+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Hanlester Laboratories decision: how is it affected by new sanctions and penalties regulations?



Hanlester Laboratories decision: how is it affected by new sanctions and penalties regulations?



Healthspan 9(3): 13-20



The following excerpts from the briefs recently submitted to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Stephen Kessel in the Hanlester Laboratories administrative proceeding, deal with the applicability of a January 29, 1992 final rule on fraud and abuse sanctions and civil money penalties (57 Fed. Reg. 3,298 (January 29, 1992) to the case. Counsel for Hanlester Laboratories, Patric Hooper and W. Bradley Tully of Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc. in Los Angeles, argue that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG-HHS) is trying to change the rules "well after the game has been played," and that this "is obviously being done for the sole purpose of negating the rights" of the Hanlester respondents. The Office of the General Counsel (OGC), in a brief prepared by OGC attorney Larry J. Goldberg, contends that ALJ Kessel "must apply these regulations in rendering his decision," arguing that the "regulations at issue do not even involve a change in policy, but merely a clarification." The Hanlester case (The Inspector General v. Hanlester Network et al., No. C-448 (Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division) was remanded by the Departmental Appeals Board to ALJ Kessel on September 18, 1991. It is the first case to consider the application of the antikickback statute to a joint venture, and is the first HHS civil exclusion case to be brought as the result of allegations of violations of the antikickback statute (see HealthSpan, November 1991, p. 8).

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 046211741

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 10183644


Related references

Hanlester Laboratories decision: important test of antikickback statute. Healthspan 8(4): 9-12, 1991

Hanlester Laboratories decision gives dangerously broad interpretation of federal anti-kickback statute. Healthspan 9(6): 11-14, 1992

Food regulations as regulations to which penalties are attached before and after their transfer to the sphere of regulations governing illegal actions. Fleischwirtschaft 57 (11) 1984-1988, 1977

"Hanlester Laboratories": HHS joint venture standards remain unclear. Healthspan 8(10): 8-11, 1991

New test? Hanlester decision clamps down on MD ventures. Hospitals 66(14): 24, 26, 1992

Third decision in the Hanlester Case creates further uncertainty. Health Systems Review 25(3): 42-44, 1992

Study: doc sanctions go unreported. HHS inspector general may seek tougher penalties for hospitals that fail to report actions. Modern Healthcare 29(32): 46, 1999

The Hanlester decision: intent is significant in anti-kickback law analysis. Wisconsin Medical Journal 94(11): 633-635, 1995

The Hanlester Appeal: the latest decision regarding physician self-referral joint ventures. Journal of Cardiovascular Management 6(4): 16, 18-20, 1995

Ninth Circuit Hanlester decision adds another twist to anti-kickback statute. Georgia Hospitals Today 39(5): 3, 1995

Departmental appeals board issues final decision in Hanlester Network case. Health Care Law Newsletter 7(11): 11-14, 1992

Intermediate sanctions: proposed regulations. Contemporary Longterm Care 8(8): 16-17, 1985

New sanctions for the transgressors of the forest police regulations. 1970

Intermediate sanctions: IRS issues new temporary regulations. Journal of Cardiovascular Management 12(3): 13-15, 2001

Penalties for the offending of sanitary regulations, the example of chopped meat. Recueil de medecine veterinaire: 153 (2) 133-136, 1977