Wound Care Fraud Indictments in DOJ's 2026 Takedown: Four Skin Substitute Cases Explained
In June 2026, federal grand juries in the Southern District of California, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Texas, and the Northern District of Texas returned indictments against wound care providers and a skin substitute distributor. DOJ announced the cases as part of its 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, the sequel to the record 2025 takedown that made amniotic allograft billing a national enforcement priority. The alleged fraudulent claims and program payments across the four cases exceed $1.3 billion.
Skin substitutes were once a niche corner of Medicare Part B. Not anymore. Until January 2026, certain amniotic allograft products reimbursed at more than $2,000 per square centimeter. A single application to a single wound could generate a six-figure claim. The government noticed. The Health Care Fraud Unit, HHS-OIG, and CMS program integrity contractors are now moving against providers, distributors, and sales representatives across the country.
This article analyzes the four indictments: United States v. Cardenas, No. 3:26-cr-02236 (S.D. Cal.); United States v. Tesar, No. 8:26-cr-00216 (M.D. Fla.); United States v. Yukee, No. 4:26-cr-370 (S.D. Tex.); and United States v. McMillan, No. 3:26-cr-310 (N.D. Tex.). Together they show how the government builds these prosecutions, what theories it relies on, and where those theories are vulnerable. An indictment contains allegations only. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Why Wound Care Fraud Is Now a Federal Enforcement Priority
Medicare spending on skin substitutes exploded over three years. The reason is structural. Before CMS publishes an Average Sales Price for a new allograft product, Medicare contractors reimburse based on the price the manufacturer charges. Manufacturers set list prices at extraordinary levels. Providers who applied the products captured the spread. Distributors built commission networks around it. The economics drew in legitimate clinicians and opportunists alike.
The four June 2026 indictments were returned within days of each other and share statutory architecture, factual theories, and even paragraph structure. Four grand juries did not produce matching charging documents by coincidence. The Fraud Section in Washington coordinated the filings, and DOJ announced them alongside hundreds of other cases in its 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown.
Providers who billed Medicare or TRICARE for allografts should expect this to continue. Audits, payment suspensions, civil investigative demands, and grand jury subpoenas are the visible edge of a much larger data-driven sweep.
A Direct Continuation of the 2025 National Takedown
These four cases did not appear out of nowhere. They are the second act of an enforcement campaign that began publicly on June 30, 2025, when DOJ announced its 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, the largest in the department's history. That action charged 324 defendants, including 96 licensed medical professionals, in schemes involving more than $14.6 billion in intended loss. Wound care led the announcement. Prosecutors in Arizona and Nevada charged seven defendants, five of them medical professionals, with roughly $1.1 billion in fraudulent allograft claims. The core allegations should sound familiar by now: medically unnecessary grafts applied to elderly hospice patients, without coordination with treating physicians, without infection treatment, to superficial wounds, and across areas far larger than the wounds themselves.
The 2025 takedown also announced the infrastructure that produced the 2026 cases. DOJ, HHS-OIG, and FBI launched a Health Care Fraud Data Fusion Center to pool claims data, cloud computing, and analytics across agencies. Twelve months later, that investment paid off. DOJ's 2026 takedown charged 455 defendants in connection with more than $6.5 billion in alleged fraud, and the department credited its Data Analytics Team with detecting the spike in allograft payments that generated the wound care prosecutions. Eleven defendants, including a company executive and eight medical professionals, were charged across six districts in the wound care category. The four indictments analyzed here were returned during that takedown window, and DOJ's announcement featured the Yukee and Tesar cases by name and dollar figure.
The continuity runs deeper than timing. Defendants from the earlier wave are now being sentenced. In 2025, the owners of a wound graft company received 15.5 and 14 year sentences in a $1.2 billion allograft scheme and agreed to pay $309 million to resolve parallel civil claims. The 2026 takedown added a charge against that company's vice president of sales. CMS moved on the payment side as well, realigning Medicare's allograft reimbursement to $127 per square centimeter effective January 1, 2026. By CMS's own estimate, allograft spending left unchecked would have raised every Medicare beneficiary's Part B premium by $11 per month. We covered the same enforcement pattern in our earlier analysis of the Ellsworth skin substitute prosecution.
The message for anyone who billed allografts between 2021 and 2026 is direct. The billing data already exists. The analytics already ran. Cases now originate from payment spikes, and the indictments arrive in coordinated waves each June.
The Charges Common to All Four Indictments
The four cases charge a consistent set of federal offenses. Each carries severe penalties, and each is built to support forfeiture of everything the government can trace to the billing. The firm's guides to defending health care fraud charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and Anti-Kickback Statute charges cover the elements, penalties, and defenses for the two statutes at the center of every one of these indictments.
Forfeiture drives the early phase of these cases. The government has already seized bank accounts, investment accounts, homes, and vehicles before trial. Forfeiture under the federal fraud and abuse statutes targets gross proceeds, not profit. A provider who billed $10 million and netted $1 million after product costs still faces a forfeiture theory built on the full $10 million.
The Four Indictments
| Case | Defendants | Core Theory | Alleged Billing |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Cardenas S.D. Cal. | Blanca Cardenas, a nurse practitioner, and Raquel Pasillas, an unlicensed family member | Billing under the NP's provider number while she was incarcerated on a prior felony | $9.5 million billed; $5.5 million paid |
| U.S. v. Tesar M.D. Fla. | Leigh Tesar, a nurse practitioner, and registered nurses Walter Presha, Jr. and Koby Evans | Sham sales agreements concealing per-referral kickbacks; medically unnecessary grafts | $118 million billed; $61 million paid |
| U.S. v. Yukee S.D. Tex. | Marizel Yukee, a nurse practitioner operating four multi-state clinics | Grafts applied to terminally ill hospice patients; inflated invoice pricing; distributor kickbacks through a shell entity | $906 million billed; $297 million paid |
| U.S. v. McMillan N.D. Tex. | Michael McMillan, owner of the Protectus skin substitute companies | Profit-split model guaranteeing providers 30 to 40 percent of every reimbursed claim | $268 million paid on claims; $94 million in alleged kickbacks |
United States v. Cardenas (S.D. Cal.): Billing While Incarcerated
The San Diego indictment charges nurse practitioner Blanca Cardenas and her co-defendant Raquel Pasillas, a family member who holds no medical license. The allegation is simple. Cardenas pleaded guilty to a prior felony, self-surrendered to federal prison in April 2024, and served six months. Over roughly those six months, her companies, Mobile Care Medical Providers and B&R Wound Care, billed Medicare $9.5 million for wound care services listing Cardenas as the rendering provider. The government alleges Pasillas actually treated patients. The indictment adds that more than $4.7 million in cash was withdrawn from the companies' accounts while Cardenas was in custody, with monthly deposits flowing into the defendants' personal accounts.
The legal framework is Medicare's "incident to" billing rule, codified at 42 C.F.R. § 410.26. Services performed by auxiliary personnel can be billed under a supervising practitioner's number only if that practitioner provides direct supervision. Pandemic-era flexibilities relaxed direct supervision to immediate availability by real-time audio-visual communication. The government's theory is that a practitioner in federal custody satisfies neither standard. The charges are conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, substantive health care fraud under § 1347, and forfeiture.
United States v. Tesar (M.D. Fla.): Sales Representatives as Referral Conduits
The Tampa indictment charges nurse practitioner Leigh Tesar, who operated Tesar Primecare, and registered nurses Walter Presha, Jr. and Koby Evans, who signed on as "sales representatives" for an allograft distributor. The government alleges the sales agreements were shams. The real deal, according to the indictment, was 20 percent of invoiced product in exchange for referring Medicare beneficiaries with wounds. Charged kickback payments include $397,570 to Presha and $10,998 to Evans on a single day in August 2025.
The indictment quotes the defendants' own messages. Tesar allegedly texted Presha that she could "go from room to room looking for wounds," followed immediately by an acknowledgment that doing so might be illegal. She later allegedly warned Evans not to reveal that she had discussed kickback amounts. The indictment also alleges patient inducements, including waived copays, free supplies, jewelry, and a leather recliner.
Two further allegations round out the case. The indictment charges claims for graft applications that were never performed at all. And it alleges that after a Medicare audit began, Tesar removed her name as owner of Primecare in state corporate records while secretly retaining control, in order to evade program scrutiny. The government has already seized more than $11.7 million from Tesar's accounts and seeks forfeiture of over $61 million from her, $3.1 million from Presha, and $263,000 from Evans.
The government's strongest evidence in these cases is rarely the billing data. It is the defendants' own texts and emails quantifying the arrangement.
United States v. Yukee (S.D. Tex.): Hospice Patients and Invoice Manipulation
The Houston indictment is the largest. It charges nurse practitioner Marizel Yukee, who operated four wound care clinics: Wound Medic in Texas, My BestHealth First in Nevada, AllCare Mobile Wound Treatment in California, and Oracle Wound Treatment in Hawaii. The alleged claims to Medicare and TRICARE exceed $906 million, averaging more than $1 million in graft claims per Medicare beneficiary. The government's theories stack on top of each other. Grafts were allegedly applied to terminally ill hospice patients, some of whom died within days of application. Claims allegedly misrepresented the clinics' actual acquisition cost, in violation of Medicare contractor rules requiring disclosure of the total invoice price net of all discounts and rebates. The distributor allegedly paid Yukee nearly $16 million in kickbacks through a shell company nominally owned by a family member. The kickbacks allegedly ran in both directions. Yukee is charged with paying inducements herself, including travel for a facility administrator who promised patient referrals in return. And after a Medicare audit began, Yukee allegedly directed staff to add conservative treatment documentation to patient records created more than a year earlier.
The retroactive documentation allegation is the most dangerous fact in the indictment. Altering records in response to an audit converts a coverage dispute into evidence of consciousness of guilt.
United States v. McMillan (N.D. Tex.): The Distributor Model
The Dallas indictment approaches the same industry from the supply side. Michael McMillan, who owned the Protectus family of skin substitute companies, allegedly recruited physicians, podiatrists, and nurse practitioners with a profit-split arrangement. Products shipped at no upfront cost. If a claim was denied, the provider owed nothing. Once the program paid, Protectus invoiced the provider for only 60 to 70 percent of the reimbursement. The provider kept the rest, a guaranteed 30 to 40 percent margin on every claim. Protectus also assisted with the billing itself. Sales representatives earned commissions tied to the reimbursements their recruited providers generated, allegedly collecting $27 million.
The government alleges McMillan paid $94 million in kickbacks to providers and caused $268 million in payments from Medicare, TRICARE, and CHAMPVA. The indictment also alleges that claims misrepresented acquisition cost in the price disclosure field on the claim form. The charged conduct runs from 2019 into 2026, the longest period of the four cases. DOJ credits its data analysts with detecting the national spike in allograft payments that generated these prosecutions, and the lookback in that data runs the better part of a decade.
The Common Threads Across All Four Cases
Read together, the indictments reveal the government's playbook for wound care prosecutions.
The product is the case. Every indictment centers on amniotic allografts billed under Medicare Part B. Two of the four also name TRICARE or CHAMPVA as victim programs. The per-unit reimbursement created spreads that the government now characterizes as inherently corrupting.
Coverage criteria supply the fraud theory. All four indictments track Local Coverage Determinations published in the CMS Medicare Coverage Database. The recurring requirements: four weeks of documented conservative treatment before graft application, no application to infected wounds, no repeat applications after a failed course, and one product per ulcer per treatment episode.
Kickbacks dressed as commerce. Three of the four cases allege the same structure. Percentage-based compensation flowed through "sales representative" or "distributor" relationships. The government contends the commercial label concealed payment for referrals or purchases.
Enrollment certifications as the falsity hook. Each indictment cites the defendant's Medicare enrollment certifications, in which the provider agreed to comply with program rules and the Anti-Kickback Statute. Prosecutors use those certifications to argue every subsequent claim was impliedly false. The same certifications can support separate charges for false statements in health care matters, which prosecutors hold in reserve when the fraud counts face proof problems.
Lifestyle evidence. The indictments catalog Ferraris, a private jet, an $865,000 necklace, a beach resort, and a stadium luxury suite. None of that is an element of any offense. All of it is jury narrative. The government intends to try these cases as greed stories.
Where the Indictments Are Vulnerable
These are aggressive charging documents. Aggressive charging documents have weaknesses.
LCD Noncompliance Is Not Criminal Falsity
Local Coverage Determinations are contractor coverage guidance. They are not statutes. They are not regulations. A claim that fails LCD criteria is deniable, but denial and fraud are different things. Where the government's theory reduces to a disagreement about wound treatment decisions, the defense has room. A graft application supported by a genuine, contemporaneous clinical assessment raises a payment dispute. Criminal falsity requires proof of intent to deceive, and courts have repeatedly recognized that claims resting on reasonable exercises of clinical judgment cannot support fraud liability without more.
The Invoice-Price Theory Rests on Contractor Bulletins
Two of the four indictments criminalize billing above acquisition cost. But the obligation to report the "total invoice price" net of rebates comes from Medicare contractor instructions, not from statute or notice-and-comment rulemaking. That opens fair-notice and due-process arguments. It also complicates the government's burden on willfulness. What a provider actually understood about pre-ASP pricing rules is a genuine factual question, and contractor guidance that shifted over time cuts in the defense's favor.
Percentage Compensation Is Not Automatically Illegal
The Anti-Kickback Statute contains statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors. Commission-based marketing compensation occupies contested legal ground, and the statute requires proof that each defendant acted knowingly and willfully. That burden is heaviest for downstream participants. A sales representative who signed a contract drafted by others, performed some genuine marketing work, and relied on the company's structure has a real willfulness defense. So does a provider who never saw the distributor's internal commission math.
Aggregate Numbers Hide Thin Claim-Level Proof
Nine-figure billed amounts are inflammatory. They are also legally beside the point. Paid amounts control loss, and even paid amounts must be reduced for services actually rendered with clinical benefit. The executed counts in these indictments are strikingly modest in places. The Cardenas indictment charges individual executions with paid amounts under $100, and its final count involves a claim dated the day after her release from custody, when she was again available to supervise. When the government's specific counts look that thin against its headline numbers, the claim-by-claim proof deserves hard scrutiny.
Attribution and Conduit Problems
Where kickbacks allegedly flowed through distributors, shell entities, or family members, the government must trace knowledge and intent to each individual defendant. Co-defendants with no billing role, no license, or a purely ministerial function have meaningful arguments that they lacked the specific intent these statutes require.
Cherry-Picked Communications
The quoted texts are damaging. But indictments quote selectively. Full message threads often contain compliance questions, reliance on billers and consultants, and context that blunts the government's soundbites. The complete record rarely reads the way the indictment does.
What This Enforcement Wave Means for Wound Care Providers
The June 2026 indictments will not be the last. The billing data that generated these four cases exists for every provider who submitted allograft claims. Data analytics flag outliers. Outliers draw audits. Audits draw referrals to HHS-OIG and DOJ. Providers, medical directors, distributors, and sales representatives in this space face parallel exposure: criminal prosecution, civil False Claims Act liability, payment suspension, and exclusion from federal programs.
Defending Executives and Providers in Wound Care Cases Nationwide
Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends company owners, executives, nurse practitioners, physicians, medical directors, and sales representatives in federal wound care and skin substitute investigations across the country. The four June 2026 cases were prosecuted by DOJ's Health Care Fraud Strike Force teams and U.S. Attorney's Offices in California, Florida, and Texas. Those districts sit at the center of the Strike Force footprint, which also includes South Florida, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, Brooklyn, New Jersey, and the Gulf Coast. The firm is built to practice in every one of them, and in any other federal district where a wound care case lands.
The firm's founding partners built these cases before they defended them. Scott Armstrong served as an Assistant Chief in the Fraud Section's Health Care Fraud Unit and tried sixteen federal cases, including nine health care fraud jury trials built on medical necessity and kickback theories. Drew Bradylyons supervised the Fraud Section's South Florida Strike Force, the unit's busiest docket, and investigated cases involving more than $1 billion in alleged false claims. Their work in these investigations begins where the government's does: the claims data, the LCD criteria, the distributor contracts, and the communications the prosecution will quote at trial. In a distributor case, that means separating a lawful commercial model from the profit-split the government charged in McMillan. In a provider case, it means reconstructing the clinical record and the treatment judgment behind each contested application. The firm's health care fraud defense and wound care fraud defense pages describe this work in detail.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is skin substitute or amniotic allograft fraud?
Skin substitute fraud refers to federal criminal and civil theories built around billing Medicare, TRICARE, or other federal programs for bioengineered wound care products, most commonly amniotic membrane allografts made from human placental tissue. The government's theories generally fall into four categories: applying grafts that were not medically necessary under coverage criteria, billing for grafts never applied, misrepresenting the price the provider actually paid for the product, and procuring graft referrals or purchases through kickbacks. Until CMS realigned payment to $127 per square centimeter effective January 1, 2026, certain allografts reimbursed at more than $2,000 per square centimeter, so claim volumes escalated quickly. Prosecutors charge these cases under the health care fraud statute, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and money laundering statutes.
How do the 2026 wound care indictments relate to DOJ's 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown?
They are one continuous campaign. The June 2025 takedown was the largest in DOJ history, charging 324 defendants in schemes involving over $14.6 billion in intended loss. Wound care led that announcement, with seven defendants charged in Arizona and Nevada over roughly $1.1 billion in allograft claims involving elderly hospice patients. DOJ used the 2025 takedown to launch its Health Care Fraud Data Fusion Center, which pools claims data and analytics across the Fraud Section, HHS-OIG, and FBI. The June 2026 takedown charged 455 defendants in connection with over $6.5 billion in alleged fraud, including 11 wound care defendants across six districts. The Cardenas, Tesar, Yukee, and McMillan indictments were returned during that takedown window, and DOJ credited its data analysts with detecting the allograft payment spike that generated the prosecutions. CMS acted in parallel, cutting Medicare's allograft payment to $127 per square centimeter on January 1, 2026, and suspending or revoking billing privileges for more than 2,400 providers. Wound care providers should expect the pattern to repeat in future takedowns.
What federal charges appear in wound care fraud indictments?
The recent wave of wound care indictments follows a consistent pattern. Prosecutors charge health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and conspiracy under § 1349, with individual claims charged as separate counts. Kickback allegations appear as substantive counts under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b) and as conspiracy counts under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Where fraud proceeds funded real estate, vehicles, or investments, prosecutors add transactional money laundering counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Every indictment includes forfeiture allegations reaching gross proceeds, which allows pretrial seizure of bank accounts and property. Health care fraud carries up to 10 years per count, and money laundering carries up to 10 years per transaction.
Are Medicare Local Coverage Determinations legally binding in a criminal case?
Local Coverage Determinations are coverage policies issued by Medicare Administrative Contractors, not statutes or regulations. They define when a contractor considers an item or service reasonable and necessary for payment purposes. In wound care prosecutions, the government relies on LCD requirements, such as four weeks of documented conservative treatment before graft application, to argue that noncompliant claims were fraudulent. The defense response is that failing a coverage criterion makes a claim deniable, not criminal. Fraud requires proof of intent to deceive. A provider who exercised genuine clinical judgment, documented the wound, and believed the treatment was appropriate has a medical necessity defense even where an LCD criterion was arguably unmet. The gap between coverage guidance and criminal falsity is one of the most heavily litigated issues in these cases.
Is percentage-based compensation for sales representatives illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute?
Not automatically. The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits knowingly and willfully paying or receiving remuneration to induce referrals of federal health care program business. Percentage commissions paid to independent sales representatives sit in contested territory because they fall outside the employee safe harbor and often outside the personal services safe harbor. Whether a specific arrangement violates the statute depends on the purpose of the payment, the structure of the relationship, and each participant's knowledge. The statute requires willfulness, meaning the government must prove the defendant knew the conduct was unlawful. HHS-OIG has published extensive guidance on these arrangements, and the analysis is fact-intensive. Recent wound care indictments allege that sales agreements were shams concealing per-referral payments, which is a factual accusation the defense can contest with the actual work performed under the contracts.
Where does DOJ's Health Care Fraud Strike Force prosecute wound care cases?
DOJ's Health Care Fraud Unit operates nine Strike Forces, including teams covering Florida, the Gulf Coast, Texas, Los Angeles, the West Coast, the Midwest, New England, and the Northeast, plus a National Rapid Response Strike Force that charges cases anywhere in the country. The 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown involved 56 federal districts. The June 2026 wound care indictments were returned in the Southern District of California, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Texas, and the Northern District of Texas, with related allograft charges in the District of Arizona. Since 2007, the Strike Force program has charged more than 6,200 defendants accused of billing federal programs and private insurers over $45 billion. Both founding partners of Armstrong & Bradylyons served in the Fraud Section that runs this program. Drew Bradylyons supervised its South Florida Strike Force, and Scott Armstrong tried Strike Force cases in districts across the country, which is the experience the firm brings to defending wound care cases in these same jurisdictions.
What is incident-to billing and why does it appear in wound care prosecutions?
Incident-to billing, governed by 42 C.F.R. § 410.26, allows services performed by auxiliary personnel to be billed under a supervising practitioner's provider number when the practitioner initiated the course of treatment and provides the required level of supervision. In non-facility settings, direct supervision historically required physical presence, relaxed during the public health emergency to immediate availability through real-time audio-visual communication. Wound care prosecutions invoke incident-to rules when claims list a rendering provider who allegedly did not perform or supervise the service. The June 2026 indictment in United States v. Cardenas (S.D. Cal.) alleges $9.5 million in claims listing a nurse practitioner as rendering provider while she was serving a federal prison sentence. The government's burden remains claim-specific: it must prove the billed services failed the applicable supervision standard and that the defendant knew it.
How does the government prove medical necessity fraud in wound care cases?
The government typically combines billing data analytics, patient medical records, expert testimony, and cooperating witnesses. Data identifies outlier patterns: grafts applied without prior conservative treatment, repeat applications after failed courses, applications to hospice patients, and per-patient billing far above peer norms. Experts then testify that the treatment fell outside accepted standards. The most powerful evidence is usually the defendant's own words: texts, emails, and directives to staff. Documentation created or altered after an audit began is treated as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The defense counters with the clinical record as it existed at the time of treatment, the treating provider's judgment, and the difference between a coverage disagreement and an intent to deceive.
What penalties follow a federal health care fraud conviction?
Health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 carries up to 10 years per count, or 20 years if the violation causes serious bodily injury. Anti-Kickback Statute violations carry up to 10 years per count. Money laundering under § 1957 carries up to 10 years per transaction. Sentences are driven by the federal sentencing guidelines, where loss amount is the dominant factor, which is why the fight over intended loss versus actual paid amounts, and over credit for services legitimately rendered, often determines the outcome. Convictions also trigger criminal forfeiture of gross proceeds, restitution to the programs, mandatory exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid, and license revocation proceedings. For clinicians, exclusion frequently ends the ability to practice regardless of the sentence imposed.
What experience does Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC bring to a wound care fraud investigation?
Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC was founded by two former senior officials of DOJ's Fraud Section, the office directing the current wound care enforcement wave. Scott Armstrong served as an Assistant Chief in the Health Care Fraud Unit and tried sixteen complex federal cases, including nine health care fraud jury trials built on the same medical necessity and kickback theories charged in the recent allograft indictments. Drew Bradylyons served over 12 years as a federal prosecutor, supervised the Fraud Section's South Florida Strike Force, and led the Financial Crimes and Public Corruption Unit at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Together with Special Counsel Andrea Savdie, a former Fraud Section trial attorney, the firm's lawyers bring over 25 years of combined DOJ experience and 25 federal jury trials to the defense of providers, distributors, and sales representatives nationwide.
Facing a Federal Wound Care or Skin Substitute Investigation?
Armstrong & Bradylyons PLLC defends nurse practitioners, physicians, clinic owners, distributors, and sales representatives in federal investigations involving skin substitute billing, medical necessity, and the Anti-Kickback Statute. The firm provides a trial-ready defense in complex health care fraud investigations nationwide.
