Skip to main content

Indiana Home Health Agency Pays Nearly $2 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations

WASHINGTON – Omni Home Care, a home health care agency in Evansville, Ind., and its parent corporation, Omni Home Health, have agreed to pay the United States $1.97 million to settle claims that it violated the False Claims Act between 2006 and 2008, by failing to obtain certain required physician approvals before submitting bills for home health services to Medicare, the Justice Department announced today.

Under the Medicare program, a physician must sign plan of care forms for the initial home care, and must re-certify the plan at least every 60 days. In August 2008, Omni submitted a disclosure to the Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, in which Omni stated that the required physician signatures were not timely obtained for certain services provided at its Evansville, Ind., facility. The settlement announced today resulted from the company’s disclosure.

"With the nation’s focus on health care, this settlement demonstrates the Justice Department’s commitment to ensuring that federal health care dollars are spent appropriately," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. "It also serves as a reminder that those who come forward promptly, disclose their violations of the law and cooperate fully with the department will be dealt with fairly."

The case was handled by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services.

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 ...