Kuzma v. N. Ariz. Healthcare Corp.

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
June 15, 2022
8011 Offices and Clinics of Doctors of Medicine
621111 Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists)
fraud
causation, deposition, discovery, fair market value (FMV), physician, anti-kickback statute, false claims act, but for causation, purchase price, summary judgment

Kuzma v. N. Ariz. Healthcare Corp.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106969
US
Federal Court
Arizona
United States District Court
Somerset CPAs, Timothy Smith, Coker, Stephan Diagostino, CPA/ABV
David G. Campbell

Summary

The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.
Kuzma v. N. Ariz. Healthcare Corp
PDF, Size: 305 KB

See Also

U.S. District Court Partially Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Qui Tam Case on Excess Purchase Price Under the False Claims Act

The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.