An official from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recently announced the DOJ’s plans to “substantially” add to its current roster of 75 prosecutors specializing in healthcare fraud. On November 7, John “Fritz” Scanlon, assistant chief of the DOJ’s criminal division, fraud section, who spoke at a Healthcare Compliance Association conference in Washington, D.C., stated that the 75 prosecutors are distributed among seven strike forces across the U.S. The DOJ uses nine interagency strike force teams to root out alleged fraudulent activities, particularly focusing on Federal healthcare program fraud and abuse. These teams are spread throughout the country, focusing on regions in the U.S. like Florida and Texas, but several strike force teams also specialize in certain subject matters.Continue Reading Increased Enforcement in Healthcare? DOJ to Add More Prosecutors
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the aggravated identity theft statute –and its mandatory minimum of two years – is not triggered merely because someone else’s identification facilitates or furthers the offense in some way. See Dubin v. United States. We have seen a growing trend of the government adding aggravated identity theft in healthcare fraud cases. As a result of this decision, we may see that statute far less.Continue Reading Is this “Good-Bye” to the Two Year Mandatory Minimum in Healthcare Fraud Cases?
The Department of Justice (DOJ) lost its third jury trial in its mission to secure criminal convictions against companies and executives accused of labor-side antitrust violations on March 22, 2023, when a jury in Maine acquitted four home healthcare staffing executives of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In United States v. Manahe, the DOJ charged Faysal Kalayaf Manahe, Yaser Aali, Ammar Alkinani, and Quasim Saesah with entering into an approximately two-month conspiracy between April and May 2020 not to hire each other’s caretakers and to fix caretaker wages. After the District Court declined to dismiss the indictment, holding the DOJ had successfully alleged a per se conspiracy to fix wages and allocate employees, the case proceeded to a two-week trial. At trial, defendants—all immigrants from Iraq, many of whom served as translators for U.S. forces there—admitted that they discussed setting wage levels and refraining from hiring each other’s employees, and even drafted an agreement with signature lines that outlined the terms of defendants’ discussions. Defendants argued that they never reached an agreement in violation of Section 1 because the draft agreement was never signed. Defense counsel emphasized in opening statements that in defendants’ culture, “when dealing with business matters . . . the only way to confirm a commitment is to put it into a formal written contract.” Given the verdict, it appears the jury agreed.Continue Reading DOJ Loses Third Consecutive Criminal Trial in Antitrust Labor Case