GEICO has filed a federal lawsuit against two Brooklyn medical corporations, alleging they submitted more than $2 million in claims for services that were either medically unnecessary or never performed. The complaint, lodged on July 24, 2026, in federal court in Brooklyn, targets Kings County Physicians Group and Kings Highway Physicians Group, along with the physician identified as owning and controlling both entities.
The case centers on New York’s no-fault insurance framework, which mandates that auto insurers cover up to $50,000 per person for necessary health care following a crash. GEICO asserts that the named practices treated drivers reporting accident injuries and subsequently filed hundreds of claims for care the insurer describes as excessive, illusory, and non-reimbursable.
According to the filing, patients were subjected to standardized protocols regardless of their specific injuries. These protocols included examinations, follow-up visits, outcome assessments, nerve studies, platelet-rich plasma injections, and shockwave therapy. GEICO alleges that billing codes were inflated and that the services were provided only to the extent they were provided at all.
The complaint provides specific examples of alleged billing discrepancies. It claims initial exams were billed under high-level codes requiring 45 to 60 minutes of face-to-face time, while the actual exams lasted only 10 to 30 minutes. Additionally, GEICO alleges that shockwave therapy was billed as high-energy treatment when the devices actually delivered lower-energy radial pressure wave therapy.
The filing also cites professional guidance stating that pre-set protocols automatically testing large numbers of nerves are inappropriate.
A central allegation involves the control of the practices. New York rules prohibit medical practices from collecting no-fault funds if they are owned or managed by unlicensed individuals. GEICO alleges that unlicensed laypersons, identified only as John Doe defendants, directed patient referrals, dictated treatment plans, and shared in the profits.
The insurer also notes that many services were performed by independent contractors rather than employees, which it cites as another basis for denying payment.