Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-cr-00289
Case Name:   USA v. Kalkanis et al
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the conviction in Manhattan federal court of BRYAN DUNCAN, ROBERT LOCUST, and RYAN RAINFORD.  The jury convicted DUNCAN, LOCUST, and RAINFORD today for their participation in a conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud following a three-week trial before U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein.  The jury also convicted DUNCAN of a second count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, along with one count of mail fraud and one count of wire fraud.  Co-conspirators Peter Kalkanis, a former chiropractor, and Kerry Gordon previously pled guilty before Judge Stein to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.  Kalkanis also pled guilty to aggravated identity theft. 

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Bryan Duncan, Robert Locust, and Ryan Rainford carried out a blatantly corrupt scheme, recruiting ‘patients,’ coaching them on how to stage trip-and-fall ‘accidents’ that were not accidents at all, and steering them to complicit lawyers, chiropractors, and doctors.  They recruited indigent people, including from homeless shelters – people they thought would be most willing to undergo unneeded surgeries for the minimal cut of the proceeds the defendants would share.  Duncan, Locust, and Rainford were tripped up by the justice system and have met their downfall.”

According to the allegations contained in the Indictment and Superseding Indictment, and the evidence presented in Court during the trial:

Between in or about 2013 through 2018, DUNCAN, LOCUST, and RAINFORD, the defendants, engaged in a widespread fraud scheme through which the defendants defrauded businesses and insurance companies by staging trip-and-fall accidents and filing fraudulent lawsuits arising from those staged trip-and-fall accidents.  Fraud scheme participants, including the defendants, recruited hundreds of individuals to stage trip-and-fall accidents at particular locations throughout New York City and to claim that they injured themselves as a result of their accidents.  Common accident sites used during the fraud scheme included cellar doors, cracks in concrete sidewalks, and purported “potholes.”  The defendants instructed the recruited patients to claim that they sustained injuries to particular areas of their bodies, including the knees, shoulders, and/or back – body parts that, if injured, would reap high recoveries in personal injury lawsuits.

After the staged trip-and-fall accidents, recruited patients were referred to specific attorneys who would file lawsuits against the owners of the accident sites and/or insurance companies of the owners of the accident sites (the “Victims”).  The lawsuits did not disclose that the recruited patients had deliberately fallen at the accident sites or, in some cases, had not fallen at all.  During the course of the fraud scheme, the defendants, together with others known and unknown, attempted to defraud the Victims of at least $31,791,000.

The recruited patients were also instructed to receive ongoing medical treatment from certain chiropractors and doctors.  The fraud scheme participants advised the recruited patients that if they intended to continue with their lawsuits, they were required to undergo surgery to increase the value of their fraudulent lawsuits.  The medical procedures included discectomies, spinal fusions, non-surgical epidural injections, and knee and shoulder surgeries.  As an incentive to getting surgery, the recruited patients were offered a payment after they completed surgery as well as a percentage of any settlement payment from their lawsuit.  Patients generally had two surgeries and received between $1,000 and $1,500 after each surgery.

The defendants recruited low-income individuals as patients – individuals desperate enough to undergo surgeries in exchange for these small post-surgery payments.  In some instances, the defendants even recruited patients from homeless shelters in New York City.  Over the course of the trial, more than 20 witnesses testified, including 11 patients who admitted to staging trip-and-fall accidents at the direction of DUNCAN, LOCUST, RAINFORD, or other co-conspirators.     

DUNCAN was one of the organizers and leaders of the scheme.  DUNCAN recruited patients into the scheme, organized the recruited patients’ legal and medical appointments, and assisted in procuring the funding for the recruited patients’ medical treatment and lawsuits.  DUNCAN, and his partner Kerry Gordon, made over $1 million in profit from the fraud scheme. 

LOCUST and RAINFORD helped recruit patients into the fraud scheme, transported patients to medical and legal appointments, identified potential accident sites, made payments to recruited patients, and coached recruited patients on faking their injuries. 

Peter Kalkanis was another organizer and leader of the scheme.  Kalkanis paid his co-defendants to recruit patients into the scheme and transport the patients to medical and attorney appointments.

DUNCAN was found guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, and one count of wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum term of 20 years in prison.  LOCUST and RAINFORD were each found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, which carries a maximum term of 20 years in prison. 

The jury failed to reach a verdict as to DUNCAN, LOCUST, and RAINFORD on one count of mail fraud and one count of wire fraud.  

Kalkanis pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, and one count of wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum term of 20 years in prison.  Kalkanis also pled guilty to aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory term of imprisonment of two years. 

Gordon pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, two counts of mail fraud, and two counts of wire fraud, each of which carries a maximum term of 20 years in prison. 

The maximum potential sentences and minimum sentence in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencings of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

*                      *                     *           

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York City Police Department.  Mr. Berman also thanked the National Insurance Crime Bureau for their assistance in the investigation. 

The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Nicholas Folly, Alexandra Rothman, and Nicholas Chiuchiolo are in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney Jr., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced today the unsealing of an Indictment charging PETER KALKANIS, BRYAN DUNCAN, KERRY GORDON, ROBERT LOCUST, and RYAN RAINFORD with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud in connection with a scheme to obtain fraudulent insurance reimbursement and other compensation for fraudulent slip-and-fall accidents.  The Indictment also charges PETER KALKANIS with one count of aggravated identity theft.  The five defendants were arrested earlier this morning and will be presented today before United States Magistrate Stewart D. Aaron in Manhattan federal court.  The case has been assigned to United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As alleged, these defendants employed one of the oldest plays in the fraudster handbook – the fake slip-and-fall routine – to develop a network of ‘fall victims’ to obtain an astonishing $31 million in fraudulent insurance and compensation payouts.  Allegedly, some of the ‘victims’ went as far as having unnecessary surgery to increase the likelihood of a higher settlement.  Today, however, these defendants’ fraud careers are over, and they will be forced to answer for their alleged crimes.”

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “The intentional misrepresentation of an accidental slip and fall, and the subsequent defrauding of businesses and insurance companies, is a reprehensible crime in and of itself.  But perhaps the most shocking allegation revealed today is the fact that additional incentives were offered for participants to undergo surgery in order to receive payment for their involvement. One thing is for sure – the alleged activity carried out by Kalkanis and his co-conspirators was no accident, and neither are our charges today.”

As alleged in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court[1]:

Since 2013, the defendants have been engaged in a widespread fraud scheme through which the defendants defrauded businesses and insurance companies by staging slip-and-fall accidents and filing fraudulent lawsuits arising from those staged slip-and-fall accidents.  The fraud scheme participants recruited individuals to stage slip-and-fall accidents at particular locations throughout New York City and to claim that they injured themselves as a result of their accidents.  The recruited patients were directed to claim that they had injured themselves and to seek medical treatment. 

After the staged slip-and-fall accidents, recruited patients were referred to specific attorneys who would file lawsuits against the owners of the accident sites and/or insurance companies of the owners of the accident sites (the “Victims”).  The lawsuits did not disclose that the recruited patients had deliberately fallen at the accident sites or, in some cases, had not fallen at all.  During the course of the fraud scheme, the defendants, together with others known and unknown, attempted to defraud the Victims of at least $31,791,000.

The recruited patients were also instructed to receive ongoing chiropractic and medical treatment from certain chiropractors and doctors.  The fraud scheme participants advised the recruited patients that if they intended to continue with their lawsuits, they were required to undergo surgery.  As an incentive to getting surgery, the recruited patients were offered a payment after they completed surgery as well as a percentage of any settlement payment from their lawsuit. 

KALKANIS, a former chiropractor, was the organizer and leader of the scheme.  As alleged in the indictment, KALKANIS paid his co-defendants to recruit patients into the scheme and transport the patients to medical and attorney appointments.  KALKANIS also organized the recruited patients’ legal and medical appointments, and assisted in procuring the funding for the recruited patients’ medical treatment and lawsuits.

DUNCAN, GORDON, LOCUST, and RAINFORD helped recruit patients into the fraud scheme, transported patients to medical and legal appointments, identified potential accident sites, and coached recruited patients on faking their injuries. 

*                      *                     *

KALKANIS, 70, Queens, New York, DUNCAN, 30, Queens, New York, GORDON, 34, Queens, New York, LOCUST, 52, Brooklyn, New York, and RAINFORD, 28, Queens, New York, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of mail fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  KALKANIS is also charged with one count of aggravated identity theft, which carries a two year mandatory prison sentence.  The maximum potential sentences and minimum sentence in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencings of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI and the NYPD.  Mr. Berman also thanked the National Insurance Crime Bureau for their assistance in the investigation. 

This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Nicholas Folly, Alexandra Rothman, and Nicholas Chiuchiolo are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Indictment and Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.       

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hSD324Y8NWAXzruEzuk4lSnSuL9nJXf2c2wZgtk-AKw
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 13:53:28 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E