Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-FL  0:20-cr-60089
Case Name:   USA v. Smith et al
  Press Releases:
The Department of Justice announced today that compounding pharmacy Diabetic Care Rx LLC, or Patient Care America (PCA), PCA’s Chief Executive Officer Patrick Smith, PCA’s former Vice President of Operations Matthew Smith, and private equity firm Riordan, Lewis & Haden Inc. (RLH) have agreed to resolve a lawsuit alleging that they violated the False Claims Act through their involvement in a kickback scheme to generate referrals of prescriptions for expensive pain creams, scar creams, and vitamins, regardless of patient need, which were reimbursed by TRICARE, the federal health care program for military members and their families. PCA and RLH have agreed to pay $21,050,000, Patrick Smith has agreed to pay at least $300,000, and Matthew Smith has agreed to pay at least $12,788. These settlement amounts were based on defendants’ ability to pay.

“Kickback schemes taint decision-making and cause taxpayer-funded health care programs to pay for items or services that patients may not need,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “We will hold accountable health care providers involved in such schemes designed to induce referrals of prescriptions that are reimbursed by federal health care programs.”

“The prosecution and resolution of this case demonstrates the U.S. Attorney’s Office continuing commitment to hold all responsible parties to account for the submission of claims to federal health care programs that are tainted by unlawful kickback arrangements,” said United States Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan. “Kickback schemes lead to unnecessary medical services and drive up the cost of health care for all.”

“This settlement sends a clear message about the Defense Criminal Investigation Service (DCIS) and its law enforcement partners’ unwavering commitment to protect the integrity of TRICARE, the Department of Defense’s health care program which serves to protect our U.S. military, their family members, and military retirees,” said Special Agent in Charge Cyndy Bruce of the DCIS Southeast Field Office. “Health care providers who manipulate and abuse the TRICARE program in order to seek financial gain by submitting false claims and demonstrating a lack of regard for TRICARE patients and the health care plan which is charged to provide their medical care, will be diligently investigated and held accountable for their actions.”

This settlement resolves a lawsuit pursued by the United States against PCA for allegedly paying kickbacks to outside “marketers” to target military members and their families for prescriptions for compounded creams and vitamins, which were formulated to ensure the highest possible reimbursement from TRICARE. The United States alleged that the marketers paid telemedicine doctors who prescribed the creams and vitamins without seeing the patients, or in some cases, even speaking to them. The settlement also resolves the United States’ allegations that PCA and a marketer routinely jointly paid the copayments owed by patients referred by the marketer, without any verification of the patients’ financial needs, and then disguised the payments as coming from a sham charitable organization, which was affiliated with the marketer. Finally, the settlement resolves the United States’ allegations that PCA continued to claim reimbursement for prescriptions referred by the marketers despite regularly receiving complaints from patients that revealed the prescriptions were being generated without patient consent or a valid patient-prescriber relationship. RLH, the private equity firm that managed PCA on behalf of its investors, allegedly knew of and agreed to the plan to pay outside marketers to generate the prescriptions and financed the kickback payments to the marketers. Patrick Smith and Matthew Smith were executives of PCA who allegedly executed the scheme. 

The lawsuit resolved by the settlement was originally filed under the whistleblower (or “qui tam”) provisions of the False Claims Act by Marisela Medrano and Ada Lopez, two former employees of PCA. The qui tam provisions permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the government for false claims and to share in any recovery. The False Claims Act authorizes the United States to intervene and take over such lawsuits, which the United States did here, in part. The share to be awarded in this case has not been determined yet.

This civil settlement was the result of a coordinated effort by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch (Fraud Section), the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations. 

The lawsuit is captioned United States ex rel. Medrano and Lopez v. Diabetic Care Rx LLC, d/b/a Patient Care America, et al., No. 15-CV-62617 (S.D. Fla.). The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.

     The United States has filed a complaint in intervention against Diabetic Care Rx LLC d/b/a Patient Care America (PCA), a compounding pharmacy located in Pompano Beach, Florida, alleging that the pharmacy paid illegal kickbacks to induce prescriptions for compounded drugs reimbursed by TRICARE, the Department of Justice announced today.  The government has also brought claims against Patrick Smith and Matthew Smith, two pharmacy executives, and Riordan, Lewis & Haden Inc. (RLH), a private equity firm based in Los Angeles, California, which manages both the pharmacy and the private equity fund that owns the pharmacy, for their involvement in the alleged kickback scheme. 

TRICARE is a federally-funded health care program for military personnel and their families.  The government alleges that the Defendants paid kickbacks to marketing companies to target TRICARE beneficiaries for prescriptions for compounded pain creams, scar creams, and vitamins, without regard to the patients’ medical needs.  According to the complaint, the compound formulas were manipulated by the Defendants and the marketers to ensure the highest possible reimbursement from TRICARE.  The Defendants and marketers allegedly paid telemedicine doctors to prescribe the creams and vitamins without seeing the patients, and sometimes paid the patients themselves to accept the prescriptions.  The scheme generated tens of millions of dollars in reimbursements from TRICARE in a matter of months, according to the complaint, which alleges that the Defendants and marketers split the profits from the scheme.

“The Department of Justice is determined to hold accountable health care providers that improperly use taxpayer funded health care programs to enrich themselves,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Chad A. Readler.  “Kickback schemes corrupt the health care system and damage the public trust.”

“Providers and marketers that engage in kickback schemes drive up the cost of health care because they focus on their own bottom line instead of what is in the best interest of patients,” said Executive Assistant Randy Hummel of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.  “We will hold pharmacies, and those companies that manage them, responsible for using kickbacks to line their pockets at the expense of taxpayers and federal health care beneficiaries.” 

“The Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) is committed to protecting the integrity of TRICARE, the military health care program that provides critical medical care and services to Department of Defense beneficiaries,” said Special Agent in Charge John F. Khin, of the Southeast Field Office.  “In partnership with DOJ and other law enforcement agencies, DCIS continues to aggressively investigate fraud and corruption to preserve and recover precious taxpayer dollars to best serve the needs of our warfighters, their family members, and military retirees.”

The lawsuit, United States ex rel. Medrano and Lopez v. Diabetic Care Rx, LLC dba Patient Care America, et al., No. 15-CV-62617 (S.D. Fla.), was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Marisela Medrano and Ada Lopez, two former employees of PCA.  The lawsuit was filed under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to sue for false claims against of the United States and to receive a share of any recovery.  The Act permits the United States to intervene in such lawsuits, as the United States has done in this case. 

This matter was investigated by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations, and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command’s Major Procurement Fraud Unit.

The claims asserted against the defendants are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.  

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.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vg4Q6xGvXaGuyhpPL2yBiK5qjOVywpqGaduDlLr-cGc
  Last Updated: 2024-04-16 19:34:21 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: 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 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
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: 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
Format: N8

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