This question on defendant side. I like to know what options available to reduced consequence. The person is a dentist. He practiced himself and then owned several his dental business and operated for more than 20 years. He is absentee owner in his business. He hired contractors (dentist) to see patients. A lot of the patients are in Medicaid program. He recently sold two of his last dental business. From the sale, the business buyer uncovered the following and reported to government. In order to treat patients in Medicaid program, a dentist is required to be credentialed by Medicaid besides having a regular dental license(dental board). Furthermore, if a dentist prescribes strong pain medicine(controlled subtance), the dentist needs to have DEA license. But one or two of the dentists he hired either was not credentialed by Medicaid or had DEA license. In order to keep the business running, he used his own DEA license and medicaid credential to submit billing to Medicaid to get re-imbursement. Strictly speaking, this is false billing or in violation of Medicaid/DEA regulation. Now, he is facing civil lawsuit(from business buyer), and Office of Inspector General is investigating. The OIG may bring criminal charge to him. His conduct violated false claim act. However, his situation may not be as bad as those fraud that billed government healthcare but not render services. He rendered services. An answer from a guy from KY attorney general earlier said he may more likely face admistrative correction or education correction. But the OIG guy who is collecting evidence indicates to bring criminal charge. Any comment and if there are any exception that he can get less consequence. He did this on a couple of his practice business. Is it easy to prove he knowingly cheat? He is currently avoiding the civil lawsuit (charge of breach of contract/fraud) services. The government is collecting evidence to bring charge to him.
The answer is really very simple. He had a number of businesses so he can't claim that he was surprised as to what was going on generally. More importantly, he had a responsibility to make sure that the dentists were properly credentialed before they treated patients. And finally, the "smoking gun" is that he had to use his own credentials, knowing that the dentists involved didn't have them. I'm afraid the government will have a strong case against him. I would also be concerned that the dentists will turn state's evidence against him. He needs a really sharp lawyer to minimize the outcome.
REMEMBER THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
To find an attorney, go to Martindale.com. This is a nationwide directory we lawyers use ourselves to find highly qualified legal specialists in various fields of law. These lawyers are NOT in Martindale because they paid to be included. They are there because they are rated as QUALIFIED by other lawyers in their field of expertise and geographic area as it applies to your kind of case. The process is this: other lawyers are asked to fill out questionnaires giving their opinion of the quality of the work of the law firm that ultimately appears in Martindale. The site is organized geographically and by legal specialty. Consult with two or three and select the one you are most comfortable with. The Martindale listing will have the names of current or past clients. Contact those clients as references for the firm.
Please refer to the JUST ANSWER disclaimer and rule on this site. You have to consult with an attorney in your state and discuss this matter with him or her. THE REASON is that we do not have an attorney-client relationship and the confidentiality that goes with it on this site. Our exchange is available for all to see. Note that this rule is applicable even though I am a New York attorney and your question may relate to NY law.
Please ACCEPT MY ANSWER so that I may get credit for assisting you.
Then press 3, 4 or 5 to rate it.
Please do NOT press 1 or 2 since that will result in a negative rating for me which you may not have intended If you want further information or clarification, just ask before you accept my answer and give a rating.
Thanks. Could he face jail term? He could have funded his IRA or other retirement asset with the money received this way. But it is very hard to quantity how much. Heard if the plaintiff can prove fraud and the IRA was funded (partially), the plaintiff may go after his retirement asset to recover loss. Will the judge decide whether his IRA be touched or not if he has no other assets left?
On the civil side, you mean even his IRA or retirement asset (except social security) can be sized to satisfy the judgement.
What I heard before is that if the IRA was funded from fraud money, the court/judge can decide to exempt or not. If this is true, let say the defendant fraud earned $20k and $10k of them is fraud money. He has IRA founded from the $20k, will half of the IRA are not exempt?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).