Skip to main content

New Jersey Hospital to Pay $8.3 Million for Alleged Kickbacks and Causing Submission of False Claims to Medicare

WASHINGTON - The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) has agreed to pay the government $8.3 million to settle allegations that it illegally paid kickbacks to cardiologists and caused the submission of false claims to Medicare, the Justice Department announced today.

UMDNJ’s University Hospital, which is located in Newark, N.J., is a state-licensed Level 1 Trauma Center. To maintain funding and accreditation from the state, University Hospital was dependent on the annual performance of a certain number of cardiac procedures, including cardiac catheterizations and cardiothoracic surgery.

The government alleged that beginning in 1995, University Hospital was experiencing a decline in these procedures, and to remedy the problem, embarked on a program to bring in more cardio surgery patients through part-time employment contracts with a number of community cardiologists. The government alleges that those employment contracts served as vehicles to pay illegal kickbacks to the cardiologists for their referrals.

“Today’s settlement reflects the Justice Department’s ongoing commitment to protect the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship,” said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. “Patients must have confidence that the medical advice and treatments they are getting from their doctors are for the right reasons.”

In 2008, the government reached settlements with six of the cardiologists who had allegedly received kickbacks through their employment contracts with UMDNJ. Two other cardiologists pleaded guilty to criminal embezzlement charges in connection with the employment contract scheme. The government has also filed a civil suit against two other cardiologists who had allegedly illegal employment contracts with UMDNJ.

“The Department of Justice continues to pursue those who make referrals based on financial, rather than patient health, considerations,” said Marc Larkins, 1st Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

The settlement was the result of a coordinated effort among the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit; the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division; the FBI; and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more