Opinion ID: 3013742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mercy were paid to it in “cash or cash

Text: equivalents” and this appears to be According to Zimmer, it is apparent inconsistent with Zimmer’s safe harbor from the face of the first amended theory. See 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952(h)(5)(i) complaint that its marketing program did (“The term discount does not include – not violate the Anti-Kickback Act or the Cash payment or cash equivalents (except Stark Act. Because it concluded that that rebates as defined in [42 C.F.R. § Zimmer was not alleged to have caused the 1001.952(h)(4)] may be in the form of a presentation of a claim, the District Court check).”). did not reach this issue, assuming without deciding that violations of those Acts had Similarly, we cannot say that it is been alleged. Based on our reading of the clear from the face of the complaint that first amended complaint, it is not clear that Zimm er’s marketing program was the alleged conduct of Zimmer passes consistent with the Stark Act. The marketing scheme, according to the complaint, allegedly involved both Zimmer and Mercy sharing remunerations this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 with physicians at Mercy in order to because the District Court’s Order and induce these physicians to help in meeting Stipulation of Dismissal resulted in a final Zimmer’s prescribed volume and market decision. share levels. In providing such help, these 8 physicians allegedly made “prohibited statement to conceal, avoid, referrals” for Mercy to provide health or decrease an obligation to services for which Mercy then allegedly pay or transmit money or s o u g h t M e d i c a r e r e i m b u r s e m e n t. property to the Government, Inasmuch as the complaint alleges a is liable to the United States compensation arrangement, a referral for Government for a civil services, and a Medicare claim for those penalty of not less than services, Zimmer’s marketing scheme does $5,000 and not more than not appear to be consistent with the Stark $10,000, plus 3 times the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a); amount of damages which Columbia/HCA Healthcare, 125 F.3d at the Government sustains 901-02. because of the act of that person . . . .