A major automobile insurer is seeking to recover more than $404,000 it says was wrongfully obtained through the submission of hundreds of allegedly fraudulent insurance charges for medically unnecessary and non-reimbursable durable medical equipment. The complaint was filed by Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), along with GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, and GEICO Casualty Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 17, 2026. The defendants named in the suit include Hollis Healing Pro Inc., Medi Casa Inc., Enternational Services Inc., 28 Supplies Inc., Alex Iskhakov, Anzhelika Khaimova, Igor Dzhurayev, Mendy Gadaev, and several unidentified individuals referred to as John Doe Defendants.
According to the complaint prepared by attorneys Barry I. Levy, Michael Vanunu, and Philip P. Nash of Rivkin Radler LLP, GEICO alleges that these companies—collectively called the DME Entities—are all New York corporations that dispensed expensive pieces of durable medical equipment (DME) such as pulsed electromagnetic therapy devices, pneumatic compression devices (PCD), sustained acoustic medicine (SAM) units, and various orthotic devices under fraudulent pretenses. The insurer claims that from January 2023 onward, these entities billed GEICO alone for more than $2 million in what it describes as fraudulent charges related to no-fault insurance policies issued to persons allegedly injured in automobile accidents.
The lawsuit outlines a complex scheme involving collusion between the DME Entities' listed owners—Iskhakov, Khaimova, Dzhurayev, and Gadaev—and other unidentified operators who are said to actually control the businesses. According to GEICO's filing: "The Defendants...devised a fraudulent scheme that involved (i) associating and colluding with the layperson operators and managers (the 'Clinic Controllers') of various No-Fault medical clinics...and (ii) obtaining prescriptions through the payment of kickbacks and other financial incentives for medically unnecessary Fraudulent Equipment purportedly issued by healthcare providers." These prescriptions were then used as a basis for submitting inflated bills to GEICO using misrepresented Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes.
GEICO alleges that many prescriptions were obtained through predetermined protocols rather than genuine patient care needs. The complaint states: "The uniformity of the Fraudulent Equipment prescribed is incompatible with individualized patient care and is evidence that independent clinical judgment was not exercised by the Referring Providers." In addition to claims about medically unnecessary equipment being provided or billed for under incorrect codes at inflated rates, GEICO asserts that many bills included items never actually delivered or which did not match what was described on invoices.
The legal action seeks both monetary damages—the recovery of over $404,000 already paid out—and declaratory relief stating that GEICO is not obligated to pay more than $1.6 million in additional pending claims from these defendants. Specifically: "GEICO seeks to terminate this fraudulent scheme and recover more than $404,000.00 that has been wrongfully obtained by the Defendants since 2023 and further a declaration that it is not legally obligated to pay reimbursement of more than $1.6 million in pending No-Fault insurance claims." The complaint also references alleged violations of federal racketeering laws under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as well as multiple provisions under New York State law governing no-fault insurance benefits.
The document details how each DME Entity operated sequentially or concurrently since early 2023—shifting billing among themselves—to maximize payments while avoiding detection: "Hollis Healing billed GEICO for dates of service beginning January 17, 2023...Medi Casa billed GEICO for dates between July 21, 2023...Enternational Services billed between January 8, 2024...and 28 Supplies billed between April 8, 2024." Each entity is accused of using nearly identical forms and supporting documentation when submitting claims.
Among its factual allegations are descriptions of collusive arrangements where kickbacks or financial incentives were paid in exchange for high volumes of prescriptions routed directly from clinics controlled by unlicensed laypersons rather than legitimate patient need or physician evaluation. Prescriptions often contained photocopied signatures rather than original ones—a practice cited as evidence of their illegitimacy.
The complaint further describes how defendants allegedly exploited gaps in state regulations regarding reimbursement rates for certain types of DME—billing at higher rates reserved for different classes or qualities of equipment while providing less expensive alternatives: "Defendants provided Insureds with inexpensive and poor-quality Fraudulent Equipment which did not contain all features required by HCPCS Codes identified in bills submitted by DME Entities." It also highlights how this conduct may violate both state public health law regarding undisclosed compensation arrangements between practitioners and suppliers as well as criminal statutes concerning false statements on insurance forms.
GEICO requests a jury trial on all issues so triable. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs are Barry I. Levy Esq., Michael Vanunu Esq., and Philip P. Nash Esq., all from Rivkin Radler LLP based in Uniondale, New York. The case has been assigned docket number 1:26-cv-02311.
Source: 126cv02311_GEICO_v_Hollis_Healing_Pro_Inc_Complaint_Eastern_District_New_York.pdf