On July 30, 2025, the Department of Justice announced that two dermatology providers agreed to pay $847,394 to settle allegations of submitting improper claims to Medicare for wound repair procedures in violation of the False Claims Act. The government alleged that the practices engaged in “upcoding” by billing linear repairs as higher-reimbursing flap repairs, and that some flap repairs were billed using CPT codes that were not supported by the practice’s documentation. The case originated from a whistleblower suit filed by a former employee in late 2023, one of an increasing number of qui tam false claims cases filed in recent years.

This case underscores a stark reality: as the federal government continues to crack down on health care fraud, wound care billing is directly in the crosshairs of regulators.

Why This Matters to You

The government’s allegations in this settlement are a perfect example of the type of “high yield” conduct the government has been targeting in recent months. Wound repair billing sits at the intersection of complex CPT coding rules, variability or discrepancies in provider documentation, and rising utilization of flap and graft repairs across dermatology, surgery, and wound care practices. This combination makes wound care a prime target for audits, data-driven investigations, and qui tam lawsuits. This settlement is yet another example of a trend our firm is seeing across the country: providers are being held accountable for minute, hyper-technical distinctions in wound repair coding, including how they document techniques, measurements, and levels of complexity.

These determinations are far from simple. The line between a linear repair and a flap repair, or between an intermediate and a complex repair, is not merely a clinical judgment — it is a distinction that bears significant legal consequences, from federal reimbursement to False Claims Act exposure. Even well-intentioned providers can find themselves accused of upcoding when coding guidance, medical record templates, or individual documentation practices are even slightly out of step with federal standards.

The Bottom Line: You Need Experienced Counsel

As former federal prosecutors and government attorneys, we know the government’s playbook when it comes to wound care practice audits. Data analytics flag high-billing outliers, documentation gets dissected, and once the government alleges “inconsistent with coding policy,” the pressure escalates quickly.

The coding traps in wound care are subtle, and the stakes have never been higher. One misaligned repair code or ambiguous note in a patient’s chart can turn into a six-figure overpayment demand, government investigation, or exclusion threat. This is not the moment to rely solely on your billing staff or internal compliance team.

At Health Law Alliance, we bring the insight of former prosecutors and high-level government health-care attorneys who now defend providers against these threats every day. Our team understands what it takes to protect your practice before the spotlight turns harsh.

If your practice is performing wound repair procedures and you’ve received any inquiry or notice for an upcoming audit, you cannot afford to wait. Engaging counsel early in the process means you don’t face the investigation on your own.

Contact Health Law Alliance today for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. When enforcement moves fast and documentation comes under fire, having seasoned defense counsel makes the difference between controlling the narrative and reacting from the back foot.