Attorneys move to dismiss EHR lawsuit against 69 hospitals

Two attorneys who filed a lawsuit in Indiana claiming nearly 69 hospitals in the state overcharged patients for their electronic medical records — defrauding taxpayers of $324 million — agreed to dismiss state claims after Indiana's attorney general questioned the case's merits, according to court documents.

After experiencing difficulty obtaining medical records from four Indiana hospitals in their work on personal injury and medical malpractice cases, attorneys from Anderson, Agostino & Keller sued the hospitals in September 2016. They alleged the hospitals falsely certified they were meaningful users of EHR technology.

The lawsuit was filed under the qui tam, or whistle-blower, provision of the False Claims Act, and the move to dismiss the state claims strikes a part of the lawsuit that alleges the hospitals received incentive payments through the state's Medicaid program. Now, the case will proceed with similar allegations that the hospitals — and EMR vendor CIOX Health — violated federal false claims and antikickback laws.

Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill filed a motion Dec. 29 to dismiss claims about the hospitals' failure to meet Meaningful Use Stage 1 requirements that ensure hospitals fill medical records requests within three business days in order to receive the incentive payments. According to Mr. Hill, the case has "little, if any, merit."

"The State has limited resources to investigate fraud, and this case will divert funds and personnel from other investigations without recovering funds for the Indiana Medicaid Program," reads a court filing. "The cost-benefit analysis is clear — it is not in the public interest to spend taxpayer dollars to respond to discovery and monitor this case."

On Jan. 12, the two Anderson, Agostino & Keller attorneys elected not to oppose the attorney general's motion to dismiss the state claims, according to a separate court document. Though they expressed disagreement with the state's legal analysis, they wrote the state "is entitled to substantial deference in deciding what claims are prosecuted on its behalf."

Copyright © 2024 Becker's Healthcare. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Cookie Policy. Linking and Reprinting Policy.

 

Featured Whitepapers

Featured Webinars

>