United States: Lawyer Recommending Prohibited Medical Practice Structure Liable For Its Improper Insurance Claims

Charles Weiss is a Partner in the New York office

New Jersey has had historically high auto insurance rates in part because the policies have generous coverage. Among the cost drivers is PIP (Personal Injury Protection) coverage, which applies on a no-fault basis to pay the medical expenses of persons injured in an insured vehicle. In a partial attempt to control such costs by deterring abusive insurance claims, the Legislature adopted the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act in 1983. Among other things, it provides that a person violates the IFPA if he "knowingly assists, conspires with, or urges any person or practitioner to violate any of the provisions of this act." N.J.S.A. 17:33A-4(b).

New Jersey also prohibits a physician from being employed by a chiropractor. N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.16(f) (person with plenary license may not be employed by person with limited license).

In the mid-1990s a New York healthcare attorney (Robert Borsody) and California chiropractor (Daniel Dahan) gave seminars marketed to chiropractors on how to create multi-disciplinary practices. Their activities would ultimately result in a judgment against them of nearly $4 million under the IFPA on account of some $91,000 paid for insurance claims submitted by a practice organized by a New Jersey chiropractor and an additional $330,000 claims that were submitted but not paid. Among the interesting features of this case is that Borsody and Dahan were found liable despite having had no interest in the New Jersey practice, and not having participated in the submission of the insurance claims. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Northfield Medical Center, P.C., 2017 WL 1739692, A.2d (N.J. 2017).

The story begins in 1996, when New Jersey chiropractor J. Scott Neuner attended a lecture in New York given by attorney Borsody under the auspices of Dahan's company "Practice Perfect," which marketed to chiropractors interested in setting up multidisciplinary practices. Borsody described a business model under which the chiropractor could effectively control and profit from a medical practice that was nominally owned by a physician, which he referred to as a "doc in the box arrangement." To guard against the physician owner from "walking off with the practice" or seeking control of the finances, this person would only receive a fee for his or her participation, and not be employed by the practice, see patients, or control the hiring and firing of the doctors who actually worked in the practice. As stated by the trial court, Borsody "testified that an earlier experience in the State of New York led him to conclude that his chiropractor clients needed protection from ruthless medical doctors." At the end of his lecture, Borsody said that he was available to set up such a practice for $7,500, but advised that participants should also consult lawyers in their own states.

Rather than retain Borsody to set up his practice, Neuner signed a consulting agreement with Practice Perfect and was referred to a company called Management Legal Services (MLS), which for $2,600 sold him the necessary forms. Neuner sent these forms to a New Jersey attorney and consulting him regarding practice structure. The New Jersey lawyer told Neuner that he would not simply "fill in the blanks" on the forms, but had to do his own analysis of New Jersey law. When Neuner told Dahan that the fees for the New Jersey attorney might exceed $5,000, Dahan told Neuner that this was "outrageous," and Neuner proceeded to complete the form by filling in the blanks.

Neuner engaged a physician referred to him by Dahan as the owner, shareholder, director, and incorporator of the practice for a "standard annual consulting fee" of $4,000. At trial, it was revealed that this doctor similarly "owned" about two dozen medical corporations in New Jersey and New York.

Neuner's practice also entered into a service agreement with a management company solely owned by Neuner to manage its nonprofessional aspects.

The following year, after the nominal physician-owner sought to become more involved with the practice, Neuner terminated her using forms from the set he had purchased from Dahan. He engaged a different doctor for the owner's role at a lower annual fee.

Later that year, after having paid about $91,000 toward claims submitted by Neuner's practice, Allstate stopped paying claims submitted by Neuner's practice and asked him to give a statement under oath regarding its arrangement with the management company. Allstate never paid additional claims of approximately $330,000 submitted by Neuner's practice.

Allstate then sued Neuner, Borsody, Dahan, and others for violation of the IFPA, contending in part that Neuner's practice was ineligible to bill Allstate for PIP benefits because the practice was not owned by a physician. After settling with Neuner, Allstate went to trial against Borsody and Dahan and prevailed. Under the IFPA, Allstate was entitled not only to damages based on the roughly $91,000 in claims that it paid, but also to trebled attorneys' fees, for a total judgment of almost $4 million.

The Appellate Division reversed, finding the evidence at trial insufficient to prove under IFPA that they had "knowingly" assisted or encouraged Neuner to violate the Act by submitting bills from an improperly structured practice. Specifically, the court held that the evidence was not sufficient to show that New Jersey law was settled enough at the time to conclude that Borsody and Dahan knew the structure they advocated was illegal, as opposed to being simply "frowned upon" by the New Jersey entity that licenses physicians. 2014 WL 8764091.

The New Jersey Supreme Court granted Allstate's petition for discretionary review, and reversed in a unanimous decision released in May 2017. Because the Appellate Division had reversed the trial court's judgment in Allstate's favor based on its conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to show the defendants' knowledge that Neuner's practice structure was illegal, the Supreme Court's opinion focused on this issue. Defending the Appellate Division's holding, the defendants argued that IFPA's knowledge requirement could be met only by evidence that they had to know, from dispositive case law or other binding interpretive action, both that (i) the practice structure they advocated violated New Jersey law, and (ii) mere violation of restrictions on the business structure of a medical practice could invalidate otherwise-insurance claims rendered by that practice. The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

In concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the defendants knew the practice structure they advocated was illegal, the Court emphasized their attempts to conceal the reality of the chiropractor's control of the medical practice:

[W]e find no basis for crediting the argument that defendants could not have known that their structure violated the Board's regulatory requirements. The documents and structure promoted and designed by defendants accomplished what the regulations sought to avoid. They placed control over the medical practice in the hands of a chiropractor, subjecting plenary licensees to his effective control through interconnected contracts and the imposition of the threat of substantial monetary penalties. Importantly, the plan sought to conceal those features to appear compliant.

Here, there was an abundance of proof that the contracts and penalties—imposed on the doctor named as nominal owner in title of this practice—placed control of the medical practice in the hands of a chiropractor. That clearly supported finding is not overcome by any form-over-substance argument based on the placement of bare legal title in the plenary licensee who participated in this scheme. The trial court demonstrated clarity of vision in recognizing that this medical practice structure violated both the letter and spirit of the Board's rule.

Moreover, the lengths that defendants went to in shielding the true controller of this practice from view undermine any basis for interfering with the trial court's assessment of the mixed question of fact and law that was presented to the court. . . . Considering all of the circumstances involved in defendants' interactions with Neuner, the trial court could reasonably conclude that defendants knowingly assisted Neuner in violating the Board's rules and submitting ineligible and fraudulent medical claims for reimbursement through that practice structure, contrary to law.

As did the Supreme Court, the trial court also relied on the concealment of ownership and control in the structure advocated by Borsody as evidence that knew it violated the law:

Borsody knew that he was placing in the hands of a chiropractor the control that was lacking in his first experience in New York. The simple fact that the practice was intended to look as though a medical doctor was in control yet, with various side agreements, he was not, constitutes sufficient basis for the Court to conclude that Borsody knew what he was doing was not proper. . . . The truth can only stand the light of day. It need not hide in the shadows of side agreements.

A second key issue was the responsibility of Dahan and Borsody for the insurance claims made by Neuner's practice. Dahan and Borsody argued that they could not have known that an unauthorized practice structure automatically voided even otherwise-legitimate insurance submissions, contending that a reasonable actor would not have appreciated this feature of New Jersey law until it was made clear by an Appellate Division opinion that post-dated their seminar and advice to Neuner. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, concluding that because the outcome of that case had been predictable, the defendants could not plead ignorance of the eventual outcome. Citing several earlier decisions, the Court held that the defendants were on notice that bills submitted to insurance by an improperly organized medical practice were disallowed:

The theory of all those cases reflects that in New Jersey a practice entity must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the permissible structures for control, ownership, and direction of a medical practice, including the use of professional services interconnected with a medical practice.

Health care services are highly regulated, and professionals engaged in the provision of health care—including persons such as defendants, who undertook to facilitate that activity—are on notice of the legal requirements applicable to their practice and operations. We do not deal here with an honest mistake made in the course of completing a reimbursement form submitted to an insurer. This case goes to the basic structure of a practice and how it is owned, controlled, and directed. Those concerns go to the core of who may practice medicine in this State. The practice of medicine is a privilege to be exercised in accordance with all licensing and practice requirements and restrictions. One cannot claim, or feign, ignorance of those regulatory requirements and restrictions until there is an express command applicable to a precise set of facts. (citation omitted)

What are we to make of this case? Does it stand for anything more than the proposition that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is?" In the author's opinion, the answer is "yes."

First, the structuring of business and corporate relationships to avoid or exploit laws and regulations is part of the lawyer's stock in trade, ranging from tax to real estate to trust and estates. Whether Borsody was too aggressive and got what he deserved for crossing the line, or was unfairly held liable for zealous and aggressive representation, is for the reader's judgment (although we know how the New Jersey Supreme Court answered the question in its unanimous opinion). Perhaps a better way to frame the issue is distinguishing between structuring a clever work-around of regulations (permissible) and structuring to conceal a violation (not permissible).

Second, regulated healthcare practices that submit bills to insurance companies are held to a higher standard than ordinary businesses. This not appear to sway the Appellate Division, which wrote that Dahan and Borsody "believed that the scheme was a legitimate tool for accomplishing the goal of allowing limited license holders to increase their earnings by creating multi-disciplinary practices." The Supreme Court, by contrast, shattered this view with its observation that the defendants' structure relied on a physician who "'sold' her license to multiple practices utilizing the so-called 'Doc-in-the-Box' structure" and was "subject to the direction and financial control by a chiropractor-owner of a management company." Any arrangement subject to characterization in this manner is one that raises a red flag in a regulated profession.

Third, it may be difficult for out-of-state or non-specialist lawyers to appreciate the local emphasis on certain types of activities. For example, the issue of automobile-insurance rates and the perceived impact on them by insurance fraud has been of concern in New Jersey for decades.

It is notable that the investigation of Northfield's insurance claims and resulting prosecution of this case arose from claims submitted for PIP to an auto insurer and not in the context of health insurance. Dahan and Borsody may not have appreciated the risk of conduct in New Jersey that could be viewed as fraud on an automobile insurer, or the possibility that their positions one step removed from the actual medical practice, and two steps removed from its submission of PIP insurance claims, would nevertheless expose them to liability under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act for a judgment of almost $4 million based on $91,000 of claims.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions