United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California

11/21/2024 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 11/21/2024 13:52

Fresno Doctors Agree to Pay $2.4 Million to Resolve Kickback Allegations

FRESNO, Calif. - In two separate settlements, Fresno physicians have agreed to collectively pay more than $2.4 million to resolve allegations that they solicited and received unlawful kickbacks in exchange for directing prescriptions to a group of mail-order pharmacies controlled by an individual named Matthew H. Peters, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced today. The United States contends that these arrangements violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act.

In the first settlement, Fresno podiatrist Dr. Jagpreet Mukker and his medical corporation, Jay Mukker, DPM Inc., have agreed to pay a total of $1,598,891 to the United States to resolve allegations that they participated in the unlawful kickback arrangement causing Dr. Mukker to issue prescriptions for beneficiaries of federal health care programs (including Medicare, TRICARE, and Medi-Cal), which the United States alleges violated the False Claims Act.

As part of the settlement, Dr. Mukker acknowledged, accepted, and agreed not to dispute certain facts surrounding the kickback scheme. In particular, Dr. Mukker agreed that from 2016 through 2020, he accepted payments in connection with prescriptions he issued to a series of indistinguishable mail-order pharmacies controlled by Matthew Peters. Under this arrangement, Dr. Mukker received financial payouts, described as investment returns, in connection with investments in "management service organizations" created by Peters. Financial payouts from those investments reached multiple times the amount of capital paid into the venture, within just the first few months. After a small initial investment, Dr. Mukker received up to $117,400 per year in kickbacks, which caused Dr. Mukker to send hundreds of prescriptions to Peters' pharmacies. These payouts were described as a "reward[] for scripts" that Dr. Mukker sent to Peters' pharmacies.

As described in the settlement agreement, Dr. Mukker acknowledged that, as the arrangement continued, he received additional opportunities to invest in Peters' management service organizations, which resulted in greater financial payouts. Peters awarded additional investment opportunities based on the number and value of prescriptions that Dr. Mukker had directed to the pharmacies. In connection with one such opportunity, Peters made clear that Dr. Mukker's payout would double. Peters then explained that the scheme could offer him more shares as Dr. Mukker's prescription "performance" increased.

The arrangement included an agreed-upon exchange of payments for prescriptions, with prescriptions being a condition of investment-described by one representative such that if a clinician "doesn't write, he can't have shares." Similarly, when monthly payouts were less than expected, Dr. Mukker requested to be "made whole" and that he and another investor "have held up our end of the bargain" and "prescribe[ed] a lot of the compounding to our patients."

The first settlement agreement also resolves separate allegations that Dr. Mukker and Jay Mukker, DPM Inc. submitted false claims for peripheral venous studies that they knew were not covered by Medicare, under the guise of covered evaluation and management services. With respect to these allegations, under the settlement announced today, Dr. Mukker also acknowledged, accepted, and agreed not to dispute that he and his practice submitted claims to Medicare for peripheral venous studies between January 2017 and November 2023 that were not reimbursable, and that Dr. Mukker and his practice billed those services to Medicare using a code for a physician evaluation and management service that was not consistent with what had been furnished to the patient.

In the second settlement announced today, Fresno pain medicine specialist Amitabh Goswami, D.O., and his medical corporation, California Pain Consultants, agreed to pay $835,000 to resolve allegations that they participated in the same unlawful kickback arrangement that the United States alleges violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act.

"The payment of kickbacks corrupts medical decision-making and increases the cost of health care," said U.S. Attorney Talbert. "We will hold accountable those who pay or receive such kickbacks, ensuring they do not profit at the expense of American taxpayers and patients."

"Kickback schemes jeopardize medical decision-making and undermine the integrity of the Medicare program," said Special Agent in Charge Steven J. Ryan of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). "We are dedicated to safeguarding taxpayer-funded health care and ensuring the well-being of the patients who depend on it."

"The fraudulent schemes encompassed by these settlements wasted patient care resources and taxpayer dollars," said Special Agent in Charge Bryan D. Denny of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), Western Field Office. "DCIS will continue to work with its partners to hold accountable those who seek to defraud federal health care programs, particularly as it relates to our military's TRICARE program."

The resolution obtained in this matter was the result of a coordinated investigation conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Thiess and Steve Tennyson handled the case for the U.S. Attorney's Office.

The United States has also initiated a lawsuit against Peters and a number of his related pharmacies, management service organizations, and other entities, alleging violations of the False Claims Act based on the unlawful kickback scheme that formed the basis for the settlements announced today. United States v. Matthew H. Peters, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00287. That litigation is ongoing.

The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.