United States of America v. BlueWave Healthcare Consultants Inc, 9:11-cv-1593-RMG (2018)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20180116d29
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER and OPINION RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the United States' Objections to the BlueWave Defendants' Deposition Designations for the United States' 30(b)(6) witness Alison Coleman. (Dkt. Nos. 801-1, 803-1.) The Court has ruled on each Objection as set forth below. I. Deposition of Alison Coleman (Dkt. No. 728-4, 823-2) BlueWave's Government's Objections Ruling Designation Pg. 19, Ln. 9 — Not relev
Summary: ORDER and OPINION RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the United States' Objections to the BlueWave Defendants' Deposition Designations for the United States' 30(b)(6) witness Alison Coleman. (Dkt. Nos. 801-1, 803-1.) The Court has ruled on each Objection as set forth below. I. Deposition of Alison Coleman (Dkt. No. 728-4, 823-2) BlueWave's Government's Objections Ruling Designation Pg. 19, Ln. 9 — Not releva..
More
ORDER and OPINION
RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the United States' Objections to the BlueWave Defendants' Deposition Designations for the United States' 30(b)(6) witness Alison Coleman. (Dkt. Nos. 801-1, 803-1.) The Court has ruled on each Objection as set forth below.
I. Deposition of Alison Coleman (Dkt. No. 728-4, 823-2)
BlueWave's Government's Objections Ruling
Designation
Pg. 19, Ln. 9 — Not relevant, per Court's 12/4/2017 The objection is sustained in
Pg. 20, Ln. 16 ruling on materiality (Dkt. No. accordance with the Court's
795). Order at Dkt. No. 795.
Pg. 21, Ln. 21 - 25 Not relevant, per Court's 12/4/2017 The objection is sustained in
ruling on materiality (Dkt. No. accordance with the Court's
795). Order at Dkt. No. 795.
Pg. 48, Ln. 12 — Beyond the scope; the deponent is The objection is overruled.
Pg. 49, Ln. 5 asked about medical necessity Deponent was designated to
reviews of HDL and Singulex, a speak about the process of
AND topic for which she was not medical necessity reviews of
designated. independent clinical lab testing
Pg. 50, Ln. 3-18 services generally, Topic 14(e),
and "How HDL's and Singulex's
AND claims to Medicare and
TRICARE including the claims
Pg. 51, Ln. 6-9 which are the subject of this
complaint, were reviewed,
denied, and/or paid." (Dkt. No.
815-4 at 1, 7.) Therefore,
questions about medical
necessity reviews of HDL and
Singulex are not outside the
scope of the designation.
Pg. 52, Ln. 21-24 Not relevant, per Court's 12/4/2017 The objection is sustained in
ruling on materiality (Dkt. No. accordance with the Court's
795); vague. Order at Dkt. No. 795.
Pg. 71, Ln. 16 - 25 Beyond the scope; the deponent is The objection is overruled. For
asked about pre-payment medical reasons stated above, questions
necessity reviews of HDL and about medical necessity reviews
Singulex, a topic for which she was of HDL and Singulex are not
not designated. outside the scope of the
designation.
Pg. 84, Ln. 6 — Lacks foundation; witness asked to The objection is overruled. The
Pg. 85, Ln.13 draw conclusions from a document deposition transcript shows that
with which she is not familiar. the deponent was able to
understand the questions and the
document and to answer
questions that were otherwise
within the scope of the
designation.
Pg. 86, Ln. 23 — Incomplete. The objection is overruled
Pg. 87, Ln. 5 because the Government's
counter-designation resolves
incompleteness [Pg. 87, Ln. 6-7],
and Defendants have not
objected to the counter-designation.
Pg. 87, Ln. 22 — Lacks foundation; incomplete. The objection is overruled
Pg. 88, Ln. 4 because the Government's
counter-designation resolves
incompleteness [Pg. 88, Ln. 5-7],
and Defendants have not
objected to the counter-designation.
Pg. 97, Ln. 15 — Incomplete; repetitive; beyond the The objection is overruled. The
Pg. 99, Ln. 2 scope; the deponent is asked about deponent was asked several
state prevailing rates and provider questions about how Tricare
billed rates, topics for which this determines the appropriate
deponent was not designated. reimbursement for a claim. This
subject falls within Topic 14
(Dkt. No. 815-4 at 7) which
broadly covers claims processing
and review and is therefore
within the scope of the
designation.
The Government also objected
that the designation is incomplete
but did not offer a counter-designation,
so the objection as
to incompleteness is overruled.
Pg. 100, Ln. 23 — Incomplete; no end to designation. The objection is moot because
Pg. 101, Ln. 3 Designation should end at Pg. 101, Defendants updated their
Ln. 3. designation to end at Pg. 101, Ln.
3
Pg. 106, Ln. 7 — Incomplete; compound; beyond the The objection is overruled. The
Pg. 109, Ln. 1 scope. The deponent is asked about deponent was asked several
state prevailing rates and provider questions about how Tricare
billed rates, topics for which she determines the appropriate
was not designated. reimbursement for a claim. This
subject falls within Topic 14
(Dkt. No. 815-4 at 7) which
broadly covers claims processing
and review and is therefore
within the scope of the
designation.
Pg. 112, Ln. 15 — Incomplete; lacks foundation; The objection is overruled. The
Pg. 113, Ln. 2 misstates testimony. The deponent deponent was asked several
is asked about state prevailing rates questions about how Tricare
and provider billed rates, topics for determines the appropriate
which this deponent was not reimbursement for a claim. This
designated. Counsel's question (not subject falls within Topic 14
included in the designation), (Dkt. No. 815-4 at 7) which
assumes certain activity regarding broadly covers claims processing
physician billing. and review and is therefore
within the scope of the
designation.
Pg. 134, Ln. 20 - 23 Incomplete. The objection is overruled. The
Government's counter-designation
resolves
incompleteness [Pg. 134, Ln. 8-19],
and Defendants have not
objected to the counter-designation.
Pg. 145, Ln. 8 - 12 Vague, misleading; beyond the The objection is overruled.
scope; the question is vague and Deponent was designated to
misleading in referring to speak about the reimbursement
TRICARE's payment of a "process of P&H fees, so this question is
and handling fee" "for a blood not outside the scope of the
sample." designation. (Dkt No. 815-4 at 7,
Topic 19.) Deponent did not
appear confused by the question
or ask for clarification, so the
objection as to vagueness is
overruled.
Pg. 153, Ln. 15 - 23 Lacks foundation; beyond the The objection is overruled.
scope; the deponent is asked about Deponent was asked, "have you
her personal experience with seen any literature distributed by
literature distributed by TRICARE TRICARE to providers regarding
to providers. the potential for a process and
handling fee to be an inducement
and therefore a violation of the
Anti-Kickback Statute?"
Deponent responded, "I have not
seen anything."
Deponent was designated to
answer questions about, "CMS's
past and existing policies,
guidance and valuation
determinations regarding its
payments of blood specimen
handling fees pursuant to
Medicare's Fee Schedule . . .,
and CMS's past and existing
policies, guidance and valuation
regarding its payments of
venipuncture fees pursuant to
Medicare's Fee Schedule." (Dkt.
No. 815-4 at 2, 7.) Counsel's
question about whether deponent
was aware of any guidance
issued by TRICARE to providers
about process and handling fees
is therefore within the scope of
the designation. The excerpt is
not reasonably read as an inquiry
into deponent's personal
experience even though counsel
asked about what deponent
herself had "seen."
The objection as to lack of
foundation is also overruled.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
