Score:   1
Docket Number:   ED-KY  5:19-cr-00062
Case Name:   USA v. Ford
  Press Releases:
LEXINGTON, Ky. – 2nd Chance, PLLC (“2nd Chance”), a substance abuse treatment center in Lexington, has agreed to pay $200,494 to resolve civil allegations that it violated the False Claims Act, a federal law that prohibits causing the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the federal government. 

According to the settlement agreement, the United States alleged that 2nd Chance caused the submission of false claims to the Kentucky Medicaid program through its referral of urine drug testing services to Compliance Advantage, LLC, a toxicology laboratory in Nicholasville, Kentucky known as “CAL Lab.”  CAL Lab provided 2nd Chance with a chemistry analyzer, which is a valuable piece of laboratory equipment that enabled 2nd Chance to perform some urine drug testing on-site beginning on or around October 3, 2016.  On November 29, 2016, CAL Lab and 2nd Chance entered into a lease agreement that required 2nd Chance to pay CAL Lab a monthly fee for use of the analyzer.  But, 2nd Chance did not make any payments for use of the analyzer until March 14, 2017.

Accordingly, for a five-month period, 2nd Chance received the benefit of the analyzer without paying for it.  The United States alleged this was a substantial benefit to 2nd Chance:  not only did 2nd Chance receive the benefit of the test results for use in patient care, 2nd Chance also received over $400,000 from Kentucky Medicaid for drug tests performed on the analyzer during this period. 

For its part, CAL Lab received referrals for more complex drug testing from 2nd Chance’s physicians.  CAL Lab then submitted claims for payment for that testing to Kentucky Medicaid, totaling close to $90,000.  According to the settlement agreement, the United States alleged that these claims were false, because they were tainted by 2nd Chance’s acceptance and use of the chemistry analyzer without making lease payments to CAL Lab in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, a federal law that prohibits healthcare providers from accepting anything of value in exchange for the referral of services paid for by federal health insurance programs, including Kentucky Medicaid. 

“Sweetheart deals paid for by taxpayers, as the Government alleged in this case, will not be tolerated,” said Derrick Jackson, Special Agent in Charge for the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  “We will work with our law enforcement partners to investigate and prosecute organizations entering into such illicit arrangements.”   

This case is part of a larger investigation into CAL Lab and affiliated individuals and entities.  Earlier this year, in a criminal matter, Samuel L. Ford and Dinesh Goyal pled guilty to conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in connection with their illegal billing arrangement with CAL Lab.  Specifically, Ford, Goyal, and CAL Lab’s owner, Mason Routt, agreed that urine drug tests referred to and performed by CAL would be billed to certain federal health insurance programs using another laboratory’s billing information in order to evade payment restrictions placed on CAL by those insurers.  Earlier this week, Mr. Ford was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison and 36 months supervised release for his role in this scheme.  Mr. Goyal is scheduled to be sentenced on October 15, 2019.

In June 2018, CAL Lab agreed to a civil settlement with the United States that included the entry of a civil judgment against it and in favor of the United States in the amount of $2,816,015.  As part that settlement, CAL Lab admitted that it violated the False Claims Act by knowingly failing to return to federal health insurance programs overpayments it received for specimen validity testing – a service not covered by Medicare or Kentucky Medicaid.

The Government’s work in this investigation illustrates its commitment to combatting health care fraud, waste, and abuse.  Tips from all sources about potential fraud, waste, and abuse can be reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477). 

The case against 2nd Chance was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Assistant United States Attorney Christine Corndorf represented the United States.  The claims resolved by the settlement with 2nd Chance are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

  LEXINGTON, Ky. – On Monday, a Lexington man was sentenced, by Senior U.S. District Judge Joseph M. Hood, for his involvement in a health care fraud conspiracy.  Samuel L. Ford, 40, was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison and 36 months of supervised release, for his role in submitting fraudulent claims for urine drug testing to insurers that administer the Kentucky Medicaid program.

Ford previously admitted to the conspiracy with Mason Routt, the owner of a toxicology laboratory in Nicholasville, Kentucky, known as C.A.L. Laboratory Services (“CAL”), and Dinesh Goyal, the owner of a separate toxicology laboratory in Owensboro, Kentucky known as Tristate Medical Laboratory (“Tristate”).  CAL provided urine drug testing services for physician clients.  Beginning in late 2015, health care organizations who administer the Kentucky Medicaid program placed payment restrictions on CAL’s claims seeking reimbursement for urine drug tests, due to concerns about the legitimacy of those claims.  Ford acknowledged that these payment restrictions dramatically reduced CAL’s revenue.

Ford admitted that in order to evade these payment restrictions, in October 2016, he, Goyal, and Routt agreed that urine drug tests referred to and performed by CAL would be billed to the health insurance programs using Tristate’s billing information, falsely representing that the tests were performed by Tristate.  In this way, CAL received reimbursements to which it was not entitled.  Ford admitted in his plea agreement that these fraudulent claims caused Humana Caresource, Aetna Coventry Cares, and Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield Medicaid to suffer a combined loss of $1,378,449.  As part of the sentence imposed today, Ford was ordered to repay that $1,378,449 as restitution, and will not be allowed to work in the medical billing field during his three years of supervised release.

Dinesh Goyal pled guilty to the same offense in July 2019, and is scheduled to be sentenced on October 15, 2019.

Robert M. Duncan, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky; James Robert Brown, Jr., Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Louisville Field Office; and Derrick L. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), Atlanta Field Office, jointly announced the sentence.

The investigation was conducted by the FBI and HHS-OIG.  The United States was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul McCaffrey. 

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: 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 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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4

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