UnitedHealthcare Accuses Dallas Labs Of $100M Fraud Scheme

Discussion in 'Laboratory/Diagnostic Sales General Discussion' started by anonymous, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:23 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. The sociology of jealousy deals with cultural and social factors that influence what causes jealousy, how jealousy is expressed, and how attitudes toward jealousy change over time.

    Anthropologists such as Margaret Mead have shown that jealousy varies across cultures. Cultural learning can influence the situations that trigger jealousy and the manner in which jealousy is expressed. Attitudes toward jealousy can also change within a culture over time. For example, attitudes toward jealousy changed substantially during the 1960s and 1970s in the United States. People in the United States adopted much more negative views about jealousy.

    Causes of jealousy[edit source]
    Margaret Mead reports a number of societies in which a man would offer his wife or daughter to others for sexual purposes, as well as cases in which "first wives" in polygamoussocieties would welcome additional wives as enhancing their prestige and lightening their work. She contrasts the Dobuans, whose lives were dominated by jealous guardianship of everything from wives to yams, with the Samoans, among whom jealousy was rare.

    It is possible that Mead's attribution of these differences to social arrangements is correct. Stearns similarly notes that the social history of jealousy among Americans shows a near absence of jealousy in the eighteenth century, when marriages were arranged by parents and close community supervision all but precluded extramarital affairs. As these social arrangements were gradually supplanted by the practice of dating several potential partners before marriage and by more fluid and anonymous living arrangements, jealousy as a social phenomenon correspondingly increased.

    Others have questioned Mead's findings about Samoa. [1] [2] [3][4] Jealousy occurred far more frequently than Mead suggested and often resulted in violence. The Samoans have a word for such violence: fua. It may be that no society has the freedom from jealousy which Mead attributed to the Samoans. The incidence of jealousy may vary across cultures, but jealousy remains a cultural universal nonetheless.

    Changes in attitudes[edit source]
    By the late 1960s and the 1970s, jealousy — particularly sexual jealousy — had come to be seen as both irrational and shameful in some quarters, particularly among advocates of free love.[5] Advocates and practitioners of non-exclusive sexual relationships, believing that they ought not to be jealous, sought to banish or deny jealous reactions to their partners' sexual involvement with others. Many found this unexpectedly difficult, though for others, conscious blocking of the jealous reaction is relatively easy from the start, and over time the reaction can be effectively extinguished.[citation needed] Some studies suggest that jealousy may be reduced in multilateral relationships where there is a clear hierarchy of relationships or where expectations are otherwise fixed. (See Smith and Smith, Beyond Monogamy.) Contemporary practitioners of what is now called polyamory(multiple intimate relationships) for the most part treat jealousy as an inevitable problem, best handled by accommodation and communication. In mainstream society, although jealousy still carries connotations of insecurity, there is a greater tendency to accept it as a normal and expected reaction to a relationship threat.
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Your Correct! Check pacer! It will be able to help you !
     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    1. This litigation is a shakedown by United Healthcare (UHC). Seizing on an opportunity presented by allegedly unscrupulous third-party marketers, UHC is attempting to use litigation to force a small, out-of-network laboratory services provider out of business. Why is UHC stooping to corporate bullying as a tactic? For one, doing so sends a message to other out-of-network providers in Texas—a thriving marketplace for medical innovation—that they must agree to in-network contracts at punitively unfavorable rates or be similarly driven out of existence. For another, winning the lawsuit would allow them to recoup $100 million already paid for legitimately provided laboratory services and avoid paying for $36 million in legitimately provided laboratory services provided since UHC “flagged” Next Health in September of 2016. Even if the lawsuit does not succeed, if it puts Next Health out of business, UHC pockets the $36 million that should have been paid on behalf of UHC beneficiaries but was instead withheld without any legitimate justification. In either scenario, 500 Next Health employees lose their jobs, tens of thousands of UHC beneficiaries are denied legitimate out-of-network benefits, and UHC keeps $36 million to boost its profits and pay millions in bonuses to the management team who authorized the shakedown in the first place.
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    1. This is far from the first time that UHC has perpetrated a fraud on participants in the United States health care marketplace for its own financial gain. UHC currently stands accused by the United States Department of Justice of perpetrating a decade-long, multi-billion dollar fraud by gaming the Medicare Advantage payment system. United States of America ex. rel. Benjamin Poehling v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., Cause No. 2:16-cv-08697, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; see also U.S. ex rel. Swoben v. Secure Horizons et al., Cause No. 2:09-cv-05013, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In those lawsuits, the United States directly accuses UHC of fraud, claiming that over ten years, it conducted illegal chart reviews designed to identify additional diagnosis codes to support higher risk adjustment payments while knowingly avoiding “looking both ways” for diagnosis codes that should have been removed. In doing so, the United States alleges that UHC, through fraud, obtained billions of dollars in risk adjustment payments to which it was not entitled.

    2. UHC’s fraud against the Medicare Advantage system merely continues a long history of defrauding health care payers and providers alike. UHC has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties to a wide array of government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and attorneys general and departments of insurance in dozens of states.
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    1. As an example, UHC fought a long legal battle with the State of California over its misconduct after acquiring PacifiCare in 2005. In 2008, the State of California’s Department of Insurance and Department of Managed Health Care brought a lawsuit seeking $1.6 billion in fines from UHC’s PacifiCare, alleging “large scale and willful decisions” to use broken systems for claim processing and responding to providers. Specifically, the complaint alleged that after UHC acquired PacifiCare in 2005, consumer and provider complaints skyrocketed, resulting in a probe by the departments. The probe uncovered system-wide failures of PacifiCare’s claim processing efforts, deliberate cost saving efforts aimed at increasing profits at the expense of plan members and the health care system in the State of California. While UHC settled the case with one of the two agencies, the other issued a ruling in 2014 fining the insurer a record $173 million dollars. In a 200-page opinion, California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones found that UHC had committed more than 188 violations of the California Insurance Code and Unfair Business Practices Act and 900,000 discrete unfair business practices. Deputy Insurance Commissioner Byron Tucker called the fine “unprecedented,” explaining, “In this case PacifiCare’s conduct was so appalling that two separate elected insurance commissioners found these violations absolutely reprehensible… This is about a billion-dollar out-of-state company that purchased a much smaller well-functioning California insurer and systematically sucked it dry without thought for the consequences to patients or doctors.” And this is not the first time that UHC has been accused by the government of perpetrating a massive fraud to affect claims processing or reimbursement rates. See Press Release, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York Attorney General Announces Usual-and-Customary Database Overhaul Promised in Insurer Settlement (Oct. 27, 2009) available at: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/attorney-general-cuomo-announces-historic-nationwide-reform-consumer-reimbursement (last accessed on 9/22/2017) (settling an investigation into whether UHC manipulated usual-and-customary rates nationwide by deliberate mismanagement of its Ingenix database).

    2. Neither is this the first shakedown against out of network providers by UHC and its management team. In a case currently pending in California, UHC is accused of “marking” an out-of-network pharmacy, intentionally underpaying it by $47 million for home infusion services while funneling business to in-network arrangements that were more profitable for UHC—just as it has done here. See IV Solutions Inc. v. United Healthcare Services Inc. et al, Cause No. 2:16-cv-09598, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Former UHC employees admitted to IV Solutions that these intentional underpayments are part of a company-wide strategy to undercut out-of-network providers in an effort to drive patients to in-network providers, who are more profitable for UHC. Essentially, the scheme allowed UHC to “string along” IV Solutions until it had sufficient suitable in-network replacements to cut IV Solutions off completely. UHC has executed the same underpayment strategy against Next Health.

    3. In another shakedown, UHC sued a group of kidney clinics in Florida, alleging that the clinics coordinated with the American Kidney Foundation to get vulnerable patients with end-stage renal disease to buy health insurance. UnitedHealthcare of Florida Inc. et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc. et al., Cause No. 9:16-cv-81180, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Because private health plans reimbursed more than Medicare and Medicaid reimbursed for the same service, UHC alleged the effort to have people buy health insurance was a fraud perpetrated by the renal care provider. This is not the only case where UHC has taken the position that its beneficiaries are not entitled to lifesaving treatment. See, e.g., Jones v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al., Cause No. 0:15-cv-61144, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (alleging UHC refused to provide medically necessary, lifesaving treatment for Hepatitis C).
     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    1. But some out-of-network providers are fighting back. In a case in Texas, a private out-of-network hospital won the right to sue UHC for damages under ERISA and other Texas statutes for a scheme involving deliberate, fraudulent underpayment of legitimate claims from health care services. See Texas General Hospital, L.P. et al v. United Health Care Insurance Company et al, Cause No. 3:15-cv-02096 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In that case, this Court recognized the rights of an out-of-network provider to seek damages against UHC for wrongfully withholding payment to an out-of-network provider under both ERISA and state law causes of action (breach of contract, promissory estoppel). In the lawsuit, Texas General Hospital accuses UHC of dramatically underpaying the usual, customary, and reasonable reimbursement rates required under the plans. The allegations made by Texas General Hospital demonstrate UHC’s efforts to bully smaller providers and pay less than the amount fairly owed for health care services provided to their beneficiaries. Any dollars that UHC can avoid paying for legitimate claims are dollars that become profit and compensation for their management and executives.

    2. Those fighting back against UHC’s illegal efforts to extract profits include public parties as well as private ones. UHC has paid millions of dollars in fines to federal and state regulators in the last 10 years and spent countless millions in litigation to bully small providers out of providing health care to members of the health plans it administers or owns. To keep its profits, management bonuses, and bounties to third-party processors high, UHC has engaged in a long-standing scheme to shake down smaller, more vulnerable providers to force them to go in-network at rates that benefit UHC and surrender otherwise legitimate claims to payments under health plans owned or administered by UHC. UHC’s scheme has contributed to UHC’s continued growth and incredible profitability. Since 2013, UHC’s reported annual revenues have grown at an astronomical pace – from $113.8 billion 2014 to $185 billion in 2016. Over the last three years, UHC reported $18.4 billion in net income – including $7 billion in 2017 alone.
     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    1. Its former Chief Executive Officer, Stephen J. Hemsley, has been paid a reported $50 million in salaries, and back in 2010, Mr. Hemsley was the highest paid CEO in the country, making a reported $102 million.[1] The preceding CEO, William McGuire, also stepped down following a stock option backdating scandal. McGuire left with a mind numbing severance package worth about $1.6 billion, most of which was in the form of stock options he accumulated over his years at UnitedHealth, as the insurer grew its revenues, income, and share price by withholding payments from services legitimately owed to beneficiaries.

    2. UHC has paid millions of dollars in bounties to third-parties to assist them in “claim recovery” by identifying legitimate claims that can be ignored or unpaid. UHC has achieved these financial results by deliberately underpaying or refusing to pay for medically necessary health care costs for beneficiaries of the health benefit plans it offers, administers or services.

    3. In this litigation, whether UHC wins its lawsuit and runs Next Health out of business or not, the filing of the lawsuit has achieved the desired effect. Negative press coverage, reduced demand from physicians, and adverse actions have all flowed from UHC’s scurrilous allegations and deliberate non-payment of claims for legitimate laboratory services. UHC has rubbed salt in this wound by sending threatening correspondence to some or all of the physicians who used Next Health’s services, notifying them of the litigation, and demanding voluminous discovery about members who had received toxicology services from Next Health. Simply withholding funds that should rightfully be paid has had an adverse effect on Next Health’s ability to continue to do business.


    [1] During negotiations with Next Health over an in-network contract commenced after the Adar Group’s conduct became known to Next Health and UHC, representatives from UHC directly told Next Health attorneys that Mr. Hemsley and the “highest levels of United management” were aware of and had authorized UHC’s actions against Next Health.
     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    1. Despite the fact that UHC has purportedly denied those claims and appears prepared to deny any future claims from Next Health allegedly due to “lack of medical necessity,” those denials are instead a pretext to coerce Next Health to acquiesce to UHC’s demands to forgo the above-referenced millions of dollars in legitimate accounts receivable and go in-network with UHC at punitively below-breakeven rates. UHC only confirmed the artifice of this course of dealing by filing a lawsuit in a Texas federal court seeking repayment of every dollar ever paid to any Next Health affiliate for laboratory testing services since 2011 on the day after proposing an arrangement that would bring Next Health in-network at retributive rates at or below 50% of Medicare.

    2. These and other actions taken by UHC to put litigation pressure on Next Health and exact a pound of flesh without regard to the underlying merit of the submitted claims are prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et. seq., and other federal statutes. Counterclaim-Defendants’ conduct in denying these claims is in clear violation of the terms of Counterclaim-Defendants’ plans or policies of insurance covering the UHC beneficiaries, as well as state and federal law.

    3. The timing of UHC’s actions against Next Health is not coincidentally linked to UHC’s failed attempt to impose the Beacon Laboratory Benefit Management Program in Texas. Beacon is an electronic tool initially piloted by UHC in Florida to steer orders for certain laboratory services to a subset of approved in-network labs that accept the lowest fees from UHC. Adopting the tool—it was scheduled to be implemented in Texas on March 1, 2017—would have given UHC, not the treating physician, significant control over the determination of what laboratory services would be ordered and from what laboratory. After significant opposition from the Texas Medical Association, the Texas Orthopedic Association, the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, the Texas Radiological Society, the Texas Society for Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, the Texas Osteopathic Medical Association, the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Texas Society of Pathologists, the Texas Neurological Society, the Texas Pain Society, the Texas Chapter of the American College of Physicians Services, the Texas Pediatric Society, the Texas Dermatological Society, the Texas Urological Society, the Texas Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Society, the Texas Society of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the Texas Society of Plastic Surgeons, and the Medical Group Management Association of Texas, UHC decided in January of 2017 to put on hold its plans to expand the Beacon Program into Texas. See Texas Medical Association, UHC Delays Beacon Lab Benefit Program (Feb. 15, 2017) (available at: https://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=44222) Not coincidentally, right around this same time, UHC loudly and publicly filed this lawsuit against Next Health. The intent is obvious: after failing to impose an electronic system to force physicians to order in-network laboratory services from its select group of in-network laboratories, UHC chose to impose order on the market for laboratory services in Texas the “old fashioned” way – by making a public example of an out of network laboratory by filing a sensational piece of litigation against Next Health.
     
  9. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    1. Counterclaim-Defendants’ pattern of dramatically underpaying Next Health’s claims for out-of-network laboratory services claims mirrors similar schemes perpetrated by UHC around the country. UHC intended to use Next Health as a whipping boy, punishing it for daring to exist.

    2. But the law permits Next Health to exist. It allows Next Health to offer faster, more reliable laboratory services to UHC beneficiaries on an out-of-network basis. And when those beneficiaries elect to use Next Health’s services, UHC has an obligation to administer the resulting claims in good faith for those members who paid millions of dollars in premiums to have access to out-of-network benefits. UHC has not done so, and it made this decision at the direction of the “highest levels of management” in the company – the CEO, the CFO, its Managed Care Directors, and members of its legal department.

    3. Since February 2015 alone, UHC has underpaid approximately $186,662,419 in out-of-network claims by Next Health for laboratory testing services rendered for UHC beneficiaries, who had expressly negotiated with UHC for coverage that included substantial additional premiums for access to out-of-network providers.

    Since September of 2016, UHC has actively deceived Next Health into providing approximately $36 million in additional laboratory testing services to UHC beneficiaries with out-of-network benefits despite never intending to pay for the value of those—or any other—laboratory testing services provided by Next Health. By “flagging” Next Health, UHC asserted a lack of medical necessity for every claim submitted by any lab connected to Next Health – $36 million in payable claims. Discovery in this case will show that the “medical necessity” denial was a sham intended to put Next Health out of business. Under UHC’s own logic, these amounts are shifted—through UHC’s conduct—to “patient responsibility.” In essence, UHC is attempting through this litigation to put $36 million in its own pocket at the expense of plan beneficiaries who paid premiums for exactly the types of out-of-network services provided by Next Health.
     
  10. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Stock Option Scandal

    In March 2006 UHG faced a major crisis when the Wall Street Journal reported that the company may have backdated stock option grants for officers. In July a BusinessWeek article wondered: “Why does UnitedHealth Group CEO William W. McGuire remain in his job?” In October McGuire, who had received hundreds of millions of dollars in stock option profits over the previous decade, was forced to resign.

    Subsequently, McGuire had to pay $468 million to settle claims brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Additional settlements with the company brought the total that McGuire had to return to more than $600 million. The SEC let UHG off with a slap on the wrist, but the company had to pay more than $900 million to settle shareholder lawsuits brought in connection with the option backdating.




    Ingenix Scandal

    UHG’s next big legal challenge came in February 2008, when Andrew Cuomo, then the Attorney General of New York, announced that he would sue the company for its role in what he called a scheme to “deceive and defraud consumers.” He alleged that the company’s Ingenix database, which was used both by UHG and other insurers to determine how should be reimbursed for out-of-network medical expenses, systematically shortchanged plan members.

    In 2009 the company settled with Cuomo by agreeing to spend $50 million to develop a new and more accurate database for handling out-of-network claims. UHG subsequently agreed to pay $350 million to settle class action lawsuits brought over the issue. Ingenix subsequently changed its name to Optuminsight.


    UHG and the ACA

    While Congress was deliberating over healthcare reform in 2009, UHG was one of the large insurers that went along with the idea but worked against the inclusion of a public option among the choices that would be offered. This position was reinforced by a UHG subsidiary called the Lewin Group, a healthcare consulting business that purported to operate autonomously from its parent. Lewin produced analyses concluding that the adoption of a public option would result in a mass exodus from private plans and jeopardize their future. A Lewin executive made the alarmist statement that the private insurance industry “might just fizzle out altogether” and helped sway Congress to omit the public option from the Affordable Care Act.

    Around the same time, an investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations found that UHG, along with two other insurers, had cancelled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, thereby avoiding payment of more than $300 million in claims over a five-year period.

    In 2013 another UHG subsidiary, Quality Software Services Inc., or QSSI, was at the center of the controversy over the botched rollout of Healthcare.gov, the federal ACA enrollment portal, for which the company received more than $55 million in contracts. Despite its role in producing the flawed site, QSSI was chosen to oversee a revamping of the project. At a Congressional hearing on Healthcare.gov, a UHG executive joined other contractor representatives in putting the blame on their client, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
     
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Sexual Harassment

    In 2007 UHG's Florida subsidiary agreed to pay $1.8 million to settle a same-sex harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which had alleged that high level managers at the company penalized an executive who complained about abusive treatment by a superior.
     
  12. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    CEO William W. McGuire removed in stock scandal
    In 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, and prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office in New York began investigating the conduct of UnitedHealth Group's leadership for backdating stock options. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of UnitedHealth Group was removed from office. The Washington Post said of McGuire, "his greed in amassing $1.1 billion in stock options plus a pension of $5.1 million a year is matched only by the revelation that the board member who chaired the compensation committee had conflicts of interest."
     
  13. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    This story is a collaboration between Kaiser Health News and the Center for Public Integrity.

    United Healthcare Services Inc., which runs the nation’s largest private Medicare Advantage insurance plan, concealed hundreds of complaints of enrollment fraud and other misconduct from federal officials as part of a scheme to collect bonus payments it didn’t deserve, a newly unsealed whistleblower lawsuit alleges.

    The suit, filed by United Healthcare sales agents in Wisconsin, accuses the giant insurer of keeping a “dual set of books” to hide serious complaints about its services and of being “intentionally ineffective” at investigating misconduct by its sales staff. A federal judge unsealed the lawsuit, first filed in October 2016, on Tuesday.

    The company knew of accusations that at least one sales agent forged signatures on enrollment forms and had been the subject of dozens of other misconduct complaints, according to the suit. In another case, a sales agent allegedly engaged in a “brazen kickback scheme” in which she promised iPads to people who agreed to sign up and stay with the health plan for six months, according to the suit.

    Though it fired the female sales agent, United Healthcare concluded the kickback allegations against her were “inconclusive” and did not report the incident to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, according to the suit.

    Asked for comment on the allegations in the suit, United Healthcare spokesman Matt Burns said: “We reject them.”

    Medicare serves about 56 million people, both people with disabilities and those 65 and older. About 19 million have chosen to enroll in Medicare Advantage plans as an alternative to standard Medicare. United Healthcare is the nation’s biggest operator, covering about 3.6 million patients last year.

    The whistleblowers accuse United Healthcare of hiding misconduct complaints from federal officials to avoid jeopardizing its high rankings on government quality scales. These rankings are used both as a marketing tool to entice members and as a way for the government to pay bonuses to high-quality plans.

    Medicare paid United Healthcare $1.4 billion in bonuses in fiscal 2016 based upon their high quality ratings, compared with $564 million in 2015, according to the suit. CMS relies on the health plans to report problems and does not verify the accuracy of these reports before issuing any bonus payments.

    The suit alleges the bonuses were “fraudulently obtained” because the company concealed the true extent of complaints. In March 2016, for instance, the company advised CMS only of 257 serious complaints, or about a third of the 771 actually logged, according to the suit.

    The suit was filed by James Mlaker, of Milwaukee, a sales agent with the insurance plan in Wisconsin, and David Jurczyk, a resident of Waterford, Wis., a sales manager with the company.

    The suit says Jurczyk had access to “dual” complaint databases, described as “the accurate one with a complete list of complaints and more details of the offenses and the fraudulent, truncated one provided to CMS.”

    Jurczyk “has direct, personal knowledge of dozens of cases in Wisconsin alone in which customer complaints raising serious issues were routinely determined and falsely documented as either “inconclusive” or “unsubstantiated” by the company, according to the suit. Overall, about 84 percent of complaints alleging major infractions, such as forging signatures on enrollment forms, were determined to be inconclusive or unsubstantiated, according to the suit.

    According to Mlaker, one sales agent faced little disciplinary action even after allegedly forging a customer’s signature on an enrollment form. The customer was “shocked” to learn that the agent had enrolled him because he had told the agent he was “not interested and did not want to enroll,” according to the complaint.

    As a result, according to the suit, CMS officials never learned of these customer complaints.
     
  14. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    The two men said that in early 2013 they began noticing that investigations of serious customer complaints that previously would have been completed “swiftly” instead “were drawn out; little actual inquiry was made, or even worse, known facts were ignored and discounted to falsify findings,” according to the suit.

    Complaints also brought “much fewer and less serious corrective or disciplinary actions,” according to the suit. According to the suit, United Healthcare took steps to encourage any members with complaints to report them directly to the company rather than to complain to CMS.

    The unsealing of the Wisconsin cases comes as United Healthcare and other Medicare Advantage plans are facing numerous cases brought under the Federal False Claims Act. At least a half-dozen of the whistleblower suits have surfaced since 2014.

    The law allows private citizens to bring actions to recover damages on behalf of the federal government and retain a share. The Justice Department elected not to take over the Wisconsin case, which could limit the amount of money, if any, recovered. United Healthcare spokesman Burns said the company agreed with that decision.

    In May, the Justice Department accused United Healthcare of overcharging the federal government by more than $1 billion by improperly jacking up risk scores over the course of a decade.
     
  15. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I just saw a pretty little sealed criminal indictment sealedHillman and Narosov frauds. Big smiles to honest people. Could take months to unseal but these two are going to jail.
     
  16. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Are you aware that the case from United Healthcare against Andrew Hillman of Dallas Texas aka Andrew Jonathan Hillman has been fully dropped 100% amazing so much stuff online and it was all dropped! So good for Andrew Hillman!
     
  17. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Lots of haters on here so sad!
     
  18. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Agreed! Lots of jealousy here. Congratulations on your vindication.