Score:   1
Docket Number:   WD-PA  2:18-cr-00111
Case Name:   USA v. AGGARWAL
  Press Releases:
PITTSBURGH, Pa. – Two former employees of Redirections Treatment Advocates – a contracted physician and the clinic’s operations manager - have been sentenced in federal court for offenses related to the unlawful distribution of controlled substances and health care fraud, United States Attorney Scott W. Brady announced today.

Senior United States District Judge Arthur J. Schwab sentenced Dr. Madhu Aggarwal, 69, of Coraopolis, PA, to three years of probation with six months of home confinement; ordered her to pay $82,973.75 in restitution along with a fine of $40,000, and criminal forfeiture in the amount of $50,000; and ordered her to perform 100 hours of community service on her conviction of unlawfully distributing controlled substances, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and health care fraud.

Judge Schwab sentenced Christopher Handa, 48, of Pittsburgh, PA, to two years of probation with 90 days of home confinement, and ordered him to pay $40,000 in restitution and to perform 50 hours of community service on his conviction of aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of controlled substances and health care fraud.

According to information presented to the court, Madhu Aggarwal was a physician practicing at Redirections Treatment Advocates, a Suboxone clinic, located in Washington, PA. Aggarwal and others conspired together to create and submit unlawful prescriptions for buprenorphine, known as Subutex and Suboxone, and then unlawfully dispensed those controlled substances to the clinic’s patients. Aggarwal pre-signed prescriptions, which were completed by non-physicians employed at the clinic. Aggarwal often did not see the patient before a prescription was issued and on several occasions was out of the country when Suboxone was prescribed in her name. Aggarwal was also convicted of health care fraud for causing fraudulent claims to be submitted to Medicare for payments to cover the costs of the unlawfully prescribed buprenorphine.

Christopher Handa was employed by RTA as the operations manager. According to the government’s evidence, Handa, Jennifer Hess, the owner of Redirections Treatment Advocates, and doctors employed by the clinic conspired together to create and submit unlawful prescriptions for buprenorphine and then unlawfully dispensed those controlled substances to the clinic’s patients. The doctors would pre-sign the prescriptions and Handa and other employees would complete them. The doctors were not present when the prescriptions were completed and on most occasions had never seen their patients before the prescriptions were completed. Handa was also convicted of health care fraud for causing fraudulent claims to be submitted to Medicaid for payments to cover the costs of the unlawfully prescribed buprenorphine.

Assistant United States AttorneysMichael L. Ivory and Robert S. Cessar prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.

United States Attorney Brady commended the Western Pennsylvania Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit, which combines personnel and resources from the following agencies to combat the growing prescription opioid epidemic: Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Health and Human Services – Office of Inspector General, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigations, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General - Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, United States Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Attorney’s Office – Criminal Division, Civil Division and Asset Forfeiture Unit, Department of Veterans Affairs-Office of Inspector General, Food and Drug Administration-Office of Criminal Investigations and the Pennsylvania Bureau of Licensing for the investigation leading to the successful prosecution of Handa.

WASHINGTON, DC – Five physicians of Redirections Treatment Advocates, LLC, an opioid addiction treatment practice with offices in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, have been indicted on charges of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances and health care fraud, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, United States Attorney Scott W. Brady of  the Western District of Pennsylvania and United States Attorney William J. Powell of the Northern District of West Virginia announced today.  These indictments represent the latest in a series of charges filed since Attorney General Sessions announced the formation of the Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit, a Department of Justice initiative that uses data to target and prosecute individuals that commit opioid-related health care fraud.

The defendants named in the indictments are:

Dr. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal, 73, of Moon Township, Pennsylvania, a contractor at RTA in Weirton, West Virginia;

Dr. Madhu Aggarwal, 68, of Moon Township, Pennsylvania, a contractor at RTA in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania;

Dr. Parth Bharill, 69, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a contractor at RTA in Morgantown, West Virginia;

Dr. Cherian John, 65, of Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, a contractor at RTA in Weirton, West Virginia; and

Dr. Michael Bummer, 38, of Sewickley, Pennsylvania, a contractor at RTA in Washington, Pennsylvania.

According to the indictments, Redirections Treatment Advocates, LLC, operates Suboxone clinics in several locations in western Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia.  The indictments allege that the defendants, working as contractors at various locations, created and distributed unlawful prescriptions for buprenorphine, known as Subutex and Suboxone, a drug that should be used to treat individuals with addiction.  The defendants are also charged with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute buprenorphine.  Finally, the defendants are charged with health care fraud for allegedly causing fraudulent claims to be submitted to Medicare or Medicaid for payments to cover the costs of the unlawfully prescribed buprenorphine.

“Today we are facing the worst drug crisis in American history, with one American dying of a drug overdose every nine minutes,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  “It's incredible but true that some of our trusted medical professionals have chosen to violate their oaths and exploit this crisis for profit.  Last summer, I sent a dozen of our top federal prosecutors to focus solely on the problem of opioid-related health care fraud in places where the epidemic was at its worst-including Western Pennsylvania. These cases cut off the supply of drugs and stop fraudsters from exploiting vulnerable people. Our prosecutors began issuing indictments back in October, and today we bring even more charges against those who allegedly defrauded the taxpayer while diverting potentially addictive drugs. I want to thank our dedicated AUSAs Robert Cessar and Sarah Wagner, FBI, DEA, our U.S. Attorneys’ offices, FDA, the HHS and Veterans Affairs Inspectors General, IRS, our Postal Inspectors, and all of our state and local partners for their hard work on these cases."

“Expanding the legitimate use of medication to treat addiction is a critical part of this Administration’s multi-faceted approach to combat the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities,” stated U.S. Attorney Brady.  “Yet another vital component is the prosecution of unscrupulous practitioners who abuse their privilege to practice medicine and dispense prescriptions unlawfully.  These indictments demonstrate that we remain vigilant in our pursuit of physicians who ignore their oath to do no harm.”

“We remain unwavering in our efforts to combat those who violate drug laws and thereby contribute to the crisis of addiction.  I have made clear that a medical degree provides you no protection from prosecution.  We will persevere,” added U.S. Attorney Powell.

“Alleged abuses of the health care system destroy the basic trust between providers and patients and between taxpayers and the government,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Bob Johnson. “I commend the work of our health care fraud task force and want this to be a message to the community and physicians that these investigations are a high priority for the FBI.”

“Buprenorphine is used to help people struggling with substance use disorder from heroin and other narcotic pain killers.  The allegations in this indictment against these five doctors are deeply troubling, as these doctors distributed this drug not to assist those struggling with addiction, but solely for profit,” said Jonathan A. Wilson, Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Philadelphia Field Division.  “As part of our overall mission to address the opioid crisis, the DEA will continue to aggressively target the rogue practitioners that contribute to this epidemic.” 

For each of the defendants, the law provide a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each of the counts charging unlawfully dispensing Schedule III controlled substances;  a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment and a fine of $1 million for each of the counts charging conspiracy to unlawfully dispense a Schedule III controlled substance; and a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000 for each of the counts charging health care fraud.  Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed would be based upon the seriousness of the offenses and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendants.

Assistant United States Attorney Robert S. Cessar of the Western District of Pennsylvania and Assistant United States Attorney Sarah E. Wagner of the Northern District of West Virginia are prosecuting these cases on behalf of the United States. 

The investigation leading to these indictments was conducted by the Western Pennsylvania Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit, which combines personnel and resources from the following agencies to combat the growing prescription opioid epidemic: Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Health and Human Services - Office of Inspector General, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service - Criminal Investigations, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General - Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Unites States Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Attorney’s Office - Criminal Division, Civil Division and Asset Forfeiture Unit, Department of Veterans Affairs - Office of Inspector General, Food and Drug Administration - Office of  Criminal Investigations and the Pennsylvania Bureau of Licensing. 

An indictment is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16sRSlpBeWwkAmDE3toFkXxuqLmjgXtvCjohn14MQF-U
  Last Updated: 2024-04-10 04:05:30 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 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 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