Smart Lab LLC, and the corporation’s Chief Executive and Chief Operating Officers were sentenced for their participation in a multi-million health care fraud scheme that involved the filing of fraudulent insurance claim forms and defrauding health care benefit programs.
Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Robert Lasky, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office; Michael J. De Palma, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI); Jimmy Patronis, Florida Chief Financial Officer; Michael J. Waters, Special Agent in Charge, Amtrak Office of Inspector General (Amtrak OIG); Isabel Colon, Regional Director, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (DOL-EBSA); Dennis Russo, Director of Operations, National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB); and John F. Khin, Special Agent in Charge, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) made the announcement.
H. Hamilton Wayne, a/k/a “Hawkeye,” 40, of Palm Beach Gardens, Justin Morgan Wayne, 39, of Boca Raton, and Smart Lab LLC, of Palm Beach Gardens, previously pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Today, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks sentenced Smart Lab Chief Executive Officer (CEO) H. Wayne to 63 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release; Smart Lab Chief Operating Officer (COO) J. Wayne to 46 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release; and the corporation to 3 years of probation. The three defendants were jointly and severally ordered to pay $2,897,389.50 in restitution to the victims of their offenses. H. Wayne was separately ordered to pay $954,344 to the TRICARE program for his involvement in fraud at RX to You, along with a $50,000 fine. J. Wayne was separately ordered to pay a $20,000 fine.
According to court documents, Smart Lab LLC was established by CEO H. Wayne, and COO J. Wayne, to perform confirmatory urinalysis testing. Smart Lab, H. Wayne and J. Wayne established bank accounts to receive proceeds of insurance claims for medically unnecessary urinalysis testing and to pay kickbacks and bribes to individuals and entities that referred urine samples to Smart Lab for testing.
H. Wayne and J. Wayne established employment agreements wherein H. Wayne and co-conspirators would solicit bodily fluid samples from substance abuse treatment centers that would be submitted to Smart Lab for expensive confirmatory drug testing. In exchange, Smart Lab would kick back a portion of the insurance reimbursements, disguised as payments for sales commissions, to co-conspirators, understanding that a portion of these payments would then be paid, directly or indirectly, to owners, operators, or clinicians at the substance abuse treatment centers that referred the testing of urine samples from insured patients.
To achieve the goal, Smart Lab, H. Wayne, J. Wayne, and co-conspirators developed form standing orders and drug testing protocols that provided for duplicative, medically unnecessary, and expensive confirmatory testing regardless of the individual needs of any patients. To further the scheme, co-conspirator treatment center owners required the insured substance abuse treatment center patients to submit to confirmatory drug testing approximately three times per week, which Smart Lab, H. Wayne, J. Wayne, and others could bill to the insurance plans. Smart Lab, H. Wayne and J. Wayne elected not to collect mandatory co-payments, deductibles, and other co-insurance from patients that could cause patients to be unable or unwilling to submit to testing. The defendants did not inform the insurance plans that they were not collecting the required co-insurance payments.
In addition, Lanny Fried, a top Smart Lab sales representative, had an agreement with Smart Lab to receive commissions of approximately 50% of the insurance reimbursements for the substance abuse treatment facilities he referred to Smart Lab. These payments were classified as commissions when in reality they were kickbacks for the referral of excessive, medically unnecessary, fraudulent and duplicative confirmatory drug testing. Fried served as the sales representative for Smart Lab’s largest account, Reflections Treatment Center in Margate, Florida. Fried used a portion of these commissions to pay Reflections’ owner, Kenneth Chatman, illegal cash kickbacks to induce him to continue referring urine samples to Smart Lab. Using Fried as a “middleman” for the payments to Chatman disguised the true ownership and purpose of the funds. From 2005 through 2017, Smart Lab paid Fried over $600,000. These payments came from proceeds of health care fraud.
Fried also recruited friends and business associates to engage in similar activity. These individuals signed employment agreements with Smart Lab that purported to make them “sales representatives”. These agreements were used to make it appear that monies paid to Fried and others were for services rendered. The employment contracts were created to hide the true purpose and recipient of the payments. Fried and the others involved did not perform any actual services for Smart Lab and they were paid “commissions” from the proceeds of health care fraud. These funds were then disbursed to others, per Fried’s instructions.
Fried previously pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Robin I. Rosenberg on November 29, 2018.
U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the Greater Palm Beach Health Care Fraud Task Force. Agencies of the task force include the FBI, IRS-CI, Florida Division of Investigative and Forensic Services, Amtrak OIG, DOL-EBSA, NICB and DCIS. These cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys A. Marie Villafaña and Alexandra Chase.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov at www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls.
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 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