IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

MICHAEL P. MISCH, BRADLEY P. COLBORN, and the law ) 

firm of ANDERSON, AGOSTINO & KELLER, P.C. on behalf of ) 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

and the STATE OF INDIANA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff/Relators, ) 

) 

MAR 0 2 2017 

At '· 

ROBEAf 

U.S. DfSTRK;T 

N. 'ffiOOVidi 0000 ~ 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 1NOtANA 

--_.~' 

v. ) CASE NO. 3:16CV587 

) 

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF SOUTH BEND, INC.: SAINT ) 

JOSEPH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; SAINT ) 

JOSEPH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER - PLYMOUTH ) 

CAMPUS, INC.; ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL AND HEALTH ) 

CARE CENTER, INC.; CIOX HEAL TH, LLC; HUNTINGTON ) 

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.; ST. JOSEPH HEALTH ) 

SYSTEM, LLC; TERRE HAUTE REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LP; ) 

COLUMBUS REGIONAL HOSPITAL; RHN CLARK ) 

MEMORIAL HOSP IT AL, LLC; INDIANA UNIVERSITY ) 

HEALTH, INC.; WARSAW HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC; MAJOR ) 

HOSPITAL; LUTHERAN MUSCULOSKELETAL CENTER, ) 

LLC; WHITLEY MEMORIAL HO SPIT AL, INC.; INDIANA ) 

UNIVERSITY HEALTH BLOOMINGTON, INC.; PORTER ) 

HOSPITAL LLC; GOOD SAMARITAN HO SPIT AL; INDIANA ) 

UNIVERSITY HEALTH BALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.: ) 

PARKVIEW WABASH HOSPITAL, INC.; WOODLAWN ) 

HOSPITAL, INC.; UNION HOSPITAL, INC.; IOM HEALTH ) 

SYSTEM, LP; FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC.; PULASKI ) 

MEMORIAL HO SPIT AL; DEARBORN COUNTY HOSPITAL; ) 

INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH ARNETT, INC.; JOHNSON ) 

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; HENRY COUNTY MEMORIAL ) 

HOSPITAL; PARKVIEW HOSPITAL, INC.; BLUFFTON ) 

HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC; CAMERON MEMORIAL ) 

HOSPITAL, INC.; COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF NOBLE ) 

COUNTY, INC.; HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL; THE ) 

METHODIST HOSPITALS, INC.; ELKHART GENERAL ) 

HOSPITAL, INC.; RUSH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; BAPTIST ) 

HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.; FAYETTE MEMORIAL ) 

HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC.; DUPONT HOSPITAL, LLC; ) 

INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH BEDFORD, INC.: ) 

MARGARET MARY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC.; ST. ) 

MARY MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; THE HEALTH AND ) 

HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY; ) 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 1 of 44
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF BREMEN, INC.; ) 

ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL AT PARKVIEW NORTH, LLC; ) 

INDIANAPOLIS OSTEOPATHIC HOSP IT AL, INC.; ST. ) 

VINCENT CARMEL HOSPITAL, INC.; ST. VINCENT ) 

ANDERSON REGIONAL HOSPITAL, INC.; COMMUNITY ) 

HOSPITAL OF LAGRANGE COUNTY, INC.; ADAMS ) 

COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; ST. CATHERINE ) 

HOSPITAL, INC.; JACKSON COUNTY SCHNECK ) 

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; PERRY COUNTY MEMORIAL ) 

HOSPITAL; INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH WHITE ) 

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.; MARION GENERAL ) 

HOSPITAL, INC.; DAVIESS COUNTY HOSPITAL; INDIANA ) 

UNIVERSITY HEALTH STARKE HOSPITAL, LLC; ) 

COMMUNITY HOWARD REGIONAL HEALTH, INC.; ) 

DEKALB MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.; PUTNAM COUNTY ) 

HOSPITAL; INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH PAOLI, INC.; ) 

and DECATUR COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSP IT AL, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

I. Introduction 

1. The United States of America, by and through its qui tam relators, Michael P. Misch, 

Bradley P. Colborn, and the law firm of Anderson, Agostino & Keller, P.C., bring this action 

under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-32 (the "False Claims Act") to recover from the defendants for all 

damages, penalties, and other remedies available to the United States of America for violations 

of the False Claims Act, as well as the State oflndiana for similar state level claims. 

2. The Plaintiff/Relators also seek to recover for all damages, penalties, and remedies 

available to the United States of America and State of Indiana for violations of law under 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1320a-7a and 1320a-7b (the "Anti-Kickback Statute") to recover from the defendants 

for all damages, penalties, and other remedies available to the United States of America for 

violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute. While qui tam relator actions were not originally 

allowed under the Anti-Kickback Statute, claims for violations of it may now be brought as per 

se violations of the False Claims Act under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(g). 

2 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 2 of 44
II. Jurisdiction and Venue 

3. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this case under 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) (False 

Claims Act) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question). 

4. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a), the Northern District of Indiana is the proper venue for this 

case because it is the judicial district in which the events and omissions that gave rise to the 

Plaintiffs claims occurred, as well as the judicial district where several of the defendant 

hospitals are located. 

5. Many states have their own derivative versions of statutes applicable to cases involving 

false claims and kickbacks. Seeking false claims or kickbacks in relation to the Indiana Medicaid 

program is illegal pursuant to Ind. Code§ 5-11-5.7-1 et seq. and Ind. Code§ 12-15-24-1 et seq. 

The Federal statutes at issue in this case explicitly provide courts with jurisdiction to hear related 

state law claims based upon the same transaction or occurrence pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(b). 

III. Parties 

6. Relators Michael P. Misch and Bradley P. Colborn are individuals and attorneys 

residing within Indiana, bringing this case on behalf of and as paii of their work for the law firm 

of Anderson, Agostino & Keller, P.C., a domestic professional corporation incorporated under 

the laws of the State of Indiana. 

7. Defendant Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc., is an Indiana corporation operating 

a hospital commonly known as "Memorial Hospital" located at 615 N. Michigan Street, South 

Bend, Indiana 46601. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has assigned a unique ten 

(IO) digit National Provider Identifier ("NPI number") of 1295772093. Its Registered Agent for 

service of process is Mr. Kreg Gruber, 615 N. Michigan Street. South Bend, Indiana 46601. 

8. Defendant Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center, Inc. is an Indiana nonprofit 

corporation operating a hospital commonly known as the "St. Joseph Mishawaka Medical 

3 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 3 of 44
Center" located at 5214 Holy Cross Parkway, Mishawaka, Indiana 46545. This facility's NPI 

number is 1841245594. This Defendant owns and is related to another Defendant, Saint Joseph 

Regional Medical Center - Plymouth Campus, Inc., a related but separate nonprofit corporation 

operating a hospital commonly known as the "St. Joseph Plymouth Medical Center" located at 

1915 Lake Avenue, Plymouth, Indiana 46563. This facility's NPI number is 1174571129. The 

Registered Agent for service of process for both of these corporate Defendants is CT Corporation 

System, 150 W. Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

9. Defendant St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc., is an Indiana corporation 

operating a hospital commonly known as "St. Vincent Indianapolis Hospital" located at 2001 W. 

86th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46260. This facility's NPI number is 1306898960. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. Stephan C. Masoncup, 10330 N. Meridian Street,, 

Ste. 401, Indianapolis, Indiana 46290. 

10. Defendant CIOX Health, LLC, is a Georgia corporation that contracts to provide 

medical records for hospitals, formerly known as HealthPort Technologies, LLC, with a 

principal place of business located at 925 North Point Parkway, Suite 350, Alpharetta. Georgia 

30005. 

11. Defendant Huntington Memorial Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital 

at 2001 Stutts Road, Huntington, Indiana 46750. This facility's NPI number is 1003821729. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. David Storey, 10501 Corporate Drive, Fort 

Wayne, Indiana 46845. 

12. Defendant St. Joseph Health System, LLC, is a corporation operating a hospital at 

700 Broadway, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802. This facility's NPI number is 1023060472. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Corporation Service Company, 251 E. Ohio St., Suite 

500, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

4 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 4 of 44
13. Defendant Terre Haute Regional Hospital, L.P. is a limited partnership operating a 

hospital at 3901 S. ?111 Street, Terre Haute, Indiana 47802. This facility's NPI number is 

1073550133. Its Registered Agent for service of process is CT Corporation System, 150 West 

Market St., Suite 800, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

14. Defendant Columbus Regional Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. Code § 

16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a hospital at 2400 East 

lih St., Columbus, Indiana 47201. This facility's NPI number is 1104998624. 

15. Defendant RHN Clark Memorial Hospital, LLC, is a limited liability company 

operating a hospital at 1220 Missouri Ave., Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130. This facility's NPI 

number is 1134186315. Its Registered Agent for service of process is CT Corporation System, 

150 West Market St., Suite 800, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

16. Defendant Indiana University Health Inc. is a corporation operating a hospital at 1701 

N. Senate Ave., Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. This facility's NPI number is 1144266024. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Mary Beth Claus, 340 West 1 oth St., Suite 6100, 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. 

17. Defendant Warsaw Health System, LLC, is a limited liability company operating a 

hospital at 2101 Dubois Dr., Warsaw, Indiana 46580. This facility's NPI number is 1164475711. 

Its Registered Agent for service of process is Corporation Service Company, 251 E. Ohio St., 

Suite 500, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

18. Defendant Major Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. Code § 16-22-8-6 by 

a municipality or political subdivision oflndiana, operating a hospital at 150 W. Washington St., 

Shelbyville, Indiana 46176. This facility's NPI number is 1174555692. 

19. Defendant Lutheran Musculoskeletal Center, LLC, is a limited liability company 

operating a hospital at 7952 W. Jefferson Blvd., Fort Wayne, Indiana 46804. This facility's NPI 

5 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 5 of 44
number is 1174706576. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Corporation Service 

Company, 251 E. Ohio St., Suite 500, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

20. Defendant Whitley Memorial Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 

1260 E. State Road 205, Columbia City, Indiana 46725. This facility's NPI number is 

1205844495. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. David Storey, 10501 Corporate 

Dr., Fort Wayne, Indiana 46895. 

21. Defendant Indiana University Health Bloomington, Inc., is a corporation operating a 

hospital at 601 W. 2nd St., Bloomington, Indiana 47403. This facility's NPI number is 

1205860335. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Mary Beth Claus, 340 W. 10th 

St., Suite 6100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. 

22. Defendant P01ier Hospital, LLC, is a limited liability company operating a hospital at 

85 E. U.S. Highway 6, Valparaiso, Indiana 46383. This facility's NPI number is 1215151154. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Corporation Service Company, 251 E. Ohio St., Suite 

500, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

23. Defendant Good Samaritan Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. Code § 16-

22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a hospital at 520 S. J1h St., 

Vincennes, Indiana 47591. This facility's NPI number is 1225032881. 

24. Defendant Indiana University Health Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc., is a corporation 

operating a hospital at 2401 W. University Ave., Muncie, Indiana 47303. This facility's NPI 

number is 1225195340. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Michelle Altobella, 

2401 West University Ave., Muncie, Indiana 47303. 

25. Defendant Parkview Wabash Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 

710 N. East Street, Wabash, Indiana 46992. This facility's NPI number is 1245259878. Its 

6 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 6 of 44
Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. David D. Storey, 10501 Corporate Drive, Fo11 

Wayne, Indiana 46845. 

26. Defendant Woodlawn Hospital, Inc., is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. Code § 

16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision oflndiana, operating a hospital at 1400 E. 

9

111 Street, Rochester, Indiana 46975. This facility's NPI number is 1265413405. 

27. Defendant Union Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 801 S. Main 

Street, Clinton, Indiana 4 7842. This facility's NPI number is 1306844519. Its Registered Agent 

for service of process is Mr. B. Curtis Wilkinson, 333 Ohio Street, Terre Haute, Indiana 47807. 

28. Union Hospital, Inc. operates a second and separate hospital facility located at 1606 

N. ?111 Street, Terre Haute, Indiana 4 7804. This facility's NPI number is 1619975331. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. B. Cm1is Wilkinson, 333 Ohio Street, Terre 

Haute, Indiana 47807. 

29. Defendant IOM Health System, LP, is a limited partnership operating a hospital at 

7950 W. Jefferson Blvd., Fort Wayne, Indiana 46804. This facility's NPI number is 

1306897335. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Corporation Service Company, 251 

E. Ohio Street, Suite 500, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

30. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital commonly 

know11 as "Franciscan St. Margaret Hammond" at 5454 Hohman Ave., Hammond, Indiana 

46320. This facility's NPI number is 1306921911. Its Registered Agent for service of process is 

Mr. Kevin D. Leahy, 1515 Dragoon Trail, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544. 

31. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. operates a second hospital facility commonly 

known as "Franciscan St. Anthony Crown Point" at 1201 S. Main Street, Crown Point, Indiana 

46307. This facility's NPI number is 1336205798. Its Registered Agent for service of process is 

Mr. Kevin D. Leahy, 1515 Dragoon Trail, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544. 

7 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 7 of 44
32. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. operates a third hospital facility commonly 

known as "Franciscan St. Francis Indianapolis" at 8111 S. Emerson Avenue, Indianapolis, 

Indiana 46237. This facility's NPI number is 1386749893. Its Registered Agent for service of 

process is Mr. Kevin D. Leahy, 1515 Dragoon Trail, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544. 

33. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. operates a fourth hospital facility commonly 

known as "Franciscan St. Elizabeth Lafayette" at 1501 Haiiford Street, Lafayette, Indiana 4 7904. 

This facility's NPI number is 1538253521. Its Registered Agent for service of process is 

Franciscan Alliance, Inc., 1515 W. Dragoon Trail, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544. 

34. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. operates a fifth hospital facility commonly 

known as "Franciscan St. Elizabeth Crawfordsville" at 1710 Lafayette Road, Crawfordsville, 

Indiana 47933. This facility's NPI number is 1588774558. Its Registered Agent for service of 

process is Franciscan Alliance, Inc., 1515 W. Dragoon Trial, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544. 

35. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. operates a sixth hospital facility commonly 

known as "Franciscan St. Francis Mooresville" at 1201 Hadley Road, Mooresville, Indiana 

46158. This facility's NPI number is 1679678197. Its Registered Agent for service of process is 

Mr. Kevin D. Leahy, 1515 W. Dragoon Trail, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544. 

36. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. operates a seventh hospital facility commonly 

known as "Franciscan St. Anthony Michigan City" at 301 W. Homer Street, Michigan City, 

Indiana 46362. This facility's NPI number is 1710051941. Its Registered Agent for service of 

process is Mr. Kevin D.Leahy, 1515 Dragoon Trail, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544. 

37. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. operates an eighth hospital facility commonly 

known as "Franciscan St. Margaret Dyer" located 24 Joliet St., Dyer, Indiana 46311. This 

facility's NPI number is 1811077 431. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. Kevin D. 

Leahy, 1515 Dragoon Trail, Mishawaka, Indiana 46544. 

8 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 8 of 44
38. Defendant Pulaski Memorial Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. Code § 

16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a hospital at 616 E. 

13th Street, Winamac, Indiana 46996. This facility's NPI number is 1306928213. 

39. Defendant Dearborn County Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. Code § 

16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a hospital at 600 

Wilson Creek Road, Lawrenceburg, Indiana 47025. This facility's NPI number is 1326142498. 

40. Defendant Indiana University Health Arnett, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital 

at 5165 McCarty Lane, Lafayette, Indiana 47905. This facility's NPI number is 1326296211. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Mary Beth Claus, 340 W. 1 oth Street, Sixth Floor, 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. 

41. Defendant Johnson Memorial Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. Code§ 

16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision oflndiana, operating a hospital at 1125 W. 

Jefferson Street, Franklin, Indiana 46131. This facility's NPI number is 1346248986. 

42. Defendant Henry County Memorial Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. 

Code § 16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a hospital at 

1000 N. l61h Street, New Castle, Indiana 47362. This facility's NPI number is 1356428429. 

43. Defendant Parkview Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 11109 

Parkview Plaza Drive, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46845. This facility's NPI number is 1366407603. 

Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. David Storey, 10501 Corporate Drive, Fort 

Wayne, Indiana 46845. 

44. Defendant Bluffton Health System, LLC, is a limited liability company operating a 

hospital at 303 S. Main Street, Bluffton, Indiana 46714. This facility's NPI number is 

13 76594366. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Corporation Service Company, 251 

E. Ohio Street, Suite 500, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

9 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 9 of 44
45. Defendant Cameron Memorial Community Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a 

hospital at 416 E. Maumee Street, Angola, Indiana 46703. This facility's NPI number is 

1386683316. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. Douglas Bomba, 416 E. Maumee 

Street, Angola, Indiana 46703. 

46. Defendant Community Hospital of Noble County, Inc., is a corporation operating a 

hospital at 401 N. Sawyer Road, Kendallville, Indiana 46755. This facility's NPI number is 

1457366189. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. David Storey, 10501 Corporate 

Drive, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46845. 

47. Defendant Hancock Regional Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. Code§ 

16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision oflndiana, operating a hospital at 801 N. 

State Street, Greenfield, Indiana 46140. This facility's NPI number is 1467485003. 

48. Defendant The Methodist Hospitals, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 600 

Grant Street, Administration Building, Gary, Indiana 46402. This facility's NPI number is 

1467504555. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. Raymond Grady, 600 Grant 

Street, Gary, Indiana 46402. 

49. Defendant Elkhart General Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 600 

East Blvd., Elkhart, Indiana 46514. This facility's NPI number is 1477551489. Its Registered 

Agent for service of process is Mr. Philip A. Newbold, 600 East Blvd., Elkhart, Indiana 46514. 

50. Defendant Rush Memorial Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. Code § 16-

22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a hospital at 1300 N. Main 

St., Rushville, Indiana 46173. This facility's NPI number is 1497726020. 

51. Defendant Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. operates a hospital known as "Floyd 

Memorial" operating at 1850 State St., New Albany, Indiana 47150. This facility's NPI number 

10 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 10 of 44
is 1497798847. Its Registered Agent for service of process is CT Corporation System, 150 W. 

Market Street, Suite 800, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

52. Defendant Fayette Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., is a corporation operating a 

hospital at 1941 Virginian Avenue, Connersville, Indiana 4 7331. This facility's NPI number is 

1508825720. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. Randall White, 1841 Virginia 

A venue, Connersville, Indiana 4 73 31. 

53. Defendant Dupont Hospital, LLC, is a corporation operating a hospital at 2520 E. 

Dupont Road, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825. This facility's NPI number is 1538110556. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Corporation Service Company, 251 E. Ohio Street, 

Suite 500, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. 

54. Defendant Indiana University Health Bedford, Inc., is a corporation operating a 

hospital at 2900 W. 16tl1, Bedford, Indiana 47421. This facility's NPI number is 1548260284. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Mary Beth Claus, 340 W. 10th Street, Suite 6100, 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. 

55. Defendant Margaret Mary Community Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a 

hospital at 321 Mitchell Avenue, Batesville, Indiana 47006. This facility's NPI number is 

1558368449. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. George Junker, II, 321 Mitchell 

Avenue, Batesville, Indiana 47006. 

56. Defendant St. Mary Medical Center, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 1500 

S. Lake Park Avenue, Hobart, Indiana 46342. This facility's NPI number is 1558463745. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Janice Ryba, 1500 S. Lake Park Avenue, Hobart, 

Indiana 46342. 

57. Defendant The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, is an entity 

operated pursuant to Ind. Code § 16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, 

11 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 11 of 44
operating a hospital at 720 Eskenazi Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. This facility's NPI 

number is 1568407310. 

58. Defendant Community Hospital of Bremen, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital 

at 1020 High Road, Bremen, Indiana 46506. This facility's NPI number is 1568417004. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Carol Hochstetler, 121 N. Marshall Street, 

Bremen, Indiana 46506. 

59. Defendant Orthopaedic Hospital at Parkview North, LLC, is a limited liability 

company operating a hospital at 11130 Parkview Circle Drive, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46845. This 

facility's NPI number is 1568664613. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. David 

Storey, 10501 Corporate Drive, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46845. 

60. Defendant Indianapolis Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a 

hospital at 3630 Guion Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46222. This facility's NPI number is 

1609873124. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Karen Ann P. Lloyd, 7330 

Shadeland Station, Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana 46256. 

61. Defendant St. Vincent Carmel Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 

13500 N. Meridian Street, Carmel, Indiana 46032. This facility's NPI number is 1639124134. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. Stephan C. Masoncup, 10330 N. Meridian Street, 

Suite 401, Indianapolis, Indiana 46290. 

62. Defendant St. Vincent Anderson Regional Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a 

hospital at 2015 Jackson Street, Anderson, Indiana 46016. This facility's NPI number is 

1679578850. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. Stephan C. Masoncup, 10330 N. 

Meridian Street, Suite 401, Indianapolis, Indiana 46290. 

63. Defendant Community Hospital of LaGrange County, Inc., is a corporation operating 

a hospital at 207 N. Townline Road, LaGrange, Indiana 46761. This facility's NPI number is 

12 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 12 of 44
1679674956. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. David Storey, 10501 Corporate 

Drive, Fo1i Wayne, Indiana 46845. 

64. Defendant Adams County Memorial Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. 

Code § 16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a hospital at 

1100 Mercer Ave., Decature, Indiana 46733. This facility's NPI number is 1689696148. 

65. Defendant St. Catherine Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 4321 

Fir St., East Chicago, Indiana 46312. This facility's NPI number is 1689776882. Its Registered 

Agent for service of process is Ms. Joann Birdzell, 4321 Fir St., East Chicago, Indiana 46312. 

66. Defendant Jackson County Schneck Memorial Hospital is an entity operated pursuant 

to Ind. Code § 16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a 

hospital at 411 W. Tipton Street, Seymour, Indiana 47274. This facility's NPI number is 

1699738088. 

67. Defendant Perry County Memorial Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. 

Code § 16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a hospital at 

8885 ST 237, Tell City, Indiana 47586. This facility's NPI number is 1699779017. 

68. Defendant Indiana University Health White Memorial Hospital, Inc, is a corporation 

operating a hospital at 720 S. 6111 Street, Monticello, Indiana 47960. This facility's NPI number is 

1710983945. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Mary Beth Claus, 340 W. 101

h 

Street, Fairbanks Hall, Suite 6100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. 

69. Defendant Marion General Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 441 

N. Wabash Avenue, Marion, Indiana 46952. This facility's NPI number is 1770679201. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. Paul L. Usher, 441 N. Wabash Avenue, Marion, 

Indiana 46952. 

13 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 13 of 44
70. Defendant Daviess County Hospital is a corporation operating a hospital at 1314 E. 

Walnut St., Washington, Indiana 47501. This facility's NPI number is 1861465999. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Catherine Keck, 1314 E. Walnut Street, 

Washington, Indiana 47501. 

71. Defendant Indiana University Health Starke Hospital, LLC, is a limited liability 

company operating a hospital at 102 E. Culver Road, Knox, Indiana 46534. This facility's NPI 

number is 1902033582. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Mary Beth Claus, 340 

W. 10111 Street, Suite 6100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. 

72. Defendant Community Howard Regional Health, Inc., is a corporation operating a 

hospital at 3500 S. Lafountain Street, Kokomo, Indiana 46902. This facility's NPI number is 

1902878994. Its Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. Joseph T. Hooper, 3500 S. 

Lafountain Street, Kokomo, Indiana 46902. 

73. Defendant Dekalb Memorial Hospital, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital at 

1316 E. i 11 Street, Auburn, Indiana 46706. This facility's NPI number is 190289793 7. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Mr. James P. Mccanna, 1320 S. Grandstaff Dr., 

Auburn, Indiana 46706. 

7 4. Defendant Putnam County Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. Code § 16-

22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a hospital at 1542 S. 

Bloomington Street, Greencastle, Indiana 46135. This facility's NPI number is 1912947490. 

75. Defendant Indiana University Health Paoli, Inc., is a corporation operating a hospital 

at 642 W. Hospital Road, Paoli, Indiana47454. This facility's NPI number is 1912984451. Its 

Registered Agent for service of process is Ms. Mary Beth Claus, 340 W. 10111 Street, Suite 6100, 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. 

14 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 14 of 44
76. Defendant Decatur County Memorial Hospital is an entity operated pursuant to Ind. 

Code § 16-22-8-6 by a municipality or political subdivision of Indiana, operating a hospital at 

720 N. Lincoln Street, Greensburg, Indiana 47240. This facility's NPI number is 1952300477. 

IV. General Factual Allegations 

A. The HITECH Act and the EHR Incentive Program 

77. On February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA) was enacted into law. ARRA, Pub. L. 111-5, February 17, 2009, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). 

Under the ARRA, Division B's Title IV amended two titles of the Social Security Act by 

establishing an incentive payment program through Federal grants that sought to promote the 

adoption and meaningful use of health information technology (HIT) and qualified electronic 

health records (EHRs). These provisions under the law, along with Title XIII of Division A of 

the ARRA, are cited to as the "Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health 

Act" or the "HITECH Act." 

78. The purpose of the HITECH Act was to create an incentive program to be operated 

by the Department of Health and Human Services, known as the Electronic Health Records 

Incentive Program ("EHR Program"). This program sought to provide incentives and grant 

funding to promote the acceleration and adoption of HIT and the use of EHRs by hospitals, 

doctors, and research organizations. The laws as adopted relating to HIT can be found generally 

at 42 U.S.C. § 17901 et seq. 

79. Most relevant for the purposes of this complaint, the HITECH Act also provided 

certain patient rights and restrictions on provider use, disclosures, and sales of health 

information. 42 U.S.C. § 17935. This portion of the law commands that providers such as 

hospitals and their business associates "shall not directly or indirectly receive remuneration" for 

the sale of electronic health records except in limited situations. 42 U.S.C. § 17935(d). It also 

15 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 15 of 44
provided that individuals "shall have a right to obtain" electronic health records in an electronic 

format, and to direct the delivery of such electronic records to other entities or persons. 42 

U.S.C. § 17935(e)(l). Lastly, it also mandated that charges by hospitals for the provision of this 

electronic health record "shall not be greater than the entity's labor costs" in responding to a 

patient's request. 42 U.S.C. § 17935(e)(2). 

80. The EHR Program sought to provide grant funding for hospitals and other medical 

providers who could show "meaningful use" of HIT and EHR technology. The details of the 

EHR Program were established through rule making, and following public comment a final rule 

was published on July 28, 2010, beginning at 75 F.R. 44313. Various standards to be utilized 

were adopted and held under 42 C.F.R. § 495 et seq. To show "meaningful use" of the 

technology, hospitals needed to prove compliance with various reporting criteria, located 

generally at 42 C.F.R. § 495.6. 

81. The EHR Program was set to launch in three stages, with Stage 1 expected to run 

from approximately October 1, 2010 through to September 30, 2013. In order to qualify for grant 

funding under this voluntary program, hospitals were required to report their compliance with the 

criteria identified at 42 C.F.R. § 495.6. This included fomieen "core criteria" objectives. 42 

C.F.R. § 495.6(b). Failing to meet any of those compliance objectives would result in a failure to 

show "meaningful use" under the EHR Program, making a hospital ineligible to receive any 

grant funding. 

82. Throughout Stage 1 of the EHR Program, hospitals were allowed to show compliance 

and to receive funding by filing Attestation documentation reporting certain figures, including 

figures relating to compliance with the "core criteria" requirements established at 42 C.F.R. § 

495.6(b). 

16 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 16 of 44
83. Of paiiicular relevance to this Complaint, Core Measure No. 11 had an objective of 

promptly providing patients with electronic health records upon their request within three (3) 

business days ofreceiving such a request from a patient or their agent. 42 C.F.R. § 495.6(f)(l l ). 

84. In order to show compliance and to receive grant funding under the EHR Program, 

hospitals were required to rep01i through Attestation the number of times such a request was 

made, and the number of times that the hospital complied with the provision of those electronic 

records within three (3) business days. If the hospital achieved a 50% success rate or more in 

relation to this measure, then this qualified for "meaningful use" and made the hospital eligible 

to receive public funding. A failure to meet this success rate meant that meaningful use had not 

been met, disqualifying a hospital from receiving any of the grant funding under the program. 

85. The Attestation paperwork filled out by hospital administrators or staff to receive this 

funding contained specific warnings and notices that filing false claims, making 

misrepresentations, or providing false, incomplete, or misleading information under the 

Attestation process would subject a person to criminal and civil penalties. 

B. The Relators' Initial Investigation 

86. Defendants Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc., Saint Joseph Regional Medical 

Center, Inc., Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center - Plymouth Campus, Inc., and St. Vincent 

Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc., (collectively "the Original Hospital Defendants") operate 

four hospitals within the State of Indiana. 

87. The relators to this action consist of two attorneys, Michael P. Misch and Bradley P. 

Colborn, acting on behalf of the law firm of Anderson, Agostino & Keller, P.C. This law firm 

and its attorneys regularly handle causes of action for personal injuries and medical malpractice. 

As a natural requirement of this work, the firm, its attorneys, and its clients make routine 

17 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 17 of 44
requests for medical records from medical providers, including the Original Hospital Defendants, 

and other providers throughout the state of Indiana. 

88. In recent years, the firm and its attorneys have moved towards specifically requesting 

the provision of electronic medical records, in an electronic format. This process is achieved by 

having patients sign releases directing hospitals to provide such records to the patient's chosen 

agent, the law firm and its attorneys, and specifically requesting that the records be provided in 

an electronic format. 

89. As a result of repeated frustrations and delays in obtaining fast, inexpensive access to 

electronic medical records, Michael P. Misch and Bradley P. Colborn began to research and 

investigate how to improve their own attempts to assist clients in getting electronic medical 

records. The original goal of this investigation was merely to streamline and minimize the time, 

difficulty, and costs utilized in obtaining patient records, as these costs were ultimately passed on 

to patients. 

90. In the course of this investigation, the relators' own experiences in requesting medical 

records increasingly did not line up with the requirements of Federal laws, rules, and the EHR 

Program. This led the relators to increasingly track their own experiences with hospitals involved 

in the EHR Program, and to exhaustively research what the hospitals were required to do in 

relation to electronic records. This investigation uncovered factual inconsistencies in what the 

Original Hospital Defendants were reporting, and what the firm's own experiences have shown. 

If the hospitals were getting grant funding under the EHR Program, then at least fifty percent 

(50%) of the request from the firm should have three (3) business day turnaround times. This 

was not seen at all. As such, the relators have good cause to believe that the Original Hospital 

Defendants are defrauding the American public by falsely recording or reporting their 

compliance with Core Measure No. 11 of the EHR Program. 

18 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 18 of 44
91. The relators continued their investigation by obtaining compiled reporting data for 

Stage 1 EHR Program Core Measures. A cross referencing of publicly available data regarding 

the figures reported by the Original Hospital Defendants with the internal requests and responses 

connected with the relators' own experiences confirmed suspicions that the figures reported by 

the Original Hospital Defendants are false. While the reported data was publicly available and 

within the possession of the Federal government, the relators are the original source of the 

information showing that these reported figures are false. 

92. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc., reported Core Measure No. 11 figures 

showing that it reportedly received four (4) requests for electronic medical records in 2012, and 

four ( 4) times it provided the electronic medical records within three business days. For 2013, it 

reported that these figures were sixteen (16) for sixteen (16). Accordingly, the reported figures 

for 2012 were four for four (4/4) and for 2013 the figures were sixteen for sixteen (16/16). 

93. On five occasions between April and December of 2013 alone, the relators issued 

electronic medical records requests to Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc., while acting as an 

agent for patients. On only one occasion were records received in an electronic format, and not a 

single time were these records issued within three business days of the request. 

94. Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center, Inc., reported that the St. Joseph Mishawaka 

Medical Center rep01ied Core Measure No. 11 compliance figures of three for three (3/3), four 

for four (4/4), and one for one (1/1) for the years of 2011, 2012, and 2013 respectively. 

95. In April of 2013, the relators issued an electronic medical records request to St. 

Joseph Mishawaka Medical Center, while acting as an agent for a patient. The records were not 

provided within three days of the request, and were not provided in an electronic form. 

96. Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center, Inc., or its corporate subsidiary Saint Joseph 

Regional Medical Center - Plymouth Campus, Inc., repo1ied that the St. Joseph Plymouth 

19 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 19 of 44
Medical Center reported Core Measure No. 11 compliance figures of one for one (1/1), zero for 

zero (0/0), and zero for zero (0/0) for 2011, 2012, and 2013 respectively. 

97. In October of 2013, the relators issued an electronic medical records request to St. 

Joseph Plymouth Medical Center, while acting as an agent for a patient. The records were not 

provided within three days of the request, and were not provided in an electronic form. 

98. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc., reported Core Measure No. 11 

compliance figures showing that it had never received a single request for electronic medical 

records. 

99. In August of 2013, the relators issued an electronic medical records request to St. 

Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc., while acting as an agent for a patient. The records 

were not received within three days, and were not received in an electronic form. 

100. The conduct of the Hospital Defendants constitutes the issuance of false claims for 

payment of public funding from the Federal government through the Medicare EHR Program, as 

well as through the State of Indiana through the EHR Program funds distributed to the state 

through its Medicaid Program. 

101. During Stage 1, Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc., illegally and fraudulently 

claimed and received $5,352,369.93 in payments from the Medicare portion of the EHR 

Program, and $3,053,320.42 through the Medicaid portion. The total amount received from the 

citizens of the United States under this program was $8,405,690.35 within the three year period 

for Stage 1. 

102. During Stage 1, Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center, Inc., for its St. Joseph 

Mishawaka Medical Center, illegally and fraudulently claimed and received $6,049,589.05 in 

payments from the Medicare portion of the EHR Program, and $2,196,361.18 through the 

20 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 20 of 44
Medicaid portion. The total amount received from the citizens of the United States under this 

program was $8,245,950.23 within the three year period for Stage 1. 

103. During Stage 1, Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center, Inc., or its corporate 

subsidiary Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center - Plymouth Campus, Inc., for its St. Joseph 

Plymouth Medical Center, illegally and fraudulently claimed and received $3,032,843.74 in 

payments from the Medicare portion of the EHR Program, and $896,028.92 through the 

Medicaid portion. The total amount received from the citizens of the United States under this 

program was $3,928,872.66 within the three year period for Stage 1. 

104. During Stage 1, St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc. illegally and 

fraudulently claimed and received $4,758,791.02 in payments from the Medicare portion of the 

EHR Program, and $3,775,193.12 through the Medicaid portion. The total amount received from 

the citizens of the United States under this program was $8,533,984.14 within the three year 

period for Stage 1. 

105. In sum, the Original Hospital Defendants have illegally and falsely defrauded the 

United States of America and its citizens for a total amount of $29,114,497.38 in grant funding 

from the Medicare and Medicaid portions of the EHR Program during Stage 1. 

C. The Release of Information provider profiting from these records 

106. In all of the requests issued by the relators noted in Paragraphs 91 through 100, 

CIOX Health, LLC, ("CIOX") then known as HealthPort Technologies, LLC, handled the 

provision and billing for the medical records of the patients. 

107. CIOX is the largest Release of Information ("ROI") provider of medical records in 

the country. This organization specializes in assisting hospitals and healthcare providers with the 

storage and release ofrecords to patients in compliance with Federal and state laws. 

21 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 21 of 44
108. Each and every time that CIOX issued medical records, they were not sent or 

received within three days of the request being issued. 

109. Each and every time that CIOX issued billing invoices for the provision of medical 

records, it was for an amount that exceeded the labor costs of compliance, often seeking 

hundreds of dollars for the provision of medical records. 1 

110. On the information and belief of the relators, this is part of a pattern or practice by 

CIOX to directly or indirectly seek remuneration for the illegal over-billing and sale of medical 

records at the expense of the Original Hospital Defendants' patients. 

111. CIOX acted as a business associate for the Original Hospital Defendants for the 

purposes of compliance with Federally mandated rules relating to the provision and sale of 

medical records. 

112. CIOX participated in the act of providing and/or causing to be provided a series of 

false claims to the United States of America by the Original Hospital Defendants. As pmi of this 

participation, CIOX routinely and repeatedly engaged in a practice, policy, and/or scheme to 

illegally and fraudulently over-bill patients for the provision of medical records. This behavior 

and participation in conjunction with the provision of services to the Original Hospital 

Defendants had the goal and intent of directly and/or indirectly seeking remuneration for the 

illegal over-charging and illegal sale of medical records for the profit of the Defendants at the 

expense of patients. 

D. Subsequent investigation of Statistically Correlated Defendants 

1 In comparison, present Health and Human Services guidance on its website has clarified that a 

$6.50 flat fee for labor is an appropriate measure for using a flat fee, and that providers cannot 

simply rely upon per page regulations to illegally inflate charges for this information. See a lengthy 

and detailed FAQ available for providers and professions at the following address: 

http://www.hhs. Q:OV /h ipaa/for-professi ona ls/pri vacv I Q:U i dance/access/index .htm 1 

22 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 22 of 44
113. As the relaters have continued to investigate and correlate data relating to this case, 

they have discovered that there appears to a stark statistical trend that indicates that the exact 

same type of fraudulent reporting of Core Measure 11 figures is widespread throughout many 

Indiana hospitals. 

114. Listed in paragraphs 11 through 76 of this Amended Complaint are numerous parties 

operating an additional sixty-five (65) hospitals in the state oflndiana that will be referenced for 

purposes of brevity as the 'Statistically Correlated Defendants' for the purposes of this 

Complaint. Each of these hospitals have reported Core Measure 11 compliance data which is 

highly suggestive of the fact that the exact same fraudulent rep011ing of Core Measure 11 figures 

that is alleged against the Original Hospital Defendants is taking place at the hospitals operated 

by the Statistically Correlated Defendants. 

115. The difference between the Original Hospital Defendants and the Statistically 

Correlated Defendants is that the relaters simply did not happen to issue electronic records 

requests to the Statistically Correlated Defendants' hospitals during the applicable periods of 

compliance reporting time frames. 

116. In situations such as this, strong case law suppo1is expansion of the defendants in a 

manner that is compliant with the requirements of Fed. R.Civ. Proc. Rule 9(b). Suspicion by the 

relators alone is certainly not enough to satisfy Rule 9(b) by citing to data alone, but an attempt 

to provide detail which places the data into context within a pleading that allows such suspicions 

to be plausible. See Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp., Retiree ~Medical Benefits Trust v. Walgreen 

Co., 631F.3d436, 443-47 (7th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff that has limited information in such an 

instance may be allowed to maintain claims upon information and belief when the facts 

constituting the fraud are not accessible to the plaintiff, the plaintiff provides the grounds for 

23 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 23 of 44
such suspicions, and provides firsthand information or examples which place the information 

into context. Id. 

117. A host of federal cases involving the False Claims Act have supported the 

application of the rules identified in the preceding paragraph as long as the relators can provide 

sufficient detail to provide context, specific examples, and a description of the information 

possessed by the defendants. See, generally, US. ex rel. Bledsoe v. Community Health Systems, 

Inc., 501 F.3d 493, 504 (6th Cir. 2007); US. ex rel. Lemmon v. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 614 

F.3d 1163, 1170 (10th Cir. 2010); US. ex rel. Grenadyor v. Ukranian Village Pharmacy, Inc., 

895 F.Supp.2d 872, 879 (N.D. Ill. 2012); US. ex rel. Garbe v. Kmart Corporation, 968 

F.Supp.2d 978, 984 (S.D. Ill 2013); US. ex rel. Lisitza v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., 

Medicare & Medicaid P 304368, 2013 WL 870623 (N.D. Ill. 2013); US. v. Indianapolis 

Neurosurgical Group, Inc., Medicare & Medicaid P 304341, 2013 WL 652538 (S.D. Ind. 2013). 

118. The plaintiff/relators have already stated specific examples for false claims 

attestations in relation to the Original Hospital Defendants, and alleges that the practice of falsely 

reporting or merely ignoring the reporting requirements of Core Measure 11 are widespread 

within the state of Indiana's hospital based upon the context of the reported compliance data. 

119. Additionally, the plaintiff/relators specifically allege that the information necessary 

to prove that the Statistically Correlated Defendants are making false claims is within the 

exclusive knowledge and/or possession of said Statistically Correlated Defendants. See Jepson, 

Inc. v. Makita Corp., 34 F.3d 1321, 1328 (7th Cir. 1994); Corley v. Rosewood Care Center, Inc., 

142 F.3d 1041, 1051 (7th Cir. 1998). 

120. While we know what was attested to, on whose behalf, and when it was attested to, 

only the Statistically Con-elated Defendants are within possession of documentary evidence 

which would show what individuals certified this information on behalf of the hospitals. They, or 

24 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 24 of 44
their Release of Information providers, are also the only parties in possession of the documents 

to show exactly how many times patients actually requested electronic medical records, and how 

many times the hospital provided such information within three (3) business days. 

Plaintiff/relators know this because paii of the Attestation form paperwork necessarily submitted 

in order to receive any funding under the EHR Program included an agreement that the provider 

would keep records "as are necessary to demonstrate that I met all Medicare EHR Incentive 

Program requirements[.]" 2 

121. It is presently unknown how many of the Statistically Correlated Defendants utilized 

a Release of Information provider, or may have utilized Ciox. However, such a detail is only 

important for purposes of additional or derivative claims of liability. Hospitals are allowed to 

outsource compliance to 'business associates' such as Ciox. 45 C.F.R. § 160.103. Yet providers 

remain civilly liable for the acts of their business associates, or any of their subcontractors, 

employees, or agents. 45 C.F.R. § 160.402(c). 

E. Placing the reported compliance data of the Statistically Correlated Defendants 

into context 

122. Based on their own experiences, the relators commonly issue several, if not dozens, 

of requests for electronic medical records every week just from their law firm. 

123. Even a cursory review of the compliance figures repo1ied by hospitals throughout 

Indiana shows that in any given year under the program, many hospitals received dozens if not 

hundreds of requests from patients or their agents for electronic medical records. 

2 A copy of the EHR Incentive Program Attestation User Guide For Eligible Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals 

is available as of the time of the filing ofthis Amended Complaint. For ease of reference, a digital copy and the 

language referenced may be found on p. 47 of a 55 page pdf located at: https://www.cms.gov/Reirnlations-andGuidance/Legislation/EHRincentivePrograms/Downloads/HospAttestationUserGuide.pdf 

25 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 25 of 44
124. This compliance data should have been easy to track, as any electronic health 

records system necessary to qualify for the EHR Program necessarily contained the ability to 

track this information. 

125. There are numerous examples of Core Measure 11 compliance with numerous 

requests, shown by a sampling of some reported number by hospitals: 

a. In 2013, Hendricks County Hospital in Danville, Indiana, rep01ied that they 

complied forty-three ( 43) times for forty-three ( 43) requests (hereinafter represented as 

43/43 for a given year). 

b. In 2012 and 2013, Indiana University Health Morgan Hospital in Maiiinsville, 

Indiana reported compliance figures of 93/93 and 1191121, respectively. 

c. In 2012 and 2013, Goshen Hospital in Goshen, Indiana reported compliance 

figures of 100/100 and 289/290, respectively. 

d. In 2013, Community Hospital of Anderson & Madison County in Anderson, 

Indiana reported compliance figures of 131 /131. 

126. Similarly, other hospitals throughout the country seem to have had no trouble 

reporting and tracking even large numbers of requests, shown by the following representative 

examples: 

a. From 2011 through 2013, Naples Community Hospital Inc. in Naples, Florida 

reported compliance figures of 239/239, 587/587, and 276/276, respectively. 

b. From 2011 through 2013, Bon Secours St. Mary's Hospital of Richmond, Inc. 

located in Richmond, Virginia, reported compliance figures of 73/73, 651/651, and 

603/603, respectively. 

26 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 26 of 44
c. In 2012 and 2013, The New York and Presbyterian Hospital in Midtown 

Manhattan in New York, New York reported compliance figures of 698/698, and 

3,272/3,272, respectively. 

d. From 2011 through 2013, West Virginian University Hospitals, Inc., in 

Morgantown, West Virginia reported compliance figures of 33/37, 206/264, and 212/351, 

respectively. 

e. From 2011 through 2013, Citizens Memorial Hospital District in Bolivar, 

Missouri reported compliance figures of 135/150, 395/399, and 461/484 respectively. 

f. From 2011 through 2013, Carilion Medical Center in Roanoke, Virginia 

reported compliance figures of 61/61, 362/362, and 472/472. 

g. From 2011 through 2013, Mercy Kansas Communities Inc. in Independence, 

Kansas reported compliance figures of 278/300, 986/1,069, and 1,05211, 119, 

respectively. 

127. This means that many hospitals in Indiana and throughout the country were 

receiving literally hundreds of requests for electronic medical records during the applicable 

years, and had no trouble tracking and reporting their compliance with the three (3) day turnaround time for such records. 

128. When the relators compared their information against the reported compliance data 

from the Original Hospital Defendants, it became readily noticeable that these hospitals were 

only repo1iing zeroes, single digits, or other smaller numbers. As the relators knew these 

reported numbers for the Original Hospital Defendants were false, they began to suspect that 

perhaps there was a wide pattern of hospitals in the area that either claimed they received zero 

(0) requests, making them excluded from tracking this information, or simply tracked a small 

enough representative example of single digit compliance to hit the fifty percent (50%) 

27 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 27 of 44
compliance mark required by the rule. 'Cutting comers' in such a manner would represent a 

fraudulent course of action that would save hospitals the time of bothering to track their 

compliance, while still ensuring easy access to grant funding. 

129. In comparison with the hundreds of requests issued to some hospitals, the 

Statistically Correlated Defendants all represent hospitals which had several inexplicable years 

where they aberrantly reported receiving zero (0) requests (claiming to be exempt), or otherwise 

provided reporting numbers in the single or lower numeral digits that just happened to hit the 

fifty percent (50%) mark needed to get millions in grant funding. 

130. Defendant Huntington Memorial Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 010 

and 4/4 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

131. Defendant St. Joseph Health System, LLC, repo1ied compliance figures of 010, 010, 

and 0/0 for 2011 through 2013. 

132. Defendant Te1Te Haute Regional Hospital, L.P. reported compliance figures of 010, 

010, and 0/0 for 2011through2013. 

133. Defendant Columbus Regional Hospital reported compliance figures of 111 in 2013. 

134. Defendant RHN Clark Memorial Hospital, LLC, reported compliance figures of 010 

and 0/0 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

135. Defendant Indiana University Health Inc. reported compliance figures of 212 in 

2012, and then reported suddenly seeing an increase to 355/363 the following year in 2013. 

136. Defendant Warsaw Health System, LLC, reported compliance figures of 010 and 0/0 

in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

13 7. Defendant Major Hospital reported compliance figures of 010, 010, and 0/0 for 2011 

through 2013. 

28 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 28 of 44
138. Defendant Lutheran Musculoskeletal Center, LLC, reported no figures while 

claiming an exemption in 2012, and 0/0 for 2013. 

13 9. Defendant Whitley Memorial Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 010 and 

111 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

140. Defendant Indiana University Health Bloomington, Inc., reported compliance 

figures of 010 and 0/0 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

141. Defendant Porter Hospital, LLC, reported compliance figures of 010 for 2013. 

142. Defendant Good Samaritan Hospital reported compliance figures of 1/1 and 3/4 in 

2012 and 2013, respectively. 

143. Defendant Indiana University Health Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc., reported no 

compliance figures in 2012 while claiming an exemption, but the number suddenly rose to 

260/260 in 2013. 

144. Defendant Parkview Wabash Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 010 and 

111 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

145. Defendant Woodlawn Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 1/1 and 111 in 

2012 and 2013, respectively. 

146. Defendant Union Hospital, Inc.'s Clinton, Indiana facility repo1ied compliance 

figures of 111 and 1/1 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

147. Union Hospital, Inc. 's Terre Haute, Indiana facility reported compliance figures of 

0/0 and 0/0 in 2013 and 2013. 3 

148. Defendant IOM Health System, LP, reported compliance figures of 010, 010, and 0/0 

for years 2011 through 2013. 

3 The Federal government's compiled data entered for this facility shows an Attestation of 010 on October 15, 2013, 

and another entry ofO/O on October 24, 2013. It is not clear if the data was resubmitted, duplicated, or intended to be 

entered for another year such as 2011 or 2012. 

29 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 29 of 44
149. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc.' s Hammond, Indiana facility reported 

compliance figures of 010 and 6/6 for years 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

150. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc.' s Crown Point, Indiana facility reported 

compliance figures of 0/0 for 2013. 

151. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc.' s Indianapolis, Indiana facility reported 

compliance figures of 010 in 2013. 

152. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc.' s Lafayette, Indiana facility reported 

compliance figures of 2/2 in 2013. 

153. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc.'s Crawfordsville, Indiana facility reported 

compliance figures of 0/3 for 2013. 

154. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc.'s Mooresville, Indiana facility reported 

compliance figures of 0/0, 010, and 10110 from 2011 through 2013. 

155. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc.'s Michigan City, Indiana facility reported 

compliance figures of 010 in 2013. 

156. Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc.' s Dyer, Indiana facility reported compliance 

figures of 010, and 20/20 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

157. Defendant Pulaski Memorial Hospital reported compliance figures of 111 and 0/0 in 

2012 and 2013, respectively. 

15 8. Defendant Dearborn County Hospital reported compliance figures of 2/3 and 0/0 in 

2012 and 2013, respectively. 

159. Defendant Indiana University Health Arnett, Inc., repo1ied no compliance figures 

claiming an exemption in 2012, and claimed figures of 10/10 for 2013. 

160. Defendant Johnson Memorial Hospital reported no compliance figures for 2012 

while claiming an exemption, and claimed figures 2/2 in 2013. 

30 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 30 of 44
161. Defendant Henry County Memorial Hospital reported compliance figures of 010 and 

2/2 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

162. Defendant Parkview Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 010 for 2012, 

suddenly jumping up to 437/438 in 2013. 

163. Defendant Bluffton Health System, LLC, reported compliance figures of 010 and 0/0 

in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

164. Defendant Cameron Memorial Community Hospital, Inc., rep01ied compliance 

figures of 010 for 2012. 

165. Defendant Community Hospital of Noble County, Inc., reported compliance figures 

of 010 and 8/8 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

166. Defendant Hancock Regional Hospital reported compliance figures of 010 and 1/1 in 

2012 and 2013, respectively. 

167. Defendant The Methodist Hospitals, Inc., repo1ied compliance figures of 4/5, 2/2, 

and 10/10 from 2011 through 2013 

168. Defendant Elkhaii General Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 4/4 in 

2013. 

169. Defendant Rush Memorial Hospital reported compliance figures of 010 and 0/0 in 

2012 and 2013, respectively. 

170. Defendant Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. reported compliance figures of 1/1 and 

010 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

171. Defendant Fayette Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., reported compliance figures 

of 010 and 1/1in2012 and 2013, respectively. 

172. Defendant Dupont Hospital, LLC, reported compliance figures of 2/3, 3/4, and 0/0 

from 2011 through 2013. 

31 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 31 of 44
173. Defendant Indiana University Health Bedford, Inc., reported compliance figures of 

212 and 0/0 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

174. Defendant Margaret Mary Community Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 

010 and 0/0 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

175. Defendant St. Mary Medical Center, Inc., repo1ied compliance figures of 010 and 7 /9 

in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

176. Defendant The Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County repo1ied 

compliance figures of 010 in 2013. 

177. Defendant Community Hospital of Bremen, Inc., reported compliance figures of 010 

in 2013. 

178. Defendant Orthopaedic Hospital at Parkview North, LLC, reported compliance 

figures of 010 and 15/15 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

179. Defendant Indianapolis Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 

212 and 0/0 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

180. Defendant St. Vincent Carmel Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 010 and 

010 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

181. Defendant St. Vincent Anderson Regional Hospital, Inc., reported compliance 

figures of 010 and 6/6 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

182. Defendant Community Hospital of LaGrange County, Inc., reported compliance 

figures of 010 and 111 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

183. Defendant Adams County Memorial Hospital reported compliance figures of 010 

and 0/0 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

184. Defendant St. Catherine Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 1 /1 and 6/6 in 

2012 and 2013, respectively. 

32 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 32 of 44
185. Defendant Jackson County Schneck Memorial Hospital reported compliance figures 

of 45/47 and 0/0 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

186. Defendant Perry County Memorial Hospital reported compliance figures of 111 and 

010 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

187. Defendant Indiana University Health White Memorial Hospital, Inc, reported 

compliance figures of 111 and 111 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

188. Defendant Marion General Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 010 in 

2013. 

189. Defendant Daviess County Hospital reported compliance figures of 010 and 0/0 in 

2012 and 2013, respectively. 

190. Defendant Indiana University Health Starke Hospital, LLC, reported compliance 

figures of 010 and 0/0 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

191. Defendant Community Howard Regional Health, Inc., repmied compliance figures 

of 010 for 2013. 

192. Defendant Dekalb Memorial Hospital, Inc., reported compliance figures of 111 and 

010 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

193. Defendant Putnam County Hospital reported no compliance figures in 2012 while 

claiming an exemption, and 111 for 2013. 

194. Defendant Indiana University Health Paoli, Inc., reported compliance figures of 010 

and 0/0 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

195. Defendant Decatur County Memorial Hospital reported compliance figures of 1/1 

and 111 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 

196. In comparison with the numbers reported at various hospitals throughout Indiana 

and the country, the reported figures from the Statistically C01Telated Defendants are highly 

33 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 33 of 44
abe1Tant and so low as to defy any rationale belief in their accuracy. The numbers are so low as 

to highly suggest widespread and flagrant abuse of the EHR Incentive program throughout 

Indiana hospitals. 

197. The terms of eligibility for the EHR Incentive Program requires that the Original 

Hospital Defendants and the Statistically Correlated Defendants must mandatorily keep all 

documentation to establish the veracity of their reported compliance data. This raw 

documentation was never turned over to the government, and is solely within the possession of 

the Original Hospital Defendants and the Statistically Conelated Defendants. 

198. The documentation within the possession of the defendants necessary to prove that 

fraudulent nature of the reported compliance data can be described with specificity. The 

plaintiff/relators require copies of all documents requesting the production of medical records 

during the limited applicable time frame in order to determine how many of those requests 

specifically requested the information in an electronic format. Additionally, any documentation 

noting the date upon which such a request was issued or received. 

199. Secondly, that number of requests for electronic records will need to be reviewed 

against the dates, formats, and billing information for any medical records issued to patients or 

their agents in order to determine if the reported compliance data was correct or not in relation to 

the number of times that electronic records were produced within three (3) business days. 

200. The best estimate available to the plaintiff/relators shows that according to Federal 

government records, the Original Hospital Defendants and the Statistically Correlated 

Defendants have received payments under the EHR Incentive program in a staggering amount. 

Combined, these defendant hospitals during the three year period at issue were paid 

$228,231,431.05 in grant funding under the Medicare portion of the program, and 

$96,154,738.27 under the Medicaid portion of the program. In sum, these hospitals have been 

34 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 34 of 44
paid $324,386,169.32 in public funding from the citizens of the United States in return for the 

promise that patients would be provided with fast, cheap, easy access to their electronic health 

records, and these hospitals have failed to keep that promise. 

201. A failure to properly track and report Core Measure 11 means that the defendant 

hospitals did not achieve 'meaningful use' as defined by the legislation and its ensuing rules. 

This means that they were not eligible to receive any funding under this program, and have 

sought and received the grant funding at issue in a fraudulent manner that constitute false claims 

for public funding. 

V. Causes of Action against the Original Hospital Defendants and Ciox Health, LLC 

Count I - Violation of the False Claims Act 

202. The actions of the Original Hospital Defendants constitute violations of the False 

Claims Act as located at 31 U.S.C. § 3729 for the knowing submission and/or conspiracy to 

create and submit false statements and claims for the purposes of obtaining money through a 

Federal government program. 

203. The Original Hospital Defendants have knowingly and illegally sought and obtained 

claims through the EHR Program by submitting false claims and Attestation documents reporting 

false figures to the Federal govenm1ent in return for public funding. 

204. The Original Hospital Defendants have knowingly created and reported false 

statistics and Attestation documentation expressly certifying their compliance with particular 

statutes, regulations, and terms under which they qualified and received millions of dollars of 

public grant funding. 

205. By failing to properly track and meet the requirements of Core Measure 11 under the 

EHR Program, the Original Hospital Defendants knowingly defrauded a public grant program 

for which they were not even eligible for. 

35 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 35 of 44
206. That CIOX Health, LLC, through its associations with the Original Hospital 

Defendants as its business associate handling the provision of medical records to patients, 

knowingly assisted in the provision of false reporting figures to the Federal government despite 

knowledge of the requirements of Core Measure 11. Ciox has conspired with or is otherwise 

responsible for causing false statements to be issued to the Federal govermnent for payments 

under the EHR Program to the Original Hospital Defendants. 

207. The United States of America was unaware of the falsity of these claims made by 

the Original Hospital Defendants. In reliance upon the factual accuracy of the Attestation 

documents submitted by the Original Hospital Defendants, and false proclamations of figures 

showing that the Original Hospital Defendants were eligible for payments under the EHR 

Program, the United States of America paid grant funding to the Original Hospital Defendants. 

208. Without the false claims and false figures provided to the Federal govermnent by the 

Defendants, the Original Hospital Defendants would have been ineligible for grant funding under 

the voluntary EHR Program. 

209. That as a result of these actions, the Original Hospital Defendants and Ci ox have 

defrauded the United States of America and its tax-paying citizens, who have suffered damages 

that number in millions of dollars of grant funding that never should have been provided to them. 

Count II - Violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute 

210. The Original Hospital Defendants, through their business associations, are jointly 

and severally liable for the conduct of their business associate, CIOX Health, LLC. 

211. To add insult to injury, the Original Hospital Defendants and Ciox did more than 

simply defraud the United States of America by taking grant funding that they were not eligible 

for. Not only did they fail to provide patients with the fast, cheap access to electronic records that 

was a requirement of receiving the grant funding at issue; they then sought to additionally profit 

36 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 36 of 44
by knowingly over-billing for the production of those medical records by seeking hundreds of 

dollars rather than the reasonable remuneration allowed under the HITECH Act. 

212. As pmi of the business relationship between the Original Hospital Defendants and 

CIOX Health, LLC, these defendants knowingly engaged in a scheme through which they 

illegally sought and received direct and/or indirect remuneration for the illegal sale of medical 

records to patients in violation of their rights under the HITECH Act. By failing to comply with 

the HITECH Act, the Original Hospital Defendants and Ciox were able to bill substantially 

larger amounts for the production of the same materials that could have simply been placed upon 

a disc or flash drive as intended by the HITECH Act. 

213. As part of this business relationship, these defendants relied upon the provision of 

illegally obtained grant funding from the EHR Program to cover the costs of compliance for the 

provision of medical records to patients, while knowingly seeking to directly and/or indirectly 

receive remuneration for profit at the expense of the citizens of the United States of America. 

214. The conduct of the defendants in seeking to directly and/or indirectly receive 

remuneration illegally and in violation of the HITECH Act constitutes a violation of the AntiKickback Statute for which the parties are subject to fines and damages for each instance in 

which the defendants acted together to illegally over-charge patients. 

215. By illegally seeking remuneration in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the 

defendants are subject to liability under the False Claims Act through a qui tam action. 

Count III - Violation of the related Indiana statutes 

216. The exact same conduct identified as violations of the Federal False Claims Act and 

the Anti-Kickback Statute constitute violations of the laws of the state of Indiana in relation to 

the portion of funding which was provided through the state-operated Medicaid program for the 

EHR Program. 

37 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 37 of 44
217. Indiana has its own False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act located at Ind. 

Code § 5-11-5 .5-1 et seq., along with another separate but similar statute to specifically address 

payments issued under the Medicaid program, located at Ind. Code § 5-11-5. 7-1 et seq. These 

statutes contain qui tam provisions similar to the Federal statutes located at Ind. Code§ 5-11-5.5-

4 and Ind. Code § 5-11-5.7-4, allowing for the Indiana attorney general or inspector general to 

intervene in relator claims in order to protect claims of the state of Indiana and its citizens for the 

misuse of public funds pursuant to Ind. Code§ 5-11-5.5-5 and Ind. Code§ 5-11-5.7-5. 

218. Additionally, the Indiana Medicaid false claims act follows the Federal statute by 

incorporating anti-kickback provisions into its definition of false claims. 

219. The Medicaid portion of this statute specifically references claims, statements, 

records, or omissions made or submitted in relation to or violations of the Indiana Medicaid 

program pursuant to Ind. Code § 12-15. This includes conduct which wrongfully deprives the 

state of Indiana of public funds pursuant to Ind. Code § 12-15-24-1, as well as soliciting, 

offering, or receiving kickbacks, fees, or rebates pursuant to Ind. Code § 12-15-24-2. 

220. For the same rationale and factual reasons by which the Original Hospital 

Defendants and Ciox are liable to the United States of America for false claims and antikickback violations, the Original Hospital Defendants and Ciox are additionally liable directly to 

the state of Indiana for violations of these state statutes. 

221. Similar to their federal cousins, these state statutes allow the state of Indiana to 

pursue claims for nearly identical civil penalties, treble damages, and costs of civil litigation. Ind. 

Code§ 5-11-5.5-2 and Ind. Code§ 5-11-5.7-2. 

222. Accordingly, for causing damage to the state of Indiana by the misuse of millions of 

dollars of grant funding, the Original Hospital Defendants and Ciox are liable to the state of 

Indiana according to the provisions of these state level statutes. 

38 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 38 of 44
VI. Causes of Action against the Statistically Correlated Defendants 

Count IV - Violation of the False Claims Act 

223. The actions of the Statistically Correlated Defendants constitute violations of the 

False Claims Act as located at 31 U.S.C. § 3729 for the knowing submission and/or conspiracy 

to create and submit false statements and claims for the purposes of obtaining money through a 

Federal government program. 

224. The Statistically Correlated Defendants have knowingly and illegally sought and 

obtained claims through the EHR Program by submitting false claims and Attestation documents 

repo1iing false figures to the Federal government in return for public funding. 

225. The Statistically Correlated Defendants have knowingly created and reported false 

statistics and Attestation documentation expressly certifying their compliance with particular 

statutes, regulations, and terms under which they qualified and received millions of dollars of 

public grant funding. 

226. By failing to properly track and meet the requirements of Core Measure 11 under the 

EHR Program, the Statistically Correlated Defendants knowingly defrauded a public grant 

program for which they were not even eligible for. 

227. The plaintiff/relators presently have no information to confirm each and every 

individual Release of Information ("ROI") provider or business associates that the Statistically 

Correlated Defendants might have utilized in a fashion to similar to the Original Hospital 

Defendants' use of Ciox. Any similar relationships with ROI providers used by the Statistically 

Correlated Defendants would similarly make the Statistically Conelated Defendants responsible 

for causing false statements to be issued to the Federal government for payments under the EHR 

Program to the Statistically Correlated Defendants. 

39 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 39 of 44
228. The United States of America was unaware of the falsity of these claims made by 

the Statistically Correlated Defendants. In reliance upon the factual accuracy of the Attestation 

documents submitted by the Statistically Correlated Defendants, and false proclamations of 

figures showing that the Statistically Correlated Defendants were eligible for payments under the 

EHR Program, the United States of America paid grant funding to the Statistically Correlated 

Defendants. 

229. Without the false claims and false figures provided to the Federal govermnent, the 

Statistically Correlated Defendants would have been ineligible for grant funding under the 

voluntary EHR Program. 

230. That as a result of these actions, the Statistically Correlated Defendants have 

defrauded the United States of America and its tax-paying citizens, who have suffered damages 

that number in millions of dollars of grant funding that never should have been provided to them. 

Count V - Violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute 

231. The Statistically Correlated Defendants, through any as yet unknown ROI providers 

or business associations they have utilized, are jointly and severally liable for the conduct of their 

business associates to the extent that kickbacks were sought or patients were illegally over-billed 

for access to their medical records. 

232. To add insult to injury, the Statistically Correlated Defendants did more than simply 

defraud the United States of America by taking grant funding that they were not eligible for. Not 

only did they fail to provide patients with the fast, cheap access to electronic records that was a 

requirement of receiving the grant funding at issue; they then allowed any ROI providers or 

business associates that they utilize to additionally profit by knowingly over-billing for the 

production of those medical records by seeking hundreds of dollars rather than the reasonable 

remuneration allowed under the HITECH Act. 

40 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 40 of 44
233. As part of the business relationship between the Statistically Correlated Defendants 

and any as yet unknown ROI providers or business associates, these defendants knowingly 

engaged in a scheme through which they illegally sought and received direct and/or indirect 

remuneration for the illegal sale of medical records to patients in violation of their rights under 

the HITECH Act. By failing to comply with the HITECH Act, the Statistically Correlated 

Defendants allowed their ROI providers or business associates to bill substantially larger 

amounts for the production of the same materials that could have simply been placed upon a disc 

or flash drive as intended by the HITECH Act. 

234. As part of this business relationship, these defendants relied upon the provision of 

illegally obtained grant funding from the EHR Program to cover the costs of compliance for the 

provision of medical records to patients, while knowingly seeking to directly and/or indirectly 

receive remuneration for profit at the expense of the citizens of the United States of America. 

235. The conduct of the defendants in seeking to directly and/or indirectly receive 

remuneration illegally and in violation of the HITECH Act constitutes a violation of the AntiKickback Statute for which the Statistically Correlated Defendants are subject to fines and 

damages for each instance in which the defendants allowed any over-charge of their patients. 

236. By illegally seeking remuneration in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the 

Statistically Correlated Defendants are subject to liability under the False Claims Act through a 

qui tam action. 

Count VI - Violation of the related Indiana statutes 

23 7. The exact same conduct identified as violations of the Federal False Claims Act and 

the Anti-Kickback Statute constitute violations of the laws of the state of Indiana in relation to 

the portion of funding which was provided through the state-operated Medicaid program for the 

EHR Program. 

41 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 41 of 44
238. Indiana has its own False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act located at Ind. 

Code § 5-11-5 .5-1 et seq., along with another separate but similar statute to specifically address 

payments issued under the Medicaid program, located at Ind. Code § 5-11-5. 7-1 et seq. These 

statutes contain qui tam provisions similar to the Federal statutes located at Ind. Code § 5-11-5.5-

4 and Ind. Code § 5-11-5. 7-4, allowing for the Indiana attorney general or inspector general to 

intervene in relator claims in order to protect claims of the state of Indiana and its citizens for the 

misuse of public funds pursuant to Ind. Code§ 5-11-5.5-5 and Ind. Code§ 5-11-5.7-5. 

239. Additionally, the Indiana Medicaid false claims act follows the Federal statute by 

incorporating anti-kickback provisions into its definition of false claims. 

240. The Medicaid portion of this statute specifically references claims, statements, 

records, or omissions made or submitted in relation to or violations of the Indiana Medicaid 

program pursuant to Ind. Code § 12-15. This includes conduct which wrongfully deprives the 

state of Indiana of public funds pursuant to Ind. Code § 12-15-24-1, as well as soliciting, 

offering, or receiving kickbacks, fees, or rebates pursuant to Ind. Code § 12-15-24-2. 

241. For the same rationale and factual reasons by which the Statistically Correlated 

Defendants are liable to the United States of America for false claims and anti-kickback 

violations, the Statistically Correlated Defendants are additionally liable directly to the state of 

Indiana for violations of these state statutes. 

242. Similar to their federal cousins, these state statutes allow the state of Indiana to 

pursue claims for nearly identical civil penalties, treble damages, and costs of civil litigation. Ind. 

Code§ 5-11-5.5-2 and Ind. Code§ 5-11-5.7-2. 

243. Accordingly, for causing damage to the state oflndiana by the misuse of millions of 

dollars of grant funding, the Statistically Correlated Defendants are liable to the state of Indiana 

according to the provisions of these state level statutes. 

42 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 42 of 44
Prayer for Relief 

Wherefore, the Relators, on behalf of the United States of America and the State of 

Indiana, respectfully requests this Court to find that the Defendants have damaged the United 

States and the State of Indiana as a result of their conduct in violation of the False Claims Act, 

the Anti-Kickback Statute, and their derivative state statutory claims. The Plaintiff/Relators pray 

that judgment be entered against the Defendants for all applicable damages, including but not 

limited to the following: 

a. Enter a judgment in favor the Plaintiff/Relators and against the Defendants; 

b. Award treble damages three times the actual damage amount suffered by the 

United States for all funding issued to the Defendants under the EHR Program; 

c. Issue Civil Penalties for each and every false claim submitted by the Defendants 

to the United States and the State of Indiana; 

d. Issue Civil Penalties against the Defendants for each and every instance in which 

the Defendants illegally sought kickback remuneration by over-billing for medical records in 

violation of the HITECH Act; 

e. Grant the Relators a fair and reasonable amount for any award for its contribution 

to the Government's investigation and recovery pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b) and 3730(d) of 

the False Claims Act and the related state law provisions located at Ind. Code § 5-11-5.5-6 and 

Ind. Code§ 5-11-5.7-6; 

f. For an award of attorney's fees and reasonable expenses incurred in this litigation, 

including reasonable attorney and expert fees; 

g. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 

h. For the costs of this action; 

43 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 43 of 44
I. For any and all other further and general relief to which the Plaintiff may be 

entitled. 

Michael P. Misch (#27970-71) 

Bradley P. Colborn (#28501-20) 

ANDERSON· AGOSTINO & KELLER, P.C. 

131 South Taylor Street 

South Bend, IN 46601 

Telephone: 574.288.1510 

Facsimile: 574.288.1650 

Misch@aaklaw.com 

Colborn(a)aaklaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintif.f!Relators 

44 

USDC IN/ND case 3:16-cv-00587-JD-MGG document 24 filed 03/02/17 page 44 of 44