GEICO is suing a New York medical supply company it says billed more than $1 million in no-fault claims over roughly two and a half months.
The complaint, filed May 14, 2026 in the Eastern District of New York, names Ilak OS, Inc. - doing business as Il Ak Ortho Supply - and its sole owner, Ilyas Aksabaev. GEICO wants to claw back more than $210,000 it has already paid, and it is asking the court to declare that it owes nothing on a further $740,000 in pending claims.
Il Ak Ortho Supply was incorporated on April 8, 2025. Within roughly two and a half months of opening its doors, GEICO alleges, the company billed the carrier more than $1 million for four products: pneumatic compression devices, wearable PEMF devices, ultrasound therapy devices, and powered air mattresses. Those four items, the filing states, made up more than 99% of the billing.
GEICO says the volume had nothing to do with medical need. The complaint alleges that Aksabaev cut deals with the operators of no-fault clinics - the filing calls them "Clinic Controllers" - who steered prescriptions to Il Ak Ortho Supply in exchange for kickbacks and other financial incentives. About two-thirds of the disputed billing, according to the complaint, originated with three providers employed by or associated with South Bronx Medical Rehabilitation P.C.: John McGee, DO; Stella Amanze, PA; and Adelina Fazilov, NP.
McGee, the complaint states, has previously stated under oath that his signature was forged on multiple prescriptions issued in his name that were filled by Il Ak Ortho Supply. Prescriptions issued in Amanze's and Fazilov's names, GEICO alleges, often carried dates on which the insureds had not actually treated with them, and bore photocopied signatures. The complaint reproduces five examples, each tied to a PCD billed under HCPCS Code E0675.
The pricing is where the alleged scheme bites. GEICO says Il Ak Ortho Supply billed $2,826.70 per insured for a pneumatic compression device under HCPCS Code E0675 - a code that, under CMS coding guidelines cited in the filing, covers devices for patients with peripheral artery disease. GEICO alleges virtually none of the insureds had it.
The bigger play, according to the complaint, was on the bone-growth side. Il Ak Ortho Supply billed $3,300.00 per insured for a "Wearable PEMF Device" under HCPCS Code E0747, which represents an "Osteogenesis stimulator, electrical, non-invasive, other than spinal applications." It billed $2,700.00 per insured for an "Ultrasound Theraphy [sic]" device under HCPCS Code E0760, an "Osteogenesis stimulator, low intensity ultrasound, non-invasive."
CMS guidance quoted in the complaint says those codes apply only in narrow circumstances - nonunion of a long bone fracture documented by two sets of radiographs at least 90 days apart, failed joint fusion, or congenital pseudarthrosis. GEICO says the insureds typically walked away from minor fender-benders with soft-tissue sprains and strains, not fractures. The complaint alleges the company never dispensed genuine osteogenesis stimulators - just "cheap, portable stimulation devices" billed at osteogenesis-stimulator rates, which it says inflated charges "by an order of magnitude."
The powered air mattress story follows the same arc. GEICO says Il Ak Ortho Supply billed $3,961.75 per insured under HCPCS Code E0277, which represents a "Powered pressure-reducing air mattress" - a device meant for bedridden patients at risk of pressure ulcers. The complaint says the insureds were not bedridden, did not have pressure ulcers, and were typically prescribed physical therapy multiple times a week alongside the mattress. On information and belief, the filing adds, the company did not dispense actual mattresses, only mattress pads, which are reimbursable at far lower rates.
The business itself raises flags, according to GEICO. The complaint says Il Ak Ortho Supply lacked a genuine retail or publicly accessible office - just a virtual address - and submitted all its billing "c/o" Sanders Grossman Aronova, PLLC at 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500, Garden City, New York. Most of the insureds, the filing states, lived in Brooklyn, Queens, Nassau or Suffolk, outside Westchester County, where the complaint says the supplier was purportedly located.
The complaint lists clinics it says fed prescriptions into the operation, including locations on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, Gramatan Avenue in Mount Vernon, Queens Boulevard in Elmhurst, 130th Street in Richmond Hill, Burke Avenue in the Bronx, Rockaway Avenue in Brooklyn, and Willis Avenue in the Bronx. The Rockaway Avenue clinic, GEICO says, has billed under more than 110 different healthcare providers; the Mount Vernon clinic under more than 60; the Richmond Hill clinic under more than 50.
To show the pattern, GEICO points to insureds in the same accident getting near-identical prescriptions. In one example, three insureds in a June 3, 2025 accident all presented at the Atlantic Avenue clinic and were each prescribed a PCD under HCPCS Code E0675 on virtually identical prescriptions - despite being different ages and in different physical condition.
The complaint is built on New York's no-fault regime. Under N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(a), each insured has up to $50,000 in personal injury protection benefits, a pool GEICO says is being drained by inflated and unnecessary DME charges. Maximum charges are set by the state's Workers' Compensation DME Fee Schedule (12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 442.2). Non-fee-schedule items are capped at the lesser of 150% of acquisition cost or the usual and customary price.
GEICO also leans on N.Y. Public Health Law § 238-d, which bars practitioners from referring patients to a provider they have a compensation arrangement with unless they disclose it to the patient. GEICO says no such disclosure was made to any of the insureds named in the filing.
NF-3 and HCFA-1500 claim forms submitted in support of those charges carry verification warnings about knowingly filing false information - warnings, GEICO says, that were ignored.
The complaint brings six causes of action: declaratory judgment, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, two RICO counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d), and aiding and abetting fraud against the unidentified John Doe defendants. GEICO is seeking more than $210,000 in compensatory damages plus treble damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The defendants have not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled.
