On this episode of the Deep Dive…
What happens when the plaintiff’s own medical expert becomes the focal point of a fraud investigation?
In this episode, we unpack a explosive legal motion in which the defense seeks permission to introduce evidence of what it describes as a systemic fraudulent billing scheme tied to the plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr. Sebastian Lattuga. According to court filings, the defense alleges that Dr. Lattuga and his practice, New York Spine Specialist, performed medically unnecessary spinal surgeries, inflated charges far beyond New York’s No-Fault fee schedules, and used questionable financial mechanisms — including alleged improper benefit revocations and private lien agreements — to extract excessive payments and high-interest returns from personal injury claimants.
At the heart of the motion is a strategic legal question: Should the jury hear about these alleged prior bad acts to evaluate the doctor’s credibility and potential financial motive? The defense argues that this isn’t just about treatment decisions — it’s about bias, profit, and whether expert testimony is being shaped by financial incentives tied to litigation outcomes.
If permitted, the cross-examination could fundamentally shift the trajectory of the case — transforming what appears to be a standard injury claim into a broader examination of litigation-driven medicine, fee schedule manipulation, and the intersection of medical testimony and alleged insurance fraud.
This isn’t just a fight over one surgery. It’s a fight over credibility, motive, and the integrity of expert evidence in high-stakes personal injury litigation.
Let’s dive in.
