Case record · Fresno practice · 2024 settlement
Goswami and California Pain Consultants
A Fresno settlement in which the government's contentions are denied
A Fresno pain-medicine practice and its physician paid $835,000, including $464,000 in restitution, to resolve allegations arising from the same MSO arrangement at issue in United States v. Peters — while denying the government's contentions.
The distinction that matters
California Pain Consultants and Dr. Goswami paid $835,000 — of which $464,000 is designated restitution — and the agreement states in terms that they "den[y] the United States' contentions." There are no accepted-facts paragraphs of the kind in the Mukker agreement. The two resolutions were announced together and arise from the same alleged MSO arrangement; their legal terms are not the same.P11P10
Stated by the operative instrument itself: a signed order, an executed agreement, a statute, an official opinion.
An identifiable public source that is not the operative instrument: a DOJ announcement, a docket summary, a reproduced text.
Reported by a party or index and confined to what the reporter says; the underlying document was not obtained.
KPSGILL analysis from timing, structure or omission — labeled, never promoted to fact.
A question the retrieved record does not answer; the document that would answer it is named.
| Parties | United States (DOJ, HHS-OIG and the Defense Health Agency) · California Pain Consultants, the business name of Amitabh U. Goswami, D.O., Inc., a Fresno medical corporation, and Dr. Goswami |
|---|---|
| Announced | November 21, 2024, with the Mukker settlement, and tied by DOJ to United States v. Peters |
| Amount | $835,000, of which $464,000 is restitution — $800,000 within 45 days and $35,000 within 75 days of the effective date |
| Liability | Not an admission of liability; the government's contentions are denied |
| Status label | SETTLED WITHOUT LIABILITY FINDING · CONTENTIONS DENIED |
The government's contentions
Documented — contentions, denied. The United States contended that the practice invested in the Bayview and Coastline MSOs; that the MSOs were affiliated with mail-order pharmacies to which the practice referred and directed patients for dispensing between August 2017 and August 2021; that by soliciting or receiving remuneration through those arrangements the practice violated the Anti-Kickback Statute; and that it thereby knowingly caused false claims to Medicare, Medi-Cal and TRICARE and conspired in relation to those violations.P11
Why the difference from Mukker is not a technicality
An agreement's accepted facts can be quoted as the party's own acknowledgment; contentions that a party denies can only be reported as the government's position. Neither agreement adjudicates liability, and neither establishes what any other defendant did or knew. In the Peters litigation, the government must prove its case against the remaining defendants with its own evidence; a settling physician's agreement is a different instrument with its own released parties, covered conduct and reservations.P11P10
Restitution designations matter for the same reason. Both agreements allocate part of the payment to restitution — $464,000 here — which identifies the portion the parties treated as compensatory; it is a contractual allocation, not a judicial damages finding.P11
Sources
Official issuers and original instruments are preferred; reproductions of primary legal text are identified. A source that opens is not proof of every neighbouring claim. Checked 1 November 2026 unless stated.
- P01U.S. Attorney's Office, E.D. Cal. — Fresno doctors agree to pay $2.4 million to resolve kickback allegations (Nov. 21, 2024)
- P10Settlement Agreement, United States and Jagpreet Mukker, D.P.M. and Jay Mukker, DPM Inc. (2024)
- P11Settlement Agreement, United States and California Pain Consultants and Amitabh Goswami, D.O. (2024)
Fresno and Eastern District False Claims Act library
- Fresno division · 1:19-cv-01699TerpeningDiscovery · sanctions undecided
- Sacramento division · 2:24-cv-00287PetersDiscovery · Rule 37(b) preclusion adopted
- Fresno practice · 2024 agreementMukkerSettled with specified facts accepted
- Fresno practice · 2024 agreementGoswami / California Pain ConsultantsSettled; contentions denied
- Eastern District of CaliforniaRegional and criminal comparatorsDated historical records
- Governing lawThe False Claims Act in healthcareStatute, pleading, materiality, scienter, Stark, AKS
Case library index · The Fresno Files · Healthcare enforcement investigation · Source ledger