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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

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.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.