July 28, 2014

Tough News for Tuomey Healthcare System Re: Jury Found Violation of False Claims Act (FCA)

Yesterday, a federal court jury in Columbia, South Carolina concluded that Sumter-based Tuomey Healthcare System violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by submitting thousands of bills for services that resulted from tainted compensation arrangements under the federal Stark law. Tuomey submitted bills for approximately $39 million in services; it now faces potential liability not only for repayment of those amounts, but also treble damages and other penalties under the FCA in excess of $300 million.

The case goes back to 2003. Facing the risk that local specialty physicians would perform their outpatient surgeries at other locations, Tuomey entered into nineteen part-time employment contracts with those physicians requiring that they perform their outpatient procedures at Tuomey. The 10-year contracts provided for an annual base salary plus a productivity bonus, both of which varied based on Tuomey’s net cash collections from outpatient procedures. Total compensation paid to the physicians, on average, was 19% higher than collections for their professional services.

Tuomey failed to reach agreement with one of the specialists, Dr. Drakeford, who then brought suit against Tuomey as a whistleblower under the FCA; the government took over prosecution of the action. The initial trial of this case resulted in a jury verdict against Tuomey in March 2010. The jury found that Tuomey violated the Stark physician self-referral law (accepting the government’s contention that the compensation took into account the volume or value of physician referrals) but not the FCA. The trial court set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial on the FCA claims, but then also held that Tuomey was liable to the government for nearly $45 million based on equitable claims that the payments by mistake of fact and unjust enrichment due to Stark violations.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that judgment in March 2012 and ordered a new trial, which resulted in yesterday’s verdict. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion contained two wrinkles, in that the appeals court concluded that the facility/technical component that results from a physician’s personally performed service constitutes a “referral” under Stark (such that the Tuomey physicians were making referrals); and that the jury must consider whether compensation does not meet fair market value requirements if it is computed by taking into account the volume or value of anticipated referrals.

Yesterday’s verdict remains subject to post-trial motions including those relating to damages, and potentially a post-verdict settlement based on ability to pay. Any decision on a further appeal will likely await a resolution of those motions.

©2014 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

David Edquist, Business, Environmental, Health, attorney, Von Briesen, law firm

David Edquist brings a risk management approach to his work with the firm’s health care and business clients that is based on over thirty years of experience in litigating commercial disputes in state and federal courts and before various administrative tribunals.

David advises our health care clients on joint ventures, affiliations, and acquisition agreements; issues facing not-for-profit institutions, including corporate governance and tax exemption; environmental compliance; and physician contracting and patient referral issues, including fraud investigations. In this...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.