Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:19-cr-01821
Case Name:   USA v. Rodriguez et al
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – The CEO of Team Work Ready (TWR) has received a significant federal sentence for conspiracy, health care fraud, wire fraud and money laundering, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick along with Special Agent in Charge Christopher Cave of the U.S. Postal Service - Office of Inspector General (USPS-OIG), Special Agent in Charge Steven Grell of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) – OIG, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ramsey Covington of IRS-Criminal Investigation (CI), Special Agent in Charge James Werner of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) – OIG and Special Agent in Charge David J. Green of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – OIG.

A federal jury convicted Jeffrey Eugene Rose Sr., 56, along with his wife - chief financial officer (CFO) Pamela Annette Rose, 56 - and the clinic’s vice president of operations Frankie Lee Sanders, 56, following 14 hours of deliberation on Oct. 17, 2016.

Today, U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr., who presided over the trial, sentenced Rose to 233 months in federal prison and ordered him to pay $14,537548.54 in restitution to the DOL, Office of Worker’s Compensation Program (OWCP) which administered the Federal Employees Compensation Act health care benefit program known as FECA. In arriving at the sentence, Judge Werlein considered the seriousness of the offense and the $18,354,971 in fraudulent claims submitted from Rose’s 10 TWR clinics located in Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Memphis and Alabama, including clinics in Houston, San Antonio, and McAllen. Rose will also be required to serve three years supervised release upon completion of the prison term.

“The sentence imposed today serves as a clear deterrent to those engaging in fraud against federal benefit programs,” said Cave. “USPS-OIG, along with our law enforcement partners, will continue to aggressively pursue these investigations and exhaust all efforts in uncovering these fraud schemes.”

Pamela Rose and Sanders were previously sentenced July 21, 2017, to 120 and 300 months, respectively.

During the trial, the jury heard testimony from 38 witnesses including former patients of TWR clinics, former employees of TWR clinics, various experts and special agents from USPS-OIG and IRS-CI. According to testimony, TWR submitted millions in false and fraudulent claims for physical therapy services.

“Jeffrey Rose orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to submit more than $18 million in claims for services never provided to injured federal workers to DOL-OWCP using the health care clinics he owned in multiple states,” said Grell. “We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to protect the integrity of department programs and safeguard taxpayer money.”

“Our system of health care is founded on the trust of the public in its health care professionals and the outstanding services they provide. The health care fraud and money laundering activities committed by Jeffrey Rose and his co-conspirators harms all Americans, as we all have to pay our fair share for government services and protections that we enjoy,” said Covington. “IRS-CI agents along with our law enforcement partners remain committed to ending healthcare fraud conspiracies and seeking justice for those involved in these crimes.”

Patients testified at trial that they did not receive the one-on-one physical therapy services for which DOL-OWCP paid under FECA. Rather, they stated they exercised independently on treadmills, bicycles, elliptical machines and with the Nintendo Wii game as well as other pieces of exercise equipment. One patient described an electronic massage chair in the San Antonio clinic, while another patient testified that unlicensed staff told him to do exercises on both of his arms, although he only injured his left elbow and to use the electronic massage chair and the treadmill for his injury. Similarly, a patient from Houston testified that she was asked to do some exercises that had nothing to do with her carpal tunnel wrist injury, specifically walking on a treadmill.

Testimony from former TWR employees revealed that the Houston clinic had as many as 30 – 60 patients a day and that employees did not know what the patients were doing in the main treatment area because they were busy in the back doing massages, electrical stimulation treatments and ultrasound treatments. Patients at the New Orleans clinic were instructed to go back to the therapy room to begin doing exercises by themselves. Employees testified that they did not perform all the one-on-one services documented on patient treatment notes and admitted they frequently completed the patient treatment notes at the end of the day by following a “cheat sheet” and asking each other and the patients what activities had been done. Various individuals described the treatment as “like a gym.”

Undercover federal agents posed as patients at two of the TWR clinics. The jury watched portions of covertly made recordings that supported the employee and patient testimony about clinic activities. The jury also heard several recordings a TWR employee made demonstrating how  the defendants tried to coerce her into ordering medically unnecessary treatment so the clinics could profit.

As explained during the trial by DOL-OWCP’s chief fiscal officer, FECA does not pay for professional services performed by unlicensed aides. Under FECA rules, a chiropractor can only be paid when they treat spinal subluxation or when they personally perform physical therapy under the direction of, and as prescribed by, a medical doctor. They also cannot direct unlicensed individuals to perform skilled physical therapy services. Specifically, in relation to this case, TWR falsely and fraudulently submitted claims for skilled one-on-one physical therapy services provided by a licensed chiropractor when, in reality, the services were not provided as described.

Rose and his wife were also convicted of money laundering after another TWR employee testified about the pair moving $700,000 out of TWR accounts to hide it from the federal government in July 2013, while federal agents executed search warrants at multiple TWR locations.

Rose has been and will remain in custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

USPS - OIG, DOL - OIG, IRS - CI, Department of Veterans Affairs - OIG, and Department of Homeland Security – OIG conducted the investigation.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) Julie Redlinger and Daniel Rodriguez prosecuted the case. AUSA Kristine Rollinson handled the forfeiture matters.

HOUSTON – Two officials with Team Work Ready (TWR) have been ordered to federal prison for conspiracy, health care fraud, wire fraud and money laundering, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Abe Martinez along with Special Agent in Charge Maximo Eamiguel of the U.S. Postal Service - Office of Inspector General (USPS-OIG), Special Agent in Charge Steven Grell of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) – OIG, Special Agent in Charge Rick Goss of IRS-Criminal Investigation (CI), Special Agent in Charge James Werner of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) – OIG, and Special Agent in Charge David J. Green of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – OIG.

 

A federal jury deliberated for 14 hours following a 16-day trial before convicting one of the TWR founders and chief financial officer (CFO) Pamela Annette Rose, 55, and the clinic’s vice president of operations Frankie Lee Sanders, 55, along with CEO Jeffrey Eugene Rose Sr., 54, on Oct. 17, 2016.

 

Today, U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr., who presided over the trial, handed Sanders a 300-month sentence, while Pamela Rose will serve a 120-month-term. They will both also be required to serve a term of three years of supervised release following completion of the prison terms. The evidence presented at the hearing included reference to various audio recordings obtained during the investigation and large volumes of documents obtained during the investigation. Pamela Rose was ordered to pay a $14,537548.54 in restitution, while Sanders is to pay $13,365,525.38. In handing down the sentence, Judge Werlein noted the seriousness of health care fraud and the need to deter those involved in this crime. Jeffrey Rose will be sentenced at a later date.

 

“The sentence issued today should be an explicit deterrent to those healthcare providers engaging in illegal activity in order to receive undeserved monetary payments. Fraud committed against federal benefit programs is a serious offense that will not be tolerated,” said Eamiguel. “The USPS-OIG, along with our law enforcement partners, will continue to vigorously investigate these types of cases in order to protect the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs and United States Postal Service from further fraud and abuse.”

 

“Team Work Ready’s CFO, vice president of operations and others participated in a fraudulent scheme to submit approximately $9 million in false claims to the DOL - Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) for healthcare services not provided to federal workers,” said Grell. “Rose, Sanders and their co-conspirators stole money intended to pay for legitimate patient care for federal workers suffering from work related injuries. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to protect all Department of Labor programs.”

 

“Sanders and Ms. Rose will now lose their freedom for defrauding U.S. Taxpayers for personal monetary gain,” said Goss. “These types of schemes not only undermine federal programs but also take money and benefits from those patients who need it the most.”

 

“This case underscores VA-OIG’s commitment to protecting the taxpayer dollars intended for the medical treatment of injured VA employees by legitimate healthcare providers,” said Werner.

 

“Today’s sentencing is a testament that the U.S. government will not tolerate those who defraud its healthcare system, said Green. “The federal employee compensation program was designed to help those government employees rehabilitate and return to duty after suffering an injury. The fact that these two individuals exploited the system, designed to help those with medical needs, to line their own pockets is deplorable. Special Agents from many agencies worked together with prosecutors to ensure a successful outcome and should be commended for their efforts.”

 

TWR had clinics in five states including Federal Work Ready in Houston, Alamo Work Ready in San Antonio and Bayou Work Ready in New Orleans, Louisiana. During the criminal trial, the jury heard testimony from 38 witnesses including former patients of TWR clinics, former employees of TWR clinics, various experts and special agents from the USPS-OIG and IRS-CI. According to testimony, TWR submitted approximately $9.6 million in false and fraudulent claims from four of its clinics for physical therapy services that were not provided. The claims were submitted under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) health care benefit program which is administered by the DOL - OWCP.

 

DOL-OWCP's chief fiscal officer explained to the jury at the start of the trial that FECA does not pay for professional services performed by unlicensed aides which is why DOL-OWCP requires the enrollment of all licensed professionals providing services to injured federal employees, including copies of professional licenses. He testified that the FECA program only considers chiropractors as physicians when they treat spinal subluxation. Otherwise, chiropractors are considered equivalent to physical therapists and may provide physical therapy under the direction of, and as prescribed by, a medical doctor. Specifically, in relation to this case, the DOL-OWCP would not have paid millions of dollars for the physical therapy services billed by TWR if they had known that the services were not provided as described in the claims submitted to DOL-OWCP.

 

The claims TWR submitted falsely and fraudulently described skilled one-on-one physical therapy services provided by a licensed chiropractor. Patients from four TWR clinics testified that they did not receive the one-on-one physical therapy services paid for by DOL-OWCP under FECA. Rather, they stated that they exercised independently on treadmills, bicycles and elliptical machines with the Nintendo Wii game and with other pieces of exercise equipment. The San Antonio clinic also had an electronic massage chair for patients. One patient from Houston testified that she felt that some of the exercises she was asked to do had nothing to do with her carpal tunnel wrist injury, specifically the treadmill. Another patient from the San Antonio clinic testified that unlicensed staff told him to do exercises on both of his arms, although he only injured his left elbow and to use the electronic massage chair and the treadmill for his injury.

 

The jury also heard testimony from 11 former TWR employees, including unlicensed therapy technicians from the Houston and New Orleans clinics, a case manager and two licensed chiropractors. The employees reported 30 – 60 patients a day at the Houston clinic and said there were times when they did not know what the patients were doing in the main treatment area because they were busy in the back doing massages, electrical stimulation treatments and ultrasound treatments. The employees testified that they did not perform all the one-on-one services documented on patient treatment notes and admitted they frequently completed the patient treatment notes at the end of the day by following a “cheat sheet” and asking each other and the patients what activities had been done. Patients at the New Orleans clinic were instructed to go back to the therapy room to begin doing exercises by themselves. Various individuals described the treatment as “like a gym.”

 

The jury also heard from two federal agents who went undercover as “injured federal employees” at the Houston and New Orleans clinics. The jury watched portions of video recordings covertly made by the undercover agents that showed patients independently exercising and receiving care from unlicensed and obviously untrained staff.

 

One of the licensed chiropractors testified that she began covertly recording meetings with the defendants in December 2012. The jury heard several of the recordings, including one in which the defendants tried to coerce the chiropractor to order medically unnecessary treatment so TWR could make a profit.

 

TWR's former chief operating officer (COO) testified about a phone call he received from CFO Rose on July 11, 2013 - the day federal agents executed search warrants at TWR clinics in Houston and New Orleans. The COO said CFO Rose instructed him to meet her and CEO Rose at a local Chase bank where they moved money out of the TWR accounts to hide it from the federal government. An IRS-CI special agent traced the $700,000 transferred out of TWR bank accounts, into a transportation company account owned by Mr. and Mrs. Rose and then out of that account via a cashier’s check in the name of two “shell” businesses not associated with TWR but also owned by Mr. and Mrs. Rose.

 

Sanders and Jeffrey Rose have been in custody where they will remain pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future. Pamela Rose was permitted to remain on bond and voluntarily surrender at a later date.

 

This case was the result of a joint investigation with the USPS - OIG, DOL - OIG, IRS - CI, Department of Veterans Affairs - OIG, and Department of Homeland Security - OIG. Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSA) Julie Redlinger and Daniel Rodriguez prosecuted the case. AUSA Kristine Rollinson handled the forfeiture matters.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IkzTO0u9AGy3SbIZDSht4hpDoe-4-mKkXo8lF2nfi-s
  Last Updated: 2024-04-13 23:36:07 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 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
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:   SD-TX  5:19-mj-02459
Case Name:   USA v. Rodriguez et al Do not docket in Magistrate Case - Case merged into Criminal Case 5:19-cr-01821-0
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UgRtIxmP6zkivG9aiPE_JimCW2vlT6fna4Q7cVxdDxQ
  Last Updated: 2024-04-13 23:47:54 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 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
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