
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a civil action against Vohra Wound Physicians Management, alleging various schemes to submit false claims for payment to Medicare. Learn more about the ongoing lawsuit and how Health Law Alliance supports wound care providers to avoid legal scrutiny.
On April 4, 2025, the Department of Justice initiated a civil action against Vohra Wound Physicians Management LLC (“Vohra”), one of the largest specialty wound care providers in the nation, alleging multiple violations of the False Claims Act. The lawsuit alleges that Vohra and its founder, Dr. Ameet Vohra, engaged in a complex scheme to overbill Medicare for debridement procedures, many of which were allegedly not performed or were not medically necessary.
In its complaint, the DOJ alleges wide-ranging efforts to overbill for debridement procedures across the Practice’s locations, including the use of a proprietary EMR system that automatically billed debridement procedures as the highest-reimbursing type of procedure, regardless of procedure type. The system allegedly inserted false clinical observations into patient charts, using pre-programmed text to create the false impression that surgical procedures were performed to evade audit scrutiny. The DOJ further alleged that Vohra intentionally failed to educate its physicians, who were not wound specialists by training, about the different types of debridement procedures and corresponding Medicare payment rules during training, pressuring physicians to perform as many debridements as possible through aggressive revenue goals and targets.
Enhanced Regulatory Oversight: Key Takeaways for Wound Care Providers
The lawsuit is a reminder of the increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny facing providers in 2025. Just last year, CMS initiated a “clawback” initiative aimed at recouping overpayments to providers with a particular emphasis on wound care procedures, citing high rates of incomplete or insufficient documentation and coding errors as common issues. In particular, OIG has signaled its intent to increase its oversight into wound care providers’ billing. In November 2024, OIG announced it would be dedicating significant resources to review Part B payments for skin substitute claims as part of its Work Plan.
While wound care has long been a target of federal enforcement activity, wound care practice continues to rapidly evolve, particularly as the aging population increases and new technologies arise. 2025 has already begun to see more widespread federal investigation of wound care practices, meaning wound care providers are under more pressure now than ever before—facing audits, investigations, and even civil and criminal penalties.
Your Partners in Navigating Wound Care’s Changing Landscape
Successfully navigating a complex regulatory environment requires expert legal guidance. With decades of experience helping providers navigate audits, minimize their financial exposure, and defend against overpayment allegations, our team partners with you to address the challenges facing your practice and help ensure your practice is prepared for any situation.
MORE ARTICLES BY CATEGORY
Approaching the Telehealth Policy Cliff: Medicare Telehealth Flexibilities to Expire Next Week
Without further congressional action, COVID-19 era telehealth flexibilities are set to expire on September 30, 2025. Read more to learn about what’s set to change and key guidance for telehealth providers to prepare to adapt to pre-pandemic coverage rules.
Read More >>OIG Doubles Down on Increased Oversight for RPM in New Report
On August 28, 2025, the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General published a report outlining billing data trends for remote patient monitoring (RPM) in Medicare, renewing its calls for increased oversight into RPM services. Learn more about the reports key findings.
Read More >>Standing Up for Pharmacies: How HLA Fought and Reversed Optum’s Termination of a New York Pharmacy
In a recent victory, our attorneys at Health Law Alliance achieved a full reversal of Optum’s termination of a New York pharmacy. Read about how HLA fought tirelessly to rebut Optum’s allegations and how Health Law Alliance can defend your pharmacy from an unjust termination.
Read More >>DME Supplier Defense Attorneys' Guide to the Different Types of Government Audits
For DME suppliers, a notice from CMS can be daunting, especially when you're trying to figure out the difference between a TPE, SMRC, and UPIC. Each of these audit contractors has a different mission, scope, and level of risk for your business. Our latest blog post breaks down the "alphabet soup" of CMS audits, explaining what each entity does, what they look for, and how you should respond when they contact you. Protect your business by understanding who is on the other side of the audit.
Read More >>