GEICO is suing to recover more than $3.57 million it alleges two Florida clinics collected through no-fault bills it says were never payable.
The four GEICO underwriting companies filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 19, 2026, naming GTD Medical and Rehabilitation Center, Inc and Selest Health Center, Inc as defendants, along with four individuals connected to the two clinics. GEICO also asks the court to declare it owes nothing on more than $75,000 in claims still pending.
The complaint's central theory is not about treatment quality. It is about who owned the clinics.
Florida's no-fault system lets accident victims assign their personal injury protection benefits to a provider, which then bills the insurer directly. Providers can only be paid if services were “lawfully” provided, which the No-Fault Law defines as being “in substantial compliance with all relevant applicable criminal, civil, and administrative requirements of state and federal law related to the provision of medical services or treatment.”
Most Florida clinics need a license from the state's Agency for Health Care Administration. There is an exemption for a practice “wholly owned” by licensed health care practitioners. But under the No-Fault Law, a wholly owned practice can only collect PIP if the owner is a physician, dentist or chiropractor. A practice owned by acupuncturists or advanced practice registered nurses cannot collect PIP unless it obtains a clinic license.
That distinction sits at the center of GEICO's filing.
According to the complaint, two of the individual defendants are licensed acupuncturists who secretly owned and controlled GTD Medical throughout the relevant period. The filing alleges they could not have obtained a clinic license themselves because they had “a significant record of indebtedness and financial distress - including recent bankruptcy filings in which they had reported more than $1,000,000.00 in debt.” License applicants must satisfy the state that they have the assets, credit and projected revenue to operate.
Instead, the complaint alleges, they recruited a physician who agreed to “falsely pose as the sole owner” of GTD Medical in exchange for compensation. That physician was not named as a defendant in this suit. He died on or about April 10, 2025. The filing alleges that within weeks the same two individuals recruited a chiropractor - who is a defendant - to step into the same position and preserve the ownership exemption.
GEICO points to the corporate paperwork. The complaint states that the two acupuncturists were listed as GTD Medical's “vice presidents” in corporate filings at all relevant times, that one of them served as registered agent and signed many of the annual reports, and that both remained in those roles after the chiropractor supposedly assumed sole ownership.
The allegations against Selest run in parallel. GEICO says the defendant who owned that clinic is an advanced practice registered nurse, which meant Selest needed both a clinic license and a physician medical director actually performing the role. The complaint alleges that in or around 2016 she recruited the same physician to “falsely pose as the medical director” of Selest without carrying out the duties. Under Florida's Clinic Act, a medical director must conduct “systematic reviews of clinic billings to ensure that the billings are not fraudulent or unlawful,” and take “immediate corrective action” on discovering an unlawful charge.
For claims professionals, the billing detail is the part worth reading closely.
GEICO alleges the clinics ran nearly every insured through the same predetermined treatment path, regardless of what the accident actually involved. Initial examinations were billed under CPT code 99203, typically producing a charge of $300.00 or $320.00 at GTD Medical and $300.00 at Selest. The complaint says that code represents either “low complexity” medical decision-making or at least 30 minutes spent on the examination, and alleges neither occurred. It says the clinics used pre-printed checklist forms covering only a limited range of examination parameters.
Weeks of physical therapy followed, according to the filing. At GTD Medical, the complaint lists typical charges of $107.72 for therapeutic exercises under CPT code 97110, $72.00 for neuromuscular reeducation under 97112, $60.00 for manual therapy under 97140, $40.00 for manual electric stimulation under 97032 and $30.96 for mechanical traction under 97012. At Selest, it lists $60.00 for therapeutic exercises, $80.00 for low level laser treatment under Health Care Common Procedure Coding System code S8948, $30.00 for electrical stimulation, and $20.00 each for unlisted therapeutic exercises and hot/cold pack treatment.
Then there is the question of hours. Box 31 of the HCFA-1500 claim form must identify the practitioner who personally performed or directly supervised the service. Directly supervising means the practitioner “must be present in the office suite and [be] immediately available to furnish assistance and direction throughout the performance of the procedure.”
The complaint alleges the deceased physician's name appeared in that box across both clinics, and that the totals could not have been genuine. On May 16, 2022, the filing says, the defendants collectively billed for more than 37 hours of physical therapy and related services he supposedly performed or directly supervised across GTD Medical's West Palm Beach, Margate and Naples locations and Selest's Miami location - on a day the complaint says he was also billed as having performed three initial examinations. Other dates cited include more than 38 hours on May 10, 2024, more than 41 hours on May 20, 2024, and more than 40 hours on August 26, 2024.
After the physician's death, the complaint alleges the practice continued with two substitute names in Box 31: an advanced practice registered nurse who is not a defendant in this suit, and the defendant chiropractor. It cites more than 33 hours of physical therapy billed under the chiropractor's name across two locations on October 1, 2025.
GEICO alleges the purpose was to conceal that “physical therapy” was performed, to the extent it was performed at all, by “unlicensed and unsupervised individuals.” Florida's Physical Therapy Practice Act bars unlicensed and unsupervised individuals from practicing physical therapy.
The filing also alleges a general business practice of waiving deductibles and co-payments, saying almost all of the thousands of forms submitted to GEICO reported that no money was collected from the insured. Under Florida's False and Fraudulent Insurance Claims Statute, failing to make a good-faith effort to collect renders the charges unlawful and noncompensable.
On the accidents themselves, the complaint says contemporaneous police reports in most sampled claims indicated the insureds' vehicles were functional afterward and that no one was seriously injured, or injured at all. Where insureds did attend a hospital, the filing says they were usually observed briefly on an outpatient basis and discharged with a minor soft tissue diagnosis such as a sprain or strain. The complaint also points to groups from the same crash presenting for examinations within days of each other and receiving substantially similar diagnoses - five insureds following an August 2, 2025 accident, and four following a September 17, 2025 accident.
Eleven causes of action follow: declaratory judgment against each clinic, RICO claims under 18 USC 1962(c) and 1962(d), common law fraud, claims under Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices statute, and unjust enrichment. GEICO says it paid at least $3,300,000.00 on bills submitted through GTD Medical and at least $268,000.00 on bills submitted through Selest. It seeks treble damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and has demanded a jury trial.
The complaint says GEICO is under statutory and contractual obligations to process claims within 30 days, and that the documents it received were facially valid - which is why, it argues, it did not discover and could not reasonably have discovered the alleged fraud until shortly before filing.
The allegations are untested. No defendant has filed a response, and no court has ruled on any of the claims.
