In 2022, prosecutors charged a pharmacy owner with $14.5 million Medicare kickbacks. They alleged they paid kickbacks to telemarketing …….
A Kentucky pain physician is acquitted of a nine-count indictment, including Unlawful Distribution and Health Care Fraud.
CMS contractor found an ophthalmology practice liable for a $444k overpayment. A successful Level 2 Reconsideration turned the tables on CMS.
When the Government alleged a $454 million healthcare fraud scheme, our defense lawyers fought the indictment to achieve an acquittal.
Our Florida healthcare attorneys provided clearly showed that the healthcare fraud allegations were improper, and the case was dismissed.
Our attorneys successfully argued for “compassionate release” of a 70-year-old convicted of healthcare fraud because of COVID-19 and his health.
A Medicare plan administrator sought $250,000 from an ophthalmology practice for the wrong reimbursement rate, but an arbitrator ruled that the contract stood.
Four interventional pain management physicians—Dr. Bothra, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Edu, and Dr. Russo—faced allegations of healthcare fraud and unlawful drug distribution. After an extensive federal investigation into alleged healthcare fraud and unlawful opioid distribution , in December 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Dr. Bothra and the three other physicians, accusing them of orchestrating a scheme that involved prescribing unnecessary opioids and performing unwarranted medical procedures to defraud Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers at The Pain Center in Michigan. The indictment claimed that these practices led to fraudulent billings amounting to approximately $464 million.
The case proceeded to trial in the Eastern District of Michigan, lasting seven weeks, during which the prosecution sought to prove that the physicians knowingly and intentionally provided illegitimate treatments. Federal attorneys presented testimony from investigators, former clinic employees, and expert witnesses who reviewed a limited number of patient records. The government argued that these records demonstrated a pattern of fraudulent billing and excessive prescribing practices.
Our attorneys were retained and swiftly began an extensive review of the government’s claims, focusing on the statistical and evidentiary basis of the prosecution’s case. The government had relied on a limited review of patient records, expert testimony, and allegations of improper prescribing practices to build its argument. Our Attorneys challenged these assertions by conducting a thorough analysis of the clinic’s data, medical records, and billing practices to demonstrate that the physicians acted within the scope of legitimate medical care.
As trial preparations progressed, the defense identified key weaknesses in the government’s approach. One of the prosecution’s primary arguments rested on the claim that the physicians prescribed opioids to patients unnecessarily, using the medications as leverage to push them into receiving expensive and medically unwarranted procedures. The government sought to establish this pattern through the testimony of an expert witness who reviewed only six patient charts and concluded that fraudulent practices were widespread throughout the clinic. Our attorneys countered this by demonstrating that such a small sample was statistically insignificant and failed to provide an accurate representation of the patient population.
During trial, the government presented testimony from investigators, former employees, and patients who claimed that they had been pressured into receiving injections in exchange for continued pain medication prescriptions. Our attorney cross-examined these witnesses, exposing inconsistencies in their statements and highlighting the lack of concrete evidence to support the government’s claims. The defense also called multiple expert witnesses, including physicians and billing specialists, to testify that the treatments provided at the clinic were medically appropriate and aligned with standard interventional pain management practices.
Dr. David Lewis took the stand in his own defense, providing firsthand testimony regarding his treatment decisions and medical rationale. Our attorneys guided him through his testimony, allowing him to present a clear and factual account of his work, while reinforcing the argument that he acted within the boundaries of accepted medical practice.
Throughout the proceedings, our team emphasized the flawed methodology used by the government’s expert witness, the lack of a comprehensive patient population analysis, and the failure of investigators to apply appropriate legal and medical standards when evaluating the case. His team’s meticulous approach to the data and trial strategy laid the foundation for the arguments that would ultimately shape the outcome.
During closing arguments, both teams dismantled the government’s case by emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence, the flawed methodology of the prosecution’s expert witnesses, and the absence of a valid statistical sample to support claims of fraud. Our attorneys highlighted how the government failed to prove that the physicians knowingly and intentionally engaged in unlawful prescribing or fraudulent billing practices.
As the jury deliberated, a crucial legal precedent from the Supreme Court case Ruan v. United States played a significant role in shaping the defense’s position. This ruling clarified that to convict a physician of unlawful prescribing, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor acted with the intent to prescribe outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose. Our attorneys had already framed the defense around this argument, demonstrating that the physicians exercised medical judgment and provided care based on legitimate patient needs.
After ten hours of deliberation, the jury returned a not guilty verdict on all counts. The decision secured the immediate release of Dr. Bothra, who had been incarcerated for nearly four years while awaiting trial. The acquittal also exonerated Dr. Lewis, Dr. Edu, and Dr. Russo, clearing them of all charges.
The outcome reinforced the importance of a strong, data-driven defense in complex healthcare fraud cases. Our strategic approach, combined with expert testimony and a thorough review of medical and billing records, ultimately led to a complete defense victory.
Individuals depicted or heard in the foregoing media appearance or images may no longer be current attorneys, employees, members or affiliates with Chapman & Associates, PC or The Chapman Law Group (the “Firm”), including Ronald W. Chapman, II who is no longer affiliated with the Firm. For a current listing of the attorneys and services available with the Chapman Law Group, please see
https://chapmanlawgroup.com/team.
This information is a sample of our past results. Prospective clients may not obtain the same or similar results. Every case is different, and each case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits. The circumstances of your case may differ from the results provided. The information provided has not been reviewed or approved by the State Bar.
"*" indicates required fields
In 2022, prosecutors charged a pharmacy owner with $14.5 million Medicare kickbacks. They alleged they paid kickbacks to telemarketing …….
A Kentucky pain physician is acquitted of a nine-count indictment, including Unlawful Distribution and Health Care Fraud.
CMS contractor found an ophthalmology practice liable for a $444k overpayment. A successful Level 2 Reconsideration turned the tables on CMS.
When the Government alleged a $454 million healthcare fraud scheme, our defense lawyers fought the indictment to achieve an acquittal.
Our Florida healthcare attorneys provided clearly showed that the healthcare fraud allegations were improper, and the case was dismissed.
Our attorneys successfully argued for “compassionate release” of a 70-year-old convicted of healthcare fraud because of COVID-19 and his health.
A Medicare plan administrator sought $250,000 from an ophthalmology practice for the wrong reimbursement rate, but an arbitrator ruled that the contract stood.
