- within Criminal Law topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in Ireland
- with readers working within the Insurance, Retail & Leisure and Law Firm industries
On July 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the resolution of a multi-year criminal health care fraud investigation into Campus Eye Management Holdings LLC and its wholly owned subsidiary Campus Eye Management LLC (collectively, Campus Eye), a management service organization that provided billing and other back office support for a New Jersey-based optometry practice and eye surgery center. Although DOJ declined to prosecute Campus Eye, its CEO is facing criminal charges for conspiracy, health care fraud, and violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute.
The announcement marks the first declination for a health care company under DOJ’s new Department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) and the first issued by the newly constituted National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The resolution comes amid a continued crackdown on health care fraud, which DOJ has identified as a “top white-collar priority” under the Trump Administration.
The declination provides valuable insights into DOJ’s approach to health care fraud and to corporate enforcement more broadly.
Background
According to the declination letter and DOJ’s press release, E. Bruce DiDonato, Campus Eye’s CEO and the founder of the optometry practice and surgery center that Campus Eye supported, allegedly engaged in a scheme to defraud Medicare and other insurers by billing for medically unnecessary or duplicative diagnostic eye testing. In exchange for patient referrals, DiDonato paid kickbacks – concealed as monthly consulting fees – to the referring physicians.
As a result of this scheme, DOJ alleged that Campus Eye submitted false claims to Medicare and other insurers on behalf of the optometry practice. Prosecutors contend that the scheme resulted in Medicare and other insurers paying approximately US$3.7 million in reimbursements to DiDonato’s optometry practice.
Campus Eye voluntarily self-disclosed the conduct, cooperated with the government’s investigation, and remediated the wrongdoing.
Key takeaways from the Campus Eye resolution
Campus Eye received a declination under Part I of DOJ’s new CEP, which we analyzed earlier this year. Under the policy, companies that meet a series of criteria – including timely self-disclosure and meaningful cooperation during the government’s investigation – can expect a declination. Although the Department has issued two prior declinations under the new CEP, this is the first declination for a health care company and the first from the newly established NFED.
In line with the CEP and in keeping with prior declinations under the new Department-wide policy, DOJ considered six factors in awarding Campus Eye a declination: (1) the company’s timely and voluntary self-disclosure; (2) its full and proactive cooperation; (3) the nature and seriousness of the offense; (4) Campus Eye’s timely and appropriate remediation; (5) the absence of aggravating factors; and (6) the company’s agreement to “disgorge the amount of ill-gotten gains and to compensate victims.”
The Campus Eye resolution reflects how a number of the Administration’s white collar criminal enforcement objectives are playing out in practice and provides important insight into how DOJ is applying its new CEP:
- Individuals are still on the hook for criminal conduct: Alongside the announcement of the Campus Eye declination, DOJ announced a seven-count indictment against DiDonato alleging that he orchestrated the billing fraud and kickback schemes. This approach of holding individuals criminally liable for misconduct while declining to prosecute corporations is consistent with DOJ’s broader corporate enforcement strategy. Even where a corporation avoids liability through self-disclosure and cooperation, individual employees involved in misconduct – including those at the highest levels – may still face charges.
- Remediation is key: The declination letter offers insight into the remedial measures the Department found particularly persuasive when awarding Campus Eye a declination. DOJ noted that Campus Eye conducted an internal review and revised its billing, payment, and compensation policies. DOJ also highlighted the company’s efforts to strengthen its compliance program including by conducting ongoing risk assessments and monitoring, hiring new compliance personnel, and implementing compliance training.
- Companies must agree to disgorgement: Although Campus Eye received a declination and avoided the most significant consequences that could flow from prosecution, it agreed to “disgorge $1,000,000 … in victim compensation.” This figure was reduced from the US$3.7 million that Medicare and other insurers allegedly paid to the optometry practice as a result of the scheme, based on Campus Eye’s ability to pay.
What companies should know
The Campus Eye resolution highlights both the potential benefits and the potential risks of voluntary self-disclosure under the revised CEP: a company may avoid prosecution, but individual employees may still face charges. In order to preserve the option to self-disclose, companies should review and test their compliance policies to ensure that they are identifying misconduct promptly and accurately. Companies must also be prepared to disgorge any gains from the misconduct. Reductions in disgorgement for inability to pay are often subject to very searching financial analysis, so companies must be prepared if that is a potential path.
But self-disclosure is not a one-size-fits-all solution. The appropriateness of disclosure depends on a careful assessment of the underlying facts, legal considerations, and enforcement risks. Companies that identify potential misconduct should carefully evaluate whether they can satisfy the CEP’s voluntary disclosure, cooperation, and remediation requirements – and get comfortable with the consequences that still may follow – before approaching DOJ.
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.
[View Source]
