State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Spine Specialists of Michigan, P.C. et al

Filing 104

OPINION AND ORDER denying 96 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 14-13299

Plaintiff,

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.
LOUIS N. RADDEN, D.O., and SPINE
SPECIALISTS OF MICHIGAN, P.C.,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
FEBRUARY 15, 2017 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter came before the court on defendants Spine Specialists of Michigan
("SSOM") and Dr. Louis D. Radden's February 15, 2017 motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State
Farm") filed a response March 24, 2017; and Defendants filed a reply brief March 31,
2017. Oral argument was heard April 6, 2017. For the reasons that follow, the court
will deny the motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The complaint alleges that from January 2011 to the date of its filing on August
25, 2014, Dr. Louis Radden and his company SSOM engaged in a scheme to defraud

State Farm in order to obtain No-Fault benefits to which Defendants knew they were
not entitled by submitting bills for allegedly fraudulent examinations and medically
unnecessary spinal injection. The complaint alleges claims for RICO violations,
common law fraud, and unjust enrichment, as well as a claim for declaratory judgment
that SSOM is not entitled to payment for unpaid fraudulent charges.
In their motion for summary judgment Defendants make the following
arguments: 1) State Farm lacks any evidence that Defendants engaged in fraud or any
racketeering activity; 2) Defendants’ treatment of patients was not the proximate cause
of State Farm’s alleged injury; 3) the state court actions involving State Farm and its
insureds are res judicata with respect to State Farm’s allegations of fraud; 4) State
Farm has failed to identify an “enterprise” distinct from the alleged “racketeering
activity”; 5) State Farm has no witness to testify regarding the allegations in the
complaint; and 6) State Farm’s named expert is not capable of testifying about fraud,
causation or damages, as his testimony is inadmissible under Rule 701 and 702 of the
Rules of Evidence. Defendants also seek sanctions against State Farm for not
dismissing this lawsuit.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
To succeed on a common law fraud claim, a plaintiff must prove the following
elements: “(1) the defendant made a material representation; (2) the representation
2

was false; (3) when the defendant made the representation, the defendant knew it was
false, or made it recklessly, without knowledge of its truth as a positive assertion; (4)
the defendant made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff would act
upon it; (5) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon it; and (6) the plaintiff suffered
damages.” M & D, Inc. v. W.B. McConkey, 231 Mich. App. 22, 27 (1998).
Defendants argue that State Farm is unable to show “how or which services”
were fraudulent. However, State Farm’s evidence consists of the testimony of Dr.
Smuck; summary charts reflecting patterns in defendant Radden’s reports, practices
and billing; fluoroscopy films from the injections; MRI films and interpretive reports;
nurse and anesthesiology notes from the injections; and billing patterns. Therefore,
State Farm has presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact
regarding Defendants’ alleged scheme to defraud under common law fraud.
To prove a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a plaintiff must establish the
following elements: “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of
racketeering activity.” In re ClassicStar Mare Lease Litig., 727 F.3d 473, 483 (6th Cir.
2013).
State Farm alleges that Dr. Radden’s pattern of racketeering activity consisted
of repeated violations of the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, based upon
the use of the U.S. mails to submit fraudulent bills and records for examinations and
3

injections which were either not performed, not performed properly, or were not
medically necessary. State Farm relies on the same evidence as those in its common
law fraud claim to rebut Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Defendants argue that a RICO violation requires that a plaintiff prove the
existence of a person and an enterprise that is not simply the same person referred to
by a different name, citing Cederic Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158,
161 (2001). Since Dr. Radden is the sole shareholder of co-defendant SSOM,
Defendants assert that State Farm cannot prove a RICO violation. However, in King
the United States Supreme Court held that “[t]he corporate owner/employee, a natural
person, is distinct from the corporation itself, a legally different entity with different
rights and responsibilities due to its different legal status. And we can find nothing
in the [RICO] statute that requires more ‘separateness’ than that.” Id. at 163.
Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on State Farm’s RICO
claim.
Defendants also argue that certain, unidentified claims of the 267 at issue in the
complaint have been adjudicated in state court and that the judgments in those cases
are res judicata in the present action. However, Defendants have failed to identify
even one case they contend has res judicata effect here.

4

As for the admissibility of Dr. Smuck’s testimony, Rule 703 provides that an
expert may base an opinion on facts or data that “the expert has been made aware of
or personally observed” and the facts and data “need not be admissible for the opinion
to be admitted” if an “expert in the particular field would reasonably rely on those
kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject.” In addition, Rule 1006
provides for the use of summaries to prove content. Moreover, at the summary
judgment stage, it is of no import whether the evidence is ultimately deemed
admissible at trial.
For all these reasons, genuine issues of material fact remain to preclude
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ February 15, 2017 motion for
summary judgment is DENIED.
s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: April 10, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on this date, April 10,
2017, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

5