Office Manager Mark J. Sabor Sentenced Today for Conspiracy to Commit Healthcare Fraud and Agrees to Pay Share of Civil Settlement Totaling $1.26 Million
GRAND RAPIDS,MICHIGAN — U.S. Attorney Andrew B. Birge announced today that U.S. District Judge Janet T. Neff sentenced Mark J. Sabor to two years of incarceration for his involvement in a conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. Mr. Sabor was the manager of Urological Solutions of Michigan ("USM"), a mobile medical practice providing urological services to patients in their homes and assisted living facilities in the greater Traverse City, Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo areas.
Judge Neff found that Mr. Sabor was complicit in several fraud schemes committed by USM, resulting in approximately $914,000 in false claims submitted by USM and paid by Medicare. These schemes included billing pelvic muscle rehabilitation ("PMR) therapy using improper—and more lucrative—diagnostic codes, billing for evaluation and management ("E&M") services that did not occur, upcoding ultrasound services, and billing for the services of an unlicensed nurse assistant. Judge Neff applied an enhancement to Mr. Sabor’s sentencing guidelines based on the fact that an administrative law judge in 2011 ruled that USM should not bill Medicare for the PMR therapy using the diagnostic codes. In imposing the prison sentence, Judge Neff emphasized the need to deter other healthcare practitioners and practice managers from cheating important government programs and to promote respect for the law.
Mr. Sabor’s conviction was part of a larger investigation of USM’s owner, Roger D. Beyer, M.D., and his wife, Susan E. Wright, N.P., J.D. Dr. Beyer was the owner of USM and Women’s Health Care Specialists, P.C. ("WHCS"), an obstetrics-gynecology practice in Kalamazoo. Ms. Wright was an employee of WHCS.
On May 15, 2020, Dr. Beyer pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and adulteration of a medical device. That same day, Ms. Wright pleaded guilty to misprision of healthcare fraud and the adulteration of a medical device. Specifically, Ms. Wright admitted that she knew that USM fraudulently billed Medicare for E&M services to patients on the same date of service as the PMR therapy, but she never informed authorities. Both Dr. Beyer and Ms. Wright are scheduled to be sentenced before Judge Neff on September 9, 2020.
In addition to their convictions, all defendants entered into civil settlements with the United States to resolve their civil liability under the False Claims Act. In total, the defendants, including the now-closed USM and WHCS practices, paid $1,260,000 for submitting or causing the submission of false claims for reimbursement to Medicare as part of numerous alleged healthcare fraud schemes. For his role in the alleged misconduct, Mr. Sabor agreed to pay a civil settlement of $150,000.
"Mr. Sabor’s misconduct in these healthcare fraud schemes was particularly egregious because USM continued to improperly bill Medicare even after it had been warned not to do so by an administrative law judge," stated U.S. Attorney Birge. "Instead of following the rules, Mr. Sabor and USM found new ways to exploit the Medicare Program of hundreds of thousands of dollars. As the Government emphasized in its sentencing memorandum, ‘If you bill the government, learn the rules; if you are audited and found to be doing something wrong, rectify your practices; if a judge tells you to stop billing improperly, stop it. And if you don’t, expect to pay back the ill-gotten gains and anticipate a prison sentence.’"
"The defendant’s conduct in this case was clearly motivated by greed," said Lamont Pugh III, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General – Chicago Region ("HHS-OIG"). "Billing for services not rendered, up-coding the actual services provided, billing for unlicensed personnel; these actions demonstrate a complete disregard for the law and resulted in a criminal conviction. The OIG will continue to work with our prosecutorial and law enforcement partners to ensure that those who commit these criminal acts are held accountable."
"Today’s sentence is the result of the dedicated efforts of multiple investigative agencies and prosecutors who collaborated to protect the integrity of the Medicare program," said Steven M. D’Antuono, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") in Michigan. "Health care fraud costs our country billions of dollars a year and drives up the cost of care for every single taxpayer, but especially for the disabled and elderly citizens who are entitled to the benefits this program provides."
This case was the result of a joint investigation by HHS-OIG, FBI, and the Food & Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations, in coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan. Assistant U.S. Attorney Raymond E. Beckering III prosecuted the criminal case, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew J. Hull represented the United States in the civil case.
###
Potential Victims Can Contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office Directly
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN — U.S. Attorney Andrew B. Birge announced today separate charges brought against Roger D. Beyer, M.D., and his wife, Susan E. Wright, N.P., J.D. Dr. Beyer was the owner of Women’s Health Care Specialists, P.C. ("WHCS"), an obstetrics-gynecology practice in Kalamazoo, and Urological Solutions of Michigan, PLC ("USM"), a medical practice consisting of traveling nurse practitioners in West Michigan.
The Felony Information filed against Dr. Beyer charges him with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The United States alleges that Dr. Beyer conspired to fraudulently bill Medicare for therapy services, known as pelvic muscle rehabilitation ("PMR") therapy, provided by USM, using more-lucrative and inappropriate diagnostic codes. The PMR therapy was provided purportedly to treat mostly elderly female patients with fecal or urinary incontinence, primarily in the greater Traverse City, Kalamazoo, and Grand Rapids areas.
The United States also alleges in the Felony Information that Dr. Beyer directed his staff at USM and WHCS to reuse a single-user (one patient only) rectal pressure sensor on multiple patients as part of the PMR therapy. Additionally, the United States alleges that WHCS staff also reused a single-use (disposable, one use only) anorectal manometry catheter on multiple patients as part of an initial diagnostic study with patients with potential fecal incontinence. Both instances of reuse were inconsistent with the device clearance by the Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") and the devices’ instructions for use. Further, this reuse resulted in the adulteration and possible contamination of these devices.
In a separate Felony Information, the United States charges Ms. Wright with misprision of health care fraud and the adulteration of a medical device. The United States alleges that Ms. Wright knew that USM fraudulently billed Medicare for evaluation and management ("E&M") services to patients on the same date of service as the PMR therapy, but she never informed authorities. The Felony Information against Ms. Wright similarly charges her with adulteration of a medical device, specifically the rectal pressure sensor in the manner described above for Dr. Beyer.
Both Dr. Beyer and Ms. Wright have signed plea agreements in their respective cases, and plea hearings are scheduled for May 15, 2020.
USM patients who were also Medicare beneficiaries may have been charged copays for the billing of their PMR therapy using the more lucrative diagnostic codes. Those same patients may also have been improperly charged copays for E&M services billed alongside their PMR therapy. Additionally, patients of USM and WHCS who received PMR therapy or diagnostic anorectal manometry may have been the recipients of services using adulterated medical devices. This adulteration posed a risk of infectious disease transmission. Such patients can review the press release issued by the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services on June 11, 2019, encouraging patients of Dr. Beyer and his practices to consult with their treating physicians about undergoing any testing:
Individuals who may have been affected by the fraudulent billing or device adulteration can contact the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan to obtain information about victim rights and the progression of these cases. The U.S. Attorney’s Office website includes a page with forms and information related to this case specifically for victims:
Alternatively, potential victims may call Kathy Schuette, Victim Witness Coordinator, at (616) 808-2034.
Charges in an information are only allegations and are not evidence of guilt. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty, and the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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 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 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