Playback speed
×
Share post
Share post at current time
0:00
/
0:00

Only Probable Cause Needed

Acquittal is not a Finding of Innocence

Share

Leave a comment

Donate Subscriptions

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gEQfSUZY and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gXS-Ujcf and at https://lnkd.in/gcPeZ_tP and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.

Probable Cause is not a High Bar


People who attempt insurance fraud are always upset when the fraud fails. When that failure results in an arrest and trial, the upset grows.

In Joseph Fehl v. Borough Of Wallington; et al, No. 21-3019, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (January 25, 2023) Joseph Fehl sued alleging civil rights violations. Finding no material facts in dispute, the District Court granted the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

FACTS

Fehl served as a volunteer EMT and firefighter for the Borough of Wallington. He filed for worker’s compensation, claiming he was “hit by [a] car” during an emergency response. Fehl was indicted for criminal insurance fraud and tampering with public records. Following trial, a jury acquitted him of those charges.

Based on the acquittal, Fehl sued. The District Court granted the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

PROBABLE CAUSE

Police officers are not required to correctly resolve conflicting evidence and their determinations of credibility need not, in retrospect, be accurate. For those reasons, probable cause is not a high bar.

Consider Fehl’s statement in his benefits application that he was struck by a car, with the absence of any corroborating physical evidence and that after he was confronted, changed his story conceding that he might have merely tripped and fallen.

The finding of probable cause is not negated by the jury verdict.

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

To state a First Amendment claim for retaliatory arrest or retaliatory prosecution, a plaintiff must plead and prove the lack of probable cause for the criminal charge. Fehl’s arrest and prosecution were, contrary to his claims, supported by probable cause.

ZALMA OPINION

The facts established that there was clear probable cause to arrest Fehl, especially after he changed the claim that he was hit by a car to he tripped and fell, established a lack of veracity in the claim and an attempt to defraud the employer to obtain Workers’ Compensation fraud.

(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.

Go to substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gEEnV7Dd

Barry Zalma, Esq., CF is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com

Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde

Discussion about this video

Excellence in Claims Handling
Zalma on Insurance
Blog posts digesting new appellate decisions and free videos about insurance claims and insurance law.
Authors
Barry Zalma