42 U.S.C. § 1320
Approval of certain projects
No payment shall be made under this chapter with respect to any experimental, pilot, demonstration, or other project all or any part of which is wholly financed with Federal funds made available under this chapter (without any State, local, or other non-Federal financial participation) unless such project shall have been personally approved by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 129
cases (44 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Ibanez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 874 F.3d 905 (6th Cir. 2017).
United States Ex Rel. Ibanez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 874 F.3d 905 (6th Cir. 2017). “The complaint further alleges that, as part of these fraudulent schemes, defendants violated the Anti- Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320 -7b(b); caused the use or creation of false records material to false claims, 31 U.”
Neade v. Portes, 739 N.E.2d 496 (Ill. 2000). “Subsequently, the defendant and the distributor of Protopin were indicted for violating the Medicaid/Medicare Anti Kickback statute ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320 (a) through 7b(b) (1994)).”
United States v. VanMeter, 278 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2002). “This offense was 42 U.S.C. § 1320 (proscribing fraud related to federal health 5 care programs).”
United States v. Carlos Rodriguez Nerey, 877 F.3d 956 (11th Cir. 2017). “See 42 U.S.C. § 1320 -7b(b). B. Home Health Care Under Medicare, “home health care” refers to medical services for patients who require special treatment because they are “homebound.”
United States ex rel. Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 978 F. Supp. 2d 880 (S.D. Ohio 2013). “Paragraph 303 of the proposed amended complaint is as follows: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1320 , the Cleveland Clinic Defendants knowingly and willfully received remuneration directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind in return for recommending a service for…”
United States Ex Rel. Hockett v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 498 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007). “§ 1320a-7b, as well as other Medicare-related statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320 et seq., criminalize Medicare fraud, but do not *69 create independent duties to disclose the existence of fraud when filing other claims under Medicare.”
Rzayeva v. United States, 492 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D. Conn. 2007). “Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims against the Federal Defendants are also dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 3. HIPAA Claim Plaintiffs claim that Gentiva’s failure to provide them with certain health insurance forms constitutes a violation…”
Fishbein v. Miranda, 670 F. Supp. 2d 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “§§ 1145 , 1104(a), 1109(a), and 1106(b)(2), violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1320 et seq. and of state and common law privacy laws, and breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.”
United States ex rel. Brown v. Celgene Corp., 226 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (C.D. Cal. 2016). “42 U.S.C. § 1320 -a-7b(b)(2). Subpara-graph B is the relevant provision in eases like this, where a drug company is alleged to have paid kickbacks in exchange for prescriptions of its drugs.”
Henry Roop v. S. Pharm. Corp., 188 So. 3d 1179 (Miss. 2016). “” 42 U.S.C. § 1320 -7b(b)(3)(B) (2012). ¶ 34.”
Jill C. Barber v. Camden Clark Mem'l Hosp. Corp., 815 S.E.2d 474 (W. Va. 2018). “See HIPPA; 42 U.S.C.A.§ 1320(a) W.Va. Code § 27-3-1 et seq.”
Ehrlich v. Union Pac. R.R., 302 F.R.D. 620 (D. Kan. 2014). “Objection Based Upon Privacy Concerns and HIPAA Defendant objects to producing the train crew’s medical histories, arguing that it is prohibited from disclosing that information pursuant to HIPAA, 42 U.S.CA. §§ 1320(d)1320(d)8. Defendant asserts that it has no obligation to seek…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1320(a) — 2 cases
Jill C. Barber v. Camden Clark Mem'l Hosp. Corp., 815 S.E.2d 474 (W. Va. 2018). “See HIPPA; 42 U.S.C.A.§ 1320(a) W.Va. Code § 27-3-1 et seq.”
Jill C. Barber v. Camden Clark Mem'l Hosp. Corp. (W. Va. 2018).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1320(b)(2) — 1 case
Hearrell v. Allergan, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2024).
— 42 U.S.C. § 1320(d) — 1 case
Ehrlich v. Union Pac. R.R., 302 F.R.D. 620 (D. Kan. 2014). “Objection Based Upon Privacy Concerns and HIPAA Defendant objects to producing the train crew’s medical histories, arguing that it is prohibited from disclosing that information pursuant to HIPAA, 42 U.S.CA. §§ 1320(d)1320(d)8. Defendant asserts that it has no obligation to seek…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 1320(f) — 1 case
Hameedi, M.D. v. Becerra (E.D.N.Y 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.