GEICO has sued 11 New York medical equipment companies and a hidden owner, alleging a $10 million no-fault billing scheme.
The complaint, filed May 13, 2026 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, names ELNB Corp., LV Ortho World Corp., Healing Recovery Ortho Corp., Willis Equipment Corp., People's Choice Medical Supplies Inc., S & D Legal Assistant Corp., Newtimesupply Inc., GB Ortho World Corp., Gamlev Ortho Supply Inc., CSupply Corp. and New Way Living Inc., along with the individuals listed as each company's owner on paper. GEICO is also pursuing an unnamed "John Doe Defendant '1'" - described in the filing as a "Secret Owner" who, GEICO alleges, actually controlled and profited from all 11 entities.
According to the complaint, the durable medical equipment, or DME, companies took turns billing GEICO starting in March 2023, with each one running for less than 16 months before handing off to the next. GEICO calls it a "quick hit" operation built to keep any single tax ID from drawing scrutiny.
The bills totaled more than $10 million, the filing states. They covered pulsed electromagnetic field devices, bone stimulators, pneumatic compression devices, infrared heat pads, cold compression systems, handheld cold laser devices and sustained acoustic medicine units. GEICO says it paid more than $2.4 million and is asking the court to wipe out more than $4.7 million in pending claims.
GEICO alleges the companies billed for equipment that was not medically necessary, not actually delivered, or did not match the billing codes used. The complaint points to near-identical pricing across the supposedly unrelated providers: pulsed electromagnetic field devices billed at $4,766.24, $4,766.25, $4,724.00 or $4,500.00 under miscellaneous code E1399; cold compression systems at $1,800.00 or $1,650.00; Cure Max handheld cold laser devices at $3,450.00 or $3,150.00. Several of the companies, the filing states, used "virtually identical delivery receipts," and all 11 routed their collection work through the same Garden City law firm, Sanders, Grossman, Aronova, PLLC.
The headline piece of the case is the wholesale invoice angle. Under 11 N.Y.C.R.R. 68, Appendix 17-C, Part E, equipment not listed on the state fee schedule is reimbursable at the lesser of 150% of the provider's acquisition cost or the price charged to the general public. So acquisition cost drives the payout - and according to GEICO, the defendants kept feeding the system fabricated ones.
The complaint identifies seven supposed wholesalers it says were either misappropriated names or outright shams. Improvers Wholesale Supply Company, on invoices submitted by CSupply, was a North Carolina company that dissolved in 2002 - 22 years before the invoices were dated. Prime Wholesaler LLC, on invoices from GB Ortho, dissolved in 2013; both former managing members are deceased, according to the filing, and the address on the invoice matches the one Prime Wholesaler used with the South Dakota Secretary of State, which the complaint describes as an assisted living facility. Wholesale Liquidators LLC, on Gamlev Ortho invoices, dissolved in 2007. SD Equipment & Supply Wholesale Inc., used by ELNB, Newtimesupply and New Way, lists 2716 West 15th Street in Brooklyn as its address, which the complaint says is the location of a UPS Store. Some of the Newtimesupply and New Way invoices spell the wholesaler "AD Equipment" at the top of the page and "SD Equipment" at the bottom; the filing notes that "A" and "S" sit next to each other on a keyboard.
The complaint also draws on sworn testimony from earlier no-fault cases. Jim Molinaro, co-founder of Smart Recovery Technologies LLC, reviewed three invoices submitted in his company's name by S & D Legal Assistant, Willis Equipment and People's Choice. The filing says he stated they were each fake and not generated by Smart Recovery. In separate sworn testimony in a case filed by Farmers Insurance Company, the complaint says, Molinaro testified that Smart Recovery never issued or generated the invoices submitted by Willis Equipment and People's Choice.
Tyler Theobald, the "purported owner" of Wholesale Connect - a Utah entity whose invoices Healing Recovery used - has testified, according to the complaint, that Wholesale Connect was falsely incorporated, that he is not the owner of the company, and that he has never done business with Healing Recovery. The address on the Wholesale Connect invoice, the filing states, was Theobald's parents' former home in Payson, Utah.
A separate strand of the complaint focuses on Top Notch Wholesale Inc. and its owner, Arthur Gitlevich. GEICO alleges CSupply submitted a Top Notch invoice reflecting $370,785.00 in DME purportedly purchased on May 14, 2025, but the complaint says Top Notch's bank records for the period show no money moving from CSupply to Top Notch. The filing also alleges Top Notch and Gitlevich have been sued multiple times in connection with no-fault fraud schemes, and says Gitlevich, in deposition testimony in an unrelated case, asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege when asked whether Top Notch was formed to launder money as part of no-fault insurance schemes.
On the medical side, GEICO alleges the prescriptions backing the bills were issued at colluding clinics under "predetermined fraudulent protocols," with photocopied or stamped signatures from referring providers. Virtually all the insureds, the filing says, were people in low-impact "fender-bender" accidents with at most soft-tissue strains - yet they received near-identical bundles of equipment regardless of age, weight, injury or accident.
GEICO is suing under the federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d), and for common-law fraud and unjust enrichment, and is asking for treble damages on the RICO counts. Amounts already paid by GEICO range from more than $17,000.00 on ELNB bills to more than $482,000.00 on People's Choice bills, according to the complaint.
For carriers and claims teams handling New York no-fault, the case sets out a recognizable pattern in unusual detail: serial DME providers with overlapping run times, matching prices across separate tax IDs, shared collection counsel, and acquisition-cost paperwork tied to wholesalers the complaint says did not exist on the dates of the invoices.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The defendants have not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled.
