The Department of Justice’s recent press-release activity points to a notable trend for legal professionals: federal enforcement remains active on multiple fronts at once. In late July and early August, DOJ announcements reflected a steady mix of healthcare-fraud resolutions, terrorism-related charges, and other criminal prosecutions, underscoring that the government is continuing to deploy both its criminal and civil tools aggressively across industries and fact patterns.

That matters because the news is not just about any single headline-making case.

The Justice Department has announced a $36.4 million settlement with Access DX Laboratory, its former CEO Michael Stewart, and Florida businessman Harold Shatz to resolve allegations that the defendants participated in a kickback-driven scheme involving medically unnecessary genetic testing billed to Medicare and Medicaid. The case is the latest sign that federal healthcare-fraud enforcement remains sharply focused on laboratory testing arrangements, referral relationships, and claims tied to questionable medical necessity.

According to the government, the settlement resolves allegations under the False Claims Act arising from payments intended to generate referrals for expensive genetic tests, along with the submission of claims to federal healthcare programs for tests that were not medically necessary.

The Fifth Circuit has affirmed the convictions of former Boston Heart Diagnostics executives and sales representatives in a criminal Anti-Kickback Statute case arising from what prosecutors described as a sham management-services organization structure used to funnel payments to physicians in exchange for referrals. The decision in United States v. Theiler leaves intact conspiracy convictions tied to a broader healthcare-billing and referral scheme involving Boston Heart Diagnostics, Inc. and several individual defendants, including Susan Hertzberg, Matthew Theiler, David Kraus, and Thomas Hardaway.

For healthcare enforcement practitioners, the ruling is a notable appellate endorsement of the government’s theory that formally documented business arrangements can still amount to criminal kickback conduct when the substance of the arrangement is referral-driven.

Federal authorities have announced a $24 million civil fraud settlement involving a Dallas laboratory and certain owners and investors over alleged misconduct tied to COVID-19 testing. The resolution is a notable reminder that pandemic-era billing practices remain a live enforcement priority, especially where the government believes testing claims were inflated, medically unnecessary, or otherwise noncompliant.

Although the matter was resolved through settlement rather than a litigated judgment, the size of the payment underscores how aggressively the Department of Justice continues to use civil fraud tools in the healthcare space.

The Justice Department has announced one of its largest coordinated healthcare fraud enforcement actions to date, charging 455 defendants in connection with more than $6.5 billion in alleged false claims.

The Justice Department has announced an $8.33 million settlement with Modern Nuclear to resolve allegations that the company paid unlawful kickbacks to medical practices tied to its mobile PET scan services, leading to claims reimbursed by federal healthcare programs. While the matter was resolved without a determination of liability, the settlement is a notable reminder that the government continues to treat kickback-driven referral arrangements as a core healthcare-fraud enforcement priority.

According to the government’s allegations, the company’s financial arrangements with physician practices crossed the line from legitimate business relationships into conduct that potentially violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. That matters because claims submitted to federal programs that are allegedly tainted by kickbacks can also trigger liability under the False Claims Act, dramatically increasing exposure through treble damages and per-claim penalties.

For legal and compliance professionals, the case underscores a recurring enforcement theory: even when the underlying services are medically appropriate, the manner in which referrals are obtained can create FCA risk.