White House Executive Order Establishes Fraud Task Force

White House Executive Order Establishes Fraud Task Force 

President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) creating a Task Force to Eliminate Fraud. Citing the “exploitation” of federal programs that provide housing, food, medical care, cash assistance, and more by “illegal aliens, criminals, foreign gangs, bureaucrats, State and local officials, non-governmental organizations, and ineligible providers,” the new Task Force will be charged with “coordinating and accelerating a comprehensive national strategy to stop fraud, waste, and abuse.” 

The EO establishes the Task Force within the Office of the President, and states that it “shall be subject to the President’s direct supervision and control.” The Vice President shall serve as Chairman, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall serve as Vice Chairman, and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security shall serve as Senior Advisor to the Task Force. The Task Force shall include representatives of executive departments, agencies, and components involved in administering, enforcing, and overseeing federal benefits programs. 

Under the EO, each agency administering federal benefit programs must identify the transactions and processes most susceptible to fraud within 30 days and submit suggested prevention measures to the Task Force. The EO additionally requires that within 60 days, the Task Force is to coordinate the adoption of minimum anti-fraud requirements for the identified high-risk transactions and processes, which may include, for example, screening and eligibility verification, pre-payment integrity and risk controls, and audit and remedial measures. Where such transactions and processes involve federal funding administered by a State, local, territorial, or tribal jurisdiction, the Task Force and appropriate member agencies are to further “address how such jurisdiction can demonstrate implementation of the anti-fraud requirements” and also “examine and recommend, as appropriate, any ways that federal funds may be withheld from jurisdictions that do not have adequate anti-fraud requirements.”

The EO also requires each Task Force member to submit a measurable implementation plan to the Chairman and Vice Chairman within 90 days of the EO’s issuance. 

Notably, the EO directs the Attorney General to “maximize taxpayer pursuit of fraud involving taxpayer dollars” by “promot[ing] the meritorious pursuit by private persons of civil actions under” the False Claims Act’s (FCA) qui tam provisions and “ensur[ing] prompt review of such actions…” 

Read the EO here.

Constitutional Challenge to FCA Qui Tam Provisions Draws DOJ Defense at Fifth Circuit

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the Fifth Circuit defending the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions of the FCA in Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas. The qui tam action was filed by a relator who alleged that Healthcare Associates of Texas (HCAT) and its codefendants engaged in fraudulent Medicare billing practices. The government declined to intervene. Following a two-week trial, a jury found HCAT responsible for causing more than $2.7 million in Medicare overpayments, and the district court entered judgment against HCAT for treble damages of more than $8.2 million but refused to impose a per-claim civil penalty, citing the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. 

On appeal, HCAT argues, inter alia, that the FCA’s qui tam provisions violate Article II’s Appointments Clause, Vesting Clause, and Take Care Clause. Constitutional challenges are also playing out before the Third Circuit, where oral arguments were recently held in Johnson & Johnson’s appeal of a $1.6 billion FCA verdict, and the Eleventh Circuit, where the Zafirov appeal remains pending. 

The DOJ intervened on appeal for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of the FCA. In its brief, the DOJ argued that every court of appeals to have addressed the question has upheld the constitutionality of the FCA’s qui tam provisions. On the Appointments Clause, the DOJ argued that relators need not be constitutionally appointed because they do not occupy continuing positions and US Congress did not vest them with uniquely governmental authority. On the Vesting and Take Care Clauses, the DOJ argued that qui tam provisions are supported by extensive historical evidence.

The DOJ also cross-appealed the district court’s ruling on civil penalties, arguing that the court erred in concluding that the Excessive Fines Clause precluded it from imposing the minimum per-claim civil penalty required by the FCA. The district court recognized that the statutory minimum penalty for the false claims proven at trial would total more than $299 million but determined that amount would violate the Eighth Amendment and thus capped the penalty at a 3-to-1 ratio of actual damages. The DOJ argued that a statutorily specified civil fine categorically does not violate the Eighth Amendment so long as it does not exceed the limits prescribed by the authorizing statute, and that the district court erred by importing a ratio-based analysis from the Due Process Clause into the Excessive Fines Clause framework. The relator separately cross-appealed, seeking the full $299 million in minimum statutory penalties or, alternatively, $22 million, eight times the actual damages. 

The case is Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas, Case No. 25-10842, in the Fifth Circuit.

Vein Treatment Network Agrees to Pay $4 Million to Settle FCA Allegations 

On March 20, the DOJ announced that a vein treatment network and the entities’ CEO and President, Dr. Sanjiv Lakhanpal, agreed to pay $4 million to resolve FCA allegations. CVR Management, LLC manages Center for Vein Restoration and Center for Vascular Medicine, LLC, making up a multi-state network of physician-led practices that specialize in diagnosing and treating vein disease. The settlement will resolve claims that the companies and Dr. Lakhanpal billed Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE for medically unnecessary vein treatment procedures over a six-year period. 

The government alleged CVR knowingly submitted claims for medically unnecessary treatments for chronic venous insufficiency (CVI), a condition in which the vein valves function improperly, manifesting as symptoms such as varicose veins. According to the government, Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE do not cover varicose vein treatment for cosmetic reasons alone and CVI treatment is covered when accompanied by certain qualifying conditions and only after a patient has completed a specified period of unsuccessful alternative treatment. The government further alleged the procedures at issue — sclerotherapy, radiofrequency ablation, and endovenous laser ablation — were not clinically indicated. 

The settlement resolves qui tam claims brought by two former CVR employees. The federal government, eight states, and the District of Columbia intervened for purposes of the settlement. The cases are US ex rel. Fulton v. CVR Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-03591, and US ex rel. Jane Doe v. Center for Vein Restoration, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01943, in the US District Court for the District of Maryland. 

Read the DOJ’s press release here.

The claims resolved by the settlements are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Two Doctors Face Federal Consequences for Alleged Telemedicine Schemes

Two cases alleging telemedicine fraud in the District of Massachusetts are approaching resolution. Both cases involve doctors who the government claims signed pre-populated medical documentation for medically unnecessary durable medical equipment (DME) and genetic testing billed to Medicare. According to the DOJ’s press releases, Medicare paid nearly $6 million in fraudulent claims as a result of the two alleged schemes. 

In both cases, the government alleges that the doctors worked with telemedicine companies to sign doctors’ orders and other medical documentation for medically unnecessary genetic testing and DME. According to the government, orders were pre-populated, often based on telemarketing calls made to Medicare beneficiaries, and made it appear that the doctors were providing legitimate consultations and had conducted examinations of the beneficiaries. The government further alleged neither doctor generally contacted the beneficiaries nor maintained any provider-patient relationship with them. 

The first case reached its conclusion when Tommie Robinson, a doctor licensed in Alabama who pleaded guilty in October 2025 to one count of health care fraud, was sentenced to 16 months in prison followed by one year of supervised release. Robinson was also ordered to pay $2,784,733.49 in restitution. In the second case, Simon Grinshteyn, a Florida-based doctor, pleaded guilty this week to one count of making false statements relating to health care matters. Grinshteyn is scheduled for sentencing on June 24.

The cases are United States v. Tommie Robinson, Case No. 25-cr-10338, and United States v. Grinshteyn, Case No. 26-cr-10019, in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 

Read the DOJ’s press release regarding Robinson’s case here and the DOJ’s press release regarding Grinshteyn’s case here.

Government Opposes Ex-NFL Player’s New Trial Bid in $328 Million Medicare Genetic Testing Fraud Scheme

The DOJ opposed a motion for a new trial filed by Keith J. Gray, a former NFL offensive lineman for the Carolina Panthers, who was found guilty in connection with a $328 million scheme to bill Medicare for medically unnecessary cardiovascular genetic tests. In February, a federal jury convicted Gray of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks, five counts of violating the Anti-Kickback Statute, and three counts of money laundering. For background on the underlying conviction, see our prior coverage here.

In seeking a new trial, Gray argued that the government failed to establish sufficient evidence of a kickback arrangement, contending relevant decision makers retained independent discretion to decline testing orders. In its brief, the government argued the evidence of improper influence was extensive, noting Gray paid co-conspirators on a per-sample basis only if samples and corresponding requisition forms ended up at his labs. The government also pointed to order forms sent to doctors’ offices with every field completed except the doctor’s signature, arguing that no genuine decisions regarding diagnosis, appropriate testing, or lab selection remained for the physician to make. The government further argued that Gray, along with others, corrupted the medical decision-making process with the kickbacks.

The case is United States v. Gray, Case No. 3:24-cr-00250, in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.