Re: NBC Dateline & Rondal Gots' "Review firm"
Posted by Pat on 4/05/05
I'm only re-posting the subject matter concerning Ronald Gots because of the
typographical errors in the previous posting. The errors are just enough to
make a person loose concentration and go elsewhere --- I suppose. So, let's
redo it, even citing page numbers, for easier referencing:
Perhaps you have occasionally spotted articles, reviews, and comments on
the internet mentioning that Ronald Gots was involved in insurance fraud. Well,
according to the NBC television network, this is true. Therefore, it would only
be courteous to give a brief outline of the matter, instead joining the ranks of
person after person who vaguely reiterate, on website after website, that Gots
was involved in insurance fraud and nothing more. So, here is an outline, along
with a web address which provides the NBC Dateline transcript:
1] The insurance fraud involves a "Paper Review Company" of which Ronald Gots
was president, along with its services for State Farm Insurance. It was named,
Medical Claims Review Services; MCRS. It is now out of business.
2] It involved hundreds of cases; a number of which were never reviewed by
any physician. NBC got hold of 79 specific cases and found that all 79 reviewed
cases ever-so-coincidentally favored State Farm Insurance. According to NBC,
"doctors did not write many of the reports sent to State Farm and other
insurance companies. In fact, they often didn't even sign them. Other people
in the office did that for them."
3] Concerning one court trial, the presiding judge issued a "scathing
opinion" in which he "called the paper review company, MCRS, a 'completely bogus
operation,' which prepared 'cookie cutter reports.'
You are welcomed to go to the following web address, posted below. Scroll down
to page 10, and then to 14. Those pages highlight Ronald Gots and his former
On 4/05/05, Pat wrote:
> In federal law, the disabled are a protected class. Could a team of attorneys
> brave enough to undertake a novel construction find a such a construction
> under title 42? In fact, could such a team find cause to cite 42 USC 1983,
> concerning slight-of-hand misrepresentations found in government position
> statements, or in the position statements of entities acting "under the color
> of law"? After all, such unfavorable statements ca have the affect of
> depriving the chemically sensitivite of needed research funding which
> otherwise would have been obtained if not for the unfavorable view of that
> condition, or if not for the lobbying of the perfume and pesticide industry?
> And if that were the case, then the auditor in such a case would be the bench
> itself, being that such a class action would be mainly for the purpose of
> injunction. The injunction, of course, would consist in a restitution as
> widely disseminated as the defamation and fraudulent misrpresentation; solely
> to unpoison the minds that the anti-MCS propaganda did poison. Thus, the law
> firm's compensation would be pursuant to 42 USC 1976, mostly. Just a thought.
> Even a long shot. Even so, there is always recourse to a diversity action.
> Perhaps you have occasionally read throughout the internet that Ronald Gots
> was involved in insurance fraud. Well, as far as concerns that allegation,
> here is a summation of it, along with a major media's web address reporting on it:
> 1] The fraudulency concerns the "Utilization Review Firm" of which is was
> president, along its services for State Farm Insurance. The firm was titled
> MCRS. It has known as a "Paper Review Company." It is now out of business.
> 2] The matter concerning Ronald Gots, MCRS, and State Farm made NBC's
> Dateline. Make a note of that. It concerned hundreds of cases. It dealt
> with reports that were never looked at by physicians. In fact, NBC obtained
> 79 reports done by Got's firm, and all 79 cases ever-so-coincidentally favored
> State Farm. In fact, in one court trial, the presiding judge is quoted to
> have stated that Ronald Got's MCRS was "A COMPLETELY BOGUS OPERATION"; so said
> the NBC television network. However, Ronald Gots has two other firms. And
> remember, "A tree is known by its fruits." At this point, let's let NBC do
> the communicating. You are welcomed to go to:
> It's worth reading. Educational.
> On 4/05/05, Kevin wrote:
>> On 4/04/05, mary wrote:
>>> Play by their rules. Sue them all first and figure it out later.
>> But then your malpractice attorney would be guilty of the same bad acts as
>> your former class counsel.
>> Class action attorneys maintain time sheets and expense reports, much like
>> a defense counsel does with his/her corporate or insurance clients. When
>> class counsel submits a fee application, there is always a comparison to
>> the "johnson factors" or to the "lodestar method." To support the fee
>> application, they submit their time and expense reports. Now is your
>> opportunity to look into the billing practices.
>> If you are a class member, you will likely need to retain separate counsel,
>> or file motions in proper person, asking the court to perform or allow an
>> independent forensic audit. Class counsel will not assist you in
>> scrutinizing their bills. It could be tough to find a local attorney
>> willing to take on other local attorneys.
>> You may want to compare their time records in your case with the time
>> records from other class action cases in which the class counsel is
>> involved. You will probably see some attorneys billing 36 hours in a day.
>> Pay close attention to requests for reimbursement for faxes and copy
>> costs. Many times the court allows up to 2$ per page on faxes, and the sky
>> is the limit on copy costs. This is literally a profit center for many
>> class counsel. Get advice from the state bar association or office of
>> disciplinary counsel on possible ethics violations by attorneys making a
>> profit on out-of-pocket expenses charged to class members.
>> There's plenty of room for abuse, and it's there to be found if you know
>> where to look.
Posts on this thread, including this one