to convey the same to plaintiff forthwith.

62. On information and belief, defendants, and each of them, have used monies and

proceeds from the wrongful conduct herein alleged to acquire title to real property, including but

not limited to real property located at 4255 Cedar Avenue, Long Beach, California, 90807; 1050

East Wardlow Road, Long Beach, California, 90807; 115 West 37th Street, Long Beach,

California; and I 021 Pacific Avenue, Long Beach, California.

63. On information and belief, defendants, and each of them, have used monies and

proceeds from the wrongful conduct alleged herein to deposit monies into accounts at various

banks, including but not limited to accounts under the name Daniel H. Dahan, Progressive

Diagnostic Imaging, Inc., and Practice Perfect, Inc.

64. Plaintiffs are entitled to, and request, equitable relief in the form of a constructive

trust, upon all real property, personal property, and accounts, including but not limited to those

alleged herein, that were acquired with proceeds or monies from the wrongful conduct alleged

herein.

65. Plaintiffs are presently unaware of the location of any further monies and proceeds

wrongfully taken from Allstate and other insurers by the defendants. As further investigation and

discovery is conducted on this matter, plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege the location and

nature of the monies and proceeds wrongfully taken by the defendants.

66. On information and belief, and due to the nature of the defendants' conduct alleged

herein, plaintiffs have not been able to identify all real property, personal property, or accounts

acquired by defendants, and each of them, with monies or proceeds from the wrongful conduct

alleged herein; and plaintiffs are entitled to, and requests, equitable relief in the form of a

constructive trust, upon all real property, personal property, and accounts which are identified at the

time of trial.

/Ill - 17 -

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT. VIOLA T!ON OF THE CALIFORNIA

UNFAIR COMPETITION ACT. FRAUD AND DECEIT, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, AND EQUITABLE LIEN; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

• • 1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Equitable Lien) 2 (Alleged Against All Defendants by Plaintiffs)

3 67. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 66 above as though fully

4 set forth herein.

5 68. On information and belief, Allstate's monies and funds acquired by defendants, and

6 each of them, as alleged herein, can be traced to the purchase, improvement, betterment, or deposit

7 into real property, personal property, or accounts at banks, savings and loans, mutual fund

8 companies, corporations, partnerships, or other accounts or business entities.

9 69. The retention by defendants, and each of them, of the real property, personal

::: 1 o property, or accounts purchased, improved, bettered, or added to with monies or funds that

b >< <

0 z ~

11 defendants have wrongfully acquired from Allstate would result in unjust enrichment.

12 70. Plaintiffs are entitled to, and request, equitable relief in the form of an equitable lien,

13 upon all real property, personal property, and accounts identified above which were acquired with

14 proceeds or monies from the wrongful conduct alleged above.

15 71. On information and belief, and due to the nature of the defendants' conduct alleged

16 herein, plaintiffs have not been able to identify all real property, personal property, or accounts

17 acquired by defendants with monies or proceeds from the wrongful conduct alleged above; and

18 plaintiffs are entitled to, and requests, equitable relief in the form of an equitable lien, upon all real

19 property, personal property, and accounts which are identified at the time oftrial.

20 PRAYER

21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

22 Under the First Cause of Action for Violation of California Insurance Code Section 1871.7

23

24 I. For all damages, penalties and assessments allowable under California Insurance

25 Code Section 1871.7(b) as to each defendant found to have violated California Penal Code Sections

26 549, 550 or 551 for each fraudulent claim presented to Allstate;

27 2. A temporary injunction to prevent the transfer, concealment, or dissipation of illegal

28 proceeds by Dahan and PDI;

- 18 -COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT, VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 :.. -- 10

11 z ~

1-U < 12 Vl

~

~ < 13

u >- 14 ~

p::: ~

0 15

>< f- 16 <

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

,., 25

""

26 ~~~

27

--.". 28 ,_,

• • 3. A temporary injunction to protect the public prohibiting Dahan and PDI from

engaging in the practice of medicine; prohibiting Dahan from having an ownership interest in any

medical practice or corporation, including, but not limited to PDI; and prohibiting Dahan and PDI

from further violating California Penal Code Section 550;

4. Attorney's fees;

5. Costs of suit; and

6. Such further and other relief as may be deemed appropriate by the court;

Under the Second Cause of Action for Violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

I. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Dahan from working in, or otherwise being

involved with any health-related field, including, but not limited to, medicine, chiropractic, physical

therapy and radiology;

2. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Dahan from having any ownership interest in

any business in a health-related field, including, but not limited to, medicine, chiropractic, physical

therapy and radiology;

3. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Dahan from practicing medicine;

4. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Dahan from violating California Penal Code

Section 550;

5. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Dahan from working in, or otherwise being

involved with any insurance-related business, including, but not limited to, working for an

insurance company, working for a law firm engaged in a personal injury practice, advising claimant

or their representative concerning claims, advising chiropractors concerning claims, capping,

running, and advising any person or entity concerning the use of CPT or other billing codes;

6. For a permanent injunction prohibiting PDI from engaging in the corporate practice

of medicine absent proof to the court that PDI is owned in accordance with the Moscone Knox

Professional Corporations Act and all other applicable California state law;

7. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Dahan, PDI and any other person or entity

from using the claimed "patented technology" to generate medical reports absent proof to the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 ,_ --' -' 10

11 z ;;:

'-Ll < 12 Vl >-

~ < 13

u ' 14 - z

0::: ~ 15 0

>< .- 16 <

0 17

z ~

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

·-:; 25 c:,_:.

26 .-· :, .. -~

27 --,

- 28 ;·'~ ·-,

• • satisfaction of this court that the report has been reviewed, approved and authorized by a board

certified radiologist licensed by the State of California as a physician and surgeon;

8. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Dahan from having an ownership interest in

PDI;

9. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Dahan from starting any other business

related to radiology in any respect;

I 0. For a judicial declaration and judgment that any and all bills, billing statements

and/or billing invoices generated by PDI were and are void as a matter of law;

11. For restitution, including, but not limited to, all monies paid by Allstate to Dahan,

PDI, any claimant, any claimant's attorney or any other person in connection with any and all

claims made against policies of insurance in which any document generated or produced by PDI

was presented to Allstate in connection with a claim, including, but not limited to, all amounts paid

under medical payments provisions, all settlements paid on uninsured motorist claims, all

settlements paid on underinsured motorist claims, and all bodily injury settlements.

12. For Attorney's fees;

13. For costs of suit; and

14. For such further and other relief as may be deemed appropriate by the court;

Under the Third Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit

1. For all actual damages, according to proof;

2. For punitive damages

3. For costs of suit; and

4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem appropriate.

Under the Fourth Cause of Action for Constructive Trust

1. That the court impose a constructive trust on Dahan and PDI, as constructive trustee

for the benefit of plaintiffs with respect to any real or personal property, to prevent the transfer,

concealment and/or dissipation of property that was acquired with the illegal proceeds gained

through the acts of Dahan.

-20-

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT, VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION ACT, FRAUD AND DECEIT, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, AND EQUITABLE LIEN; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

/

>< ~

0 z ~

".~

' i~~l ... -

.-

.,_~·

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• • Under the Fifth Cause of Action for Equitable Lien

I. That the court imposes an equitable lien on Dahan and PDI to prevent such

defendants from retaining and enjoying the benefits of property acquired as a result of defendants

wrongful and fraudulent conduct, as herein alleged. It is respectfully requested that the court find

an equitable lien in favor of plaintiffs and against Dahan and PDI in the amount of the judgment for

the plaintiff in this action.

Under All Causes of Action

I. For costs of suit;

2. For attorney's fees;

3. For such other and further relief as the court may deem appropriate.

Dated: August 28, 2008 KNOX RICKSEN LLP

By: ______________________ _

Thomas E. Fraysse R. Patrick Snook Attorneys for Plaintiff ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

- 21 -COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT, VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA


PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name,

uu1ua> E. Fraysse SBN 104436 KNOX RICKSEN LLP

SBN 129912

1300 Clay Street Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94612-1427 J 0) 285-2500 FAX NO. (5J 0) 285-2505

ISU'PERIO'RCOURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

sTREET ADDREss, Ill N. Hill Street MA,uNGADDREss, Ill N. Hill Street

ciTYANDZIPCoD•,Los CA 90012

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET 00 Unlimited D Limited

(Amount (Amount demanded demanded is

Auto Tort

0 Auto (22) D Uninsured motorist (46)

Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort

0 Asbestos (04) D Product liability (24)

D Medical malpractice (45)

0 Other PI/PD/WD (23) Non-PIIPD/WD (Other) Tort

D Business tort/unfair business practice (07)

0 Civil rights (08)

0 Defamation (13) W Fraud (16)

0 Intellectual property (19) D Professional negligence (25)

D Other non-PIIPD/WD tort (35)

Complex Case Designation

D Counter D Joinder

Contract 0 Breach of contract/warranty (06)

0 Rule 3.740 collections (09)

D Other collections (09)

D Insurance coverage (18)

0 Other contract (37)

Real Property D Eminent domain/Inverse

condemnation (14)

D Wrongful eviction (33)

0 Other real property (26)

Unlawful Detainer

D Commercial (31)

D Residential (32)

0 Drugs(38)

Judicial Review

0 Asset forfeiture (05)

D Petition re: arbitration award (11)

D Writ of mandate (02) . I

FOR COURT USE ONLY

CASE NUMBER:

JUDGE

DEPT

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)

D AntitrustfTrade regulation {03)

D Construction defect (1 0)

0 Mass tort (40)

D Securities litigation (28)

D Environmentai!Toxic tort (30)

D Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41)

Enforcement of Judgment

D Enforcement of judgment (20)

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

D RIC0(27)

D Other complaint (not specified above) (42)

Miscellaneous Civil Petition

D Partnership and corporate governance (21)

D Other petition (not specified above) (43)

2. This case is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management:

a. D Large number of separately represented parties

b. D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel issues that will be time-consuming to resolve

c. D Substantial amount of documentary evidence

d. D Large number of witnesses

e. D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court

f. D Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.[X] monetary b. [X] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [X] punitive

4. Number of causes of action (specify): FIVE (5) 5. This case D is [X] is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may

Date: August 26, 2008 .. R. Patrick Snook

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

NOTICE • P~intiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed

u~j:ler the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in--sanctions.

• Fif~ this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If !l)is case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on aU

ottier parties to the action or proceeding. • Uiiless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv.

~ f5age1of2

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal Rules of Court, rulf:!S 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403. 3.740: Judicial Council of California Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10 CM-010 [Rev. Julv 1. 20071 www.courtinfo.ca.aov

INSTRU-NS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE CO~ SHEET CM-010

' To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.

To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3. 7 40 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.

To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex.

Auto Tort Auto (22)-Personallnjury/Property

Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the

case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto)

Other PI/PDIWD (Personal Injury/ Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort

Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/

Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or

toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45)

Medical MalpracticePhysicians & Surgeons

Other Professional Health Care Malpractice

Other Pt/PD/WD (23) Premises Liability (e.g., slip

and fall) Intentional Bodily lnjury/PDIWD

(e.g., assault, vandalism) Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of

Emotional Distress Other PI/PD/WD

Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business

Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination,

false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08)

Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) (13)

~taud (16) 'Intellectual Property (1 9) Professional Negligence (25) / Legal Malpractice ;~,, Other Professional Malpractice :~ (not medical or legal) ,Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35)

Emp~oyment :\wrongful Termination (36) jj)ther Employment (15)

CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 20071

CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract

Breach of ContracVWarranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease

Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction)

Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence)

Negligent Breach of Contract/ Warranty

Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections (e.g., money owed, open

book accounts) (09) Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections

Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally

complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage

Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute

Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse

Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26)

Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure)

Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal

drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Resident.iaQ

Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02)

Writ-Administrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court

Case Matter Writ-Other Limited Court Case

Review Other Judicial Review (39)

Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor

Commissioner A eals

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403)

AntitrustfTrade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmentalffoxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims

(arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41)

Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20)

Abstract of Judgment (Out of County)

Confession of Judgment (nondomestic relations)

Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award

(not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of

Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment

Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

RICO (27) Other Complaint (not specified

above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non-

harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint

Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint

(non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition

Partnership and Corporate Governance (21)

Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult

Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late

Claim Other Civil Petition

Page 2 of2 LexisNexis® Automated California Judicial Council Forms

Allstate Sues Chiropractor Daniel Dahan for Fraud...transact business in, and/or maintain their...

Documents

Transcript of Allstate Sues Chiropractor Daniel Dahan for Fraud...transact business in, and/or maintain their...