United States v. Mittal

Background

The Government filed an application, with the consent of Niranjan Kumar Mittal, M.D.; Niranjan K. Mittal, Physician, PLLC d/b/a Carecube; and New York Pet Imaging Center LLC, to stay the civil case. The application sought to pause the case, including discovery required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), while a related criminal case against Niranjan Mittal was pending.

The criminal indictment charged Mittal with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, substantive health care fraud, conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, and a substantive Anti-Kickback Statute violation. The civil complaint and indictment both alleged a scheme involving fabricated patient records, medically unnecessary vascular procedures, and billing insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid. They also alleged that Mittal paid medical professionals for patient referrals while disguising the payments as rent under sham lease agreements. The civil case additionally alleged billing for medically unnecessary cardiac diagnostic imaging studies.

The remaining civil defendant, Divanshu Bansal, had not been served. The Government stated that it did not know Bansal’s position on the application.

Reasoning

The court’s order adopted the Government’s request for a stay based on the court’s authority to pause a civil proceeding when the interests of justice require it. The application identified the factors courts consider: the overlap between the civil and criminal issues, the status of the criminal case, the parties’ interests and potential prejudice, the interests of the court, and the public interest.

The application stated that the cases substantially overlapped because both concerned the alleged health care fraud and kickback schemes. The criminal indictment also weighed in favor of a stay. The Mittal Defendants consented, and the application explained that continuing civil discovery could force Mittal to choose between asserting his constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination in the civil case, potentially allowing an adverse inference there, and waiving that protection in a way that could affect the criminal case.

The application further stated that a stay would prevent civil discovery from being used to bypass restrictions governing criminal discovery. It also argued that resolving the criminal case could simplify the civil case and promote efficient use of judicial resources.

Ruling

The court marked the application “GRANTED.” The civil case is stayed until completion of the trial or other disposition in the criminal case. The parties must file a status letter within six months or when the criminal case is resolved, whichever occurs first. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 8.