Re: NBC Dateline & Rondal Gots' "Review firm"
Posted by dEAN on 4/17/07
On 4/05/05, Pat wrote:
> 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.
> according to the NBC television network, this is true. Therefore, it would
> be courteous to give a brief outline of the matter, instead joining the ranks
> 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,
> with a web address which provides the NBC Dateline transcript:
> 1] The insurance fraud involves a "Paper Review Company" of which Ronald
> 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
> 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
> 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
> company. Thankyou.
> 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
>> 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