Rye eye surgeon accused of bilking COVID-19 loan program of $637,200
Rye eye surgeon Ameet Goyal has been indicted for allegedly getting two COVID-19 business loans totaling $637,200 that he was not allowed to receive because he was facing criminal charges in an alleged $3 million health care fraud scheme.
Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss announced a superseding indictment June 24, adding charges of bank fraud and making false statements on loan applications.
“We have moved to dismiss the first indictment,” Goyal”™s attorney, Marc Mukasey, responded in an email, “and are preparing to fight whatever remains of the case at trial.”
“For the record, Dr. Goyal has spent the past several months caring for his patients with skill and empathy, and volunteering his time to treat patients afflicted with COVID-19,” Mukasey said.
Goyal, 57, owns and operates Eye Associates Group, and Rye Eye Associates, according to the government, and has practiced in Rye, Mount Kisco, Wappingers Falls, New York City and Greenwich, Connecticut.
The original indictment, issued Nov. 21, alleges that Goyal defrauded patients, Medicare and private insurance plans from 2010 to 2017.
Then in April, Goyal applied for two Paycheck Protection Program loans, financed by the federal government under the Coronarivus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act and administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Applicants with pending criminal charges are ineligible for PPP loans, and the borrowers who are eligible may receive only one loan.
Goyal allegedly submitted an April 21 application for a $358,700 loan for Ameet Goyal, doing business as “Eye associates.” He included a report showing monthly payroll of $97,273.
He applied again April 29, for $278,500 for “Rye eye associates.”
“Although the Loan 2 application purported to be for a different loan, with a different loan amount, to a different business name, with a different business identification number than .. Loan 1, the defendant submitted the exact same payroll report,” the superseding indictment states.
Goyal also answered “no” on both applications to whether he was subject to any criminal charges and he identified himself as the 100% owner of both businesses.
Both loans were approved and fully funded.
If convicted, a judge could add up to 10 years of additional jail time to the original charges, according to a press release issued by the acting U.S. Attorney. The original three charges carry maximum penalties of five to 20 years imprisonment.
The original indictment accuses Goyal of submitting false claims for services that were not performed, were misrepresented and were billed at a more lucrative level than warranted.
For instance, the medical practice performed many procedures for a minor condition in which a bump develops on an eyelid, usually because of a blocked oil gland. The bump is typically treated with warm compresses and gentle massage and clears up on its own, according to the indictment.
Sometimes the bump, called a chalazion, was excised in a 15-minute procedure, for which the medical practice was typically paid $200.
Goyal was accused of frequently billing health care providers for more complicated procedures that were not performed and for which he typically received $500 to $950. He submitted $8 million in claims, according to the indictment, and received more than $3 million for misrepresented surgeries.
He is accused of directing employees to falsify bills and medical records and “threatened the livelihood of employees of the practice who were reluctant to comply with these directions.”
He also allegedly initiated debt collection actions against patients who did not pay the full amount of procedures that were not performed.
His attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss the original indictment, stating that it “fails to identify even a single instance in which Dr. Goyal did any of those things.
“Without such basic and essential facts, or notice as to who was defrauded, how the fraud was accomplished, and the dates on which the fraud was allegedly carried out,” the June 2 motion states, “the indictment is deficient on its face and musts be dismissed.”