Fraudster’s Suit Fails and Defendant Stays in Jail

It is Fraud to Sell Product Using Scripts Containing Half-Truths and Omissions That Made the Plans They Sold Appear to Provide Broader Coverage Than They Actually Did.

Post 5413

In United States of America v. Steven Dorfman, No. 24-2275, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (July 27, 2026) Steven Dorfman owned and served as CEO of Simple Health, a telemarketing company that sold limited indemnity healthcare plans by telephone. The government alleged that Dorfman and other executives directed sales employees to use scripts containing half-truths and omissions that made the plans appear to provide broader coverage than they actually did.

A jury convicted Dorfman of conspiracy to commit fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud, and he appealed after the district court denied his post-trial motions.

BACKGROUND

Limited indemnity plans are designed to supplement —  not replace — traditional forms of medical insurance. As a result, they differ from traditional plans in several significant ways. Unlike traditional plans, for example, limited indemnity plans pay only fixed amounts when an insured incurs certain health expenses, and they are not legally mandated to cover prescription drugs or any specific types of treatment.

Perhaps most significantly, limited indemnity plans do not provide a ceiling on a plan holder’s out-of-pocket costs. As a result, the customer bears the risk of large medical bills (beyond the fixed amount provided by the plan). These plans are not governed by the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and do not satisfy the ACA’s individual mandate.

Dorfman himself had been told many times by Girouard that the sales scripts elided material facts, such as the plan’s lack of an out-of-pocket maximum. And he was aware of HII’s objection to the claim that the plans would save customers “up to 70%.” Moreover, Dorfman had the final say over the script’s content and knew that, when HII representatives came to Simple Health, they were shown an HII-approved script that was different from the one that Dorfman had approved for use.

JURY INSTRUCTION ON “SCHEME TO DEFRAUD”

Dorfman challenged the district court’s instruction defining “scheme to defraud” for the jury. The government asked the district court for a jury instruction similar to one found in United States v. Woods, 335 F.3d 993, 997-98 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court agreed and defined “scheme to defraud” as follows: In determining whether a scheme to defraud exists, you are entitled to consider not only the defendants’ words and statements, but also the circumstances in which they are used as a whole.

LAW:

The mail and wire fraud statutes prohibit schemes to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. The court held that the statutes do not require an expressly false statement; misleading half-truths, omissions, and deceptive statements may be sufficient when material and made with intent to defraud.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:

The Seventh Circuit rejected Dorfman’s challenge to the “scheme to defraud” instruction, concluding that the instruction properly allowed the jury to consider misleading statements, omissions, and the surrounding circumstances. The court also found no reversible error in the jury’s receipt of Exhibit 10, a training video that had been admitted into evidence but not shown during trial; even assuming error, Dorfman failed to show a reasonable probability that it affected the verdict.

Finally, the court rejected Dorfman’s constructive-amendment and unanimity arguments, reasoning that evidence about concealment from HII, regulators, and the Better Business Bureau was used to show knowledge and intent, not to prove a separate fraud scheme.

CONCLUSION:

The court affirmed the judgment. It held that the jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and absence of a specific unanimity instruction did not constitute reversible error, and that the evidence supported the jury’s finding that Dorfman knowingly participated in a fraudulent scheme targeting customers.

Accordingly, the district court’s instruction that even if statements as part of the scheme are not literally false, you may consider whether the statements taken as a whole were misleading and deceptive is a correct recitation of the law.

Simply put, Dorfman’s argument that the government pursued a fraud theory different from what the indictment described finds no support in the record. And it follows from this that a specific unanimity instruction was unnecessary.

ZALMA OPINION

People who commit insurance fraud, are caught, arrested, tried and convicted do not take their failure appropriately – they believe they have a right to steal from victims and make their crimes successful. They don’t but they litigate every possible issue to reverse their conviction and sentence. Most times, like this one, the attempt fails. Hopefully with the US DOJ’s new instructions from the White House more will be caught, tried, and convicted.

(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.