Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:20-cr-00134
Case Name:   USA v. OHEBSHALOM
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – A Bergen County, New Jersey, man today admitted participating in a conspiracy to pay and accept kickbacks in exchange for medically unnecessary prescriptions, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Zachary Ohebshalom, 34, of Fort Lee, New Jersey, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton in Newark federal court to an information charging him with conspiring to violate the federal anti-kickback statute. The information alleges that he conspired with the following three individuals who have been previously charged by criminal complaint in the District of New Jersey: Mark Filippone M.D., 71, of Wallington, New Jersey; Joseph Vangelas, a/k/a “Joseph Miller,” 33, of Fort Lee, New Jersey; and Marlene Vangelas, 58, of River Vale, New Jersey. Criminal charges against Filippone, Joseph Vangelas, and Marlene Vangelas remain pending. Estela Blaustein, 55 of Mahwah, New Jersey, previously pleaded guilty for her role in a related conspiracy to commit health care fraud and is pending sentencing. 

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

Beginning in May 2016, Ohebshalom participated in a kickback conspiracy stemming from a scheme to obtain millions of dollars in health benefits from the federal workers’ compensation program by prescribing and dispensing expensive, but medically unnecessary, pain creams. Dr. Filippone treated hundreds of now-former U.S. Postal Service employees for injuries they purportedly suffered on the job. He allegedly facilitated their disability claims by submitting forms and medical reports to the Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Program, for patients who were not, in fact, disabled.

Dr. Filippone also prescribed expensive topical pain creams, which were not needed or wanted by many of his patients. The information alleges that Dr. Filippone steered these prescriptions to a pharmacy in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, where Blaustein was the pharmacist-in-charge. The Fair Lawn Pharmacy was owned and operated by Joseph Vangelas and Marlene Vangelas, who, along with Ohebshalom, directed Blaustein and others to mine reimbursement rates within the federal workers’ compensation program for the ingredients of the pain creams in order to determine the most lucrative formulations. Joseph Vangelas, Marlene Vangelas, and Ohebshalom directed Blaustein and others to print prescription labels for Dr. Filippone to use with his patients. Dr. Filippone used the pre-printed labels and sent the prescriptions back to the Fair Lawn Pharmacy. In order to induce Dr. Filippone to prescribe the medically unnecessary pain creams in the exact formulations they wished to obtain, Joseph Vangelas and Marlene Vangelas purchased Dr. Filippone’s medical office and then permitted Dr. Filippone to continue to use the premises, for which he routinely failed to pay rent. Joseph Vangelas, Marlene Vangelas, and Ohebshalom conspired to leverage the property to force Dr. Filippone to continue to send prescriptions to their pharmacy. Dr. Filippone continued to feed prescriptions to the pharmacy, so long as Miller and Vangelas permitted him to remain rent-free in the property.

As part of his plea agreement, Ohebshalom agreed that the improper benefit conferred as part of the conspiracy to violate the federal anti-kickback statute was between $1.5 million and $3.5 million.

The count of conspiracy to violate the federal anti-kickback statute is punishable by a maximum of 5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss derived from the offense, whichever is greater. Sentencing is scheduled for May 21, 2020.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory Ehrie in Newark; the U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge of the Northeast Area Field Office Matthew M. Modafferi; the Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, New York Region, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael C. Mikulka; and special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge John R. Tafur, with the investigation leading to the charges.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua L. Haber of the Health Care Fraud Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark.

The charges against and allegations in the information pertaining to Filippone, Joseph Vangelas, and Marlene Vangelas are merely accusations, and those three defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

NEWARK, N.J. – A Bergen County, New Jersey, woman today admitted participating in a conspiracy to commit health care fraud, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Estela Blaustein, 55, of Mahwah, New Jersey, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton in Newark federal court to an information charging her with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud with four individuals who have been previously charged by complaint in the District of New Jersey: Mark Filippone M.D., 71, of Wallington, New Jersey; Joseph Vangelas, a/k/a “Joseph Miller,” 33, of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Marlene Vangelas, 58, of River Vale, New Jersey; and Zachary Ohebshalom, 33, of Edgewater, New Jersey. The charges against those four defendants remain pending.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

Beginning in November 2016, Blaustein participated in a scheme to obtain millions of dollars in health benefits from the federal workers’ compensation program by prescribing and dispensing expensive, but medically unnecessary, pain creams. Filippone treated hundreds of now-former U.S. Postal Service employees for injuries they purportedly suffered on the job. He allegedly facilitated their disability claims by submitting forms and medical reports to the Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Program, for patients who were not, in fact, disabled.

Filippone also prescribed expensive topical pain creams, which were not needed or wanted by many of his patients. The information alleges that Filippone steered these prescriptions to a pharmacy in Fair Lawn, New Jersey, where Blaustein was the pharmacist-in-charge. The Fairlawn Pharmacy was owned and operated by Joseph Vangelas and Marlene Vangelas, who, along with Ohebshalom, directed Blaustein and others to research reimbursement rates within the federal workers’ compensation program for the ingredients of the pain creams in order to determine the most lucrative formulations. Joseph Vangelas, Marlene Vangelas, and Ohebshalom directed Blaustein and others to print prescription labels for Filippone to use with his patients. Filippone used the pre-printed labels and sent the prescriptions back to the Fair Lawn Pharmacy. To induce Filippone to prescribe the medically unnecessary pain creams in the exact formulations they desired, Joseph Vangelas and Marlene Vangelas purchased Filippone’s medical office and then permitted Filippone to continue to use the premises, for which he routinely failed to pay rent. Miller, the Vangelases, and Ohebshalom conspired to leverage the property to force Filippone to continue to send prescriptions to their pharmacy. Filippone continued to send prescriptions to the pharmacy, so long as Miller and the Vangelases permitted him to remain rent-free in the property.

The count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss derived from the offense, whichever is greater. As part of her plea agreement, Blaustein agreed that the charged healthcare fraud conspiracy caused losses of $1.5 million to $3.5 million. Sentencing is scheduled for April 22, 2020.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark; the U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge of the Northeast Area Field Office Matthew M. Modafferi; the Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, New York Region, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael C. Mikulka; and special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge John R. Tafur, with the investigation leading to the charges and today’s guilty plea.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua L. Haber of the Healthcare Fraud Unit in the Criminal Division, Newark.

The charges and allegations in the information pertaining to Filippone, Joseph Vangelas, Marlene Vangelas, and Ohebshalom are merely accusations, and those four defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Defense counsel: Jerome A. Ballarotto Esq., Trenton, New Jersey

Allegedly Paid and Received Kickbacks in Connection with Medically Unnecessary Prescriptions for Pain Creams

NEWARK, N.J. – A doctor and three people associated with a pharmacy were charged today with their respective roles in defrauding the federal workers’ compensation program in a $10 million scheme involving illegal kickbacks and medically unnecessary prescriptions for pain creams, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Mark Filippone M.D., 71, of Wallington, New Jersey; Joseph Miller, 33, a/k/a “Joseph Vangelas,” of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Marlene Vangelas, 58, of River Vale, New Jersey; and Zachary Ohebshalom, 33, of Edgewater, New Jersey, were each charged by complaint with one count of conspiring to commit health care fraud and one count of violating the federal anti-kickback statute. The defendants are scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer in Newark federal court.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

Beginning in November 2015, the defendants conspired to obtain more than $10 million in health benefits from the federal workers’ compensation program by prescribing and dispensing expensive, but medically unnecessary, pain creams. Filippone treated hundreds of now-former U.S. Postal Service employees for injuries they purportedly suffered on the job. He allegedly facilitated their disability claims by submitting forms and medical reports to the Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Program, for patients who traveled from as far away as Florida and Georgia to see him.

Filippone also prescribed expensive topical pain creams, which were not needed or wanted by many of his patients. The complaint alleges that Filippone steered these prescriptions to a pharmacy in Fairlawn, New Jersey, which was owned and operated by Miller and Vangelas, who, along with Ohebshalom, directed their pharmacists to mine reimbursement rates within the federal workers’ compensation program for the ingredients of the pain creams in order to determine the most lucrative formulations. The trio then printed prescription labels for Filippone to use with his patients. Dr. Filippone used the pre-printed labels and sent the prescriptions back to Miller, Vangelas, and Ohebshalom. In order to induce Filippone to prescribe the medically unnecessary pain creams in the exact formulations they wished to obtain, Miller and Vangelas purchased Filippone’s medical office for above fair market value, and then permitted Dr. Filippone to continue to use the premises, for which he routinely failed to pay rent. Miller, Vangelas, and Ohebshalom conspired to leverage the property to force Filippone to continue to send prescriptions to their pharmacy. Filippone continued to feed prescriptions to the pharmacy, so long as Miller and Vangelas permitted him to remain rent-free in the property.

The count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison; the count of violating the federal anti-kickback statute is punishable by a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Both counts are also punishable by a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss derived from the offense, whichever is greater.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory Ehrie in Newark; the U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge of the Northeast Area Field Office Matthew M. Modafferi; the Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, New York Region, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael C. Mikulka; and special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigations, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge John R. Tafur, with the investigation leading to the charges.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney David M. Eskew, Chief of the Health Care & Government Fraud Unit in the Criminal Division, Newark.

The charges and allegations in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yw3wQz7zoUjV_8LTNHl4PULWdAxcX6gGAcxoWs255EQ
  Last Updated: 2025-03-27 14:26:41 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-mj-04299
Case Name:   USA v. FILIPPONE et al
  Press Releases:
Allegedly Paid and Received Kickbacks in Connection with Medically Unnecessary Prescriptions for Pain Creams

NEWARK, N.J. – A doctor and three people associated with a pharmacy were charged today with their respective roles in defrauding the federal workers’ compensation program in a $10 million scheme involving illegal kickbacks and medically unnecessary prescriptions for pain creams, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Mark Filippone M.D., 71, of Wallington, New Jersey; Joseph Miller, 33, a/k/a “Joseph Vangelas,” of Fort Lee, New Jersey; Marlene Vangelas, 58, of River Vale, New Jersey; and Zachary Ohebshalom, 33, of Edgewater, New Jersey, were each charged by complaint with one count of conspiring to commit health care fraud and one count of violating the federal anti-kickback statute. The defendants are scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer in Newark federal court.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

Beginning in November 2015, the defendants conspired to obtain more than $10 million in health benefits from the federal workers’ compensation program by prescribing and dispensing expensive, but medically unnecessary, pain creams. Filippone treated hundreds of now-former U.S. Postal Service employees for injuries they purportedly suffered on the job. He allegedly facilitated their disability claims by submitting forms and medical reports to the Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation Program, for patients who traveled from as far away as Florida and Georgia to see him.

Filippone also prescribed expensive topical pain creams, which were not needed or wanted by many of his patients. The complaint alleges that Filippone steered these prescriptions to a pharmacy in Fairlawn, New Jersey, which was owned and operated by Miller and Vangelas, who, along with Ohebshalom, directed their pharmacists to mine reimbursement rates within the federal workers’ compensation program for the ingredients of the pain creams in order to determine the most lucrative formulations. The trio then printed prescription labels for Filippone to use with his patients. Dr. Filippone used the pre-printed labels and sent the prescriptions back to Miller, Vangelas, and Ohebshalom. In order to induce Filippone to prescribe the medically unnecessary pain creams in the exact formulations they wished to obtain, Miller and Vangelas purchased Filippone’s medical office for above fair market value, and then permitted Dr. Filippone to continue to use the premises, for which he routinely failed to pay rent. Miller, Vangelas, and Ohebshalom conspired to leverage the property to force Filippone to continue to send prescriptions to their pharmacy. Filippone continued to feed prescriptions to the pharmacy, so long as Miller and Vangelas permitted him to remain rent-free in the property.

The count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison; the count of violating the federal anti-kickback statute is punishable by a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Both counts are also punishable by a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss derived from the offense, whichever is greater.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory Ehrie in Newark; the U.S. Postal Service, Office of Inspector General, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge of the Northeast Area Field Office Matthew M. Modafferi; the Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, New York Region, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Michael C. Mikulka; and special agents of IRS-Criminal Investigations, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge John R. Tafur, with the investigation leading to the charges.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney David M. Eskew, Chief of the Health Care & Government Fraud Unit in the Criminal Division, Newark.

The charges and allegations in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W1KzUxQdRHvWU1w8aeKYRJAOWBzw2I0NVmGzySFiUg4
  Last Updated: 2025-03-17 00:22:24 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E