We hope the information provided below will help you gain insight into the plight of how an innocent man and one of the worlds most gifted doctors became the Scape-Goat for the American Medical System in the United States of America, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave...

What The Jury Didn't Know-The Untold Story

Reported by F. Straus

Dr. Niels Lauersen bristled when a civil fine was levied against him. His poor response to adversity was perhaps understandable but largely inappropriate. He was never trained to be a billing clerk or office administrator but to be a highly skilled and gifted surgeon. Had Niels Lauersen understood then what he does today, he would have paid the civil fine and put the billing irregularities behind him.

When he was charged and tried criminally both Dr. Lauersen; Every person in Dr. Lauersen’s personal life was investigated and/or harassed in the process.Dr. Lauersen was targeted by the health insurance industry and made the scapegoat for abuses that far transcended the billing practices of his office. That his response to the charges made him all the more enticing a target does not diminish the reality that he has been punished disproportionately.

He has paid egregiously for his beliefs in his struggle to advocate for Women’s Health Care Rights. He is a man who choose MEDICINE over money or women. MEDICINE was his wife and the most important thing in his life.

Working as a Consultant for Dr. Lauersen during an eight (8) year period of employment; I felt morally compelled to do whatever was necessary to assure that the Court was made aware that the following information had been withheld from the jury and in some cases from the court unsuccessfully. This suppressed information would have affected the final outcome of Dr. Lauersen’s trial.

To the best of my knowledge and based upon my project documentation; the following information was obtained on a first hand basis.

As U.S.A. v. Lauersen went to trial the following entities paid huge sums of money to the Federal government for Medicare/Medicaid Fraud found within their companies.These type of agreements are called Corporate Integrity Agreements which serve as a civil fine in lieu of going to court in a criminal prosecution. Neither the Court or the Jury were ever made aware of these agreements as Dr. Niels H. Lauersen was on trial. Since many of these entities were mentioned during his trial, didn't the Court and the Jury have a Constitutional Right to know about these pattern of activities which included Dr. Lauersen?

Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Mr. Vincent LaBianca and the FBI

1) I spoke with the Mr. Vincent LaBianca (now deceased former BCBS Fraud Investigator, former FBI agent) in May of 2000.
2) Mr. Vincent LaBianca told me;” I’m going to get Dr. Lauersen, I called my friend at the FBI and I’m going to make my career on him. All these rich guys”..
3) I told him that as a computer expert whose work “had helped the Federal Government to identify health care fraud and encourage greater attention to the issue”. (see Ex. A. from Professor Schechter dated April 25th 2000). I asked Mr. LaBianca if I could come downtown and met with him face to face at WTC) so he could explain to me what fraud he believed had been committed.
4) He refused.
5) I explained that Blue Cross Blue Shield has now told me 6 times that they do not have a code for Dr. Lauersen’s type of dual-procedure and Blue Cross Blue Shield is refusing to give Dr. Lauersen instructions in writing or verbally in regards as to how to properly get reimbursement.
6) Mr. LaBianca refused to provide codes for proper billing ending the conversation with; "I’m going to get that Lauersen”.
7)As a result of all this attention Mr. LaBianca’s called Blue Cross/Blue Shield of MA. Dr. Lauersen had 1 IVF patient in that state. BCBS was forced to agree to sign a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Dept. of Justice and repay millions of dollars in over-billings. See Exh.A They had to repay over $200 Million+ dollars to the United States government. Later Mr. LaBianaca died in a bizarre homicide/suicide.See Exh B

Blue Cross sent a representative to testify that had Dr. Lauersen advised the insurance company that he was performing two separate procedures during one operation they would have given him the proper billing code. THIS WAS BLANTANLY UNTRUE.

We called BC/BS many times and every time they told me to have Dr. Lauersen’s office pick the closest code himself. BC/BS stated; "we don’t have a code, we have nothing to send you in writing.

In the United States of America, there is a constitutional law called Brady v. Maryland.

Three situations where Brady applies:
1. State's case included perjured testimony of which prosecutor knew or should have known;
2. Defense requested but was denied specific evidence material to guilt;
3. Defense made general request but prosecution suppressed evidence of sufficient probative value to create reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The government had violated Brady v. Maryland.; by it's failure to disclose the Blue Cross Blue Shield Corporate Integrity Agreements. The New York State Agreement was a $228 Million Dollar REPAYMENT to the United States government for charging OVER PAYMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Why didn’t the government call supposed Former, FBI agent LaBianca to testify? He helped the government construct their case against Dr. Lauersen..He told me that he was the person who told the insurance companies to call the FBI and not to pay Dr. Lauersens claims.

If you had been a Juror and known this information how would it have affected your belief that the insurance companies had not been TRUTHFUL?

Dr. Magda Binion

1) She confessed to me and one of the lawyers that Dr. Lauersen had nothing to go with the fraud and she felt bad and was very sad.
2) She had been threatened by Neil Ratner. She told me he came to her children’s school with guns and told her if she didn’t do what she was told they would kill her and her children. She said that Neil Ratner and the dentist had threatened her life.

3) She told us that Dr. Lauersen was innocent of the crimes he was being charged with concerning the physical records that had been replaced by Yanni A. for Neil Ratner.

(During a 7 day period in Jan 2000, I sleep in Dr. Lauersen’s office at night and saw Yanni A. changing records in his office where the IVF records were kept.) Today Yanni A, works for one Peter Lusk.

Dr. Neil Ratner

1) Had the jury been aware that Dr. Ratner had just returned from a tour with a famous pop star to whom he provided 24 hour Medical Services for his drug problem including Fentayl and Demerol. ..Would the jury have believed Dr. Ratner was drug free when no drug test had been done by the federal gov’t. for more than 6 months?
2) Would Dr. Ratner’s credibility been put at risk if the jury knew he had received in excess of 3 million dollars his celebrity client?
3) If the the jury had known that Michael Jackson went to court and to have his name suppressed from the trial, how would they have felt?
(Footnote: I’m still shocked that the Santa Barbara police don’t know about Neil Ratner’s relationship with this specific celebrity client.)Thomas Mesereau, who defended Jackson is his child molestation case, said: 'He is permanently living outside of the United States.'

OTHER PERTINENT FACTS

1) That Neil Ratner threatened me and Dr. Lauersen paid him money just to stay away from me..
2) How would the court feel to learn that Janice Dugan lied under oath because I was I in the room with Dr, Lauersen when he called her and she called him..Isn’t that critical to CASE integrity?
3) Would the court feel the same way if they were aware that Ms. Chung and Agent Bertrand were looking for me everyday at my NYC apt. when I was sitting across from Agent Bertrand throughout the trial?
4) Instead Ms. Chung continued to insist to the court that Denise Rich was in court when it was me.
5) When I interviewed Agent Bertrand and he told me he wanted to be I in the book and the movie..would that have made a difference?
6) Would it have made a difference if I could have identified to the court all the patients on GX 500 that WERE NOT IVF patients, some patients I spoke to concerning their insurance problems.I have first hand knowledge , for example …Patient # X an endometrosis case.
7) Is the court aware that many of the victim insurers were in violation of the NYS Prompt Payment Law to Dr. Lauersen in excess of $6 million dollars I documented for in-hospital baby deliveries.

When the Federal government interferes with the process of daily commerce in regard to insurance claims processing, it is in actuality violated the separation of powers act.

I know that whatever omissions, misrepresentations or errors made by Dr. Niels Lauersen could have been settled as a civil case had Blue Cross/Blue Shield paid Dr. Lauersen the 6 million dollars they owned him for In-Hospital services..

All of Dr. Lauersen's lawyers refused to allow me to testify informing me that doing so would make me a target for the government..but this man is not guilty of the crimes he was convicted of and justice HAS NOT been served.

I would have gladly testified. It is not my fault that the govt. was unable to locate me in time to testify. I believe my testimony would have affected the final outcome of the trial and a grave miscarriage of justice has been done.

Would the jury had ruled differently had they known that a famous Rock’n’Roll star currently in the media; asked to have his name suppressed from Dr. Lauersen’s case to protect Dr. Neil Ratner ?

Would the jurors have thought differently of Dr. Lauersen had Dr. Binion been allowed to testify that Dr. Lauersen HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF DR. NEIL RATNER’S insurance fraud?

When I called Mr. LaBIanca and asked to meet with him; all he could say was I’m going to make my career on that Dr. Lauersen. I hate him and I’m going to put him in jail. Does any of this make sense?

Did the jurors ask themselves why the prosecutor kept insisting that Denise Rich was in the courtroom, it wasn’t Denise Rich it was me.

Everyday at 10:30am an FBI agent went to my home but I wasn’t there because I was in court sitting across the aisle from him. During the closing arguments, I had the opportunity to interview him. When asked if he wanted to be in the movie…he said yes…

Is this proper behavior for an agent of the United States government?

Most of the people who testified where terrified for their own lives, some even lied on the witness stand…but no one ever asked me. The government had taken a civil case of a doctor vs. the insurance companies and turned it into criminal case to meet their own agenda. The truth wasn’t important….

Just the path up the fbi/prosecutor career ladder, in the end, it wasn't about facts of law. It was about what elements were needed by the government to get a conviction.

Was it an intentional oversight that Judge Pauley allowed the Government to show the jurors a medical device used in all IVF procedures that was meant for use on a cow ? Can you imagine being a juror and forced to make a decision using your imagination as directed by the court?

THE CONCLUSION OF U.S.A. v. LAUERSEN IS A TRAVESITY OF JUSTICE. THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS NOW SUCESSFULLY DEFERRED PAYMENTS ON YET ANOTHER MEDICAL NECESSARY PROCEDURE FOR THEIR INSUREES.

ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS PUT ONE DOCTOR IN JAIL. SINCE THE CONVICTION OF DR. LAUERSEN, FERTILITY TREATMENTS INTHE UNITED STATES HAVE DECLINED AS MORE INSURANCE COMPANIES REFUSE TO COVER THE NEEDS OF OUR CITIZENS. MANY FERTILITY DOCTORS HAVE RETIRED CITING THE "THE NEW LEGAL DANGERS OF JUST PRACTING THEIR SPECIALITY." HOW WAS JUSTICE SERVED ? HOW WAS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SERVED ? WHO BENFITTED ? THEIR MOTIVATIONS ARE NOW CLEAR.

In the court houses throughout the United States there are statues of a blind-folded goddess with a Scale. Nemesis is her name. Ironically the meaning of the word Nemesis has become attached to the concept of retribution rather than JUSTICE. During Dr. Lauersen's case; one attorney told me "the only place you can find Justice is in the corridors outside the courtrooms".

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS VIGILANCE !

For law students we have placed all the Blakely and Crawford issues on one page..please click here for those briefs.

Briefs-2000-2005

New York State License Revocation Oct. 20th, 2000 PDF

Bail Revoked - Mar. 21st, 2001 & July 29th, 2004

U.S.A. v. Lauersen - Appeals Court - Nov. 25, 2003

U.S.A. v. Lauersen - Appeals Court - Mar. 24, 2004 Rehearing

Feb. 18th, 2005 Hearing

U.S.A. v. Lauersen - Appeals Court - April 4, 2004

The Lauersen Departure

Decision - March 24,2004