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).
Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Briefs
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
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.