• Brief Cases
• #1 (a). Exactly what conduct by Dr. Krizek did the government charge violated the False Claim Act
•             The government charge violated the False Claim Act on the basis that it alleged Dr. Krizek performed unnecessary services according to the norms of medical profession. According to the False Claim Act, it states that a medical officer has no limitation in offering services to patients provided they were legal as contained in the law. The government ruled that Dr. Krizek had the obligation to reimburse the government in damages that he caused. The other reason that illustrates how the court violated the act is that it ordered Dr. Krizek to pay fines and other fees that rose because of the proceeding of the case.
• (b) For what conduct and on what basis was he exonerated by the district court?
•             The district court exonerated Dr. Krizek on the conduct stating that he offered various services he should not have performed because they were medically unnecessary. The court exonerated him on the basis that witnesses from the government did not examine or interview any of the patients, or speak with any doctors or nurses who had actually served the patients to learn whether the course of treatment prescribed by the doctor was medically necessary or not. The court managed to offer credits on the testimony presented by Dr.Krizeks when he explained on how some of his patient had serious condition that required more medical necessities and concentration for the procedures resulting for them to take more time. The court concluded that the government failed to offer the required prove that could demonstrate that Dr. Krizeks performed services that were against any norms contained in the medical field.
•    (c) Did the court’s liability finding rest on the actions of Dr. Krizek or those of his subordinates?
•             According to the law, the court had responsibility in finding Dr.Krizek actions. This is because any medical profession should not engaged in criminal acts like those that Dr. Krizek or his subordinates were alleged to have. All medical professions are supposed to act on behalf of the government in assisting the needs of patients but should not use the power and education to offer services that are not within the medical ethics. The government prohibits any acts of reimbursement of funds and therefore any medical profession alleged to conduct such measures should be prosecuted in a court of law.
• #2 In the Gerber case in the page 1058, what did the defendant do to merit conviction at the trial court level
• At the trial court level, the defendant was eligible to merit conviction because he had violated the law. Gerber an osteopathic physician who was the defendant had the allegation of offering interpretation fees to another doctor and physicians. The defendant also had allegations of causing fraud in Medicare counts. He had charged the referral fee more than $65 per patient as opposed within the rules employed by the government. The court argued that basing on the Cardio-Med’s billing practices, the defendant had committed violations of 42 U.S.C 1395nn (b) (2) (B) (1982).
•             The court argued that there was prove on the (18-23) fraud counts employed on the defendant. The court indicated that there was enough evidence to prove that the physicians managed to receive ‘interpretation’ fees in order to give false illustrations about the billing practices. The defendant also managed to give the doctor and physicians’ high amount of fees than allowed by the Medicare department. Another issue that contributed to Gerber to merit conviction is that the court introduced testimony defendant used in an earlier case. According to the earlier civil proceeding, the court heard a statement from the defendant arguing that if the doctor who was in operation failed to receive his dues concerning consultation activities, he would not manage to perform the services that he was entitled to do.
• The defendant also had issued a statement to the physicians concerning the issue given by the Board of Censors saying that the referral fee was legitimate. The defendant argued that if only the physician contributed in sharing the responsibility for the report, he had the legal responsibility of accessing the referral fee. However, according to the Board of Censors, it stated that there should be separate bills. The reason behind this issue according to the Board was that the process by which the monitor company ought to offer payment for the physician is not considered as a method of choice. According to the above expressions issued by the defendant on a previous case, the court argued that he was eligible of receiving the conviction.
•      #3 Brief in the Matter of Evanston Northwestern Health Corp. beginning on page 1179
•             The case concerned the merger of Highland Park Hospital that took place in the suburb of Chicago. According to the commission, Evanston received an administrative complaint where he was being challenged of acquisition of Highland Park after more than six years the close of the transaction. According to the complaint, Evanston acted against the Law under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The FTC tried all what it could in order to undo the merger. The FTC tried to argue that the merger was that later resulted into high amount of price, took the advantage of post-merger market power. Some of the arguments provide by the FTC indicated that there was no reliable patient origin data that could be used to define the relevant geographical market. However, the FTC relied on the actual effects happening at the grassroots market in order to offer any prove. The FTC also indicated that the merger lied on ‘unilateral effects’ analysis. This meant that the two hospitals were eligible of making money because of the reason that they were raise an amount of money equal to each other. The FTC managed to win the case after the commission argued that that the merger between the two hospitals was anti competitive. The ruling of the commission made the ENH was to establish other contract negotiation teams. The contract teams were eligible of offering separate and independent operations under the look of ENH. The ruling of the case made various arguments within the whole of Chicago but managed to set the future determination of similar cases.