FirstAlerts

Georgia Man Indicted for Allegedly Posing as Veteran to Obtain VA Care

Perry Patalano, 63, of Augusta, faces federal charges including health care fraud and aggravated identity theft.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 31, 2026, 5:00 a.m. ETWritten Aug 31, 2026, 5:36 a.m. ET
A federal grand jury in the has Perry Patalano, 63, of Augusta, with health care fraud, theft of government money, property or records, and aggravated identity theft. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; the charges are only allegations. The government alleges that Patalano falsely claimed to be a U.S. military veteran for nearly 27 years, using an actual veteran's identity, to obtain medical care through the VA. The deception allegedly caused the agency to pay for or become responsible for medical services he received. Patalano is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The case is being investigated by the VA Office of Inspector General. If convicted, Patalano faces up to 10 years in prison for health care fraud, up to 10 years for the theft count, and a mandatory two-year prison term for aggravated identity theft.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 131 Aug 2026, 09:40

    First published.

  2. Version 131 Aug 2026, 09:36current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.