United States v. Dynamic Visions, Inc.
220 F. Supp. 3d 16
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- The United States sued Dynamic Visions, Inc. and its sole owner/president Isaiah Bongam under the False Claims Act, alleging Medicaid reimbursement claims (Jan 2006–Jun 2009) were false because required physician-signed plans of care were missing, unsigned, forged, or otherwise invalid.
- In an earlier opinion (Oct. 24, 2016) the Court found Dynamic Visions liable under an implied-certification theory for submitting claims without compliant signed plans of care, but held in abeyance certain claims alleging forged physician signatures (recipients 1714, 9770, 4435) and Bongam’s individual liability to permit supplementation of the record.
- The Government submitted declarations from the physicians whose signatures were in dispute (Awah, Mathur, Schlosberg) stating some signatures were not theirs, and an FBI agent’s declaration about an interview of Bongam’s daughter (Domroe) describing her role at Dynamic Visions and statements about company control.
- Defendants offered only conclusory denials and challenged admissibility of certain prior FBI-agent statements; the Court accepted the physicians’ declarations as competent summary-judgment evidence and found the hearsay concern resolved.
- The Court determined the challenged plans of care were forged, found Dynamic Visions knowingly submitted false claims, granted summary judgment as to those claims, and—though it found insufficient direct evidence of Bongam’s personal scienter—pierced the corporate veil and held Bongam individually liable based on unity of interest and inequitable results if piercing were refused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were certain plans of care forged, making Dynamic Visions liable under the FCA? | Physicians’ sworn declarations show signatures are not theirs; forged plans rendered claims false. | Defendants deny forgery and attack admissibility and the identity of recipient numbers. | Held: Physicians’ declarations are competent; no genuine dispute; forged plans proved; summary judgment for Government on those claims. |
| Did Dynamic Visions act knowingly (scienter) in submitting false claims? | Forged signatures and submission despite regulatory requirement show knowledge and materiality. | Defendants offer conclusory denials of wrongdoing and challenge evidentiary basis. | Held: Forgery demonstrates knowledge and materiality; Dynamic Visions liable under FCA. |
| Is Isaiah Bongam individually liable under the FCA (personal scienter)? | Government argues Bongam supervised operations and was aware or reckless; alternatively, veil piercing is warranted. | Bongam denies knowledge and control over all account activity; offers self-serving affidavits. | Held: Insufficient direct evidence to grant summary judgment on Bongam’s personal scienter; summary judgment denied on that narrow basis. |
| Should the Court pierce the corporate veil to hold Bongam personally liable for Dynamic Visions’ FCA violations? | Evidence of sole ownership/control, commingling/diversion of funds, same business/home address, transfers after government search, and obstruction make piercing necessary to avoid inequity. | Defendants’ denials are unsupported and self-serving; challenge is raised but no factual support provided. | Held: Court pierces the veil—unity of interest and inequity established—and holds Bongam personally liable for corporate conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show more than metaphysical doubt)
- United States v. Sci. Applications Int’l Corp., 626 F.3d 1257 (knowledge and materiality under implied-certification theory)
- Labadie Coal Co. v. Black, 672 F.2d 92 (piercing corporate veil framework)