United States v. R&F Properties of Lake County, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
433 F.3d 1349 (2005)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Karyn Walker (plaintiff) was a nurse practitioner at Leesburg Family Medicine (LFM), currently known as R&F Properties of Lake County (R&F) (defendant). At LFM, Walker, and other nurses, administered medical services to patients without a physician being physically present in the medical office. Physicians were available by phone or pager. LFM filed reimbursement claims with Medicare for Walker’s services and classified them as “services incident to the service of a physician.” Services billed as “services incident to the service of a physician” received a higher rate of Medicare reimbursement than services billed under a nurse’s Unique Provider Identification Number (UPIN). In January 2002, the Medicare statute was amended to clarify that “services incident to the service of a physician” meant services provided under the direct, in-person supervision of a physician. Even after the January 2002 amendment, LFM continued to file Medicare reimbursement claims under “services incident to the service of a physician” for services provided by a nurse without the in-person supervision of a physician. Walker, as a qui tam relator on behalf of the United States (plaintiff), filed suit under the False Claims Act for LFM’s fraudulent billing practices both before and after the January 2002 Medicare amendment. Walker produced evidence of Medicare publications, training manuals, and seminars reviewed and attended by LFM personnel demonstrating that the January 2002 amendment simply codified the already-existing understanding in the Medicare-provider community that “services incident to the service of a physician” meant services rendered under the direct, in-person supervision of a physician. The district court granted summary judgment to LFM, holding that the Medicare statute could not support a false claims action because the language defining “services incident to the service of a physician” was ambiguous.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cox, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.