Alvarado Attorneys Seek Case Dismissal | San Diego Tribune | 1.27.05
Attorneys for Alvarado Hospital Medical Center, its parent company and a former executive accused of involvement in a kickback scheme rested their case without calling any witnesses yesterday and asked the court to dismiss the case.
The defense said federal prosecutors had failed to prove the government’s case and said there was “no need to delay the case any longer,” according to a court filing. The trial in U.S. District Court in San Diego started in October.
The prosecution accuses Alvarado, Tenet Healthcare Corp. and former hospital executive Barry Weinbaum of using physician relocation agreements as a means to bribe doctors with more than $10 million in exchange for patients. …
“At most, there was some evidence suggesting that a few relocation agreements may have violated internal policy, or may have been poor business decisions,” Tenet said in a statement. “But there was no evidence presented to suggest that any defendant knowingly entered into a relocation agreement as part of a willful attempt to influence any doctor’s medical judgment.”
Federal prosecutors said in court that they will oppose the request. …
Unless the judge dismisses the case, closing statements are likely to begin next week.
Involuntary Dismissal | FRCP 41(b)
For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.
It seems Alvarado/Tenet are pretty confident on the lack of merits—or are they folding their cards or making a motion for appeals? What about the poor pleaded felon Nazaryan—did she fold too early and needlessly?
