legal representation for health care professionals | The Health Law Firm Blog

DOJ Files False Claims Suit Against Nursing Homes Over “Substandard Services and Nonexistent” Care

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it has sued three nursing homes in Ohio and Pennsylvania, citing their “grossly substandard skilled nursing services.” The False Claims Act (FCA) complaint against the American Health Foundation (AHF), its affiliate AHF Management Corporation, and three nursing homes alleges the facilities fraudulently billed the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for often “nonexistent care.”

According to the complaint, all three AHF nursing homes not only provided substandard nursing home care services that failed to meet required standards of care but also did not maintain adequate staffing levels between 2016 and 2018.

Click here to view the complaint filed by the DOJ in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

FCA Violations For “Substandard or Nonexistent Care.”

The government alleged AHF Management and its entities violated the FCA stemming from reimbursements for “grossly substandard” care provided at the Cheltenham, Wilmington Place, and Samaritan nursing homes.

“The defendants knowingly submitted, or caused the submission of, false claims to Medicare and Medicaid for nursing home care and services that were blatantly substandard or nonexistent,” the complaint read. “The Medicare and Medicaid programs provided reimbursement for the claims, but these payments were by mistake as CMS didn’t know the true and full extent of the defendants’ failure to provide patients with proper treatment and care.”

Alleged Patient Conditions and Mistreatment.

Examples of the appalling conditions described in the complaint included housing elderly and medically vulnerable patients in “pest-infested” buildings whose belongings were often stolen; giving residents unnecessary medications, including antibiotic, anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety, and hypnotic drugs; subjecting residents to verbal abuse; neglecting to provide residents with activities or stimulation, and failing to provide needed psychiatric care.

Additionally, the complaint outlines the suicide of a resident who was admitted with a history of self-harm and was later hospitalized after slashing his wrists but still was not provided psychiatric services. Tragically, just weeks after readmission, the resident committed suicide by hanging himself from a bedsheet in a shower room, justice officials said.

“Nursing homes are expected to provide their residents, which include some of our most vulnerable individuals, with quality care and to treat them with dignity and respect,” said Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the DOJ’s Civil Division in a statement. He continued, “the department will not tolerate nursing homes, or their owners or managing entities, who abdicate these responsibilities and seek taxpayer funds to which they are not entitled.”

To read the DOJ’s press release in full on the case, click here.

The United States’ complaint stems from an investigation that the DOJ initiated as part of its “National Nursing Home Initiative.” The department launched the initiative in March 2020 to identify and investigate nursing homes that provide grossly substandard care.

Click here to learn more about the Justice Department’s nursing home initiative.

The case is United States v. American Health Foundation Inc., case number 2:22-cv-02344, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Handling False Claims Act (FCA) Violations, Investigations, and other Legal Proceedings.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm represent healthcare providers in defending audits and investigations by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Florida Department of Health (DOH), Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU), state boards of medicine, state boards of pharmacy, and state boards of nursing. They also represent health professionals and providers in administrative litigation (state and federal) and civil litigation (state and federal). They represent physicians, nurses, medical groups, nursing homes, home health agencies, pharmacies, dentists, pharmacies, assisted living facilities, and other healthcare providers and institutions in recovery actions and termination from Medicare and Medicaid Programs.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

D’Annunzio, P.J. “Feds Hit Nursing Home With FCA Suit Over ‘Nonexistent’ Care.” Law360. (June 15, 2022). Web.

Marceas, Kimberly. ‘Grossly substandard’ care leads to False Claims charges for Ohio-based nursing home operator. McKnights Long Term Care News. (June 16, 2022). Web.

“Nursing Homes Face DOJ False Claims Suit Over Standards of Care.” Bloomberg Law. (June 15, 2022). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A, LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm

On June 21, 2023, the Iowa Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in a nursing home negligence case that awarded $6 million in compensation and damages to the plaintiff. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court judge admitted inadmissible hearsay testimony into evidence. The testimony being appealed was that of staff members who claimed to have heard “reports” and “rumors” of alleged abuse by a nurse on staff toward not only the resident in question but other residents.

Hearsay in Iowa law is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Click here to read the Iowa Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay. This is the same definition used by the federal and most other courts.

Essentially, hearsay is when someone repeats something they heard from another person and presents it as if they know it to be true. Hearsay is often equated to rumor. Hearsay is not admissible due to the nature of speculation required in making such a statement, the fact that such statements are inherently unreliable and that the actual witness is not in court to answer questions about it. Thus there is no way for a party or the judge to test the credibility of the actual witness or determine facts that may have influenced the observation and statement.

Hearsay is considered unreliable because the person who knows what happened (who saw what happened or heard what happened) is not to be questioned about it. Therefore, there is no way to know what really happened for sure.

Details of the Case.

In this case, the estate of the former nursing home resident, who succumbed to her injuries after a fall in the nursing home, claimed adult abuse and that negligence caused a wrongful death. In its defense, the nursing home focused on the alleged abuse by a nurse on the staff. The statements challenged in the appeal included testimony made by six nursing home staff members that residents, other unnamed employees, and an Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals surveyor told them that the nurse in question had been physically rough with and swore at residents.

The employees testifying did not actually witness any such incidents. They were only testifying about someone else’s words (“hearsay”).

The trial court admitted these statements, allegedly not for their truth, but in an attempt to show that abuse had been reported and there had not been any follow-up investigation. The appellate court stated that this was not a valid reason to admit inadmissible hearsay into evidence because the estate must prove that the conduct existed to prevent the jury from engaging in rampant speculation based on unreliable hearsay evidence.

People in today’s society, yes, even judges, often forget this basic principle of law. With all of the fabricated lies being put out as “news” on some news channels, Internet rumors running rampant, and politicians making egregiously false statements, it’s often hard to remember how to distinguish a fact from an unreliable rumor or hearsay.

This is one of the problems with hearsay. It is often just gossip and rumor, which change from person to person. Especially egregious conduct, criminal activity, and salacious acts become increasingly exaggerated with each retelling. The founding fathers in English and American law realized the inherently unreliable nature of such “evidence.”

Under the hearsay rule, the Court of Appeals agreed with the nursing home that the statements being challenged were inadmissible hearsay evidence that influenced the jury’s verdict. Due to this, the court reversed the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. To read the court’s opinion in full, click here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents health professionals and health facilities in civil and administrative litigation. We also represent physicians, nurses, and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, board hearings, inspections, and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys. We represent medical students, interns, resident physicians, and fellows in disputes with their graduate medical education (GME) programs. We represent clinical professors and instructors in contract disputes, employment disputes, clinical privileges matters, and other disputes with their employers. We often act as the physician’s personal counsel in medical malpractice litigation.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Source:

Kang, Y. Peter. “Iowa Court Overturns $6M Nursing Home Negligence Verdict.” Law360. (June 22, 2023). https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1691891?nl_pk=0cbd4c0b-c6c8-416a-9e67-b4affa63b102&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=health&utm_content=2023-06-23&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=9

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law; he is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Hartley Brooks is a law clerk with the health law firm. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified attorneys interested in health law practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a member of The Florida Bar and are interested, forward a cover letter and your resume to: [email protected] or fax to: (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

From the archives: Supreme Court Explores Doctor Intent in “Pill Mill” Criminal Prosecutions Under the Controlled Substances Act

Previously published on June 24, 2022
By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Physicians and other healthcare professionals usually have broad scope to prescribe most drugs, including potentially dangerous ones. However, over the past decade, many limits, often imposed arbitrarily through criminal prosecutions or drastic administrative sanctions, have been used to impose limits.

The question was recently put before the U.S. Supreme Court as to how far a physician’s judgment can be allowed to go in the context of prescribing controlled substances before it becomes criminal. This was in the context of criminal prosecution of a physician for allegedly over-prescribing.

On March 1, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court confronted the question of whether good faith is a defense for a doctor criminally prosecuted for unlawful distribution of controlled substances. For nearly 90 minutes, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides, struggling with the exact wording of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the clarity of the relevant federal regulation, and the proposition that a doctor who lacked subjective criminal intent could nevertheless go to jail for a substantial period of time, up to life imprisonment.

The two physicians whose cases are being considered are Xiulu Ruan, who was sentenced to 21 years in prison in 2017 for allegedly running a “pill mill,” and Shakeel Kahn, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2019 for crimes including drug distribution of controlled drugs resulting in the death of a patient. The court consolidated their cases for the Supreme Court’s hearing.

Controversial Legal Standards Used to Convict.

The legal standard in question centers heavily on a disputed sentence in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that says, “Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally” to distribute controlled substances. The central question is how juries should assess the intentions of a doctor accused of prescribing narcotic painkillers outside “the usual course of his professional practice.”

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the criminal intent standard is an objective one — or an “honest effort” to comply with professional norms. On the other hand, the attorneys for the doctors who were prosecuted argue that the standard must be subjective; that is did the doctor subjectively believe they were not prescribed for a legitimate medical purpose. This distinction gives rise to whether there is merely a violation of regulation as opposed to a crime having been committed.

Throughout the oral arguments, various justices seemed to cast doubt on whether deviating from mainstream standards on opioid prescribing is sufficient to throw physicians in jail, which could result in years or life in prison. In some states, this might even result in a death sentence, pretty drastic for what would otherwise be medical negligence.

How This Ruling Will Impact Future Prosecutions.

This case and the upcoming ruling raise alarms for healthcare providers and advocates for pain patients. Many fear that the ruling could enable even more aggressive prosecutions of opioid prescribers. They warn that such a decision could discourage doctors from providing opioids even when they’re fully warranted. In addition, the outcome could affect civil litigation accusing large pharmaceutical companies of recklessly selling prescription narcotics.

After hearing the oral arguments, the Supreme Court seemed likely to demand more substantial proof of intentional wrongdoing when the DOJ prosecutes opioid prescribers. A decision from the High Court is expected by late June 2022. The cases are Ruan v. U.S., case number 20-1410, and Kahn v. U.S., case number 21-5261, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

We will definitely keep you posted on the outcome of this case.

Click here to read one of my blogs about controlled substances and compliance.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in the Representation of Health Professionals and Providers.

The Health Law Firm and its attorneys have represented physicians, pharmacists, nurses, clinics, dentists, pharmacies, health facilities, and other health care providers in different cases involving allegations of over-prescribing narcotics and pain medications. These include criminal investigations by local police and law enforcement authorities, investigations by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), complaints against professional licenses by the Florida Department of Health, investigations, and prosecutions by the Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCU), and other types of cases. Having attorneys familiar with the medical standards of care and guidelines for prescribing narcotics and having access to expert medical and pharmacy professionals who can testify as expert witnesses in such cases is also crucial. We have represented professionals in administrative investigations and administrative hearings at both the state and federal levels.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Overley, Jeff. “High Court Poised To Make DOJ’s Job Harder In Opioid Cases.” Law360. (March 1, 2022.) Web.

Gluck, Abby. “In opioids “pill mill” case, justices grapple with physician intent.” SCOTUS Blog. (March 2, 2022). Web.

Joseph, Andrew. “Fight over opioid prescribing — and when it turns criminal — heads to Supreme Court.” STAT News. (February 28, 2022). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A, LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm

On June 21, 2023, the Iowa Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in a nursing home negligence case that awarded $6 million in compensation and damages to the plaintiff. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court judge admitted inadmissible hearsay testimony into evidence. The testimony being appealed was that of staff members who claimed to have heard “reports” and “rumors” of alleged abuse by a nurse on staff toward not only the resident in question but other residents.

Hearsay in Iowa law is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Click here to read the Iowa Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay. This is the same definition used by the federal and most other courts.

Essentially, hearsay is when someone repeats something they heard from another person and presents it as if they know it to be true. Hearsay is often equated to rumor. Hearsay is not admissible due to the nature of speculation required in making such a statement, the fact that such statements are inherently unreliable and that the actual witness is not in court to answer questions about it. Thus there is no way for a party or the judge to test the credibility of the actual witness or determine facts that may have influenced the observation and statement.

Hearsay is considered unreliable because the person who knows what happened (who saw what happened or heard what happened) is not to be questioned about it. Therefore, there is no way to know what really happened for sure.

Details of the Case.

In this case, the estate of the former nursing home resident, who succumbed to her injuries after a fall in the nursing home, claimed adult abuse and that negligence caused a wrongful death. In its defense, the nursing home focused on the alleged abuse by a nurse on the staff. The statements challenged in the appeal included testimony made by six nursing home staff members that residents, other unnamed employees, and an Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals surveyor told them that the nurse in question had been physically rough with and swore at residents.

The employees testifying did not actually witness any such incidents. They were only testifying about someone else’s words (“hearsay”).

The trial court admitted these statements, allegedly not for their truth, but in an attempt to show that abuse had been reported and there had not been any follow-up investigation. The appellate court stated that this was not a valid reason to admit inadmissible hearsay into evidence because the estate must prove that the conduct existed to prevent the jury from engaging in rampant speculation based on unreliable hearsay evidence.

People in today’s society, yes, even judges, often forget this basic principle of law. With all of the fabricated lies being put out as “news” on some news channels, Internet rumors running rampant, and politicians making egregiously false statements, it’s often hard to remember how to distinguish a fact from an unreliable rumor or hearsay.

This is one of the problems with hearsay. It is often just gossip and rumor, which change from person to person. Especially egregious conduct, criminal activity, and salacious acts become increasingly exaggerated with each retelling. The founding fathers in English and American law realized the inherently unreliable nature of such “evidence.”

Under the hearsay rule, the Court of Appeals agreed with the nursing home that the statements being challenged were inadmissible hearsay evidence that influenced the jury’s verdict. Due to this, the court reversed the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. To read the court’s opinion in full, click here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents health professionals and health facilities in civil and administrative litigation. We also represent physicians, nurses, and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, board hearings, inspections, and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys. We represent medical students, interns, resident physicians, and fellows in disputes with their graduate medical education (GME) programs. We represent clinical professors and instructors in contract disputes, employment disputes, clinical privileges matters, and other disputes with their employers. We often act as the physician’s personal counsel in medical malpractice litigation.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Source:

Kang, Y. Peter. “Iowa Court Overturns $6M Nursing Home Negligence Verdict.” Law360. (June 22, 2023). https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1691891?nl_pk=0cbd4c0b-c6c8-416a-9e67-b4affa63b102&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=health&utm_content=2023-06-23&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=9

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law; he is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Hartley Brooks is a law clerk with the health law firm. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified attorneys interested in health law practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a member of The Florida Bar and are interested, forward a cover letter and your resume to: [email protected] or fax to: (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A, LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm

On June 21, 2023, the Court of Appeals of Iowa overturned the verdict in a nursing home negligence case that awarded $6 million in compensation and damages to the plaintiff. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial because inadmissible hearsay testimony was admitted into evidence by the trial court judge. The testimony being appealed was that of staff members who claimed to have heard “reports” and “rumors” of alleged abuse by a nurse on staff toward, not only the resident in question but other residents as well.

Hearsay in Iowa law is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Click here to read the Iowa Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay. This is the same definition used by the federal courts and most other courts.

Essentially, hearsay is when someone repeats something they heard from another person and presents it as if they know it to be true. Hearsay is often equated to rumor. Hearsay is not admissible due to the nature of speculation required in making such a statement, the fact that such statements are inherently unreliable, and the fact that the actual witness is not in court to answer questions about it. Thus there is no way for a party or the judge to test the credibility of the actual witness or determine facts that may have influenced the observation and statement.

Hearsay is considered unreliable because the person who actually knows what happened (who saw what happened or heard what happened) is not present to be questioned about it. Therefore, there is no way to know what really happened for sure.

Details of the Case.

In this case, the estate of the former nursing home resident, who succumbed to her injuries after a fall in the nursing home claimed adult abuse and that negligence caused a wrongful death. In its defense, the nursing home focused on the alleged abuse by a nurse on the staff. The statements that were challenged in the appeal included testimony made by six members of the nursing home staff that residents, other unnamed employees, and an Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals surveyor told them that the nurse in question had been physically rough with and swore at residents.

The employees testifying did not actually witness any such incidents. They were only testifying as to what they had heard someone else say (“hearsay”).

The trial court admitted these statements, allegedly not for their truth, but in an attempt to show that abuse had been reported and there had not been any follow-up investigation. The appellate court stated that this was not a valid reason to admit inadmissible hearsay into evidence because the estate must show clear proof that the conduct existed in order to prevent the jury from engaging in rampant speculation based on unreliable hearsay evidence.

People in today’s society, yes, even judges, often forget this basic principle of law. With all of the completely fabricated lies being put out as “news” on some news channels, with Internet rumors running rampant, and with politicians making egregiously false statements, it’s often hard to remember how to distinguish a fact from unreliable rumor or hearsay.

This is one of the problems with hearsay. It is often just gossip and rumor which change from person to person. Especially egregious conduct, criminal activity, and salacious acts become more and more exaggerated with each retelling. The founding fathers in English and American law realized the inherently unreliable nature of such “evidence.”

Under the hearsay rule, the Court of Appeals agreed with the nursing home that the statements being challenged were inadmissible hearsay evidence that influenced the jury’s verdict. Due to this, the court reversed the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. To read the court’s opinion in full, click here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents health professionals and health facilities in civil and administrative litigation. We also represent physicians, nurses, and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, board hearings, inspections, and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys. We represent medical students, interns, resident physicians, and fellows in disputes with their graduate medical education (GME) programs. We represent clinical professors and instructors in contract disputes, employment disputes, clinical privileges matters, and other disputes with their employers. We often act as the physician’s personal counsel in medical malpractice litigation.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Source:

Kang, Y. Peter. “Iowa Court Overturns $6M Nursing Home Negligence Verdict.” Law360. (June 22, 2023). https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1691891?nl_pk=0cbd4c0b-c6c8-416a-9e67-b4affa63b102&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=health&utm_content=2023-06-23&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=9

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law; he is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Hartley Brooks is a law clerk with the health law firm. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm is always looking for qualified attorneys interested in health law practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a member of The Florida Bar and are interested, forward a cover letter and your resume to: [email protected] or fax to: (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

Rapper 50 Cent Reaches Settlement with Floridians in Lawsuit Over Fake Penis Enlargement Ad

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On February 21, 2023, Houston rapper 50 Cent settled a lawsuit with a publication over alleged false penis enlargement claims. The rapper, whose real name is Curtis J. Jackson III, sued The Shade Room LLC using three alternative theories of defamation, per se, per quod, and by implication.

The lawsuit revolved around a website article and social media posts, including a photo of him standing next to Angela Kogan of Perfection Plastic Surgery & Medspa in Florida. Both Kogan and Perfection are also named in the rapper’s complaint, which you can read here.

The Complaint.

The rapper initially sued Kogan in September 2022. He maintains that she stole a photo of him to promote her business under the false pretense he’d used the company’s services. In addition, he accused The Shade Room of further enlarging the story by re-posting it and opening him up to further “ridicule.” 50 Cent and his legal team claimed: “By publishing the article and falsely stating or implying that Jackson had received plastic surgery procedures from Kogan or MedSpa, or the penile enhancement or other procedures described in the article, TSR committed a clear act of defamation.

The Settlement.

According to the settlement notice, 50 Cent and the publication “are in the process of executing their respective obligations pursuant to the agreement.” Additionally, it stated that a notice of voluntary dismissal would be forthcoming. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. You can read the notice of settlement in the case here.

For more information on this case, read my prior blog.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Health Care Professionals and Providers.

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services, including defense in complex medical litigation, for physicians, medical groups, plastic surgeons, cosmetic dermatologists, and other healthcare providers. This includes plastic surgeons, cosmetic dermatologists, nurse practitioners, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and many others. It also includes medical students, resident physicians, and fellows, as well as medical school professors and clinical staff. We also represent health facilities, individuals, groups, and institutions in contracts, sales, mergers, and acquisitions. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are also experienced in litigation at formal and informal administrative hearings. We also represent physicians accused of wrongdoing, patient complaints, and in Department of Health investigations.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call our office at (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.ThehealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Keller, Aaron. “50 Cent Settles Penile Enhancement Ad Suit With Publication.” Law360. (February 21, 2023). Web.

AllHipHop. “EXCLUSIVE: 50 Cent’s Penis Enlargement Lawsuit Grows: He’s Now Suing The Shade Room.” MSN. (January 21, 2023). Web.

Brown, Preezy. “50 Cent Settles Lawsuit With The Shade Room Over Alleged Penis Enhancement Photo.” Vibe. (February 21, 2023). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law; he is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm is always looking for qualified attorneys interested in the practice of health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a member of The Florida Bar and are interested, forward a cover letter and your resume to: [email protected] or fax to: (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Iowa Appellate Court Reverses $6 Million Nursing Home Negligence Decision Because of Hearsay Testimony

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A, LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law and Hartley Brooks, Law Clerk, The Health Law Firm

On June 21, 2023, the Iowa Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in a nursing home negligence case that awarded $6 million in compensation and damages to the plaintiff. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court judge admitted inadmissible hearsay testimony into evidence. The testimony being appealed was that of staff members who claimed to have heard “reports” and “rumors” of alleged abuse by a nurse on staff toward not only the resident in question but other residents.

Hearsay in Iowa law is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Click here to read the Iowa Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay. This is the same definition used by the federal and most other courts.

Essentially, hearsay is when someone repeats something they heard from another person and presents it as if they know it to be true. Hearsay is often equated to rumor. Hearsay is not admissible due to the nature of speculation required in making such a statement, the fact that such statements are inherently unreliable and that the actual witness is not in court to answer questions about it. Thus there is no way for a party or the judge to test the credibility of the actual witness or determine facts that may have influenced the observation and statement.

Hearsay is considered unreliable because the person who knows what happened (who saw what happened or heard what happened) is not to be questioned about it. Therefore, there is no way to know what really happened for sure.

Details of the Case.

In this case, the estate of the former nursing home resident, who succumbed to her injuries after a fall in the nursing home, claimed adult abuse and that negligence caused a wrongful death. In its defense, the nursing home focused on the alleged abuse by a nurse on the staff. The statements that were challenged in the appeal included testimony made by six nursing home staff members that residents, other unnamed employees, and an Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals surveyor told them that the nurse in question had been physically rough with and swore at residents.

The employees testifying did not actually witness any such incidents. They were only testifying about what someone else said (“hearsay”).

The trial court admitted these statements, allegedly not for their truth, but in an attempt to show that abuse had been reported and there had not been any follow-up investigation. The appellate court stated that this was not a valid reason to admit inadmissible hearsay into evidence because the estate must prove that the conduct existed to prevent the jury from engaging in rampant speculation based on unreliable hearsay evidence.

People in today’s society, yes, even judges, often forget this basic principle of law. With all of the completely fabricated lies being put out as “news” on some news channels, Internet rumors running rampant, and politicians making egregiously false statements, it’s often hard to remember how to distinguish a fact from an unreliable rumor or hearsay.

This is one of the problems with hearsay. It is often just gossip and rumor, which change from person to person. Especially egregious conduct, criminal activity, and salacious acts become increasingly exaggerated with each retelling. The founding fathers in English and American law realized the inherently unreliable nature of such “evidence.”

Under the hearsay rule, the Court of Appeals agreed with the nursing home that the statements being challenged were inadmissible hearsay evidence that influenced the jury’s verdict. Due to this, the court reversed the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. To read the court’s opinion in full, click here.

Contact Experienced Health Law Attorneys.

The Health Law Firm routinely represents health professionals and health facilities in civil and administrative litigation. We also represent physicians, nurses, and other health providers in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, board hearings, inspections, and audits involving the DEA, Department of Health (DOH), and other law enforcement agencies. Its attorneys include those who are board-certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys. We represent medical students, interns, resident physicians, and fellows in disputes with their graduate medical education (GME) programs. We represent clinical professors and instructors in contract disputes, employment disputes, clinical privileges matters, and other disputes with their employers. We often act as the physician’s personal counsel in medical malpractice litigation.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Source:

Kang, Y. Peter. “Iowa Court Overturns $6M Nursing Home Negligence Verdict.” Law360. (June 22, 2023). https://www.law360.com/health/articles/1691891?nl_pk=0cbd4c0b-c6c8-416a-9e67-b4affa63b102&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=health&utm_content=2023-06-23&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=9

About the Authors: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law; he is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Hartley Brooks is a law clerk with the health law firm. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified attorneys interested in health law practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a member of The Florida Bar and are interested, forward a cover letter and your resume to: [email protected] or fax to: (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:24-04:00July 31, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: AHCA hearing defense lawyer, assisted living facility (ALF) defense lawyer, board of mental health counselors defense lawyer, Board of Psychology defense attorney, complex medical litigation attorney, Florida physician defense attorney, formal administrative hearing defense attorney, health care facility defense attorney, health care lawyer, health care provider defense attorney, health law, health law attorney, home health care defense attorney, Legal representation for Department of Health (DOH) investigations, legal representation for health care facilities, legal representation for health care professionals, legal representation for home health care facilities, legal representation for license issues, legal representation for mental health professionals, legal representation for nurses, legal representation for nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities, medical malpractice defense lawyer, mental health counselor defense attorney, mental health professional defense attorney, nursing home defense lawyer, physician defense lawyer, psychiatrist defense counsel, psychologist defense attorney, reviews of The Health Law Firm, the health law firm, The Health Law Firm reviews|Comments Off

Psychiatric Practice, Owner Agree to Pay $310,000 in FCA Settlement for Employing Doctor on OIG Exclusion List

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On February 23, 2022, a psychiatric practice and its owner agreed to pay $310,874 to resolve allegations they improperly hired and employed a physician who was excluded from federal healthcare programs. The physician who was hired was on the OIG’s exclusion list, the “List of Excluded Individuals and Entities” (LEIE). As a result, the government took the position that claims for services the physician provided filed against government programs were illegal pursuant to the false Claims Act (FCA). Details were disclosed in a Press Release by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

Geriatric & Adult Psychiatry, LLC (GAP), along with the owner, entered into a civil settlement agreement to resolve their liability under the federal and state False Claims Acts, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a press release.

Past Conviction Overlooked.

In 2006, the physician had been convicted in the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. Because of his conviction, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) excluded him from all federal healthcare programs. Such an exclusion includes Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, Veterans Administration (V.A.), and Indian Health Service (I.H.S.) programs.

When the OIG excludes an individual or entity from federal health care programs, no payments may be made for items or services furnished by that excluded individual. Additionally, the law prohibits any person or organization that receives such funds from employing or contracting with a person on the LEIE, in any way. To avoid potential liability, it advised that health care providers check the List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (LEIE) on the OIG website: http://oig.hhs.gov/exclusions.

In addition, the OIG has issued a Special Advisory Bulletin to providers who might employ or contract with an excluded individual or entity to provide guidance. To review this OIG Bulletin, click here.

For more helpful information, click here.

Despite this, to medical group hired the former physician as the clinical director in 2016 where he served in that position until 2021. During that time, both the practice and its owner billed and sought reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the Railroad Retirement Medicare Program. Additionally, GAP’s reimbursements were used to pay the physician’s salary and benefits.

Payment Prohibition & Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs).

Health care providers receiving funds from federal health care programs must check to see if potential employees and contractors are excluded by searching the LEIE to ensure that person is not listed. Providers have mistakenly assumed that exclusion does not apply to an individual or entity that provides services that extend beyond direct patient care; this is wrong. Payment prohibition extends to anyone who chooses to employ or contract with an excluded individual or entity in any capacity. Providers who violate this prohibition are required to pay back all federal health care program funds inappropriately received and may also be subject to civil monetary penalties (CMPs) and action under the False Claims Act (FCA).

Furthermore, payment of an excluded individual’s salary, benefits, or expenses, directly linked to federal health care program funds is expressly prohibited. Click here to read my prior blog and learn more about this.

Little Known Fact: You Must Actively Apply to Get Taken Off the LEIE.

A little-known fact, often overlooked, is that a person or entity on the LEIE must actually apply to be removed from it, no matter how short the period of exclusion. Thus if a person is excluded and placed on the LEIE for only two years, they must apply to the OIG after that period of time, completing its detailed, notarized application, and be removed from the list. Removal is not automatic.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Defending Against Action to Exclude an Individual or Business from the Medicare Program and Assisting in Reinstatement Applications.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm have experience in dealing with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and defending against action to exclude an individual or business entity from the Medicare Program, in administrative hearings on this type of action, in submitting applications requesting reinstatement to the Medicare Program after exclusion, and removal from the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE).

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Yankowski, Peter. “Officials: Hamden psychiatric practice to pay $310,000 settlement over employee who lost medical license.” Stamford Advocate. (February 23, 2022). Web.

Health Law Weekly. “Psychiatric Practice, Owner Pay $310K for Employing “Excluded” Individual.”American Health Law Association (AHLA). (February 25, 2022). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714; Phone: (407) 331-6620; Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022. The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:24-04:00July 31, 2023|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: allegations of healthcare fraud, attorney legal representation for OIG notice of intent to exclude, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) defsne attorney, False Claims attorney, FCA attorney, FCA lawyer, health care fraud defense attorney, health care professional defense attorney, healthcare fraud representation, legal defense representation for healthcare investigations, legal representation for CMS investigations, legal representation for fraud investigations, legal representation for health care fraud defense, legal representation for health care professionals, legal representation for medical overbilling, legal representation for Medicare and Medicaid audits, List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE) legal counsel, medicaid fraud control unit, Medicare and Medicaid audit defense attorney, Medicare audit defense attorney, Medicare audit defense legal counsel, Medicare exclusion hearing defense attorney, Medicare reinstatement attorney, Medicare Reinstatement representation, Office of Inspector General (OIG) Medicare exclusion attorney, Office of Inspector General (OIG) Medicare exclusion defense counsel, Office of Inspector General (OIG) Medicare exclusion legal defense counsel, OIG exclusion defense attorney, OIG exclusion defense lawyer, OIG investigation legal defense representation, Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) lawyer, removal from List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE) attorney, representation for CMS investigations, reviews for The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC) audit lawyer|Comments Off

Licensed Professional Counselor Sentenced to Prison for $1.3 Million Medicaid Fraud Scheme

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On March 13, 2022, a licensed professional counselor (LPC) was sentenced to nearly five years in prison for defrauding the Connecticut Medicaid Program of more than $1.3 million, announced the U.S. Attorney for the U.S. District of Connecticut. In addition to the prison time, he was sentenced to three (3) years of supervised probation upon release and ordered to pay restitution to Medicaid in the amount of $1,313,322.

A Wide-Ranging Fraud Scheme.

According to court documents, from 2014 to 2020, the defendant was a licensed professional counselor with offices in Hartford, Connecticut. Additionally, he owned two entities through which he managed group homes, including residences for women and children who were victims of domestic abuse.

According to prosecutors, he defrauded Medicaid from August 2018 through October 2020 by submitting claims for psychotherapy services never provided to patients. In addition, on a limited number of occasions, some of the services were rendered by unlicensed individuals who were not qualified or licensed to provide psychotherapy, the U.S. Attorney’s Office reported but were billed to Medicaid.

Taking Advantage of Tenants.

The former counselor required tenants of group homes to provide copies of their Medicaid member cards for themselves and their children as a condition of residency, said, prosecutors. Then he used the Medicaid numbers from the tenants to bill for bogus psychotherapy services. He used the numbers of approximately 65 tenants or their children to fraudulently bill Medicaid for roughly $543,117 in services that were never performed, court documents stated.

Scheming as a School Guidance Counselor.

The counselor did not stop there. In 2019, New Haven Public Schools hired him as a guidance counselor at the New Haven Adult and Continuing Education Center.

In February 2020, he apparently continued the same procedures when he accessed a database containing personal identifying information of current and former students, many of whom he did not have any professional relationship with and had never met. He used the Medicaid numbers of approximately 135 New Haven students to bill Medicaid and was paid approximately $593,383 from fraudulent claims.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Civil Division stated that the Connecticut Department of Social Services, working in cooperation with law enforcement, suspended Medicaid payments to the defendant. They recovered $337,777.63 that he was scheduled to receive from Medicaid from billings that had been submitted. They also seized and forfeited $412,415.20 from the former counselor’s bank accounts. Additionally, the defendant paid restitution of $20,000, leaving a restitution obligation of $543,129.17.

The Connecticut Medicaid program initially suspended him as a Medicaid provider on April 28, 2020, and he was formally arrested on October 14, 2020. To learn more about the case, click here to read the press release from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

To read about a similar case involving a health care office manager convicted in a fraud case, click here.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Medicare and Medicaid Investigations of Mental Health Counselors, Psychologists, Social Workers, and Family Therapists.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to mental health counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and family therapists in Medicaid and Medicare audits and investigations, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) investigations, Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) investigations, Board Hearings, FBI investigations, and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Valinot, Nicole. “Hartford County Man Sentenced For Wide-Ranging $1.3M Medicaid Fraud Scheme.” Daily Voice. (March 13, 2022). Web.

Rhatigan, Chris. “CT Counselor Sentenced In $1.3 Million Medicaid Fraud Case: Feds.” (March 14, 2022). Web.

Pantini, Liz. “In The News: Counselor Pleads Guilty in Wide-Ranging Medicaid Fraud Scheme.” Yale School of Medicine. (January 25, 2022). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714; Phone: (407) 331-6620; Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022. The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Psychiatric Practice to Pay $310,000 in FCA Settlement for Employing Doctor on OIG Exclusion List

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On February 23, 2022, a psychiatric practice and its owner agreed to pay $310,874 to resolve allegations they improperly hired and employed a physician who was excluded from federal healthcare programs. The physician who was hired was on the OIG’s exclusion list, the “List of Excluded Individuals and Entities” (LEIE). As a result, the government took the position that claims for services the physician provided filed against government programs were illegal pursuant to the false Claims Act (FCA). Details were disclosed in a Press Release by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

Geriatric & Adult Psychiatry, LLC (GAP), along with the owner, entered into a civil settlement agreement to resolve their liability under the federal and state False Claims Acts, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a press release.

Past Conviction Overlooked.

In 2006, the physician had been convicted in the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. Because of his conviction, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) excluded him from all federal healthcare programs. Such an exclusion includes Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, Veterans Administration (V.A.), and Indian Health Service (I.H.S.) programs.

When the OIG excludes an individual or entity from federal health care programs, no payments may be made for items or services furnished by that excluded individual. Additionally, the law prohibits any person or organization that receives such funds from employing or contracting with a person on the LEIE, in any way. To avoid potential liability, it advised that health care providers check the List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (LEIE) on the OIG website: http://oig.hhs.gov/exclusions.

In addition, the OIG has issued a Special Advisory Bulletin to providers who might employ or contract with an excluded individual or entity to provide guidance. To review this OIG Bulletin, click here.

For more helpful information, click here.

Despite this, to medical group hired the former physician as the clinical director in 2016 where he served in that position until 2021. During that time, both the practice and its owner billed and sought reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the Railroad Retirement Medicare Program. Additionally, GAP’s reimbursements were used to pay the physician’s salary and benefits.

Payment Prohibition & Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs).

Health care providers receiving funds from federal health care programs must check to see if potential employees and contractors are excluded by searching the LEIE to ensure that person is not listed. Providers have mistakenly assumed that exclusion does not apply to an individual or entity that provides services that extend beyond direct patient care; this is wrong. Payment prohibition extends to anyone who chooses to employ or contract with an excluded individual or entity in any capacity. Providers who violate this prohibition are required to pay back all federal health care program funds inappropriately received and may also be subject to civil monetary penalties (CMPs) and action under the False Claims Act (FCA).

Furthermore, payment of an excluded individual’s salary, benefits, or expenses, directly linked to federal health care program funds is expressly prohibited. Click here to read my prior blog and learn more about this.

Little Known Fact: You Must Actively Apply to Get Taken Off the LEIE.

A little-known fact, often overlooked, is that a person or entity on the LEIE must actually apply to be removed from it, no matter how short the period of exclusion. Thus if a person is excluded and placed on the LEIE for only two years, they must apply to the OIG after that period of time, completing its detailed, notarized application, and be removed from the list. Removal is not automatic.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Defending Against Action to Exclude an Individual or Business from the Medicare Program and Assisting in Reinstatement Applications.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm have experience in dealing with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and defending against action to exclude an individual or business entity from the Medicare Program, in administrative hearings on this type of action, in submitting applications requesting reinstatement to the Medicare Program after exclusion, and removal from the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE).

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Yankowski, Peter. “Officials: Hamden psychiatric practice to pay $310,000 settlement over employee who lost medical license.” Stamford Advocate. (February 23, 2022). Web.

Health Law Weekly. “Psychiatric Practice, Owner Pay $310K for Employing “Excluded” Individual.”American Health Law Association (AHLA). (February 25, 2022). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714; Phone: (407) 331-6620; Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022. The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:26-04:00July 8, 2023|Categories: Pharmacy Law Blog|Tags: allegations of healthcare fraud, attorney legal representation for OIG notice of intent to exclude, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) defsne attorney, False Claims attorney, FCA attorney, FCA lawyer, health care fraud defense attorney, health care professional defense attorney, healthcare fraud representation, legal defense representation for healthcare investigations, legal representation for CMS investigations, legal representation for fraud investigations, legal representation for health care fraud defense, legal representation for health care professionals, legal representation for medical overbilling, legal representation for Medicare and Medicaid audits, List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE) legal counsel, medicaid fraud control unit, Medicare and Medicaid audit defense attorney, Medicare audit defense attorney, Medicare audit defense legal counsel, Medicare exclusion hearing defense attorney, Medicare reinstatement attorney, Medicare Reinstatement representation, Office of Inspector General (OIG) Medicare exclusion attorney, Office of Inspector General (OIG) Medicare exclusion defense counsel, Office of Inspector General (OIG) Medicare exclusion legal defense counsel, OIG exclusion defense attorney, OIG exclusion defense lawyer, OIG investigation legal defense representation, Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) lawyer, removal from List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE) attorney, representation for CMS investigations, reviews for The Health Law Firm, The Health Law Firm attorney reviews, Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC) audit lawyer|Comments Off