Photo of Jonathan Porter

Jonathan Porter

Jonathan uses his years of experience as a federal prosecutor to guide clients through the challenges associated with government investigations and regulatory compliance.

Jonathan brings to clients a thorough working knowledge of how the U.S. government targets and pursues criminal and civil investigations, particularly those involving the healthcare industry. He is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, and in that capacity, he brought charges against numerous individuals and companies under federal law, including criminal charges of health care fraud, wire fraud, and violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, and civil complaints alleging violations of the False Claims Act.

At the Department of Justice, Jonathan was a key member of multiple international health care fraud takedowns, in which Jonathan charged dozens of doctors, nurses, and other licensed medical professionals, along with marketers and health care executives for alleged participation in healthcare fraud schemes involving billions of dollars in false billings. In total, these charges resulted in more than 30 guilty pleas plus a conviction in the nation’s first trial of a medical professional charged as part of Operation Brace Yourself, which Jonathan first-chaired. Jonathan also was active in dozens of civil investigations brought under the False Claims Act. Jonathan resolved tens of millions of dollars in civil settlements and judgments for False Claims Act violations.

Jonathan also advises clients on a range of regulatory issues, along with the development and implementation of corporate compliance programs. He uses his unique perspective as a former AUSA, providing a prosecutor’s eye for detail in helping clients understand how DOJ and other agencies view compliance, particularly in light of the changing standards for compliance as outlined in the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) and implemented in the Department’s white-collar crime enforcement initiative.

Follow:Read more about Jonathan PorterJonathan's Linkedin Profile

On March 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) had initiated four investigations into unnamed medical schools and hospitals over allegations that the schools and hospitals “discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex” by continuing to implement “DEI” programs.

This blog post explains what HHS OCR is investigating, what laws are at issue, and what those operating medical schools and hospitals with DEI programs should consider, given this and other federal attention to DEI.

Sign at the United States Department of Justice in Washington, DC

On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a False Claims Act (FCA) complaint against an Idaho home health agency and its owner, alleging that a series of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan applications were fraudulent because the home health agency did not disclose in the applications that the home health agency was making improper claims to Idaho Medicaid at the time it applied for the loans.

Indictment concept

On January 8, 2025, a federal grand jury in Virginia returned an indictment against a hospital. This rare criminal event in healthcare alleges that Chesapeake Regional Medical Center conspired to defraud the United States and committed healthcare fraud. Hospitals are almost never criminally charged, as federal investigations into hospitals are nearly always civil proceedings under the False Claims Act. This post explains how this hospital’s alleged actions rose to the level that merited criminal indictment.

On August 26, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana filed a False Claims Act (FCA) complaint against a Montana oncologist, alleging that the oncologist’s busy schedule led to excessive claims that violated the FCA. The complaint is unusual in that its chief theory is the amount of time the oncologist spent with patients, relative to what the Justice Department claims is the standard practice of other oncologists. In that respect, the complaint is a warning sign to busy physicians across the country.

This blog post begins by explaining how this Montana oncologist found himself on the Justice Department’s radar—a self-disclosure by the health system that previously employed the oncologist—before discussing what the Justice Department is alleging against the oncologist, as well as what other physicians should learn from this lawsuit.

Investor-Hat_-When-Physicians

Engaging in management and investor conversations about maintaining and growing a business is critical, no matter the industry. Whether you’re discussing normal business sustainability, organic growth, or contemplating a sale, these discussions become more complex when practicing physicians are the business’s revenue generators. These conversations must be handled carefully to comply with the spirit and letter of healthcare’s strict fraud and abuse laws. To ensure these discussions are both productive and compliant, it’s essential to navigate these complex regulations effectively.

On June 13, 2024, the Justice Department announced arrests in what it called the nation’s first criminal case against digital health company executives over allegations that those executives caused illegal prescriptions for controlled substances to be ordered by way of telehealth visits.

While the Justice Department has previously brought charges in telehealth cases involving things like orthotic braces or genetic testing, a case against digital health executives involving telehealth-prescribed controlled substances is a first.

“Incident to” billing is widely practiced, and its regulations are generally well-known. But one Arizona physician recently found himself pleading guilty in federal court on April 3, 2024, to a criminal healthcare fraud charge over improperly billing Medicare and private payors for healthcare services that failed to abide by the rules over “incident to” billing. This blog post explores how this lack of compliance resulted in such a serious criminal consequence.

Most experienced False Claims Act (FCA) practitioners are all too familiar with the statutory provision requiring defendants to pay whistleblowers’ attorneys’ fees at the end of FCA cases. What is less commonly known is the provision that grants defendants their attorneys’ fees in certain circumstances.

One whistleblower learned about that provision the hard way, when on March 14, 2024, a Mississippi federal judge ordered that he pay over $1 million to cover the defendants’ attorneys’ fees, following grant of summary judgment to defendants in what the judge labeled a “frivolous” qui tam. This blog post looks at the case that led to such a large attorneys’ fees award and considers the types of cases in which these efforts are wise.

Husch Blackwell’s False Claims Act team previously covered the results of a rare False Claims Act (FCA) trial in which a federal jury found that a surgical product distributor was liable for paying kickbacks to physicians. The federal judge overseeing that trial initially entered judgment against the distributor defendants for $487 million after trebling the government’s actual damages and then adding penalties for each kickback-tainted claim.

On February 8, 2024, however, that same federal judge amended the judgment over concerns that the statutory penalties were unconstitutionally excessive. This article highlights the issue and explains what those accused of violating the FCA can learn from this decision.

As previously reported in this post, criminal trials premised on upcoding evaluation and management (E/M) service codes are extremely rare. The Justice Department took that rare step in Maryland in connection with a practice in which Dr. Ron Elfenbein, a physician, billed Medicare and private payors a Level 4 E/M for patients receiving COVID-19 tests. That billing practice, which at times took place at drive-through COVID testing centers, resulted in Dr. Elfenbein’s indictment and conviction by a jury in Maryland federal court.

But on December 21, 2023, the federal judge who presided over that trial granted Dr. Elfenbein’s motion for judgment of acquittal, vacating the conviction. These motions are commonly made but seldom granted. Why was this particular motion for acquittal granted? And what can the healthcare community learn from this case? Read on for details.