1
ALEXANDERROBERTSON,IV(StateBarNo.127042)
CONFORMEDCOpy
OFORIGINALFILED
2ROBERTSON
&
ASSOCIATES,LLP
Los
Angeles
SUperiorCourt
880HampshireRoad,SuiteB
MAY
09
2012
3
WestlakeVillage,California91361
~
Telephone:(805)418-9900•Facsimile:(805)418-9901
JohnA:Clarke,
EXecutive
Officer/Clerk
4
cr:
JOHNM.WALKER,Esq.(StateBar#89723)
ByM.
Kurihara,Deputy
0
5
j
u,
LAWOFFICESOFJOHNM.WALKER65850CanogaAve.,4thFloor
Z
WoodlandHills,CALIFORNIA91367
0
7
Telephone:(818)719-9181-Facsimile:(818)719-9164
o
8
AttorneysforPLAINTIFFS
910
11
1213141516171819202122232425262728
ROBERTSON
&
ASSOCIATES,
LLP
SUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIACOUNTYOFLOSANGELES,WESTDISTRICT
Jtihn
H.Reid•.
JUdge
STEVEMANDEL,M.D.;JOELPOPSON,CaseNo.
,,-,(1111
~OQ~O.
'-'V...!L.,J!...
~)'vUh
M.D.;RANDYTAYLOR,M.D.;ARMANKARAPETYAN,M.D.,
COMPLAINTFORIDENTITYTHEFT
Plaintiffs,
CASEMANAGEMENTCONFERENCE
q.-j
b
-'fA
?:
~tJp
fI1
l=-
Date
(CivilCode§1798.93)
vs.MICHAELo.MIDI,M.D.;KAMBIZBENlAMIAOMIDI,akaJULIANOMIDI;ROBERTSILVERMAN,ESQ.;ALEXANDERWEISSE,ESQ.;EDDeFRANK,ESQ.;INDEPENDENTMEDICALSERVICES,INC.;CINDYOMIDI;SURGERYCENTERMANAGEMENT,LLC.;GOLDENSTATEPRACTICEMANAGEMENT,LLC.;ELLIOTALPERT,M.D.;andDOES1through100,inclusive,Defendant.COMENOWPlaintiffs,andeachofthem,andcomplainandallegeasfollows:
NATUREOFTHEACTION
1.ThePlaintiffsareallmedicaldoctorswhoresideintheCountyofLosAngelesandprovidedmedicalservicesasindependentcontractorsonanas-neededbasistopatientsofambulatorysurgerycentersCASC's")ownedandoperatedbyDefendants,MICHAELOMIDI,M.D.,JULIANOMIDI(collectivelyreferredtohereinasthe"OMIDIS").ThePlaintiffswere
11453.1
CO~LAINTFORFRAUD
CONWLAINTFORFRAUD
typicallyinformedonaweeklybasiswhattheirschedulewouldbe-andwhichsurgerycentertheywerescheduledtoreporttoonagiven
day.:
Typically,thePlaintiffs.wouldnotknowtheidentitiesofthepatients,orwhichspecifictypeofsurgerywasscheduledforeachpatientuntiltheyarrivedatthesurgerycentersontheday(s)theywerescheduled.ThePlaintiffsweretypicallypaidonanhourlybasisforthesurgeriestheyperformedfromtimetotimeatthevarioussurgerycentersownedandoperatedbytheOMIDIS.Asindependentcontractors,thePlaintiffsdidnotprepareanyofthebillssenttothepatients'insurancecompaniesbytheOMIDIS;norwerethePlaintiffsmadeawareoftheamountofthecharges.madeto,orpaymentsreceivedfromthepatients'insurancecompaniestotheOMIDISortheiraffiliatedcompanies.2.Plaintiffsareinformedandbelieve,andthereonallege,thattheOMIDISpaidthe.doctorswhowereindependentcontractorsthroughTOPSURGEONS,INC.and/orSURGERY·CENTERMANAGEMENT,INC.between2009untilthebeginningof2011.However,Plaintiffsareinformedandbelievethatcommencingsometimein2011,thedoctorswhowereindependentcontractorsbeganreceivingpaymentoftheirwagesfromINDEPENDENTMEDICALSERVICES,INC.,(hereinafterreferredtoas"IMS").3.Plaintiffsare-informedandbelieve,and.thereonallegesthatinoraboutMay2011,thedoctorswhoprovidedmedicalservicesattheOMIDIS'surgerycentersasindependentcontractorswerecontactedbyoneoftheOMIDIS'in-houseattorneys,ALEXANDERWEISSE,Esq.(hereinafterreferredto
as
."WEISSE")andweretoldthattheOMIDISneededtochangethewaytheywerebillingtheirpatients'insurancecompanies.Specifically,WEISSEtoldthePlaintiffsthatcertaininsurancecompanieshad"redflagged"thebillsfrom.theOMIDISandtheiraffiliatedcompaniesandthattheOMIDISwantedtosetupseparateprofessionalcorporationsfor_eachdoctorsotheycouldbilltheinsurancecompaniesunderthenameofeachdoctor'snewcorporationtoavoidtheinsurancecompaniesrecognizingthatthesebillswereforproceduresperformedatsurgerycentersownedandoperatedbytheOMIDIS.4.·Asaresult,WEISSEinformedthePlaintiffsofthefollowingscheme:TheOMIDISwouldcreatenewprofessionalmedicalcorporationsforeachofthedoctorsworking
at
theirvarioussurgerycentersatnocosttothedoctors.TheOMIDISwouldthenbillthepatients'
11453.1
2
10
COMPLAINT-FORFRAUD
1insurancecompaniesforthemedicalservicesprovidedbyeachdoctorunderthedoctors'new2corporatename,however,thedoctorswouldnotbeallowedtoseeany
of
thosebillsand
100%
of3themoneypaidbythepatients'insurancecompaniestothedoctors··corporationswouldbe4collectedandkeptbytheOMIDISoroneoftheiraffiliatedcompanies,Further,WEISSE5explainedthattheOMIDISwouldpayallincome
tax
owedbythenewcorporationsforthe6paymentsmadebythepatients'insurancecompanies.Finally,WEISSEexplainedtothePlaintiffs7thattheywouldcontinuetobepaidtheirhourlyrate,andwouldnotreceiveanypaymentfrom8theirprofessionalmedicalcorporationsasallincomewouldbeassignedtoandkeptbyoneofthe9OMIDIS'affiliatedcompanies.
5.
Notknowingthelegalityofthisproposal,thePlaintiffsaUjointlyretainedan11experiencedhealthlawattorneytoreviewthisproposalandtoadvisethemaccordingly..The12healthlawattorneyengagedinnumerousdiscussionswithWEISSEandEDDEFRANK,ESQ.,13whoalsowasanin-houseattorneyfortheOMIDIS,andrepeatedlytoldWEISSEandDEFRANK14thatthisproposedschemewouldviolateBusiness
&
ProfessionsCode§650(anti-kickback
15
statute)andpossiblystateandfederalincometaxlawsaswell.
16.
6.Plaintiffsareinformedandbelieve,andthereonallege,thatonoraboutJune22,172011,DefendantMICHAELOMIDIsentanemailtothePlaintiffs,mockingtheadvicegivento•
18
thePlaintiffsbytheirhealthlawattorneyandassuredthePlaintiffsthattheproposedschemeand19contractwaslegalanddidnotviolatethe"kick-back"law.
20
7.Plaintiffsareinformedandbelieve,andthereonallegethatonoraboutJune23,212011,WEISSEtransmittedaproposedcontracttothePlaintiffs,whichmemorializedtheabove-22referencedscheme.PlaintiffsarefurtherinformedandbelievethatthePlaintiffsallrefusedtosign23theproposedcontractandrefusedtogoalongwiththeOMIDIS'proposedschemeanddidnot24consenttoallowtheOMIDIS,ortheiragents,tocreateprofessionalmedicalcorporationsfor25.them,didnotconsenttoallowtheOMIDIS,ortheiragents,tobillpatients'insurancecompanies26forthemedicalservicesrenderedby
the
Plaintiffsunderthenameofanewprofessionalmedical27corporations,anddidnotconsenttotheOMIDIS,ortheiragents,collectingandkeeping100%of
28
.ROBERTSON
&
AsSOCIATES,LLP
11453.1
3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
