| |||||||||||
|
Med data defendants banned from selling medical billing work-at-home business opportunitiesCase Was Part of “Project Busted Opportunity” Sweep
The FTC’s complaint named Charles Lloyd, Healthcare Claims Network, Inc., d/b/a Med Data Solutions and Southern California Billing Services, Anne Miller, and Stanford Miller. The Commission approved a settlement with Anne and Stanford Miller in February 2003. The proposed settlement announced today resolves the case against the only remaining defendants. “Project Busted Opportunity” was a law enforcement sweep launched by the FTC, the Department of Justice, and 17 state law enforcement agencies targeting fraudulent work-at-home business opportunities. The FTC’s complaint alleged that the defendants promised that, for $485, they would provide consumers with everything necessary to perform medical billing services from home, including training, a list of doctors in need of home-based medical billers, and the software to perform the work. Instead, the FTC alleged, the defendants provided consumers with inadequate training and medical billing software that many consumers were unable to use. In addition, consumers allegedly found that the doctors on the defendants’ list had no need for at-home billing services. As a result, the FTC alleged, consumers were unable to earn any income using the defendants’ medical billing packages. In addition to the ban against the defendants, the settlement announced today prohibits Med Data from misrepresenting:
In addition, the settlement prohibits the defendants from selling their customer lists and seeking to collect payment from their customers for any work-at-home opportunity. The settlement includes a suspended judgment of $2.7 million if it is found that the defendants misrepresented their financial conditions. Finally, the settlement contains various recordkeeping provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants’ compliance with the final order. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the proposed stipulated final judgment and order was 5-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, and requires the court’s approval. |
|
|
|