Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01783/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01783-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 376
Nature of Suit: other
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL., 

NANCY A. SMITH AND WENDY S. 

JOHNSON, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NEIL ALAN VAN DYCK, DPM, 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NEIL A VAN DYCK, 

 Defendant. 

No. 2:12-cv-01783-GEB-DAD 

RELATED CASE ORDER 

[TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL IN EACH 

ACTION] 

No. 2:15-cr-00200-JAM 

On September 28, 2015, the government filed a Notice of 

Related Cases under seal, in which it states: 

 The United States of America . . . 

hereby gives notice that the above-captioned 

matters may be related cases within the 

meaning of Local Rule 123. These cases 

involve some of the same parties and/or 

witnesses, are based on the same or similar 

questions of fact and may involve similar 

questions of law, and reassignment to the 

Case 2:12-cv-01783-MCE-DB Document 45 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

same district judge may avoid substantial 

duplication of labor by the Court. 

 Both of the above-captioned cases 

include allegations that defendant Neil A. 

Van Dyck engaged in healthcare fraud, 

including that the defendant knowingly caused 

to be submitted claims to Medi-Cal, Medicare, 

Tri-Care and private insurers for services 

that were not rendered or which were not 

reimbursable. In particular, the civil qui 

tam action filed against Van Dyck in United 

States of America and State of California, ex 

rel., Nancy A. Smith and Wendy S. Johnson v. 

Neil Alan Van Dyck, DPM, et al., 2:12-cv01783-GEB-DAD, alleges, among other things, 

that Van Dyck defrauded Medicare and Medi-Cal 

by submitting false claims for reimbursement 

with respect to his podiatric clinic. The 

case is presently filed under seal pursuant 

to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2)-(4) and has not 

been served upon Van Dyck. 

 The information filed on September 28, 

2015 against Van Dyck in United States v. Van 

Dyck, 2:15-cr-00200 JAM, alleges that Van 

Dyck engaged in a healthcare fraud scheme 

from 2009 through 2014 by which he knowingly 

submitted or caused to be submitted false 

claims to Medi-Cal, Medicare, Tri-Care and 

private insurers for podiatric services that 

were not provided or which were not 

reimbursable, all in violation of Title 18, 

United States Code Section 1347. Accordingly, 

many of the same factual issues are attendant 

to both cases, and will involve much of the 

same evidence. Further, although there are 

different burdens of proof, and different 

procedural rules will apply between the two 

cases, there may be some common legal 

questions regarding the admissibility of 

evidence. 

 Finally, the United States notes that 

reassignment of the cases to the same 

district judge may be “likely to effect a 

substantial savings of judicial effort” 

because it will potentially avoid the 

“substantial duplication of labor” by the 

judiciary of this district, including any 

issues regarding discovery or admissibility 

of evidence and questions of fact. See EDCA 

L.R. 123(a)(3)-(4). Therefore, for the 

foregoing reasons, the United States believes 

that the above-captioned cases may be related 

Case 2:12-cv-01783-MCE-DB Document 45 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

within the meaning of Local Rule 123. 

(ECF No. 44.) 

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that 

they are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123. Under the 

regular practice of this Court, related cases are generally 

assigned to the judge to whom the first filed action was 

assigned. Therefore, action No. 2:15-cr-00200-JAM is reassigned 

to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. for all further proceedings, and 

any date currently set in the reassigned case is VACATED. 

Henceforth the caption on documents filed in the reassigned case 

shall show the initials “GEB.” 

Since action No. 2:12-cv-01783-GEB-DAD is a civil qui 

tam action currently under seal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. ''

3730(b)(2)-(4), which has not yet been served on Neil Van Dyck, 

this order shall be filed under seal in each above-entitled 

action. Further, the order shall not be served on Neil Alan Van 

Dyck. 

The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate 

adjustment in the assignment of criminal cases to compensate for 

this reassignment. 

Dated: October 2, 2015 

 

Case 2:12-cv-01783-MCE-DB Document 45 Filed 10/05/15 Page 3 of 3