Go to integrated search
contact us

Copyright SJKP LLP Law Firm all rights reserved

New York City Healthcare Fraud Defense Attorney: Claim-by-Claim Review

业务领域:Criminal Law

A New York City healthcare fraud defense attorney reviews disputed claims against clinical records, coding rules, and internal audit findings.

Start with the notice: which claims does it challenge, what records address each finding, and where is the response due? A claim-by-claim review separates service, coding, and medical-necessity disputes while identifying different obligations in repayment proceedings, administrative actions, and criminal investigations.

Contents


1. Identify What the Notice Challenges


A repayment notice may question documentation, coding, or coverage. A subpoena may seek records without identifying disputed claims. Record the issuer, payer, service period, legal authority, requested materials, and response date before preparing an answer.



Connect Findings to Individual Claims


List each claim’s service date, clinician, code, modifiers, units, and payment beside the stated objection. Fabricated treatment and an unsupported billing level require different evidence. For broader requests, identify the patient population and date range while reviewing scope, confidentiality, and available objections.



Identify the Proceeding


The Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) audits Medicaid payments and pursues administrative remedies. The Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit investigates and prosecutes provider fraud. Federal inquiries may involve a U.S. Attorney’s Office, FBI, or HHS-OIG. Repayment, civil liability, administrative sanctions, and criminal charges require separate analysis, even when they concern the same claims.



2. Compare the Claim with the Care Provided


Connect each disputed charge to contemporaneous records and the payment rules effective during the service period. Include contradictory evidence and missing information. A statement that the patient received care may leave the actual coding or coverage question unanswered.



Match the Issue to Supporting Records


Disputed IssueRecords to CompareQuestion
Service not providedEncounter notes, procedure logsWhat documents performance?
Unsupported code or unitsClinical notes, coding rulesWhat level or quantity does the record support?
Medical necessityOrders, assessments, coverage criteriaWas the service clinically indicated and payable?
Duplicate paymentRemittances, voids, adjustmentsDid the payer reverse or recover the additional payment?


Distinguish Care from Payment Eligibility


Treatment can occur without satisfying documentation or coverage requirements. A missing note may support disallowance without proving fabricated care; proof of an encounter does not establish that every unit was payable. These distinctions define the evidence needed in Medicaid fraud defense.



3. Trace Knowledge through the Audit History


Read internal audit findings alongside warnings, training materials, billing instructions, and corrections. Establish who identified the discrepancy, when they raised it, and how others responded. A later correction does not settle whether the original submission created liability.



Separate Criminal and Civil Standards


Federal law, 18 U.S.C. §1347, addresses knowing and willful execution or attempted execution of a healthcare fraud scheme. Prosecutors need not prove knowledge of the statute itself. The state offense under Penal Law §177.05 requires intent to defraud through knowing and willful material misinformation or omissions resulting in unauthorized payment.

The federal False Claims Act uses a different civil knowledge standard: actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Specific intent to defraud is unnecessary. State false-claims liability separately concerns qualifying claims involving state or local government funds.



Preserve Originals and Assess Privilege


Keep charts, submission histories, vendor records, and amendments distinguishable. Record who changed an entry, when, and why. Routine business records do not become privileged through counsel’s review. In government and internal investigations, assess legal advice, work product, and patient confidentiality before production.



4. Prepare Objections within the Applicable Deadline


Diagram: Four deadlines use different starting points: OMIG draft receipt, OMIG final report date, Medicare determination receipt, and Medicare demand date.
Diagram: Four deadlines use different starting points: OMIG draft receipt, OMIG final report date, Medicare determination receipt, and Medicare demand date.

An objection should identify the finding, explain the disagreement, and connect supporting records to the applicable payment rule. Administrative objections do not replace responses to investigative demands, and an appeal does not necessarily suspend collection.



Preserve Omig Objections Early


Written objections generally are due within 30 days of receiving the Draft Audit Report. Receipt is presumed five days after the report date unless contrary evidence exists. Include specific objections and supporting documents; later hearing issues and evidence can be restricted.

For extrapolated findings, review both the sampled claims and the projected recovery calculation. A written hearing request generally is due within 60 days of the Final Audit Report’s date. Follow its filing instructions and retain delivery evidence.



Track Medicare Appeal and Recoupment Dates Separately


For an appealable Medicare Fee-for-Service initial determination, redetermination generally is due within 120 days after receipt, presumed five calendar days after the notice date unless contrary evidence exists. Submit it to the issuing Medicare Administrative Contractor.

For overpayments subject to recoupment limitations, filing by day 30 from the demand-letter date can prevent recoupment from starting on day 41. Interest may continue accruing. These periods do not govern every payer dispute or investigative request.



5. Confirm the Forum and Remaining Obligations


Manhattan and the Bronx fall within the Southern District of New York; Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island fall within the Eastern District. Actual venue depends on the alleged conduct and governing rules. Confirm the court, filing route, and appearance requirements from the case documents.



Does City Law Apply Automatically?


No. A city address alone does not establish application of the NYC False Claims Act. Examine whether the alleged conduct involves qualifying claims against the City.



Can Repayment Analysis Wait?


An investigation does not automatically suspend reporting and return obligations. For identified Medicaid overpayments, Social Services Law §363-d generally requires reporting and return within 60 days after identification or by the applicable cost-report deadline, whichever is later. Identification and any available tolling require separate review.



Prepare for a Focused Case Review


Bring the notice, disputed-claim list, supporting records, audit chronology, and deadline log. Ask which findings the evidence answers, which gaps remain, and whether the organization and individual employees need separate advice.


28 Oct, 2026


本文提供的信息仅供一般信息目的,不构成法律意见。 以往结果不能保证类似结果。 阅读或依赖本文内容不会与本事务所建立律师-客户关系。 有关您具体情况的建议,请咨询您所在司法管辖区合格的执业律师。
本网站上的某些信息内容可能使用技术辅助起草工具,并需经律师审查。

预约咨询
Online
Phone