Skip to main content

Harborside Healthcare to Pay U.S. $1.375 Million

WASHINGTON – Harborside Healthcare and HHC Nutrition Services will pay the United States $1.375 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations that the company received kickbacks and assistance under the guise of a sham durable medical equipment (DME) provider, the Justice Department announced today. The government alleged that McKesson Corp., and its affiliate MediNet Corp provided the kickbacks and assistance and, in return, Harborside purchased its DME, such as non-enteral supplies, from McKesson. As part of today’s settlement, Harborside also agreed to forego $498,000 in DME claims that they had not yet been billed to Medicare.

Today’s settlement resolves allegations of the United States that this conduct violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act. There is a related action pending against McKesson and MediNet in the Northern District of Mississippi that remains ongoing. In addition, the United States’ investigation of similar conduct involving other DME providers and nursing home chains is continuing.

"It is critical that Medicare providers base their DME purchasing decisions on what is in the best interests of their patients," stated Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. "The Justice Department will work vigorously to ensure that these decisions about patient care are not tainted by kickbacks."

The settlement was the result of an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Mississippi.

"Our Medicare system depends upon fair competition by medical service providers. We are always vigilant to thwart sham operators, like HHC Nutrition Services," said Jim M. Greenlee, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi.

This action was initiated by the filing of a qui tam or whistleblower suit by Tommy Jamison. Under the False Claims Act, a private individual may bring lawsuits on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement. Mr. Jamison will receive $275,000 as his share of the government’s recovery.

Comments

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.

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...

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 ...