Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Case Briefs

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
July 30, 2008

On July 2, 2008, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a trial court order for judgment that declared that Healthcare Integrated Services, Inc. ('HIS') violated the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act by billing Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for MRI testing that was illegally rendered. The trial court awarded damages in favor of Liberty Mutual in the amount of $1.8 million. See, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Healthcare and Related Services, Inc., Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division Docket number A-5599-04 T3, (Dec'd. July 2, 1998).

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company had filed a Complaint against HIS and its officers, directors, and employees in which it alleged, in part, that the defendants owned and/or operated a number of MRI facilities located in New Jersey and that the facilities were operated illegally in that they did not possess a required ambulatory care facility license issued by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services ('DHSS') and/or were not owned and under the control of plenarily licensed medical doctors. Defendants contended that the MRI facilities were actually private medical practices that were not required to possess an ambulatory care facility license. Based upon the evidence presented by Liberty Mutual on its summary judgment motion, the trial court found that 'HIS … violated the Fraud Act by the failure to obtain licenses, the illegal operation included HIS's exercise and control over the various [professional service] corporations, creating entities where they had an interest disguised as consulting or management agreements, making medical decisions, hiring and firing medical personnel, backdating agreements and filing claims containing false or misleading information that they were duly licensed and operating in compliance with the Corporate Practice of Medicine Doctrine in a legal manner.” N.J.S.A. 17:33A-4a(1) & a(3). See Allstate Insurance Company v. OEI, 300 N.J. 510 (App. Div. 1997). HIS also was found to have conspired with the other entities to obtain PIP payments when none were entitled. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Healthcare Integrated Services, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County Docket No. MRS-L-2189-01 (Dec'd. on March 18, 2005). Slip op. at *39. The trial court found that the operation, ownership and control of the MRI facilities violated N.J.A.C. 13:35-2.5, and its successor regulation N.J.A.C. 13:35-2.6, which required MRI facilities which are not licensed by the DHSS to be owned and under the control of plenarily licensed medical doctors.

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The Bankruptcy Hotline Image

Recent cases of importance to your practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

How AI Has Affected PR Image

When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.