Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 249 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`C.A. No.
`
`
`
`
`ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
`ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
`AND
`ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
`COMPANY,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`vs.
`
`HOLLIS NOVEL COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL, P.C.,
`STARRETT CITY MEDICAL, P.C.,
`HILLCREST MEDICAL CARE, P.C.,
`SMART CHOICE MEDICAL, P.C.,
`AZU AJUDUA, M.D.,
`ROLANDO JOSE MENDEZ CHUMACEIRO, M.D.,
`PETER KHAIM a/k/a PETER KHAIMOV,
`ALEKSANDR GULKAROV,
`ROMAN ISRAILOV,
`VYACHESLAV MUSHYAKOV,
`ARKADIY KHAIMOV,
`RX FOR YOU CORP.,
`SUTTER PHARMACY INC. d/b/a RX FOR YOU,
`EXCELLENT CHOICE PHARMACY CORP.,
`A&P HOLDING GROUP CORP.,
`ANTURIO MARKETING INC.,
`P&K MARKETING SERVICES INC.,
`K&L CONSULTANTS INC.,
`LL CONSULTING GROUP INC. d/b/a BILLING FOR YOU,
`KEEPERS FOR YOU CORP., AND
`ALL NETWORK MARKETING CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, and
`
`Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company (collectively, “Allstate” and/or “plaintiffs”), by
`
`their attorneys, Smith & Brink, P.C., allege as follows:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`C.A. No.
`
`
`
`
`ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
`ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
`AND
`ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
`COMPANY,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`vs.
`
`HOLLIS NOVEL COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL, P.C.,
`STARRETT CITY MEDICAL, P.C.,
`HILLCREST MEDICAL CARE, P.C.,
`SMART CHOICE MEDICAL, P.C.,
`AZU AJUDUA, M.D.,
`ROLANDO JOSE MENDEZ CHUMACEIRO, M.D.,
`PETER KHAIM a/k/a PETER KHAIMOV,
`ALEKSANDR GULKAROV,
`ROMAN ISRAILOV,
`VYACHESLAV MUSHYAKOV,
`ARKADIY KHAIMOV,
`RX FOR YOU CORP.,
`SUTTER PHARMACY INC. d/b/a RX FOR YOU,
`EXCELLENT CHOICE PHARMACY CORP.,
`A&P HOLDING GROUP CORP.,
`ANTURIO MARKETING INC.,
`P&K MARKETING SERVICES INC.,
`K&L CONSULTANTS INC.,
`LL CONSULTING GROUP INC. d/b/a BILLING FOR YOU,
`KEEPERS FOR YOU CORP., AND
`ALL NETWORK MARKETING CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, and
`
`Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company (collectively, “Allstate” and/or “plaintiffs”), by
`
`their attorneys, Smith & Brink, P.C., allege as follows:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 249 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This action involves a complex and sprawling scheme to defraud that was carried
`
`out using professional corporations and pharmacies that were operated and controlled in violation
`
`of New York law.
`
`2.
`
`The first aspect of this scheme involves several purportedly physician-owned
`
`professional corporations (“PCs”), namely Defendants Hollis Novel Comprehensive Medical, P.C
`
`(“Hollis”), Starrett City Medical, P.C. (“Starrett”), Hillcrest Medical Care, P.C. (“Hillcrest”), and
`
`Smart Choice Medical, P.C. (“Smart Choice”) (collectively, “PC Defendants”). The PC
`
`Defendants were actually operated and controlled by laypersons.
`
`3.
`
`As set out below, the laypersons (i.e., Defendants Peter Khaim a/k/a Peter Khaimov
`
`(“Khaim”), Aleksandr Gulkarov (“Gulkarov”), and Roman Israilov (“Israilov”) (collectively,
`
`“Manager Defendants”)) partnered with licensed physicians (i.e., Defendants Azu Ajudua, M.D.
`
`(“Ajudua”) and Rolando Jose Mendez Chumaceiro, M.D. (“Chumaceiro”) (collectively,
`
`“Physician Defendants”)) to organize and then operate the PC Defendants under the names and
`
`medical licenses of the physicians.
`
`4.
`
`The PC Defendants were purposely organized to circumvent New York law and its
`
`strong prohibition against what is known, colloquially, as the illegal corporate practice of
`
`medicine.
`
`5.
`
`In New York, the illegal corporate practice of medicine occurs when a physician is
`
`represented to the public as the sole officer, director, and shareholder of a PC, yet the PC is actually
`
`owned, operated, and controlled by laypersons who are not licensed or authorized to practice
`
`medicine or derive financial benefit from the delivery of professional medical services.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 249 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`6.
`
`In schemes like this, the laypersons disguise their control of the PCs through
`
`various means with the goal of siphoning-off the PCs’ professional fees and profits, which are
`
`generated through the delivery of medical services to patients.
`
`7.
`
`Layperson control over medical PCs is prohibited in New York because when
`
`physicians are beholden to non-physicians, the desire to generate profits is placed ahead of patient
`
`care, which creates an ethical conflict and undermines the quality of care.
`
`8.
`
`New York is an ideal venue for schemes like these because every automobile owner
`
`is required to purchase insurance, and every insurance company is required to provide coverage of
`
`up to $50,000.00 per person for reasonable, accident-related medical expenses.
`
`9.
`
`The Defendants’ scheme was propelled by Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov’s illegal
`
`ownership and control of the PC Defendants.
`
`10.
`
`The Defendants used the PC Defendants as vehicles to bill for an array of tests and
`
`treatments that were medically unnecessary, excessive, and clinically worthless.
`
`11.
`
`Khaim’s, Gulkarov’s, and Israilov’s positions of control allowed them to (a) direct
`
`patient care, (b) ensure the delivery of a high frequency of tests and treatments to patients of the
`
`PC Defendants, and (c) guide the referral of patients to other providers that were under their
`
`ownership and control.
`
`12.
`
`Another aspect of this scheme involved writing prescriptions and billing for
`
`unnecessary medications.
`
`13.
`
`Patients of the PC Defendants were prescribed a broad range of prescription and
`
`non-prescription medications that were unnecessary, expensive, unwanted, unproven, and often
`
`ineffective.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 4 of 249 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Khaim’s, Gulkarov’s, and Israilov’s control over the PC Defendants ensured that
`
`all of the prescriptions were directed to specific pharmacies under their control.
`
`15.
`
`For example, Khaim and Gulkarov owned or controlled a series of pharmacies,
`
`namely Defendants Rx For You Corp. (“Rx for You”), Sutter Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a Rx For You
`
`(“Sutter Pharmacy”), and Excellent Choice Pharmacy Corp. (“Excellent Choice”) (collectively,
`
`“Pharmacy Defendants”).
`
`16.
`
`The Pharmacy Defendants were superficially registered under the names of
`
`Defendants Vyacheslav Mushyakov (“Mushyakov”) and Arkadiy Khaimov (“Khaimov”), but the
`
`pharmacies were actually under the control of Khaim and Gulkarov.
`
`17. Mushyakov and Khaimov were ideal candidates to serve as straw owners of the
`
`Pharmacy Defendants because they had familial or employment relationships with the Manager
`
`Defendants.
`
`18.
`
`As detailed with particularity below, Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov—acting in
`
`their personal capacities and as the owners of a series of management, marketing, realty, funding,
`
`and billing companies—conspired with Ajudua, Chumaceiro, Mushyakov, and Khaimov to
`
`purposely facilitate the unlawful operation of the PC Defendants and Pharmacy Defendants.
`
`19.
`
`This scheme evolved over many years, as Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov purposely
`
`and knowingly sought to avoid the provisions of New York law that prohibit non-physicians from
`
`exerting control over a physician-owned PC, including, but not limited to, the PC’s management
`
`and financial affairs.
`
`20.
`
`Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov used several shell companies to control the PC
`
`Defendants and Pharmacy Defendants, including Defendants A&P Holding Group Corp. (“A&P
`
`Holding”), Anturio Marketing Inc. (“Anturio Marketing”), P&K Marketing Services Inc. (“P&K
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 5 of 249 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`Marketing”), K&L Consultants Inc. (“K&L Consultants”), LL Consulting Group Inc. d/b/a Billing
`
`For You (“Billing For You”), Keepers For You Corp. (“Keeper For You”), and All Network
`
`Marketing Corp. (“All Network Marketing”) (collectively, “Shell Companies”).
`
`21.
`
`Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov also used the Shell Companies to conceal the fact
`
`that the proceeds and profits of the PC Defendants flowed to them rather than to the Physician
`
`Defendants.
`
`22.
`
`The success of this scheme relied on a large base of patients who were eligible to
`
`claim reimbursement of their medical and pharmacy expenses under New York’s No-Fault laws.
`
`23.
`
`Indeed, the PC Defendants’ and the Pharmacy Defendants’ patient base consisted
`
`of persons (i.e., “Claimants”) who were allegedly injured in automobile accidents and therefore
`
`eligible for No-Fault coverage under an insurance policy issued by Allstate.
`
`24.
`
`As part of this scheme, Allstate Claimants were made to enter into assignment of
`
`benefit agreements with the PC Defendants and the Pharmacy Defendants, which gave these
`
`providers the right to seek payments directly from Allstate—payments that were funded using the
`
`Claimants’ available No-Fault insurance coverage.
`
`25.
`
`Following the execution of these assignment of benefit agreements, the PC
`
`Defendants billed for a battery of treatments and tests, and the Pharmacy Defendants billed for
`
`medications purportedly dispensed and delivered to Allstate Claimants.
`
`26.
`
`The PC Defendants and the Pharmacy Defendants sought and collected No-Fault
`
`benefit payments directly from Allstate in every case.
`
`27.
`
`The Defendants carried out their scheme throught the U.S. Mail, which was used
`
`repeatedly to submit the PC Defendants’ and the Pharmacy Defendants’ records, bills, and other
`
`claim-related documents to Allstate.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 6 of 249 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`28.
`
`The records and bills mailed to Allstate contained warranties that the PC
`
`Defendants and Pharmacy Defendants were eligible to seek and collect No-Fault benefits from
`
`Allstate as assignees of the Claimants.
`
`29.
`
`Allstate reasonably relied on the facial validity of the records and bills mailed by
`
`(or on behalf of) the PC Defendants and the Pharmacy Defendants—and the representations
`
`contained therein—when making No-Fault benefit payments to the PC Defendants and the
`
`Pharmacy Defendants.
`
`30.
`
`The No-Fault benefit claims involved in this scheme were false and fraudulent—
`
`and the Defendants knew it—because the records and bills contained material misrepresentations
`
`concerning the PC Defendants’ and the Pharmacy Defendants’ right to be paid under New York’s
`
`No-Fault laws.
`
`31.
`
`The PC Defendants and Pharmacy Defendants were never eligible to seek or collect
`
`No-Fault benefit payments from Allstate for the following reasons:
`
`a.
`
`The PC Defendants were unlawfully operated, managed and controlled by one or
`
`more individuals not lawfully authorized to (i) provide medical services, (ii) own
`
`or control a professional service corporation, or (iii) profit from a professional
`
`service corporation organized to provide medical services;
`
`b.
`
`The PC Defendants were purposefully caused to split their professional fees and
`
`profits with non-physicians;
`
`c.
`
`The PC Defendants billed Allstate for tests and treatments that were (i) not
`
`medically necessary, (ii) purportedly provided pursuant to a predetermined
`
`protocol, (iii) not rendered as represented (if rendered at all), (iv) intentionally
`
`inflated or misrepresented to justify the continuation of medical treatment, and (v)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 7 of 249 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`purposely designed to financially enrich the non-physicians at the expense of
`
`patient care.
`
`d.
`
`The Pharmacy Defendants billed Allstate for medications that were (i) not
`
`medically necessary, (ii) prescribed according to financial relationships between
`
`the pharmacies and the prescribing providers, (iii) repeatedly dispensed in
`
`excessive amounts that were harmful to patients, (iv) charged at inflated amounts
`
`and not billed in accordance with the fee schedule, (v) never specifically formulated
`
`for individual patients, and (vi) mass produced and dispensed in violation of
`
`applicable regulatory and licensing requirements.
`
`32.
`
`By this Complaint, Allstate brings this action against the Defendants for: (a)
`
`violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1961, et seq.; (b) common-law fraud; and (c) unjust enrichment.
`
`33.
`
`This action seeks actual damages of more than $864,396.00, which represent No-
`
`Fault benefit payments that Allstate was wrongfully caused to make to the PC Defendants and the
`
`Pharmacy Defendants during the course of this scheme.
`
`34.
`
`Allstate also seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that it is not legally
`
`obligated to pay or reimburse the PC Defendants (or their agents) in connection with any pending
`
`or unpaid No-Fault benefit claims because: (a) the PC Defendants were unlawfully owned and
`
`controlled by laypersons (i.e., Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov); (b) the PC Defendants unlawfully
`
`channeled their professional fees and profits to Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov through a series of
`
`agreements; (c) the PC Defendants unlawfully billed for tests and treatments that were actually
`
`rendered by independent contractors rather than employees of the PC Defendants; and (d) the PC
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 8 of 249 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`Defendants billed Allstate for tests and treatments that were medically unnecessary, excessive, and
`
`clinically worthless, and in some cases, never actually rendered at all.
`
`35.
`
`Allstate also seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that it is not legally
`
`obligated to pay or reimburse the Pharmacy Defendants (or their agents) in connection with any
`
`pending or unpaid No-Fault benefit claims because the Pharmacy Defendants, at all relevant times,
`
`submitted or caused to be submitted claims for pharmacy services that were excessive, not
`
`medically necessary, rendered pursuant to a pattern of treatment designed solely to ensure financial
`
`enrichment and submitted in violation of one or more regulatory and licensing requirements
`
`applicable to pharmacies, thus rendering the Pharmacy Defendants completely ineligible to receive
`
`reimbursement under New York’s No-Fault laws.
`
`36.
`
`All of the acts and omissions of the Defendants described throughout this
`
`Complaint were undertaken intentionally.
`
`37.
`
`The Defendants’ fraudulent scheme was designed to elicit payment of automobile
`
`insurance contract proceeds from Allstate to, or for the benefit of, the Defendants.
`
`38.
`
`In each claim at issue in this Complaint, an Allstate automobile insurance contract
`
`was the platform upon which the Defendants sought—and in many cases obtained—payment for
`
`the healthcare and pharmacy services that were not compensable under New York’s No-Fault laws.
`
`39.
`
`The Defendants knew that the Claimants identified in this Complaint were eligible
`
`for insurance coverage pursuant to automobile insurance policies issued by Allstate.
`
`40.
`
`Allstate estimates that the Defendants purposely submitted to Allstate hundreds of
`
`bills on behalf of the PC Defendants and Pharmacy Defendants—bills that the Defendants knew
`
`were not compensable under New York’s No-Fault laws.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 9 of 249 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`41.
`
`Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, and
`
`Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company are corporations duly organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Illinois, having their principal place of business in Northbrook,
`
`Illinois.
`
`42. At all times relevant to the allegations contained in this Complaint, Allstate
`
`Insurance Company, Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, and Allstate Property &
`
`Casualty Insurance Company were authorized to conduct business in New York.
`
`B.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`1.
`
`Manager Defendants
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Peter Khaim
`
`43. Peter Khaim (“Khaim”) resides in and is a citizen of New York.
`
`44. Khaim does not hold a medical license, and Khaim is not authorized to practice
`
`medicine in the State of New York.
`
`45. Khaim is also not authorized or permitted under New York law to own, control, or
`
`profit from professional corporations organized to practice medicine.
`
`46. Khaim is the registered owner of Sutter Pharmacy and several Shell Companies,
`
`including A&P Holding, Anturio Marketing, and P&K Consulting.
`
`47. As set out below, Khaim used the Shell Companies as a way to control the PC
`
`Defendants and the Pharmacy Defendants.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 10 of 249 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`48. At all relevant times, Khaim, individually and through the Shell Companies,
`
`participated in the operation and management of the PC Defendants by exerting unlawful control
`
`over the PC Defendants, including the PC Defendants’ professional fees and profits.
`
`49. As part of this scheme, Khaim caused the PC Defendants to aggressively seek and
`
`collect payments from Allstate under New York’s No-Fault laws even though the PC Defendants
`
`were unlawfully operated and controlled by laypersons.
`
`50. Even if he did not personally deliver medical services to patients of the PC
`
`Defendants, Khaim still participated in the operation and management of the PC Defendant
`
`enterprises by, among other things, (a) controlling and conducting the PC Defendants’ affairs, (b)
`
`causing the PC Defendants to seek and collect payments for non-compensable medical services,
`
`and (c) siphoning-off the PC Defendants’ professional fees and profits; therefore, Khaim is
`
`responsible for the fraudulent and non-compensable services that were purportedly rendered to
`
`patients of the PC Defendants and billed to Allstate under New York’s No-Fault law.
`
`51. Khaim also participated in the ownership and control of the Pharmacy Defendants,
`
`both individually and through the Shell Companies.
`
`52. As part of this scheme, Khaim caused the PC Defendants to deliver prescriptions
`
`for medically unnecessary prescriptions to the Pharmacy Defendants, which the Pharmacy
`
`Defendants then dispensed to Allstate Claimants.
`
`53. Khaim also caused the Pharmacy Defendants to aggressively seek and collect
`
`payments from Allstate under New York’s No-Fault laws for these medically unnecessary
`
`prescriptions.
`
`54. Even if he did not personally write prescriptions or dispense medications to Allstate
`
`Claimants, Khaim still participated in the operation and management of the Pharmacy Defendant
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 11 of 249 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`enterprises by (a) owning Sutter Pharmacy, (b) acquiring the business assets of Rx For You, and
`
`(c) funding and controlling Excellent Choice.
`
`b.
`
`Alexsandr Gulkarov
`
`55. Alexsandr Gulkarov (“Gulkarov”) resides in and is a citizen of New York.
`
`56. Gulkarov does not hold a medical license, and Gulkarov is not authorized to
`
`practice medicine in the State of New York.
`
`57. Gulkarov is also not authorized or permitted under New York law to own, control,
`
`or profit from professional corporations organized to practice medicine.
`
`58. Gulkarov is the owner of several Shell Companies, including Billing For You and
`
`Keepers For You.
`
`59. As set out below, Gulkarov participated in the operation and management of the
`
`Hollis, Starrett, Hillcrest, and Smart Choice enterprises as a management-level employee of each
`
`entity.
`
`60. Gulkarov also used the Shell Companies owned by him (i.e., Billing For You and
`
`Keepers For You) as a way to unlawfully control and profit from the Hollis, Starrett, Hillcrest, and
`
`Smart Choice enterprises.
`
`61. As part of this scheme, Gulkarov caused the PC Defendants to aggressively seek
`
`and collect payments from Allstate under New York’s No-Fault laws even though the PC
`
`Defendants were unlawfully operated and controlled by laypersons.
`
`62. Even if he did not personally deliver medical services to patients of the PC
`
`Defendants, Gulkarov still participated in the operation and management of the PC Defendant
`
`enterprises by, among other things, (a) controlling and conducting the PC Defendants’ affairs, (b)
`
`causing the PC Defendants to seek and collect payments for non-compensable medical services,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 12 of 249 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`and (c) siphoning-off the PC Defendants’ professional fees and profits; therefore, Gulkarov is
`
`responsible for the fraudulent and non-compensable services that were purportedly rendered to
`
`patients of the PC Defendants and billed to Allstate under New York’s No-Fault law.
`
`c.
`
`Roman Israilov
`
`63. Roman Israilov (“Israilov”) resides in and is a citizen of New York.
`
`64.
`
`Israilov does not hold a medical license, and Israilov is not authorized to practice
`
`medicine in the State of New York.
`
`65.
`
`Israilov is also not authorized or permitted under New York law to own, control, or
`
`profit from professional corporations organized to practice medicine.
`
`66. As set out below, Israilov participated in the operation and management of the
`
`Hollis, Starrett, Hillcrest, and Smart Choice enterprises as a management-level employee of each
`
`entity.
`
`67.
`
`Israilov also used one of the Shell Companies owned by him (i.e., All Network
`
`Marketing) as a way to unlawfully control and profit from the Hollis, Starrett, Hillcrest, and Smart
`
`Choice enterprises.
`
`68. As part of this scheme, Israilov caused the PC Defendants to aggressively seek and
`
`collect payments from Allstate under New York’s No-Fault laws even though the PC Defendants
`
`were unlawfully operated and controlled by laypersons.
`
`69. Even if he did not personally deliver medical services to patients of the PC
`
`Defendants, Israilov still participated in the operation and management of the PC Defendant
`
`enterprises by, among other things, (a) controlling and conducting the PC Defendants’ affairs, (b)
`
`causing the PC Defendants to seek and collect payments for non-compensable medical services,
`
`and (c) siphoning-off the PC Defendants’ professional fees and profits; therefore, Israilov is
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 13 of 249 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`responsible for the fraudulent and non-compensable services that were purportedly rendered to
`
`patients of the PC Defendants and billed to Allstate under New York’s No-Fault law.
`
`2.
`
`Physician Defendants
`
`a.
`
`Azu Ajudua, M.D.
`
`70. Azu Ajudua, M.D. (“Ajudua”) resides in and is a citizen of New York.
`
`71. Ajudua is a physician who was licensed to practice medicine in the State of New
`
`York.
`
`72. Ajudua surrendered his New York medical license on July 23, 2019 following a
`
`conviction on felony charges relating to his participation in an unrelated healthcare fraud scheme.
`
`73. Prior to his felony conviction, Ajudua was reported to be the sole officer, director,
`
`and shareholder of Hollis, Starrett, and Hillcrest.
`
`74. Ajudua participated in this scheme by providing, or purporting to provide, medical
`
`services to patients of Hollis, Starrett, and Hillcrest, and by prescribing medications that were
`
`dispensed to these patients by the Pharmacy Defendants.
`
`75. Ajudua also participated in this scheme by falsely holding himself out to the public
`
`and to Allstate as the sole officer, director, and shareholder of Hollis, Starrett, and Hillcrest, and
`
`by allowing Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov to operate and control Hollis, Starrett, and Hillcrest
`
`and profit from their operation.
`
`76. Even though he did not fully control Hollis, Starrett, and Hillcrest, Ajudua still
`
`participated in the operation of the Hollis, Starrett, and Hillcrest enterprises by signing—or lending
`
`his name to— Hollis, Starrett, and Hillcrest’s corporate and ownership documents, as well as the
`
`entities’ treatment records and invoices; therefore, Ajudua is responsible for the fraudulent and
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 14 of 249 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`non-compensable medical services that were purportedly rendered to patients of Hollis, Starrett,
`
`and Hillcrest and billed to Allstate under New York’s No-Fault laws.
`
`77. Ajudua is also responsible for certain fraudulent and non-compensable prescription
`
`medications that were dispensed to Claimants by the Pharmacy Defendants and billed to Allstate
`
`under New York’s No-Fault laws.
`
`b.
`
`Rolando Jose Mendez Chumaceiro, M.D.
`
`78. Rolando Jose Mendez Chumaceiro, M.D. (“Chumaceiro”) resides in and is a citizen
`
`of the State of New York.
`
`79. Chumaceiro is a physician who was licensed to practice medicine in the State of
`
`New York during the relevant period.
`
`80. Chumaceiro participated in this scheme by providing, or purporting to provide,
`
`medical services to patients of Smart Choice, and by prescribing medications that were dispensed
`
`to these patients by the Pharmacy Defendants.
`
`81. Chumaceiro also participated in this scheme by falsely holding himself out to the
`
`public and to Allstate as the sole officer, director, and shareholder of Smart Choice, and by
`
`allowing Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov to operate and control Smart Choice and profit from its
`
`operation.
`
`82. Even though he did not fully control Smart Choice, Chumaceiro still participated
`
`in the operation of the Smart Choice enterprise by signing—or lending his name to—Smart
`
`Choice’s corporate and ownership documents, as well as Smart Choice’s treatment records and
`
`invoices; therefore, Chumaceiro is responsible for the fraudulent and non-compensable medical
`
`services that were purportedly rendered to patients of Smart Choice and billed to Allstate under
`
`New York’s No-Fault laws.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 15 of 249 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`83. Chumaceiro is also responsible for certain fraudulent and non-compensable
`
`prescription medications that were dispensed to Claimants by the Pharmacy Defendants and billed
`
`to Allstate under New York’s No-Fault laws.
`
`3.
`
`PC Defendants
`
`a.
`
`Hollis Novel Comprehensive Medical, P.C.
`
`84. Hollis Novel Comprehensive Medical, P.C. (“Hollis”) is organized as a physician-
`
`owned professional corporation under New York law with a principal place of business located at
`
`205-07 Hillside Avenue, Hollis, New York.
`
`85. At all relevant times, Ajudua falsely purported to be the sole officer, director, and
`
`shareholder of Hollis.
`
`86. As set out below, Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov participated in the operation and
`
`management of the Hollis enterprise by exerting unlawful control over Ajudua and Hollis,
`
`including Hollis’s professional fees and profits.
`
`87. As part of this scheme, Hollis was caused to aggressively seek and collect payments
`
`from Allstate under New York’s No-Fault laws even though Hollis was unlawfully operated and
`
`controlled by laypersons.
`
`88. Because Hollis was unlawfully operated and controlled by laypersons, and thus
`
`operated in direct violation of N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1508, Hollis was therefore never lawfully
`
`entitled to seek or collect No-Fault benefit payments pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102.
`
`b.
`
`Starrett City Medical, P.C.
`
`89. Starrett City Medical, P.C. (“Starrett”) is organized as a physician-owned
`
`professional corporation under New York law with a principal place of business located at 105-10
`
`Flatlands Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 16 of 249 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`90. At all relevant times, Ajudua falsely purported to be the sole officer, director, and
`
`shareholder of Starrett.
`
`91. As set out below, Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov participated in the operation and
`
`management of the Starrett enterprise by exerting unlawful control over Ajudua and Starrett,
`
`including Starrett’s professional fees and profits.
`
`92. As part of this scheme, Starrett was caused to aggressively seek and collect
`
`payments from Allstate under New York’s No-Fault laws even though Starrett was unlawfully
`
`operated and controlled by laypersons.
`
`93. Because Starrett was unlawfully operated and controlled by laypersons, and thus
`
`operated in direct violation of N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1508, Starrett was therefore never lawfully
`
`entitled to seek or collect No-Fault benefit payments pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102.
`
`c.
`
`Hillcrest Medical Care, P.C.
`
`94. Hillcrest Medical Care, P.C. (“Hillcrest”) is organized as a physician-owned
`
`professional corporation under New York law with a principal place of business located at 204-12
`
`Hillside Avenue, Hollis, New York.
`
`95. At all relevant times, Ajudua falsely purported to be the sole officer, director, and
`
`shareholder of Hillcrest.
`
`96. As set out below, Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov participated in the operation and
`
`management of the Hillcrest enterprise by exerting unlawful control over Ajudua and Hillcrest,
`
`including Hillcrest’s professional fees and profits.
`
`97. As part of this scheme, Hillcrest was caused to aggressively seek and collect
`
`payments from Allstate under New York’s No-Fault laws even though Hillcrest was unlawfully
`
`operated and controlled by laypersons.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 17 of 249 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`98. Because Hillcrest was unlawfully operated and controlled by laypersons, and thus
`
`operated in direct violation of N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1508, Hillcrest was therefore never lawfully
`
`entitled to seek or collect No-Fault benefit payments pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102.
`
`d.
`
`Smart Choice Medical, P.C.
`
`99. Smart Choice Medical, P.C. (“Smart Choice”) is organized as a physician-owned
`
`professional corporation under New York law with principal places of business located at 409
`
`Rockaway Boulevard, Brooklyn, New York and 1767 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, New York.
`
`100. At all relevant times, Chumaceiro falsely purported to be the sole officer, director,
`
`and shareholder of Smart Choice.
`
`101. As set out below, Khaim, Gulkarov, and Israilov participated in the operation and
`
`management of the Smart Choice enterprise by exerting unlawful control over Chumaceiro and
`
`Smart Choice, including Smart Choice’s professional fees and profits.
`
`102. As part of this scheme, Smart Choice was caused to aggressively seek and collect
`
`payments from Allstate under New York’s No-Fault laws even though Smart Choice was
`
`unlawfully operated and controlled by laypersons.
`
`103. Because Smart Choice was unlawfully operated and controlled by laypersons, and
`
`thus operated in direct violation of N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1508, Smart Choice was therefore never
`
`lawfully entitled to seek or collect No-Fault benefit payments pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102.
`
`4.
`
`Pharmacy Defendants
`
`a.
`
`Rx For You Corp.
`
`104. Rx For You Corp. (“Rx For You”) is a domestic business corporation organized
`
`under the laws of the State of New York.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 18 of 249 PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`105. Rx For You maintains its principal place of business at 1767 Southern Blvd., Bronx,
`
`New York.
`
`106. Mushyakov was the purported owner of Rx For You.
`
`107. Mushyakov maintained close ties to one or more of the Manager Defendants during
`
`the course of this scheme.
`
`108. In furtherance of this scheme, Mushyakov was caused to sell Rx For You’s business
`
`to Khaim.
`
`109. As part of this scheme, Claimants were made to enter into assignment of benefit
`
`agreements with Rx For You, which gave Rx For You the right to seek payments directly from
`
`Allstate—payments that were funded using the Claimants’ available No-Fault insurance coverage.
`
`110. Following the execution of these assignment of benefit agreements, Rx For You
`
`purportedly dispensed medications to Claimants.
`
`111. Rx For You then sought and collected No-Fault benefit payments from Allstate.
`
`112. As alleged herein, because of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Rx For You was
`
`never lawfully eligible to receive such payments from Allstate.
`
`b.
`
`Sutter Pharmacy Inc. d/b/a Rx For You
`
`113. Sutter Pharmacy Inc. d/b/a Rx For You (“Sutter Pharmacy”) is a domestic business
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.
`
`114. Sutter Pharmacy maintains its principal place of business at 1767 Southern Blvd,
`
`Bronx, New York.
`
`115. Sutter Pharmacy was the successor pharmacy to Rx For You.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-06108-ENV-RER Document 1 Filed 12/16/20 Page 19 of 249 PageID #: 19
`
`
`
`116. After consummating a business transfer sale between Rx For You and Sutter
`
`Pharmacy, Khaim sought and obtained permission to operate Sutter Pharmacy under the assumed
`
`name “Rx For You.”
`
`117. At all relevant times, Khaim directed the operation and management of Sutter
`
`Pharmacy.
`
`118. As part of this scheme, Claimants were made to enter into assignment of benefit
`
`agreements with Sutter Pharmacy, which gave Sutter Pharmacy the right to seek payments directly
`
`from Allstate—payments that were funded using the Claimants’ available No-Fault insurance
`
`coverage.
`
`119. Following the execution of these assignment of benefit agreements, Sutter
`
`Pharmacy purportedly dispensed and/or delivered medicati
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
