Horty Springer and Mattern partners Dan Mulholland and Henry Casale discuss a False Claims Act case that was based on the Stark Law in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the Stark Law to question whether most RVU compensation models were permitted by the Stark Law. However, as proof that not even the federal courts understand the Stark Law, the Third Circuit vacated its September 17th decision and reissued its opinion on December 20. The new Opinion corrected some of the more egregious errors that were included in the September Opinion. However, it still leaves a number of questions about Stark unanswered.
Horty Springer and Mattern partners Dan Mulholland and Henry Casale discuss a False Claims Act case that was based on the Stark Law in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the Stark Law to question whether most RVU compensation models were permitted by the Stark Law. However, as proof that not even the federal courts understand the Stark Law, the Third Circuit vacated its September 17th decision and reissued its opinion on December 20. The new Opinion corrected some of the more egregious errors that were included in the September Opinion. However, it still leaves a number of questions about Stark unanswered.