United States v. Dynamic Visions, Inc.
2017 WL 1476102
D.D.C.2017Background
- The United States sued Dynamic Visions, Inc. and its owner Isaiah Bongam under the False Claims Act, alleging home‑health Medicaid claims (2006–2009) lacked required physician‑signed plans of care or contained forged/untimely signatures.
- The Court granted summary judgment to the Government on December 6, 2016, finding Dynamic Visions submitted false claims and piercing the corporate veil to hold Bongam individually liable for liability.
- Bongam filed a Motion to Set Aside the December 6, 2016 Order (construed as a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or relief under Rule 60(b)).
- Bongam’s motion raised: (a) lack of counsel at times, (b) alleged corporate minutes discharging him in 2008, and (c) patient‑file evidence purportedly undermining falsity/forgery findings.
- The Court denied the motion: Bongam was previously represented; the minutes were not newly‑discovered evidence and did not demonstrate cessation of control; many documents were withheld during discovery and precluded by a contempt/order; and prior summary judgment rulings already addressed Bongam’s substantive arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should reconsider/set aside December 6, 2016 summary judgment | Govt: No—summary judgment liability was properly decided; documents withheld by Defendants are precluded | Bongam: Relief required in interest of justice; new evidence (minutes, patient records) and lack of counsel warrant reconsideration | Denied — Bongam failed to show injustice, evidence was withheld/not newly discoverable, and arguments were previously litigated |
| Whether Bongam can challenge veil‑piercing via alleged 2008 corporate minutes | Govt: Minutes were produced late and do not negate Bongam’s persistent control | Bongam: Minutes show he was discharged/quitclaimed from activities in 2008 | Denied — minutes do not show cessation of control and were not timely presented |
| Whether specific patient records negate falsity/forgery findings | Govt: Defendants were precluded from relying on documents not identified in discovery; physicians swore signatures were forged | Bongam: Medical records show plans of care authorized or signed | Denied — documents were not produced in discovery and the Court already found affidavits showing forgery uncontradicted |
| Whether typographical/recipient‑number errors defeat liability | Govt: Errors were clerical and corrected; Defendants always knew the patient identities | Bongam: Some recipient numbers were not on earlier government lists, challenging specific claims | Denied — clerical errors immaterial; issue previously considered and rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. George Washington Univ., 383 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2005) (standard for reconsideration under Rule 54(b))
- Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266 (D.D.C. 2004) (factors for granting reconsideration)
- Cobell v. Norton, 355 F. Supp. 2d 531 (D.D.C. 2005) (movant must show injury from denial of reconsideration)
- United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 Pension v. Pittston Co., 984 F.2d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (Rule 60(b) relief is discretionary)
- Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (denial of reconsideration affirmed when no new arguments presented)
- State of N.Y. v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 37 (D.D.C. 1995) (reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue previously rejected matters)
- Aleutian Pribilof Islands Ass’n, Inc. v. Kempthorne, 537 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (courts generally do not consider new arguments first raised in a reply)