United States v. Krizek

District Court, District of Columbia
1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10926, 1994 WL 401531, 859 F. Supp. 5 (1994)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under the False Claims Act, a defendant acts 'knowingly' if they act with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information submitted; a failure to supervise billing practices or verify the accuracy of claims that results in billing for impossible hours constitutes such reckless disregard.


Facts:

  • Dr. Krizek was a psychiatrist treating Medicare and Medicaid patients, while his wife and an employee were responsible for submitting reimbursement claims.
  • The billing agents routinely utilized CPT code 90844, representing a 45-50 minute individual psychotherapy session, based on a standing presumption that every patient visit lasted this duration unless told otherwise.
  • Mrs. Krizek and the employee did not review the medical records or communicate with the doctor to verify the actual time spent on each patient before submitting the bills.
  • Dr. Krizek admitted to a practice of 'bundling' services, billing for 45-50 minute sessions that included time spent consulting with staff or reviewing files outside the patient's presence.
  • On multiple occasions, the billing agents submitted claims equivalent to over 21 hours of patient services within a single 24-hour period, including one instance of billing for approximately 23 hours in one day.
  • The doctor did not verify these claims prior to submission, despite certifying that the services were performed as described.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States filed a civil suit against Dr. Krizek and his wife in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging violations of the False Claims Act and common law.
  • The parties agreed to a bench trial initially regarding liability for the coding practices involving seven representative patients and two hundred specific claims.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a physician's failure to supervise billing agents or verify claim accuracy, resulting in the submission of reimbursement claims for impossible amounts of service hours in a single day based on unfounded presumptions, constitute 'reckless disregard' sufficient to establish liability under the False Claims Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Sporkin

Yes, submitting claims based on unfounded presumptions without verification constitutes reckless disregard for the truth. The court held that while the government failed to prove the services were medically unnecessary or that 'bundling' services was per se fraudulent due to ambiguous coding standards at the time, the defendants were liable for the sheer impossibility of the hours billed. The False Claims Act defines 'knowing' conduct to include 'reckless disregard.' The court found that the Krizeks utilized a 'nonsystem' of billing where the billing agents simply assumed the highest reimbursement code applied without factual basis. Dr. Krizek's abject failure to supervise this process or verify the bills resulted in submissions claiming he worked more than 24 hours in a day. This lack of oversight and reliance on baseless assumptions satisfied the statutory requirement for reckless disregard, distinguishing this conduct from mere negligence.



Analysis:

This decision is significant in healthcare law and fraud litigation because it clarifies the boundaries of 'reckless disregard' under the False Claims Act (FCA). It establishes that specific intent to defraud is not required for liability; rather, 'gross negligence' in supervising billing practices is sufficient. The court distinguishes between reasonable disputes over ambiguous regulations (like the 'bundling' of face-to-face and administrative time, for which the court showed leniency) and factual impossibilities (billing 23 hours in a day). The case serves as a warning to medical practitioners that they cannot shield themselves from liability by delegating billing to unsupervised agents or pleading ignorance of the administrative side of their practice. The opinion also notably critiques the government's reimbursement system as unrealistic and unfair to providers, even while holding the defendants liable.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Krizek (1994)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"