Plastic Surgery Fraud Prosecutions
1) United States v. Michael Salzhauer (2018) – Medical Marketing Fraud
Facts: Dr. Michael Salzhauer, a plastic surgeon in New York, was accused of falsely advertising surgical procedures on social media. He allegedly made unsubstantiated claims about procedure outcomes and recovery times to attract patients, some of whom paid large sums upfront.
Charges: Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343), false claims to induce payment, and deceptive advertising.
Outcome: Dr. Salzhauer settled with the federal authorities, agreeing to repay patients for certain procedures and implement compliance oversight for advertising.
Significance: Demonstrates that exaggerated or misleading medical marketing targeting consumers can trigger federal fraud prosecution.
2) United States v. Kambiz Tajkarimi (2016) – Cosmetic Surgery Insurance Fraud
Facts: Dr. Tajkarimi, a California-based plastic surgeon, billed insurance companies for cosmetic procedures that were purely aesthetic but falsely coded them as medically necessary reconstructive surgeries.
Charges: Health care fraud (18 U.S.C. §1347), conspiracy to commit health care fraud, and false statements.
Outcome: Tajkarimi pled guilty, received prison time, and was ordered to pay substantial restitution to the affected insurance providers.
Significance: Clarifies that misrepresenting cosmetic procedures as medically necessary to obtain insurance reimbursement constitutes criminal fraud.
3) State of Florida v. Frank Ryan (2019) – Unlicensed Cosmetic Procedures
Facts: Frank Ryan, claiming to be a licensed surgeon, performed liposuction and other cosmetic procedures without proper medical credentials. Patients were misled about his qualifications, resulting in complications and injuries.
Charges: Practicing medicine without a license, fraud, and battery.
Outcome: Convicted on all counts, Ryan was sentenced to multiple years in prison and ordered to pay restitution to victims.
Significance: Shows that fraud prosecutions apply not only to billing misrepresentations but also to credential deception that endangers patients.
4) United States v. Farzad Khorasani (2020) – Botox & Injectable Fraud
Facts: Dr. Khorasani, operating in Texas, purchased cheap, counterfeit Botox and dermal fillers and injected them into patients while representing them as authentic, FDA-approved products.
Charges: Health care fraud, misbranding drugs (21 U.S.C. §331), and wire fraud.
Outcome: Convicted on all counts, sentenced to prison, and ordered to pay restitution to affected patients.
Significance: Highlights that fraud involving counterfeit or unapproved medical products is both health care fraud and criminal misbranding, elevating liability beyond standard consumer fraud.
5) United States v. Steven Siegel (2017) – Insurance Kickback Scheme
Facts: Dr. Siegel allegedly conspired with medical billing companies to inflate cosmetic procedure codes to insurance carriers. Patients were told procedures were covered by insurance, but the primary motive was financial gain for the surgeon and billing partner.
Charges: Health care fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and kickback violations under the Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. §1320a-7b(b)).
Outcome: Pleaded guilty and received prison time; also ordered to pay restitution exceeding $1 million.
Significance: Illustrates that combining insurance fraud with kickbacks in plastic surgery schemes triggers severe federal liability.
6) State of New York v. Unlicensed Cosmetic Clinics (Multiple Cases, 2018–2021)
Facts: Several clinics falsely advertised themselves as offering board-certified plastic surgery. Investigations revealed unlicensed practitioners performing Botox injections, lip fillers, and chemical peels, with some patients suffering serious injuries.
Charges: Practicing medicine without a license, consumer fraud, and false advertising.
Outcome: Multiple convictions; fines, restitution to patients, and closure of offending clinics.
Significance: Reinforces that fraud prosecutions can target both individuals and business entities engaged in deceptive cosmetic medical services.
7) Key Legal Takeaways Across These Cases
Wire and Health Care Fraud: Misrepresentation of procedure necessity, product authenticity, or outcomes can constitute federal fraud.
Insurance Fraud: Billing cosmetic procedures as medically necessary for insurance reimbursement is a major prosecutable offense.
Credential Deception: Performing procedures without proper licensing exposes surgeons and clinics to criminal liability.
Consumer Protection and State Laws: Many prosecutions involve violations of state medical licensing laws and deceptive advertising statutes.
Counterfeit or Misbranded Products: Using unapproved injectables or counterfeit surgical products triggers both health care and drug misbranding statutes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments