Certain Legal Proceedings Related to HMA
Medicare/Medicaid Billing Lawsuits
On January 11, 2010, HMA and one of its subsidiaries were named in a qui tam lawsuit entitled U.S. ex rel. J. Michael Mastej v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that, among other things, the defendants erroneously submitted claims to Medicare and that those claims were falsely certified to be in compliance with Section 1877 of the Social Security Act of 1935 (commonly known as the “Stark law”) and the Anti-Kickback Statute. The plaintiff’s complaint further alleged that the defendants’ conduct violated the False Claims Act. The plaintiff seeks recovery of all Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement that the defendants received as a result of the alleged false certifications and treble damages under the False Claims Act, as well as a civil penalty for each Medicare and Medicaid claim supported by such alleged false certifications. On August 18, 2010, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that was similar to the original complaint. On February 23, 2011, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. On May 5, 2011, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which was similar to the first amended complaint. On May 17, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim with the particularity required and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On January 26, 2012, the United States gave notice of its decision not to intervene in this lawsuit. On February 16, 2012, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, without prejudice. The court’s order permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On March 8, 2012, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which was similar to the first amended complaint and the second amended complaint. On March 26, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on the same bases set forth in earlier motions to dismiss. On March 19, 2013, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice. On March 28, 2013, the United States of America filed a motion to clarify that the dismissal with prejudice did not relate to the United States. On April 4, 2013, the defendants filed an opposition to the United States’ motion for clarification. The Government’s motion remains pending at this time. The case was appealed by Mastej to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and on October 30, 2014 the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of part of the case and reversed the dismissal of part of the case. The relator sought further relief from the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on June 1, 2015. The case has been remanded to the district court and has been set for trial during the November 1, 2016 trial term. We intend to vigorously defend HMA and its subsidiary against the allegations in this matter.
Beginning during the week of December 16, 2013 eleven qui tam lawsuits filed by private individuals against HMA were unsealed in various United States district courts. The United States has elected to intervene in all or part of eight of these matters; namely U.S. ex rel. Craig Brummer v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District Georgia) (“Brummer”); U.S. ex rel. Ralph D. Williams v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District Georgia) (“Williams”); U.S. ex rel. Scott H. Plantz, M.D. et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. (Northern District Illinois) (“Plantz”); U.S. ex rel. Thomas L. Mason, M.D. et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Western District North Carolina) (“Mason”); U.S. ex rel. Jacqueline Meyer, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc., Gary Newsome et al. (“Jacqueline Meyer”) (District of South Carolina); U.S. ex rel. George Miller, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (“Miller”); U.S. ex rel. Bradley Nurkin v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District of Florida) (“Nurkin”); and U.S. ex rel. Paul Meyer v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Southern District Florida) (“Paul Meyer”) . The United States has elected to intervene with respect to allegations in these cases that certain HMA hospitals inappropriately admitted patients and then submitted reimbursement claims for treating those individuals to federal healthcare programs in violation of the False Claims Act or that certain HMA hospitals had inappropriate financial relationships with physicians which violated the Stark law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the False Claims Act. Certain of these complaints also allege the same actions violated various state laws which prohibit false claims. The United States has declined to intervene in three of the eleven matters, namely U.S. ex rel. Anita France, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Middle District Florida) (“France”) which involved allegations of wrongful billing and was
54
Table of Contents
settled; U.S. ex rel. Sandra Simmons v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Eastern District Oklahoma) (“Simmons”) which alleges unnecessary surgery by an employed physician and which was settled as to all allegations except alleged wrongful termination; and U.S. ex rel. David Napoliello, M.D. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Middle District Florida) (“Napoliello”) which alleges inappropriate admissions. On April 3, 2014, the Multi District Litigation Panel ordered the transfer and consolidation for pretrial proceedings of the eight intervened cases, plus the Napoliello matter, to the District of the District of Columbia under the name In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc. Qui Tam Litigation . On June 2, 2014, the court entered a stay of this matter until October 6, 2014, which was subsequently extended until February 27, 2015, May 27, 2015, September 25, 2015, January 25, 2016, and now until May 25, 2016. We intend to defend against the allegations in these matters, but have also been cooperating with the government in the ongoing investigation of these allegations. We have been in discussions with the Civil Division of the DOJ regarding the resolution of these matters. During the first quarter of 2015, we were informed the Criminal Division continues to investigate former executive-level employees of HMA and continues to consider whether any HMA entities should be held criminally liable for the acts of the former HMA employees. We are voluntarily cooperating with these inquiries and have not been served with any subpoenas or other legal process.
