reported by
youarewithinthenorms.com
NORMAN J CLEMENT RPH., DDS, NORMAN L. CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, BELINDA BROWN-PARKER, IN THE SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., INC., SPIRIT OF REV. IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER R. CLEMENT BS., MS, MBA. HARVEY JENKINS, MD, PH.D., IN THE SPIRIT OF C.T. VIVIAN, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., M.B.A., IN THE SPIRIT OF THE HON. PATRICE LUMUMBA, IN THE SPIRIT OF ERLIN CLEMENT SR., EVELYN J. CLEMENT, IN THE SPIRIT OF WALTER F. WRENN III., MD., JULIE KILLINGSWORTH, RENEE BLARE, RPH, DR. TERENCE SASAKI, MD LESLY POMPY MD., CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, MD., NANCY SEEFELDT, IN THE SPIRIT OF WILLIE GUINYARD BS., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD., MBA, BEVERLY C. PRINCE MD., FACS., NEIL ARNAND, MD., RICHARD KAUL, MD., IN THE SPIRIT OF LEROY BAYLOR, JAY K. JOSHI MD., MBA, AISHA GARDNER, ADRIENNE EDMUNDSON, ESTER HYATT PH.D., WALTER L. SMITH BS., IN THE SPIRIT OF BRAHM FISHER ESQ., MICHELE ALEXANDER MD., CUDJOE WILDING BS, MARTIN NJOKU, BS., RPH., IN THE SPIRIT OF DEBRA LYNN SHEPHERD, BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISORS
The Tennessee Medical Board dismissed the case
“finding no wrongdoing”
The healthcare fraud allegations against Dr. Sanjeev Kumar are deeply tied to a massive legal and financial battle, presenting a sharp conflict between the Department of Justice’s prosecution narrative and the defense’s data-backed counterarguments.
The Origin and “Salacious” Initial Charges
The case began in April 2024 when the FBI searched Dr. Kumar’s Poplar Avenue Clinic in Memphis, seizing medical instruments and questioning staff under allegations of overutilizing office hysteroscopy services and improperly handling medical devices. Following the raid, federal authorities filed a complaint with the Tennessee Medical Board.
However, after conducting an unannounced visit and analyzing the clinic’s practices, the Medical Board dismissed the case, finding no wrongdoing and leaving Dr. Kumar’s license fully intact.
Despite this clearance, federal prosecutors moved forward with an indictment in February 2025. Shockingly, the initial charges recharacterized standard cancer-screening procedures as human trafficking, sexual assault, and rape. Prosecutors argued that because the procedures were allegedly not covered by billing criteria, they constituted “fraudulent penetrations” (equated to rape), and because patients crossed state lines to reach the clinic, it constituted human trafficking. While these sexual charges were eventually dropped after a few months, they caused immense, lasting damage to Dr. Kumar’s reputation and clinic.
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar joins Conversations with Angela to discuss the case that changed his life
The Billing and “Loss Amount” Math
The financial dispute centers on what supporters call “weaponized math” used to inflate the scale of the alleged fraud:
- The “$4.8 Million” Narrative vs. Actual Costs: The DOJ publicized a headline figure of $4.8 million netted from Medicare and Medicaid over five years. However, dividing $4.8 million by the clinic’s approximately 15,000 hysteroscopy procedures reveals an average payment of just $329 per procedure.
- Taxpayer Savings: According to official Medicare data, the average cost for a hysteroscopy with biopsy (CPT Code 58558) is $3,511 in a hospital outpatient setting and $1,942 in an Ambulatory Surgical Center. By performing these in his office for $329, Dr. Kumar actually saved the taxpayer-funded system millions; sending those same 15,000 women to a hospital outpatient department would have cost upwards of $52 million.
- Fictitious Loss Extrapolations: At sentencing, the judge calculated a staggering $33 million “loss amount” to determine his 20-year prison sentence. This figure was artificially inflated by counting “junk data” entries, denied claims, crossover claims, and clerical insurance errors made by an independent billing company that Dr. Kumar did not directly control.
- Operational Overhead: The prosecution ignored the fact that 65% of the clinic’s revenue went directly to high operational overhead—such as equipment, staffing, and malpractice insurance—meaning the actual take-home revenue was minuscule.
Flaws in the Prosecution’s Technical Evidence
The trial was marked by severe technical and factual contradictions regarding the handling and reuse of medical devices:
- The Single-Use Device Accusation: Dr. Kumar was accused of performing thousands of procedures by reusing single-use Endometrial Pipelle cannulas while only ordering 200 of them. However, the defense submitted purchase records proving the clinic had ordered over 40,000 endometrial biopsy devices.
- Technological Impossibility: The specific single-use devices used (manufactured by Olympus) possess a built-in radio-frequency chip deactivation “kill switch” that structurally prevents physical reuse. Additionally, the prosecution bypassed proving actual reuse on patients altogether, arguing in court that they were not required to prove actual use to secure an adulteration conviction.
- FDA Contradictions: The lead FDA reviewer, Dr. Polami Nandi, testified that the FDA has never cleared a hysteroscope for high-level disinfection. Yet, the legally binding Instruction for Use (IFU) document cleared by the FDA for the Olympus HYXP device explicitly states multiple times that it can be processed with either high-level disinfection or sterilization.
“Evil doesn’t snarl and have horns; it winks and wears a tie along the way.”
🕷️🕷️🕷️
THE GOVERNMENTS’ RELIANCE ON THE SUBJECT MATTER COCKSUCKERS FOR CONVICTIONS
Irregularities in Government Testimony
The defense flagged numerous procedural issues and under-qualified expert witnesses used by the prosecution:
- Matt McDonald (Chart Reviewer): The government’s medical necessity reviewer was a hospital-employed oncologist who admitted under oath that he does not perform office hysteroscopies and did not know the equipment used. His review fraudulently included “ghost” procedures, including some dated in 2017 before the clinic was even open.
- Dr. Jonah Bandopadai (TennCare Deputy Chief Medical Officer): This reviewer had not seen a clinical patient in over five years, was not an oncologist, and had been instructed by the state board to undergo a re-entry pathway to practice clinical medicine.
- Dr. Ben Abdu (Immunity Witness): A former employee of Dr. Kumar was granted immunity despite admitting under oath that he elected to reuse single-use devices on patients because he felt they were more comfortable, even though Dr. Kumar had provided him with multi-use devices and written high-level disinfection protocols.
Finally, Dr. Kumar and his advocates frame these allegations not as a legitimate fraud investigation, but as an orchestrated, financially motivated attack designed to protect corporate hospital monopolies and systematically dismantle successful independent medical practices.
🔓 🔓 🔓
ALL WATCHED OVER BY MACHINES OF LOVING GRACE
OUR TREE OF KNOWLEDGE SHALL NEVER BE SUPPRESSED
FOR NOW you are within
THE NORMS
REFERENCES:
REMMER HEARING
TULSAFICATION OF DR. HAROLD O. ALEXANDER, MD
DR. MARK IBSEN, MD LEGAL CLASH WITH BOME
THE RAILROADING OF DR. BARBARA D. MARINO, MD
