Perry et al v. First Psychiatric Planners, Inc. et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
ex rel. DAVID PERRY,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO.
Vv. 21-11483-WGY
FIRST PSYCHIATRIC PLANNERS, INC. d/b/a
BOURNEWOOD HEALTH SYSTEMS, and
BOURNEWOOD HOSPITAL,

Defendants.

YOUNG, D.J. February 13, 2026

MEORANDUM AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Relator David Perry’s (“Perry”) motion against the
plaintiffs, the United States of America and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (“the Governments”) for a statutory share of the
settlement proceeds obtained in this case, see Relator’s Mot.
Determine Relator’s Share of Settlement Proceeds (“the Motion”),
ECF No. 59, is DENIED and, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) (3),
Perry shall take nothing from the settlement and is DISMISSED as
a party to this action.

This memorandum explains the Court’s reasoning in reaching

this determination.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 39

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY?!

A. The Governments’ Successful Intervention and
Prosecution of the Bournewood Qui Tam Action.

As an initial matter, the Governments’ prosecution of this
action against Bournewood was successful, resulting ina
settlement.

On or around September 10, 2021, Perry filed a qui tam
complaint in the United States District Court in the District of
Massachusetts against Bournewood, Inc. doing business as
Bournewood Health Systems, First Psychiatric Planners, Inc.
(“Bournewood”). Stip. @ 77, Compl., ECF No. 1.

As set forth below in more detail in the Stipulated Facts,
Part III, infra, Perry’s qui tam complaint alleged that
Bournewood violated the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), see 31
U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., and the Massachusetts False Claims Act
(“MFCA”), see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 5A-O, by paying
kickbacks in the form of free sober housing to substance use
disorder patients to induce their enrollment and attendance in
Bournewood’s Intensive Outpatient Therapy (“IOP”) program.

Stip. 9 78. The complaint further alleged that Bournewood

billed and received reimbursement from federally funded

' The following procedural history is adopted almost
verbatim primarily from the parties’ Amended Stipulation of
Facts, Am. Stip. Facts, (“Stip. 7@ _”), ECF No. 85, where
indicated. Quotations are omitted for readability.

[2]

3 of 39
Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page

healthcare programs including Medicare and Massachusetts

Medicaid (“MassHealth”) for the services rendered to the

The Governments intervened, and Successfully Prosecuted the
matter, resulting in a settlement resolving all allegations
against Bournewood. Stip. © 96. Although Perry’s Organization,
Recovery Educational Services, Inc, (“RES”), received
Substantial Payments from Bournewood for its housing patients,
Perry was not Charged with, or sued for, any violation of the
FCA or MFCA in conjunction with Bournewood’ s Provision of free
sober housing to patients to induce their enrollment and
attendance in Bournewood’s Partial Hospital Program (“PHP”). Id
176.

B. Procedural History

Office on or around September 15, 2021, in accordance with the
requirements of the FCA, See 31 U.S.c, § 3730 (b) (2), and the
MFCA, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § SC (3), Id. 4 79, In
addition, and in compliance with the FCA, see 31 U.S.c. §

3730(b) (2), and the MEFCA, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § SC(3),

evidence to the United States Attorney's Office and the

Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office in support of his

[3]

f 39
Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page4o

allegations against Bournewood in his qui tam complaint. Id. ¢
80.

On or about September 15, 2021, and in support of his qui
tam complaint, Perry produced a Six-page document to the United
States Attorney’s Office and the Massachusetts Attorney
General’s Office entitled “Written Disclosure by David Perry re:
Bournewood Hospital” which detailed his interactions with
Bournewood, Id. ¥ 81.

Additionally, Perry also Produced (1) the “‘Memorandum of
Services’ Provided Exclusively to the Patients of the Intense
(Sic) Out-patient Day Program Bournewood Hospital Chestnut
(sic) Hioll (Sic) Location” given by RES to Mona Bastide
(“Bastide”), Bournewood’ s Director of Social Services and
Ambulatory Care On oF around April 12, 2017; (2) a 2013 1099-
MISC from Bournewood to RES; and (3) a 2015 1099-MISc from
Bournewood to RES, td. On or about October 8, 2021, Perry
produced a three-page document to the United States Attorney’s
Office and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office entitled
“First Supplemental Written Disclosure by David Perry re:

Bournewood Hospital” which provided further detail of his

[4]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 39

On or about October 18, 2021, in response to requests made
by the United States Attorney’s Office and the Massachusetts
Attorney General’s Office for Perry’s financial records related
to Bournewood’s payments to RES and additional documentation
retained by Perry regarding the Bournewood patients who resided
at RES, Perry produced:

a. A three-page document entitled “Second
Supplemental Written Disclosure by David Perry
(Bournewood Hospital)” which provided information
about the checks RES received and deposited from
Bournewood from January 2015 through
July 2018;

b. A five-page document entitled “Third
Supplemental Written Disclosure by David Perry” which
provided additional information regarding his
interactions with Bournewood and with self-paying RES
residents who sought enroliment in
Bournewood’s [partial hospital program} PHP in order
to obtain free sober housing;

c. Monthly Citizens Bank statements for an RES
checking account showing deposits from Bournewood

between January 2015 and July 2018;

d. Bournewood Rent Charts retained by Perry for
2016 and 2017; and

e. An exemplar release and referral form related
to a Bournewood IOP patient who resided at RES on or
around May 2012.
Id. @ 83.
On October 25, 2021, the United States Attorney’s Office
and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office interviewed
Perry to inquire into his allegations against Bournewood. Id.

B84.

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 39

On or about October 26, 2021, Perry produced, at the
request of the United States Attorney’s Office and the
Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, a picture of a bank
check from Bournewood to RES dated February 1, 2018. Id. @ 85.

On or about November 10, 2021, Perry produced, at the
request of the United States Attorney’s Office and the
Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, the following:

a. 2012, 2013, and 2014 Citizen Bank monthly
statements showing the amount Bournewood paid RES in
rent each month;

b. 21 checks RES received from Bournewood between
January 2016 and February 2018;

c. “Seating Charts” retained by RES on various dates
between 2011 and 2017 identifying the residents of RES
including Bournewood PHP patients; and

d. A nine-page document entitled “Supplemental
Disclosure of David Perry dated November 10, 2021,
Perry’s Response to Government’s Specific Inquiries of
October 26, 2021” providing information related to
Bournewood’s monthly payments to RES and the number of
patients housed by RES per month; and the names and
contact information, if known, of particular persons
he spoke with at Bournewood and at referring
facilities regarding Bournewood’s offer to pay for IOP
patients sober housing.

Id. @ 86.
On March 22, 2023, the United States and the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts filed a notice of intervention in Perry’s qui

tam. Td. @F 87

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 39

On September 15, 2023, the United States and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a Complaint-In-Intervention
against Bournewood. Id. @ 88.

On October 2, 2023, the United States and the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts filed an Amended Complaint-In-Intervention.
Id. @ 89. On December 1, 2023, Bournewood filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (“Motion to Dismiss”)
against the Amended Complaint-In-Intervention filed by the
United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Id. @ 90.

On December 22, 2023, the United States and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a Joint Opposition to
Bournewood’s Motion to Dismiss. Id. @ 91. On January 16, 2024,
Bournewood filed a reply brief in support of its Motion to
Dismiss. Id. @ 92. On January 8, 2024, the United States and
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a sur-reply in support
of their Joint Opposition to Bournewood’s Motion to Dismiss.
Id. @ 93.

On February 12, 2024, the Court held a hearing on
Bournewood’s Motion to Dismiss. Id. @ 94; Elec. Clerk’s Notes,
ECF No. 57. The Court denied Bournewood’s motion except as to
one count. Id. On February 26, 2024, the United States, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Bournewood submitted a Joint
Submission pursuant to Local Rule 16.1. Joint Statement, ECF

No. 55.

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 39

On September 30, 2024, the United States, the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Bournewood, and Perry entered into a
settlement resolving all allegations against Bournewood.
Id. 7 96. Thereafter, on October 4, 2024, the United States,
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Perry filed a Notice of
Stipulation of Partial Dismissal, advising of the settlement
with Bournewood. Id. @ 97; Joint Stip. Partial Dismissal, ECF
No. 58. The Notice also indicated that Perry was reserving his
right to litigate the relator’s award of the settlement recovery
because Perry, the United States, and the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts were unable to come to an agreement on the matter.

Id.

On November 8, 2024, Perry filed a Motion to Determine
Relator’s Share of Settlement Proceeds, and a memorandum and
supporting affidavit on November 11, 2024. Id. @ 98; Motion,
ECF No. 59; Relator’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Determine Relator’s Share
Settlement Proceeds (“Perry Mem.”), ECF No. 60; Aff. David Perry
(“Perry Aff.”), ECF No. 61. On December 2, 2024, the United
States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a Joint
Opposition to Perry’s Motion to Determine Relators Share of
Settlement Proceeds. Stip. 9 99; Gov’ts.’ Opp. Perry’s Mot.

Determine Relator’s Share Settlement Proceeds (“Gov’ts.’ Opp.”),

ECF No. 65.

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 9 of 39

On December 9, 2024, Perry filed a reply brief in support
of his Motion to Determine Relator’s Share of Settlement
Proceeds. Stip. 9 100; Relator’s Reply Supp. Mot. Determine
Relator’s Share Settlement Proceeds (“Perry Reply”), ECF No. 71.
On December 9, 2024, the Court held a status conference and
ordered a further status conference on the matter on January 9,
2025. Stip. @ 101. The Court subsequently reset the status
conference to January 16, 2025. Id.

On January 16, 2025, the Court held a further status
conference. Id. 4 102. The Court ordered that the United
States and Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Joint Opposition to
Perry’s Motion to Determine Relator’s Share of Settlement
Proceeds should be treated as a Motion to Dismiss. Id. The
Court also granted the United States and Commonwealth of
Massachusetts 30 days to file a Supplemental Opposition to
Perry’s Motion to Determine Relator’s Share of Settlement
Proceeds. Id.

On February 18, 2025, the United States and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a Supplemental Joint Motion
to Dismiss Perry’s Motion to Determine Relator’s Share of
Settlement Proceeds. Id. 4 103; Gov’ts.’ Suppl. Opp. Dismiss

Perry’s Mot. Determine Relator’s Share Settlement Proceeds,

(“Gov’ts.’ Suppl.”), ECF No. 77.

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 10 of 39

On March 5, 2025, Perry filed an Opposition to the United
States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Supplemental Joint
Motion to Dismiss Perry’s Motion to Determine Relator’s Share of
Settlement Proceeds. Stip. §@ 104; Relator’s Suppl. Resp. Supp.
Mot. Determine Relator’s Share Settlement Proceeds (“Perry
Suppl.”), ECF No. 79,

On March 20, 2025, the Court held a hearing and denied the
United States and Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Motion to
Dismiss. Stip. 7 105; Elec. Clerk’s Notes, ECF No. 80. The
Court ordered the parties to file a joint final pre-trial
memorandum within 30 days and advised it would be aided by a
joint stipulated set of facts. Id. After filing, the Court was
prompt to schedule an evidentiary hearing. Id. The United
States inquired as to conducting discovery and was advised the
parties could work it out, but always have subpoenas. Id.

The parties filed a Joint Pretrial Memorandum on June 2,
2025, along with stipulated facts, and an appendix of exhibits.
ECF Nos. 83, 85, and 86.

On June 3, 2025, the Court held a pretrial conference.
Elec. Clerk’s Notes, ECF No. 87.

On July 1, 2025, the Court held an evidentiary hearing and
took the matter under advisement. Elec. Clerk’s Notes, ECF No.

88.

[10]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 11 of 39

III. STIPULATED FACTS?

Between July 1, 2008, and June 2018, Perry was the sole
owner and director of RES, a sober home community in Roxbury,
MA. Stip. @ 1. Perry incorporated RES in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on November 30, 2007. Id.

Perry was also a barred and licensed attorney in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts between October 2014 and December
2019. Id. G§ 2. The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers
previously suspended him from the practice of law from January
2005 until his reinstatement in October 2014. Id.

From approximately 2013-2015, RES managed eight sober
houses in Roxbury, MA, that could house up to 96 men and women
at any time. Id. G@ 3. RES closed in 2019. Id. @ 4.

Beginning in February 2009 and until June 2018, RES
contracted with Bournewood to provide sober housing to
Bournewood’s PHP patients. Id. @ 5. Bournewood’s PHP is an
intensive outpatient therapy program for patients who need
substance use treatment and mental health services. Id. 9 6.
The PHP is a “step down” program from inpatient hospitalization

at a detoxification facility. Id. The PHP offers a way for

patients to re-integrate back into the community while

* The following stipulated facts are adopted almost verbatim
from the parties’ Amended Stipulation of Facts. Quotations are
omitted for readability.

[11]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 12 of 39

continuing to receive significant substance use and mental
health treatment. Id. During the relevant period, Bournewood’s
PHP operated from 9 am to 3 pm each day, excluding weekends and
holidays. Id. Patients were typically enrolled in Bournewood’s
PHP between two to four weeks but could receive treatment for
longer as their needs required. Id.

Prior to 2007, Bournewood experienced difficulties with
getting substance use recovery patients to attend the Brookline
PHP regularly and on-time. Id. 9 7. To attempt to address the
situation, Bournewood initially paid and provided substance use’
recovery patients with Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (“MBTA”) subway passes and taxi vouchers in the hopes
that defraying the cost of travel would increase the daily
census of the PHP. Id. @ 8.

In or around July 2003, Bournewood entered into a one-year
affiliation agreement with a sober home, Twelve Step Education
Program of New England (“Twelve Step”). Id. @ 9.

In the affiliation agreement with Twelve Step, Bournewood
agreed to “purchase 2 sober beds” on the second floor of a sober
home operated by Twelve Step at 171 Old Cambridge Road in
Woburn, MA at the current resident rate of $18.60 per day. Id.
@ 10. If one of the beds Bournewood “purchased” was occupied by
a substance use recovery patient not enrolled in Bournewood’s

PHP, Twelve Step was required to credit the daily rate back to

[12]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 13 of 39

Bournewood. Bournewood also agreed to transport patients to and
from the defendant’s PHP and Twelve Steps daily. Id. In
exchange, Twelve Step agreed to provide lunch at Bournewood’s
Woburn PHP to Twelve Step and non-Twelve Step substance use
recovery patients attending the defendant’s PHP. Id.

One year later, Bournewood and Twelve Step entered into a
new affiliation agreement effective July 1, 2004, that removed
the provision regarding the purchase of beds but retained the
transportation and lunch provisions. Id.

On or about October 11, 2007, Bournewood and New England
Transitions (“NET”), a Medford-based sober home, entered into an
affiliation agreement in which Bournewood agreed to “reimburse
[NET] $560.00 per bed per month (4 weeks) for two [NET] sober
beds available to clients referred by Bournewood’s clinical
staff” and “[r]eimburse [NET] a per diem rate of $20.00 for
additional clients in need of such services when the two
Bournewood beds are occupied.” Id. @ 11. NET agreed to
“[mlaintain the expectation that clients in Bournewood’s
designated beds regularly attend Bournewood’s [PHP]” and provide
Bournewood with a “monthly invoice for charges plus number of
days each Bournewood client occupied a designated sober bed.”
Id.

On or about February 3, 2009, Bournewood entered into an

affiliation agreement with New Horizon House sober home (“New

[13]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 14 of 39

Horizon”), which had a principal address in Quincy, but sober
homes located throughout Massachusetts. Id. G@ 12. Carl Smith
owned and operated New Horizon. Id. .

According to the terms of the affiliation agreement,
Bournewood agreed to pay “$560 per bed per month (4 weeks) for
two [New Horizon] sober beds available to clients referred by
Bournewood’s clinical staff” and “a per diem rate of $20 for
additional clients in need of such services when the two
Bournewood beds are occupied.” Id. @ 13. New Horizon agreed to
“[m]aintain the expectation that clients in Bournewood’s
designated beds regularly attended Bournewood’s [PHP].” Id.

In February 2009, executives from Bournewood contacted
Perry to discuss Bournewood’s need for sober
housing. Id. § 14. The executives were Jenny Raffa (“Raffa”),
then Bournewood’s Director of Social Services and Ambulatory
Care, and Jim Curran (“Curran”), Bournewood’s Director of
Admissions and Community Relations. Id. Raffa and Curran told
Perry that Bournewood was interested in utilizing RES to house
patients enrolled in and attending its PHP. Id.

Shortly after, Perry met with Raffa and Curran at
Bournewood, at their invitation, to continue discussing
Bournewood’s interest in utilizing RES. Id. @ 15. After this

initial meeting, Perry also met with Ray Robinson, then

Bournewood’s President. Id

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 15 of 39

During the meeting Raffa, Curran, and Robinson
(“Bournewood’s executives”) told Perry that Bournewood had
contracted with two other sober homes, NET and New Horizons, to
house patients attending Bournewood’s PHP program. Id. 16.
The Bournewood executives explained, however, that Bournewood
had difficulties getting IOP patients, encompassing PHP
patients, that Bournewood housed at NET in Malden, MA and New
Horizons in Quincy, MA to Bournewood’s IOP on a daily basis.
Id. At the time, Bournewood, which lacked vehicle transport,
gave IOP patients pre-paid subway and bus passes and taxicab
vouchers to travel from NET and New Horizons to Bournewood and
back each day. Id.

The commute, which lasted an hour or more, resulted in IOP
patients ceasing to come to Bournewood’s IOP out of frustration
with the length of the commute or arriving late. Id. 7 17.
Robinson specifically expressed frustration to Perry that
Bournewood was losing IOP patients due to these transportation
challenges with NET and New Horizons. Id.

Bournewood executives told Perry that they believed RES
could be a potential solution. Id. @ 18. RES, located in
Roxbury, was approximately five miles from Bournewood and thus

much closer to Bournewood than NET and New Horizons. Id.

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 16 of 39

At the same meeting, Bournewood executives extended a
contract to RES. Perry verbally agreed and Bournewood housed
its first IOP patient with RES in February 2009. Id. G@ 19.
Bournewood and RES subsequently memorialized their affiliation
agreement on or around June 12, 2009 (“June 12, 2009,
agreement”). Id. @ 20. The June 12, 2009, agreement provided
that Bournewood would pay RES $720 to rent two beds per month to
house Bournewood’s IOP patients. Id. Bournewood further agreed
to pay RES $24 per day, including weekends and holidays, for any
additional beds utilized by Bournewood. Id.

Initially, Bournewood verbally agreed to transport its IOP
patients housed at RES to and from Bournewood and RES each
weekday. Id. @ 21. But the June 12, 2009, agreement stated
that RES was responsible for “provid[ing] transportation to
Bournewood’s PHP daily . . . [and] Bournewood would transport
clients back to [RES].” Id.

Despite the transportation provision in the June 12, 2009,
agreement, Bournewood conducted both afternoon pick up and drop
off from Bournewood to RES each day, with RES providing such
transportation on an “as needed basis.” Id. @ 22. Further in
the June 12, 2009 agreement, Bournewood and RES mutually agreed
that “responsibility for the coordination of this affiliation

rests with the respective directors of the affiliating parties.”

Id. 9 23.

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 17 of 39

Perry signed the June 12, 2009, agreement on or about June
16, 2009 as RES’ “Director of Services.” Id. 7 24. In and
around 2011, Perry met with Raffa and Curran again. Id. @ 25.
During this meeting, Raffa and Curran requested that RES become
more involved in transporting Bournewood’s PHP patients to and
from RES and Bournewood each day. Id.

Perry agreed, utilizing his own vehicles to facilitate the
transport. Id. § 26. He sent vehicles from RES to Bournewood
three times a day: at 9 a.m. for the start of IOP services; at
noon for IOP patients only attending half days; and at 3 p.m.
for end of day pick up. Id.

In 2013, a hand-written note was added to the June 12, 2009
agreement, increasing the daily rate per bed utilized by all of
Bournewood’s patients housed at RES to $30 from $24. Id. @ 27.
Perry advocated for the increase in the daily rate per bed from
$24 to $30 from Bournewood because he was providing Bournewood
PHP patients with needed services. Id. 9 28. Perry recalls
that Curran of Bournewood suggested that he advocate for the
increase in the daily rate. Id.

As of 2013, the $30 daily rate per bed exceeded RES’ rate
for self-paying residents. Id. @ 29. In mid-2014, Bournewood
executives contacted Perry and requested that RES take
over the responsibility of transporting all IOP patients from

RES to Bournewood. Id. § 30.

[17]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 18 of 39

Subsequently, Bournewood requested that RES pick up new
patients from an estimated 30 referring treatment facilities
located as far south as Fall River, as far north as Lowell and
Methuen, and as far west as Worcester and Georgetown, MA. Id.
RES brought Bournewood’s patients to RES in the afternoon and
evening before the patients began their treatment at
Bournewood’s IOP the next morning. Id. At the request of
Bournewood, Perry personally picked up many new Bournewood IOP
patients from the outside referring treatment facilities and
programs. Id. @ 31.

For patients receiving a daily dose of methadone, RES
agreed to Bournewood’s request to transport patients to and from
a methadone clinic each morning before 9 a.m. before
transporting them to Bournewood. Id. { 32.

On or around September 1, 2016, Bournewood and RES entered
into a new affiliation agreement (“September 1, 2016,
agreement”). Id. @ 33.

Bournewood informed RES in August 2016 that Bournewood
would be downsizing its transportation fleet and asked RES to
take over complete responsibility of transporting patients to
and from RES and Bournewood. Id. 7 34.

The September 1, 2016, agreement restated the provisions in
the June 12, 2009, agreement including Bournewood’s agreement to

reimburse RES $30 per night per patient Bournewood housed at RES

[18]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 19 of 39

and RES’s responsibility to transport patients from Bournewood
each day. Id. 7 35. Both the June 12, 2009, agreement and the
September 1, 2016, agreement contained a requirement that RES
“maintain expectation that clients in Bournewood’s designated
beds regularly attend Bournewood’s [PHP].” Id. @ 36.

The September 1, 2016, agreement also provided that “the
responsibility for the coordination of this affiliation rests
with the respective directors of the affiliating parties.” Id.
f§ 37. Perry signed the September 1, 2016, agreement on or about
September 22, 2016, as RES’ “Director of Services.” Id. 7 38.

On or around April 12, 2017, RES’ director, Nick Lukasiak
(“Lukasiak”), had a meeting with Bastide, and Curran. Id. @ 39.
RES presented Bastide and Curran with a “‘Memorandum of
Services’ provided exclusively to the patients of the intense
(sic) out-patient day program Bournewood Hospital Chjestnut
(sic) Hioll (sic) location” at the meeting. Id. The
memorandum, from Perry and Lukasiak, set out the “services
provided to patients of the Bournewood Out-Patient Day program
while in residence at [RES].” Id. Perry delineated that RES
provided Bournewood’s PHP patients housed at RES the following
services:

a. “Transportation To/From Bournewood Hospital”

b. “Transportation of New Referral Patients to RES
from Outside ‘Referring Treatment Facilities’”

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 20 of 39

c. “Transportation of Current Patients to ‘Outside
Medical Appointments’ & ‘Placement Interviews’ at
Halfway Houses, Holdings[,] and Work Programs”

d. “Transportation of Graduated Patients to ‘After
Care Facilities’ (As Needed) to Facilitate the
Realization of the After Care Plan”

e. “Transportation of Current Patients to Local
Methadone Clinics”

£. “Daily Reporting of Attendance Census/Behavioral
Issues”

g. “Urine Testing”

h. “Bedding Upon Entry”

i. “‘Welcome Gift Bag’ for All New Bournewood Patients
Arriving to RES” including “food; soap and toothpaste;
toilet paper; bowls, cups, plasticware; snack
crackers, candy.”

Perry learned that between 2009 and 2018, Bournewood
contracted with at least five other sober homes to house
Bournewood’s PHP patients. Id. 7 40. It was his understanding,
however, that RES was the “primary sober house” Bournewood used
and that RES “always remained the principle sober house utilized
by Bournewood to house the majority of its [PHP] population”
during those years. Id.

Over time the relationship grew to a point where Perry
“remained in close contact with seemingly every staff member
working at the Bournewood IOP.” Id. @ 41. Perry “made certain
that [he] was always responsive to the IOP’s needs and/or
requirements during the entire term” of RES’ relationship with
Bournewood. Id. He “regularly communicated 3-4 times daily

with Scott Deagle (“Deagle”) [Bournewood’s Lead Intake

[20]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 21 of 39

Coordinator].” Id. Because Perry was often personally
transporting patients to and from RES and Bournewood, he “had
the opportunity to meet with Deagle in person every morning and
every afternoon to discuss the IOP’s new or discharged
patients.” Id. Perry was often “approached by several of the
IOP clinicians and social workers to answer questions regarding
how their patients were doing at RES during the previous 18
hours that their patients were not receiving treatment.” Id.

Between February 2009 and June 2018, Perry estimated that
Bournewood housed 3,000 or more patients at RES. Id. @ 42.
Bournewood made monthly payments to RES for housing PHP
patients. Id. 9 43. Perry deposited these sums in RES bank
accounts. Id. RES received from Bournewood between January
2015 and July 2018 the sum of $474,440. Id.

On numerous occasions, self-paying RES residents who were
struggling financially to pay the $160 weekly rent to stay at
RES, approached Perry about attending Bournewood’s IOP program
so that Bournewood would pay their rent. Id. @ 44. On some of
those occasions, Perry contacted Deagle to relay the message
that “John Doe” a resident at RES, was interested in attending
the Bournewood IOP. Id.

Following instructions from Deagle, Perry would conduct a

urine drug test on prospective new patients of Bournewood and

transport them to Bournewood the next morning or to a hospital

[21]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 22 of 39

for medical clearance, as directed by Deagle. Id. 91 45. Perry
had no ability or authority to admit a patient to Bournewood’s
IOP or PHP program. Id.

Bournewood, via Curran, paid RES monthly by check. Id. 9
46. Bournewood would know how much to pay RES based upon
Bournewood’s records, although Perry provided handwritten
“Bournewood Rent Charts” on a monthly basis that identified the
Bournewood patient residing at RES that month and the days they
resided at RES while attending Bournewood. Id. Generally,
Perry picked up the monthly check at Bournewood and deposited
the monies into one of three Citizens Bank accounts for RES of
which Perry was the sole signatory. Id.

As part of RES’ intake process, RES forms included sections
for demographics and insurance information to be completed by
residents. Id. 9 47. Perry, as RES’ Director, knew that “a
large portion of Bournewood’s patients had medical insurance
with MassHealth or Medicare.” id. q 48.

Neither Perry, nor RES, entered into any Medicare or
Masshealth payment or provider agreements. Id. 9 49. Sometime
during 2016, Bournewood executives told Perry that if a patient
arrived at Bournewood anytime after 10:30 am, Bournewood would

only be able to charge the insurance company for a half-day of

treatment. Id. 7 50.

[22]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 23 of 39

Perry learned that when a patient’s treatment ended at
Bournewood, for whatever reason, Bournewood would stop paying to
house the patient at RES. Id. 9 51. Perry knew that most
patients were typically left with no other housing options.

Some discharged patients would stay at RES on a self-pay basis,
but many were required to leave RES and take up residence at
shelters and other transitional housing settings. Id.

Perry did not participate in billing the government for any
services rendered by Bournewood to its patients, at any point in
time. Id. | 52. Between 2007 and 2022, Bournewood entered into
agreements with eight other sober homes. Id. @ 53. Though the
length and details differ slightly with each agreement, all of
the contracts followed a similar general construct to the one
Bournewood entered into with RES. Id.

Steps to Solutions is a sober home based in Dorchester,
owned and operated by Peter McCarthy. Id. 4 54. Between
September 2013 and March 2022, Bournewood paid to house 487
substance use recovery patients covered by federal healthcare
programs at Steps to Solutions. Id.

On or about December 1, 2016, Bournewood entered into an
agreement with Milton Management, LLC, otherwise known as Faith
House, which operated a series of sober homes in Dorchester,
Roxbury, and Quincy. Id. @ 55. Faith House is owned and

operated by Joseph Pizziferri. Id. Under the terms of the

[23]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 24 of 39

agreement, Bournewood agreed to pay Faith House a per diem rate
of $30 for substance use recovery patients housed at Faith
House. Id. Faith House agreed to “[m]aintain the expectation
that clients in Bournewood’s designated beds regularly attend”
Bournewood’s PHP. Id.

On January 31, 2018, Bournewood entered into a “Sober
Living Agreement” with Solutions Group, Inc. (“Solutions”), a
sober home in Dorchester operated by Thomas Lyons. Id. 4 56.
Under the terms of the Sober Living Agreement, Bournewood agreed
to pay Solutions a one-time administrative fee per qualifying
patient of $100, and a rate of $25.80 per patient per night
housed at Solutions. Id. Unlike prior agreements with sober
homes, this agreement contained a provision requiring a
patient to qualify for free sober housing by evidencing
indigency. Id.

On or about June 1, 2018, Bournewood entered into a Sober
Living Agreement with Angelos Development, LLC (“Angelos”), a
sober home located in Medfield, and owned and operated by Boris
Krants. Id. 97 57. Under the terms of the Sober Living
Agreement, Bournewood agreed to pay Angelos a one-time
administrative fee of $100 for each patient and a daily rate of
$29.57 per qualifying patient per night per bed. Id. A

qualifying patient needed to meet income requirements and “elect

[24]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 25 of 39

to live at a residence of [Angelos] while participating” in
Bournewood’s PHP. Id.

On or about August 1, 2018, Bournewood entered into a Sober
Living Agreement with North East Special Needs Housing, LLC
(“NESNH”), a sober home located in Dorchester, owned and
operated by Michael D. Jordan. Id. @@ 58. According to the
terms of the agreement, Bournewood agreed to pay the rent for
qualifying substance use recovery patients enrolled in and
attending their PHP. A qualifying patient needed to meet income
requirements and “elect to live at [NESNH]” while participating
in Bournewood PHP. Id. Unlike prior agreements with sober
homes, however, Bournewood agreed to pay NESNH $900 a month for
6 exclusive beds for a monthly total of $5,400. Id. Bournewood
agreed to pay NESNH in bi-monthly installments of $2,700. Id.

On or about October 26, 2018, Bournewood entered into a
Sober Living Agreement with A Vision from God, LLC, a sober home
referred to as Brady’s Place then based at 250 Seaver Street in
Boston. Id. @ 59. The sober home, which relocated to Weymouth,
is owned and operated by Daniel Cleggett. Per the terms of the
Sober Living Agreement, Bournewood agreed to pay $900 per month
per bed for 24 beds for the exclusive use by Bournewood’s male
PHP substance use recovery patients beginning on November 1,

2018, and $900 per month per bed for an additional 6 beds for

the exclusive use by Bournewood’s female PHP substance use

[25]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 26 of 39

recovery patients beginning on December 1, 2018. Id.
Bournewood further agreed to pay an administrative fee of $75
per patient that resided in the sober home for more than 24
hours. Id.

Bournewood routinely contacted referring facilities about
their PHP and advertised their offer of free sober housing. Id.
G@ 60. Bournewood’s Lead Intake Coordinator for Outpatient
Services (“Lead Intake Coordinator”) regularly communicated with
referring facilities’ social workers about Bournewood’s PHP and
offer of free sober housing. Id.

Some substance use recovery patients who enrolled in and
attended Bournewood’s PHP learned of Bournewood’s offer of free
sober housing from other patients and sober home operators and
expressly sought out the free sober housing without referral
from a referral facility. Id. @ 61.

After referral, Bournewood evaluated the substance use
recovery patient for admission to Bournewood’s PHP. Id. @ 62.
Bournewood also evaluated the patient for free sober housing if
they requested it. Id.

Between May 2007 and December 2017, Bournewood’s provision
of free sober housing was governed by an internal policy

entitled the “Sober Bed Free Care Policy.” Id. 7 63. The

policy was revised in July 2009, July 2011, and June 2014. Id.

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 27 of 39

Bournewood required substance use recovery patients
receiving free sober housing to sign a “Partial Hospital Program

with Sober House Agreement” (“PHP Sober House Agreement”). Id.

f@ 64. Bournewood also requested that patients initial certain
statements in the PHP Sober House Agreement including, most
importantly:

a. “IT understand that if admitted to Bournewood Health
Systems PHP, it is expected that I will attend
programing Monday through Friday between 9am-2pm.
Attendance is expected, and unexcused absences
typically result in administrative discharge from the
program.”

b. “TI understand that the average length of stay in
PHP is about 2 weeks.”

c. “IT understand that the cost of the sober house bed
will only be covered by [the defendant] as long as I
am admitted to the PHP program. If I choose to stay in
the sober house after discharge from the PHP, I am
responsible for the daily/weekly cost of the bed.”

Id. Bournewood ended its relationship with Perry on or

about March 2018. Id. @ 65.

On February 12, 2018, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
indicted Perry on two counts. Id. @ 66 Specifically, the
indictments alleged that:

a. On November 14, 2017, Mr. Perry did knowingly or

intentionally manufacture, distribute, dispense, or

possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or
dispense a controlled substance in Class B in

violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32A(a).

b. On an unknown date, but occurring in 2017 through

November 14, 2017, Mr. Perry conspired with other(s)
to distribute a Class B drug to violate Mass. Gen.

[27]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 28 of 39

Laws. ch. 94C, § 32A(a), in violation of Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 94C, § 40.

On May 4, 2018, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts indicted
Perry on 34 counts. Id. @ 67. This included:

a. Seven counts for Conspiracy to Distribute a Class
B/E drug to violate Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32A(a),
in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 40 on
diverse dates between 2016 and 2017;

b. Two counts of Possession of Controlled Substances
Class B in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 34;

c. One count of Possession of Controlled Substances
Class C in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 34;

d. Three counts of Possession of Controlled Substances
Class E in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 34;

e. Six counts for Sexual Conduct for a Fee in
violation of Mass. Gen Laws ch. 272, § 53A(b) on
diverse dates in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017; and

f. 15 counts for Tampering with Record or Other Object
for Use in Official Proceeding in violation of Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 268, § 13E at diverse dates between 2012

and 2017.
Id.

On or around October 2, 2019, Perry pled guilty to all 36
counts. Id. 7 68. The six (6) counts for Possession of

Controlled substances relate to drugs found at Perry’s home in
Reading, MA on November 14, 2017, and not at RES in Roxbury.
Id. @ 69.

The Government asserts that Robert V. began residing at RES

on or around December 27, 2016, in conjunction with his

[28]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 29 of 39

admission to Bournewood’s PHP. Id. @ 70. Bournewood paid RES
to house Robert V. until January 27, 2017. Id. On or around
October 2, 2019, Perry pled guilty to one count of conspiring to
distribute drugs (Class C) with Robert V. on diverse dates
occurring in 2017 through November 14, 2017. Id. He also pled
guilty to four counts of altering, destroying, mutilating, or
concealing records, or attempting to alter, destroy, mutilate,
or conceal records regarding Robert V. on diverse dates in 2017
through May 9-10, 2017; 2017 through March 21, 2017; 2016

through January 5, 2017; and 2017 through February 14-15, 2017.

Id.

The six (6) counts for Sexual Conduct for a Fee involve
three (3) individuals. Id. J 71. These charges relate to
conduct occurring in Reading, MA, and not at RES. Id.

Justin K. was a resident of RES two (2) years prior to the
date of the crimes charged. Id. Mark D. was never a resident
of RES or patient of Bournewood. Id.

Devin H. began residing at RES on or around January 13,
2011, in conjunction with his admission to Bournewood’s PHP.
Bournewood paid RES to house Devin H. until January 20, 2011.
Id. 7 72. Perry recalls that Devin H. had a 10 year
relationship with him. Id. Devin H. was a patient of

Bournewood for six (6) days during 2011 and a resident of RES

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 30 of 39

for eleven (11) days during 2011. Id. Perry was not charged or
convicted of any crimes occurring during 2011.

On or around October 2, 2019, Perry pled guilty to three
counts of paying, agreeing to pay, or offering to pay Devin H.
to engage in sexual conduct on diverse dates between June 1,
2012 and June 1, 2013; January 1, 2014 and April 1, 2014; and
November 14, 2017. Id.

Perry recalls that the fifteen (15) counts for Tampering
with Records concern letters sent to RES residents’ probation
officers that were allegedly inaccurate. Id. 71 73. He further
recalls that the allegation was that the letters failed to
portray the residents’ sobriety efforts and the actual length of
time they remained clean. Id. These letters were not shared
with Bournewood, nor did Bournewood have any part in writing the
letters. Id. All fifteen (15) counts concerned three (3)
individuals: Justin K., Derek B. and Robert V. Id. Justin K.
was never a patient of Bournewood. Id. Derek B. was never a
patient of Bournewood. Id.

Jacob R. began residing at RES on or around September 27,
2016, in conjunction with his admission to Bournewood’s PHP.

Id. @ 74. Bournewood paid RES to house Jacob R. until October
3, 2016. Id. On or around October 2, 2019, Perry pled guilty

to one count of conspiring to distribute drugs (Class B) with

Jacob R. on diverse dates occurring in 2017 through November 14,

[30]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 31 of 39

2017. Id. On or around October 2, 2019, Perry pled guilty to
one count of conspiring to distribute drugs (Class B) with Jacob
R. on diverse dates occurring in 2017 through November 14, 2017.
Id.

Only one (1) of the counts for which Perry pled guilty
concerned an active Bournewood patient (Robert V.). Id. @ 75.
The charge related to Perry writing an inaccurate letter to
Robert V.’s probation officer in Salem District Court. Id.

Perry has not been charged with, or sued for, any violation
of the FCA, MFCA, or Massachusetts Medicaid False Claims Act
(“MMFCA”), in conjunction with Bournewood’s provision of free
sober housing to patients to induce their enrollment and
attendance in Bournewood’s PHP. Id. @ 76.

Iv. ANALYSIS

Under the False Claims Act, a relator is entitled to
“receive at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the
proceeds of the . . . settlement of the claim, depending upon
the extent to which the person substantially contributed to the
prosecution of the action.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) (1) (‘§
3730(d)(1)”).3 Perry asserts that he is entitled to 22% --

$1,400,000 -- of the settlement proceeds in this action. Not so

fast, counter the Governments. They contend that Perry

3 The parties agree that the analysis under the FCA and MFCA
are identical, and therefore, only the FCA is analyzed.

[31]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 32 of 39

“plann[ed] and initiate[d] the scheme together with Bournewood,
which disqualifies him from any relator award.” Gov’ts’ Opp. 2
(emphasis added). Indeed, as matter of law, “[i]lf the court
finds that the action was brought by a person who planned and
initiated the violation of section 3729 upon which the action
was brought, then the court may, to the extent the court
considers appropriate, reduce the share of the proceeds of the
action which the person would otherwise receive under paragraph
(1) or (2) of this subsection, taking into account the role of
that person in advancing the case to litigation and any relevant
circumstances pertaining to the violation.” 31 U.S.C. §
3730(d) (3) (emphasis added). As here, where the Government
contends that Perry “planned and initiated” the violation, the
Government “bears the burden of proving that the relator was the

planner and initiator of the fraud.” United States ex rel.

Marchese v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., No. CVQ6-O168MJP, 2007 WL

4410255, at *8 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 14, 2007), aff'd sub nom.

Zediker v. OrthoGeorgia, 857 F. App'x 600 (llth Cir. 2021) (per

curiam). If the Governments meet their burden, Perry’s “share
may be reduced to zero percent.” Id. at *7.

Further, “[i]f the person bringing the action is convicted
of criminal conduct arising from his or her role in the
violation of section 3729, that person shall be dismissed from

the civil action and shall not receive any share of the proceeds

[32]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 33 of 39

of the action.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) (3) (emphasis added). Thus,
Ҥ 3730(d) (3) authorizes a court in its discretion to reduce a
relator's share of the proceeds due to his role in planning or
initiating an FCA violation, and to outright deny a share of the
proceeds if the relator is held criminally liable for the FCA

violation.” United States ex rel. Chiba v. Guntersville

Breathables, Inc., 421 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1251 (N.D. Ala. 2019)

(emphasis added). Perry counters that he did not plan and
initiate the conduct and that the statute cannot cover his
criminal convictions.

After review of the stipulated facts, and after a full
hearing, the Court rules that Perry take nothing from the
settlement because (1) under Section 3730(d) (3) he is a “person
who planned and initiated the violation of Section 3729 upon
which the action was brought,” or, alternatively, (2) under
Section 3730(d) (3), Perry was “convicted of criminal conduct
arising from his role in the violation of section 3729.” 31
U.S.C. § 3730(d) (3).

As for the “planned and initiated” provision, as an initial
matter, the Court wholly rejects Perry’s contention of no
knowledge or suspicion of wrongdoing before August 2021 as Perry
claims:

I had no idea Bournewood Hospital was committing any

type of fraud or that the free housing provided by it
to its patients residing at RES constituted a form of

[33]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 Filed 02/13/26 Page 34 of 39

inducement or kick-back, until I discussed the bed
leasing arrangement with my counsel in the weeks prior
to the subject qui tam complaint being filed. During
August/September 2021, I approached my counsel to
discuss Bournewood Hospital not making the final
payments for beds leased back in 2018, as I wanted to
pursue them for a breach of contract. At that time,
during August/September 2021, my counsel suggested to
me that what Bournewood Hospital was doing appeared to
be illegal. I had no idea Bournewood Hospital was
doing anything wrong prior to August/September 2021.
Perry Aff. 9 6. As the stipulated facts circumstantially
confirm, and as further argued by the Governments: “Perry’s
arrangement with Bournewood, which continued for nearly a
decade, resulted in Bournewood submitting thousands of false
claims tainted by kickbacks in the form of free sober housing --
the very allegation that forms the basis of the action he
brought” and resulted in the payment of $721,000 to Perry during
the relevant period. Gov’ts.’ Opp. 15-16. Perry was at the
center of the kickback scheme. It could not have existed but
for his planning and initiation; his feigned ignorance of the
details of the scheme on Bournewood’s end, combined with his
involvement in a decade-long scheme from which he handsomely

profited, makes his protestations of innocence patently absurd.

Cf. Marchese, 2007 WL 4410255, at *9 (“Because [the relator]

held a reasonable belief that his actions were legal, the Court
concludes that [the relator] did not plan or initiate the scheme
and his share will not be reduced below fifteen percent”)

(emphasis added). On a preponderance of the evidence, this

[34]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 35 of 39

Court rules that the Government has met its burden here.
Accordingly, the Court in its discretion reduces the award to
zero percent under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) (3).

Alternatively, Perry shall take nothing from the settlement
because of his convictions arising from his role in the
underlying FCA Violation under the “arising from” provision of
Section 3730(d) (3). Absent any binding or persuasive authority
as to the burden, the Court rules that the Governments have the
burden of proof on the issue of whether Perry’s convictions

arise from his role in the fraud. See Marchese, 2007 WL 4410255

at *8. As an initial matter, the Court rejects Perry’s
assertion that the statute is ambiguous, and turns to
application of the statute according to its plain and ordinary
meaning.

There is little case law in this area. Both parties cite

to Schroeder v. United States, 793 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2015).

There, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the relator
after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud for
submitting false time cards to his employer, who in turn
received payment from the government. Id. at 1081-82. The
Ninth Circuit addressed whether the statute required “the
dismissal of all relators convicted of criminal conduct arising
from the fraudulent conduct at issue in the qui tam suit,

particularly minor participants who neither planned nor
\

[35]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 36 of 39

initiated the fraudulent scheme.” Id. at 1082. The Ninth
Circuit reasoned that Section 3730(d) (3) “does not contain an
exception for minor participants, and the statute does not
indicate that it does not apply to relators like” the relator in
that action. Id. at 1083. Notably, the issue of “arising from”
nature of the crime was not in dispute. It is therefore
unhelpful to the Court.

Turning to this case, Perry was convicted of several crimes
“arising from” his role in the underlying scheme. The Court is
persuaded by the Governments’ argument that “arising from” does
not require that Perry be charged with the same fraud. Rather,
Perry’s convictions arose from his role in the on-going
participation in Bournewood’s fraud. To be sure, the evidence
reveals that Perry was preying upon the very individuals he was
purporting to assist. Through residents at RES being enrolled
in Bournewood’s IOP, Perry had access to vulnerable recovering
addicts, whom he engaged to distribute drugs, to engage in sex
for a fee, and to falsify records.

The Court rejects Perry’s attempt to distinguish, distance
and minimize his criminal conduct. To be sure, Perry’s criminal
activities were not part of the fraud itself, but his crimes
certainly were enabled by it. Perry claims that this is

dispositive, citing a single case, United States ex rel. Green

v. Serv. Cont. Educ. & Training Tr. Fund, 843 F. Supp. 2d 20, 28

[36]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 37 of 39

(D.D.C. 2012) as persuasive authority. Perry Suppl. 10. In
that case, the district court explained in dicta that there was
“no indication” that crimes relating to bribery and theft of
employee benefit property “related to the FCA violations”
concerning false allegations of “fringe benefits provided to the
contractor's employees complied with the standards of the
McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act .. . and related
Department of Labor . . . regulations. Id. at 25, 28 n.6.
Green stands for the proposition that a theft or bribery
“unrelated” to the scheme does not bar a relator’s share. Id.
Green, however, makes only a passing reference in a footnote to
this issue, and does not analyze the term “arising from” at all.
Id. at 28 n.6. Its persuasive value here is therefore limited.
Perry’s serious crimes, however, undoubtedly “arise from”
Perry’s “role” in the scheme, as he would not have been able to
undertake that criminal activity with respect to the particular
patients without his participation in the fraud. In the end,
the FCA, while designed to encourage those minor players ina
fraud to step forward, it is certainly not designed to reward
opportunistic criminals who participate in the fraud for a
decade, and use their fraud as an avenue to commit complementary
crimes -- here, to. groom recovering addicts to become drug

distributors or to engage in sex for a fee. While the First

Circuit has not addressed the scope of the statutory language at

[37]

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 38 of 39

issue, the Court is aware of no persuasive authority that
counsels a different result. As the Governments persuasively
argue, “Perry leveraged his role as a housing provider in the
kickback scheme to victimize recovering substance abusers, and
now he seeks $1[,400,000] (22%) of the settlement recovery, on
top of the $1[,000,000] that Bournewood already paid him to help
facilitate its kickback scheme.” Gov’ts. Suppl. 11. The Court
is persuaded by this argument on the complete record before it.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED on this alternative ground,
and Perry must be DISMISSED from the action. 31 U.S.C. §
3730 (d) (3).
Vv. CONCLUSION

The FCA cannot be used as a vehicle to profit by those who
initiate and plan in an underlying fraud, or opportunistic
criminals to profit from complementary crimes. Perry falls
within both of these categories and therefore, for the reasons
stated above, the Motion , ECF No. 59, is DENIED and he shall
take nothing from the settlement proceeds. Because this Court
has found that his convictions arise from his role in the fraud,
he is DISMISSED from the action. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) (3)
(“If the person bringing the action is convicted of criminal
conduct arising from his or her role in the violation of section

3729, that person shall be dismissed from the civil action and

Case 1:21-cv-11483-WGY Document 89 _ Filed 02/13/26 Page 39 of 39

shall not receive any share of the proceeds of the action.”)

(emphasis added) .

SO ORDERED.

lian A.

WILLIAM G. YQUNG
JUDGE
of the

UNITED STATES‘

oe

4 This is how my predecessor, Peleg Sprague
1865), would sign official documents. Now that I’m a Senior
District Judge I adopt this format in honor of all the judicial
colleagues, state and federal, with whom I have had the

privilege to serve over the past 47 years.

[39]

(D. Mass. 1841-