Menu Close

Tag: 2025 News

Carriers File RICO Suits Against SoCal Addiction Treatment Centers

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma (“BCBSOK”) have filed a civil Racketeering (RICO) action against South Coast Behavioral Health LLC (“SCBH”), Excellence Recovery LLC (“Excellence Recovery”), Everything in Excellence Recovery LLC (“EIE”), Rad Life Recovery, LLC, (“Rad Life”), and individuals involved with those companies, that are California addiction treatment centers mostly located in Orange County. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court Central District of California (case 2:24-cv-10683-MWC-AJR).

According to the allegations of the complaint, “Since at least 2020, BCBSOK and hundreds of individuals suffering from Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) have been victimized by California-based SUD treatment providers and their co-conspirators.”

“California and Oklahoma are separated by over 1,000 miles and multiple states. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of SUD treatment providers between them. And yet, in the last few years alone, thousands of alleged Oklahoma residents have been trafficked across the country to California under the guise of obtaining SUD treatment. The one thing they have in common is that they are members of BCBSOK health benefit plans, most of them having been enrolled right before their arrival in California.”

“This surprising migration is not a result of quality treatment. Rather, it is driven by an army of fraudsters that have overrun certain parts of California’s SUD treatment industry to prey upon alleged Oklahoma residents, many of whom are members of Native American tribes.”

Oklahoma, according to many sources has the fifth highest rate of SUD in the country, at 16.1% of its population.”The combination of a state plan offering robust out-of-state benefits and a large population in need of treatment provided a perfect target for profiteers like Defendants.”

These SUD providers employ a range of fraudulent tactics. They hire “body brokers” to hunt down potential patients in exchange for kickbacks. Body brokers work with insurance agents to fraudulently enroll individuals in insurance plans. Once enrolled, patients are shipped across the country to receive “treatment,” the main goal of which is to enrich the providers, body brokers, insurance agents, and the others involved in the schemes. There are unlawful kickbacks at every level. In fact, many patients themselves receive cash, free “treatment,” and housing, which unlawfully influences their choice of providers and induces them to stay under the control of a particular provider so that their insurance can continue to be billed. It is becoming exceedingly difficult for good, quality, providers to operate in an industry awash in kickbacks and de facto bribes.”

When insurance payments run out, the SUD providers kick patients to the curb, leaving these vulnerable individuals to fend for themselves thousands of miles from their homes. Often, these individuals are given no notice of their impending evictions and suddenly find themselves on the streets with no money to afford housing or the necessities of daily life, much less an expensive trip back home. Putting these already-vulnerable individuals in such desperate circumstances only heightens the chances for relapse.”

Plaintiffs go on to allege “the defendants here are among the worst perpetrators of these tactics. Collectively, they have caused BCBSOK plans alone to make over $36 million in wrongful payments.” Last month, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma told the Southern California News Group that it will stop paying for all addiction treatment in California on Jan. 1, with a few exceptions.

Young and associates are being sued by insurer Aetna in a fraud case that echoes this one. Young has countersued Aetna, saying the insurer is just trying to avoid paying what’s owed.

It all echoes the battle between Health Net and now-defunct Sovereign Health that began in 2016. Health Net won big, with $45 million in damages and interest against Sovereign.

DWC Reminder – 2024 Annual Report of Claims Inventory Due April 1

Claims administrators are reminded that the Annual Report of Inventory (ARI) must be submitted in early 2025 for claims reported in calendar year 2024.

The California Code of Regulations, title 8, Section 10104 requires claims administrators to file, by April 1 of each year, an ARI with the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) indicating the number of claims reported at each adjusting location for the preceding calendar year. Even if no claims were reported in the prior year, the report must be completed and submitted to the DWC Audit Unit. Each adjusting location is required to submit an ARI unless its requirement has been waived by DWC.

When ARI requirements are waived, claims administrators must file an annual report of adjusting locations. This report is to be filed annually on April 1 of each calendar year for the adjusting location operations as of December 31 of the prior year. Please submit the form prior to the April 01, 2025 deadline. Any document received after the date of April 01, 2025 is late and subject to a penalty for late reporting. The preferred method of delivery is email to Audit Unit email box at DWCAuditunit@dir.ca.gov. Once the document is received by the Audit Unit, the sender will receive an email confirmation.

Claims administrators are required to report any change in the information reported in the ARI or annual report of adjusting location within 45 days of the effective date of the change. Penalties of up to $500 per location for failure to timely file this Report of Inventory may be assessed under Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 10111.1(b)(11) or 10111.2(b)(26).

The form for 2024 can be found on the DWC website and the form was emailed to all Claims Administrator contacts in November. If your Company needs a copy, please email: DWCAuditunit@dir.ca.gov.
Questions about submission of the ARI or the annual report of adjusting locations may be directed to the Audit Unit:

State of California
Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Workers’ Compensation – Audit Unit
160 Promenade Circle, Suite #340
Sacramento, CA 95834-2962
Email: DWCAuditUnit@dir.ca.gov, FAX 916.928.3183 or phone 916.928.3180.

Supreme Court Limits ER Price Disclosure Obligations to Patients

Taylor Capito received treatment in the emergency room of San Jose Healthcare System LP dba Regional Medical Center San Jose on two occasions. Regional is a major hospital in San Jose with an emergency room.

Capito filed a class action complaint against Regional under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), challenging Regional’s “unfair, deceptive, and unlawful practice of charging [an EMS fee] without any notification of its intention to charge a prospective emergency room patient such a Fee for the patient’s emergency room visit.”

Regional demurred and moved to strike the class allegations. In doing so, it briefed the legislative history behind the Payers’ Bill of Rights (Health & Saf. Code, § 1339.50 et seq.) and other federal and state regulations governing its pricing disclosures.The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case.

And the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal in the unpublished case of Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP – H049022, – H049646 (April 2023).

However, there are conflicting opinions on this issue in other California courts. In another case, Joshua Naranjo filed a class action lawsuit against the Doctors Medical Center of Modesto Inc., seeking similar relief, however his case resulted in a conflicting opinion. In Naranjo v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1193, a published decision of the Fifth Appellate District in which the court had ruled that the hospital was required to further disclose the EMS fee prior to treating ER patients.

The California Supreme Court agreed to hear the Capito case, and it resolved the conflicting decisions in the case of Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP -S280018 (December 2024)

The question here is whether hospitals have a duty, beyond what is required by the relevant statutory and regulatory scheme, to notify emergency room patients that they will be charged EMS fees.

Hospitals do not have a duty under the UCL or CLRA, beyond their obligations under the relevant statutory and regulatory scheme, to disclose EMS fees prior to treating emergency room patients. Requiring such disclosure would alter the careful balance of competing interests, including price transparency and provision of emergency care without regard to cost, reflected in the multifaceted scheme developed by state and federal authorities. Capito has not sufficiently alleged facts showing that the lack of such disclosure is “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” on any theory she presents under the UCL or CLRA.”

Accordingly, the California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment in favor of Regional.

SoCal Laboratory, and Owners Resolve Kickbacks Case for $15M

A former Van Nuys physician, a medical center he founded, a laboratory he co-owned, and an executive at these entities have agreed to pay $15 million to settle allegations that they submitted false claims to Medicare and Medi-Cal from the payment of illegal kickbacks and self-referring patients.

Mohammad Rasekhi, who surrendered his medical license in December 2024; Sheila Busheri; Southern California Medical Center (SCMC); and R & B Medical Group, Inc. d/b/a Universal Diagnostic Laboratories (UDL) agreed to pay the amount.

Rasekhi is the founder and chief medical officer of SCMC and the co-owner of UDL. Busheri is the chief executive officer of SCMC and the co-owner and chief executive officer of UDL. SCMC is a federally qualified health center that operates six clinics in Southern California. UDL is a reference and esoteric laboratory in Southern California.

Medicaid is funded jointly by the states and the federal government. The State of California paid a portion of the Medicaid claims at issue and will receive approximately $7 million from the settlement.

The United States alleged that the defendants knowingly submitted or caused the submission of false claims to Medicare and Medi-Cal by:

– – paying kickbacks to marketers to refer Medicare and Medi-Cal beneficiaries to SCMC clinics in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS):
– – paying kickbacks to third-party clinics in the form of above-market rent payments, complimentary and discounted services to clinic staff, and write-offs of balances owed by patients and clinic staff in exchange for referring Medicare and Medi-Cal beneficiaries to UDL for laboratory tests in violation of the AKS; and
– – referring Medicare and Medi-Cal beneficiaries from SCMC clinics to UDL for laboratory tests in violation of the Stark Act’s prohibition against self-referrals.

The AKS prohibits parties who participate in federal health care programs from knowingly and willfully offering or paying remuneration in return for referring an individual to, or arranging for the furnishing of any item or services for which payment is made by, a federal health care program.

Likewise, the Stark Act, which is also known as the Physician Self-Referral Law, prohibits physicians from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable by Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies.

The settlement announced resolves claims brought under the qui tam, or “whistleblower,” provisions of the False Claims Act in a joint filing by Ferzad Abdi, Julia Butler, Jameese Smith, and Karla Solis, who were former employees or managers of SCMC and UDL. The qui tam provisions permit a private party called a “relator” to file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Abdi v. Rasekhi, No. 18-cv-03966 (C.D. Cal.). The settlement includes a $10 million payment for the portion of the case handled by the United States and a $5 million payment in a separate settlement between the relators and the defendants.

Assistant United States Attorney Jack D. Ross of the Civil Fraud Section and Justice Department Trial Attorney Samson Asiyanbi of the Fraud Section handled this matter for the United States.

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