Steven Sundook, Esq. and Alexis Barkis, Esq. (SW FL, Ft. Myers) (Premises Liaibility) obtained a dismissal with prejudice and award of attorney fees against the Plaintiff in the case of Michael Gilbert v. Coastal QSR. LLC et al. Coastal operates a Taco Bell in Arcadia Florida. Mr. Gilbert claimed he had been sitting a table in the restaurant, and then went to get a drink when he slipped on a wet floor. He claimed he may have possibly lost consciousness. He was diagnosed with a head injury and ankle pain in the emergency room. A month later, Alexander Fakaded, MD of Med-manage Group, Inc. reviewed CTs and MRIs and his impression was 1) headache, 2) mild concussion; 3) cervical sprain/strain with herniated disc at C5-6; and 4) lumbar sprain/strain. The Plaintiff later underwent a bilateral L3-S1 lumbar rhizotomy at Lake Worth Surgical Center, and a C5-6 maximal discectomy with arthroplasty or fusion, at the Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, both performed by Dr. Thomas Roush. The Plaintiff’s medical bills totaled over $185,000 and he was also making a lost income claim. Dr. Roush is well known to treat patients involved in personal injury litigation, and his charges are often well above usual and customary amounts.
Through the course of investigation of Mr. Gilbert’s claim, it was discovered that his real name is Victor Hugo Delgado-Garro” according to a federal indictment our investigator discovered. In the Federal indictment the Plaintiff is charged with knowingly, willfully, and falsely representing himself to be Michael Gilbert. It was learned that he was being held in Miami at the Krome Detention Center awaiting trial. He was later moved to the Charlotte County Jail to await trial on federal charges of impersonating a US citizen (Michael Gilbert). Prior to his arrest, he was on probation for felony altering of vehicle ID numbers, for which he was convicted of under the name Michael Gilbert. The real Michael gilbert in New York found out that the Plaintiff was using his social security number. The federal government decided to prosecute him for identity theft, rather than deport him.
In the motion to dismiss for fraud on the court, it was argued that dismissal of the case with prejudice was appropriate as a sanction because of the Plaintiff’s scheme to interfere with the judicial system’s ability to impartially adjudicate a matter amounts to committing a fraud upon the court. Ironically, the Plaintiff served a proposal for settlement in the amount of $ 1 million just as the information concerning the Plaintiff’s identity theft was discovered. The Court granted the motion to strike the Proposal for settlement , dismissed the case with prejudice and ordered the Plaintiff to pay attorney fees as sanctions for perpetrating the fraud on the court.