Government’s Response Opposing Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Bond Condition [Ecf No. 22] — No. 5:25-cr-20543 (Dkt. 37, E.D. Mich.)

Summary

The Government's Response Opposing Defendant's Motion for Modification of Bond Condition [ECF No. 22], ECF No. 37, filed October 24, 2025 in United States v. Martin Perlin, M.D., Criminal No. 25-CR-20543 (Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The defendant asks the court to modify the condition of his pretrial release that bars him from billing Medicare or Medicaid claims. The government states that the indictment alleges he conspired with Biricik from September 2021 through July 2025 to commit health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1349 and 1347, involving COVID-19 test kits. It argues the condition is the least restrictive that will reasonably assure the safety of the federal health care programs and the community.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 37, PageID.282 Filed 10/24/25 Page 1 of 9



                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                              SOUTHERN DIVISION



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                      CRIMINAL NO. 25-CR-20543
         Plaintiff,                            HON. JUDITH E. LEVY
    v.

D-2        MARTIN PERLIN, M.D.

          Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________

  GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE OPPOSING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
      FOR MODIFICATION OF BOND CONDITION [ECF NO. 22]
__________________________________________________________________


      I.       INTRODUCTION

            Defendant Martin Perlin, M.D. (“Defendant”) moves this Court to modify

 the condition of his pretrial release that presently orders him not to bill or cause

 to be billed any Medicare or Medicaid claims (“Medicare Condition” or

 “Condition”). Because the Medicare Condition is the least restrictive condition

 that will reasonably assure the safety of Medicare, Medicaid, and the

 community, Defendant’s motion should be denied.

      II.      RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

           The indictment alleges that from September 2021 through July 2025,

Defendant conspired with Biricik to commit health care fraud, in violation of 18
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 37, PageID.283 Filed 10/24/25 Page 2 of 9



U.S.C. §§1349 and 1347. The charges stem from a $500-million-dollar Medicare

and private insurance fraud scheme where Defendant was the referring physician

for thousands of patients, including Medicare beneficiaries, to receive multiple

antigen and PCR COVID-19 test kits. As part of the scheme, beneficiaries would

access the online platform at Fast Lab Technologies to order a “free” COVID-19

test kit. Once the beneficiary entered their information, the system automatically

populated for the beneficiary to receive 8 antigen and 2 PCR tests, without seeing

Defendant.

      During the COVID-19 pandemic, CMS allowed beneficiaries to receive one

antigen or PCR test without a physician’s order. To bill for additional tests,

Medicare requires a physician’s order by a treating physician or non-physician

practitioner (NPP) who uses the tests in the management of the patient’s specific

medical problem. Defendant falsely attested he was the treating physician, and the

test was ordered as part of a treatment plan, when in fact he never saw or treated

the beneficiaries.

      On July 31, 2025, Defendant made his initial appearance before Magistrate

Judge S. Dave Vitti in Connecticut, where he resides. Defendant was given a

$250,000 unsecured bond and ordered to report to the Eastern District of

Michigan on August 14, 2025.


                                          2
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 37, PageID.284 Filed 10/24/25 Page 3 of 9



      Defendant was arraigned on Augst 14, 2025 before Magistrate Judge

Kimbelry Altman. During the arraignment the government requested, and the

court imposed over Defendant’s objection, a condition prohibiting Defendant

from billing or causing to be billed any Medicare or federal healthcare program

claims. (ECF. No. 12, Order Setting Conditions of Release, PageID. 46).

       Defendant now argues that the restriction is not narrowly tailored to the

allegations in the indictment, namely ordering for COVID-19 tests through Fast

Lab Technologies. The Court ordered the government to file its response by

October 24, 2025.

    III.   LEGAL STANDARD

       Release or detention of a defendant pending trial is governed by the Bail

Reform Act. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3062, 3141-50. Under that statute, a defendant may

be released on the “least restrictive” conditions that the judicial officer

determines will “reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant” and guard

against danger to the “safety of any other person or the community.” 18 U.S.C. §

3142(c)(1)(B). A magistrate judge’s order setting the conditions of release is

subject to de novo review. See United States v. Delacruz, No. 15-CR-30393,

2015 WL 5216210, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 28, 2015) (Drain, J.)

    IV.    ARGUMENT

       Based on the Indictment’s serious health care fraud allegations, the
                                          3
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 37, PageID.285 Filed 10/24/25 Page 4 of 9



Medicare Condition is the “least restrictive” condition that will “reasonably

assure” the safety of the federal health care programs and the community. See

18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). The Bail Reform Act enumerates a (not exclusive)

variety of conditions that a court may find appropriate in ensuring that the

objectives of bail are met, followed by a general condition of “any other

condition that is reasonably necessary” to ensure community safety. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3142(c)(1)(B). Among the specific conditions is one that requires the

defendant to “avoid all contact with an alleged victim of the crime”—here,

Medicare—as well as with any “potential witness who may testify concerning

the offense”—in this case, the Medicare beneficiaries, and the individuals

Defendant worked with and managed as the medical Director at Fast lab

Technologies. Id. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(v).

      The Medicare Condition thus mirrors the condition in subsection (v).

Granting Defendant permission to continue billing the alleged victim, even for

different services, would thwart the intentions of the Bail Reform Act and expose

the community to undue economic harm. See, e.g., United States v. Judd, No.

21-20600, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222516, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2021)

(imposing Medicare Condition because “[t]he intent is to prevent the defendant

from exposing the community to undue economic harm”) (Parker, J.); United

States v. Mok, No. 20-mj-30163, 2020 WL 2528671, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 18,
                                         4
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 37, PageID.286 Filed 10/24/25 Page 5 of 9



2020) (imposing Medicare Condition) (Drain, J.).

      Recognizing this harm, courts within this District have routinely imposed

some version of the Medicare Condition on defendants charged with health care

fraud. This District has imposed this Condition on physicians who were

charged with committing health care fraud. See, e.g., United States v. Malas,

2:23-cr20063, ECF Nos. 9, 31 (Medicare Condition imposed on defendant

physicians alleged to have falsified homebound certifications); United States v.

Widlansky, 2:23-cr-20054, ECF No. 7 (same); United States v. Abou-Rass, 2:21-

cr-20623, ECF No. 5 (same); United States v. Al-Shihabi, 2:25-cr-20450, ECF

No. 10 (same).

      Courts in this District have imposed the Medicare Condition for more than

a decade and across a range of health care fraud cases. See, e.g., United States

v. Eid, No. 16-cr-20594 (E.D. Mich.), ECF No. 43 (imposing Medicare

Condition on defendant involved in pharmacy scheme) (Goldsmith, J.); United

States v. Bentley, 16-cr-20432 (E.D. Mich.), ECF No. 20 (imposing Medicare

Condition on defendant owner of billing company who submitted false and

fraudulent claims) (Cox, J.); United States v. Shahid Tahir, 15-cr-20351 (E.D.

Mich.), ECF Nos. 18, 21, 30, 33(Medicare Condition imposed on four

defendants in home health agency conspiracy) (Cox, J.); United States v. Trotter,

et al., 14-CR-20273, ECF Nos. 6, 9, 29, 32 (E.D. Mich.) (imposing Medicare
                                        5
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 37, PageID.287 Filed 10/24/25 Page 6 of 9



Condition on various defendants, including physicians and owners of medical

billing company) (Steeh, J.); United States v. Waldo, 19-cr20653, ECF Nos. 56,

93 (imposing Medicare Condition on patient recruiter in connection with home

health agency conspiracy who agreed to personally receiving around $566,500 in

kickback payments).

      Against this District’s well-settled practice and precedent, Defendant

claims that the current Medicare Condition is not the “least restrictive” because it

is not narrowly tailored to the specific allegations of fraud charged in the

Indictment and it “severely” restricts his ability to maintain lawful employment.

      Defendant contends the Condition “lacks a sufficient nexus to the charged

conduct and it exceeds what is necessary to protect the integrity of the federal

programs”. (ECF. 22, Motion, PageID. 151). Defendant wrongly relies on United

States v. Bhardwaj, Case No. 2:25-20452-MAG-DRG (E.D. MICH). In

Bhardwaj, the defendant was charged with signing documentation for a discrete

number of patients to receive home health services and her conducted was

minimal in comparison to her co-defendants.

     Here, Defendant engaged in a systemic and significant volume of health

care fraud. (See. Judd, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222516, *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 18,

2021).) Defendant played a significant role in a large-scale fraud scheme with

Medicare/Medicaid victims in all 50 states. Defendant referred thousands of
                                         6
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 37, PageID.288 Filed 10/24/25 Page 7 of 9



patients to receive COVID-19 tests kits, which he certified to

Medicare/Medicaid that he was utilizing to treat the patients, when in fact he

never saw or treated the patients. Medicare/Medicaid are trust based systems,

and the grand jury found probable cause that the Defendant abused that trust by

submitting or causing the submission of a half billion dollars in fraudulent

claims.

     Further, Defendant works for “several telehealth/telemedicine companies”

where he might treat Medicare/Medicaid patients for issues related to COVID-

19, however Defendant could easily circumvent a “narrower” restriction and

fraudulently bill for a different claim, and it would be nearly impossible for

Medicare/Medicaid to detect the fraud. (See ECF. 22, Motion, PageID. 151).

The government has no way to verify the legitimacy of the claims he wishes to

submit, nor the medical necessity of the treatment rendered in support of the

claims. The current Medicare Condition is the least restrictive to protect the

victim.

     Additionally, Defendant has set forth no affidavit or adduced any evidence

in support of his assertion that the Condition restricts his ability to maintain

lawful employment. Instead, Defendant readily admits that only a small fraction

of his telehealth patient population includes Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries,


                                          7
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 37, PageID.289 Filed 10/24/25 Page 8 of 9



 therefore most of Defendant’s telehealth patients have private insurance which

 he can bill for legitimate and medically necessary claims.

      The Medicare Condition is necessary to ensure the safety of the community

and the victim by preventing Defendant from taking any action that undermines

Medicare/Medicaid’s efforts to protect its assets.

    V.     CONCLUSION

      For the reasons stated herein, the Court should deny Defendant’s motion.

                                              Respectfully submitted,

                                              JEROME F. GORGON, JR.
                                              United States Attorney

                                              s/Regina R. McCullough
                                              Regina R. McCullough
                                              Ryan A. Particka
                                              Assistant United States Attorneys
                                              211 W. Fort St., Ste. 2001
                                              Detroit, Michigan 48226
                                              Phone: (313) 226-9618
Dated: October 24, 2025                       Email: regina.mccullough@usdoj.gov




                                          8
Case 5:25-cr-20543-JEL-KGA ECF No. 37, PageID.290 Filed 10/24/25 Page 9 of 9



                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I hereby certify that on the 24th, day of October, 2025, I electronically filed

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will

send a notice of electronic filing to the all counsel of record.




                                               s/REGINA R. MCCULLOUGH
                                               Assistant United States Attorney
                                               211 W. Fort St., Ste. 2001
                                               Detroit, Michigan 48226
                                               Phone: (313) 226-9618
                                               Email: regina.mccullough@usdoj.gov
                                               Bar No.: P64936




                                           9


File and source

File

37.pdf

Size

173,149 bytes

SHA-256

60f8b5f4548125b2ea5a21c662fcdc98d4789013116cac0415fe97d04d1970ce

Our copy

37.pdf

Original

No public link identified.