Michigan pharmacist charged with Medicaid fraud and unauthorized practice
A pharmacist whose Michigan license was suspended now faces state felony charges over accusations that he continued to fill prescriptions, including some to Medicaid.
Remigius U. Onimo, 64, of Solon, Ohio, had owned Divine Pharmacy on Livernois Avenue in Detroit and held a pharmacist license in the state of Michigan, according to the press release from Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.
Onimo is now charged with one count of health profession-unauthorized practice and two counts of Medicaid fraud-false claim.
An arraignment hearing took place Wednesday at 54-B District Court in East Lansing.
The unauthorized practice charge is punishable by up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine; the Medicaid fraud charges are each punishable by up to four years in prison and/or a $50,000 fine.
The next court hearing in this case is May 5.
Onimo's Michigan pharmacist license was suspended in January 2020 and remained suspended during 2021, the attorney general's office reported in its press release. Despite the circumstances, they allege he continued to fill prescriptions, including some that were billed to Medicaid.
The Michigan Attorney General's Health Care Fraud Division is handling the investigation on this case. The division is the federally certified Medicaid Fraud Control Unit for Michigan, receiving 75 percent of its current annual budget from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the rest from the State of Michigan.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
There's an Alarming Part of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' You Probably Haven't Heard Much About
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Ever since Republicans' budget megabill passed the GOP-controlled House—by just one vote, mind you—the headlines about it have largely focused on its cuts to Medicaid. But one noteworthy aspect of the bill has gotten much less attention: It would massively increase the amount of taxpayer dollars going to immigration enforcement. Though Republicans are touting the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a historic tax-saving, economy-boosting piece of legislation, it sets aside a whopping $80 billion for immigration enforcement, according to an analysis by the American Immigration Council. All in all, the AIC concluded that if signed into law, the OBBBA 'would represent the single biggest increase in funding to immigration enforcement in the history of the United States.' Currently, Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it has 'an annual budget of approximately $8 billion,' and $3.4 billion of that is spent on detention, according to the AIC. Under the OBBBA, the agency would be given $45 billion for immigration detention alone through September 2029, which amounts to about $12 billion annually. The bill also gives ICE $14 billion to spend on deportation operations and $8 billion to hire more ICE officers. Adriel Orozco, senior policy counsel at the AIC, has been closely tracking the OBBBA as it was finalized and passed the House. 'If you compare the detention budget to fiscal year 2023, which is the last fiscal year we have a clear-cut number for, this is a 265 percent increase,' he said. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Customs and Border Protection, and ICE, has already been on the front lines of much of the Trump administration's lawless activity that's being challenged in the courts: grabbing a student off the street for writing an op-ed; arresting people as they leave court hearings, and brazenly deporting people to countries they are not from, ignoring at least two different judges' orders. 'The kinds of dollars we're talking about would really unlock an ability for the Trump administration to level up the cruelty of their enforcement actions at taxpayer expense,' said Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, 'in a way that I'm not sure we can even envision right now.' And there's another historic change buried in the bill: It would charge asylum-seekers exorbitant fees just to submit an application to be considered to live here. Currently, when a person looks to leave their home country because of fear that they'll be persecuted over their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, they can immigrate to the U.S. and, once they are on American soil, apply for asylum. The process is free, as U.S. lawmakers up until this point have respected the fact that these folks are oftentimes fleeing life-threatening situations. The OBBBA would change that by charging individuals $1,000 a pop to submit an asylum application. Orozco noted that there have been attempts in the past to instate a fee for asylum applications, including during Trump's first term, but it was only around $50 and never ended up materializing. If the OBBBA becomes law—and if this provision isn't stripped out as the bill makes its way through the Senate—it would be the first time in our country's history that applying for asylum would carry a fee. On top of the $1,000 base fee, the bill would require asylum-seekers to cough up $100 every year that their application is pending. According to USCIS, asylum applications are resolved 'within 180 days' after they are filed, but TRAC, a government watchdog group, estimates that DHS has a backlog of 3.6 million active immigration cases, including asylum applications. The average wait time for all immigration cases to resolve is 636 days—and TRAC notes not just that asylum cases tend to take judges more time but that the backlog of those cases has been growing. Based on that estimate, it would take roughly two years for an asylum case to be resolved. The bill includes a host of other immigration-related fees, including a mandatory $550 every six months in order to keep a work permit. It also increases the current fee for appealing an asylum-application decision from $110 to $900. The OBBBA does not include any pathway to waive these charges. 'People who are applying for asylum the first time are not yet work-authorization eligible, so you're asking people who don't have legal permission to work in this country to somehow pull together the funds for an application,' Altman said. 'And it's also misaligned with international law and our obligations under the Refugee Convention to require people to pay, particularly that steep of a fee, for just getting access to asylum protections.' The OBBBA is currently in the Senate, where it could undergo significant changes—particularly because of the Byrd rule, which requires that everything in a reconciliation bill be directly related to the budget. To Orozco's knowledge, Democrats have been mostly silent when it comes to the OBBBA's immigration policies. 'At the end of the day, we do recognize that it's an uphill battle, that a lot of the conversation around the reconciliation bill is not about immigration,' he said. 'We will be trying to make those arguments and are hoping that we are able to at least decrease or remove some of these fees, but we are concerned that there's a real possibility that these can be imposed.' Donald Trump has made it clear he wants this bill on his desk to sign into law by July 4, but Senate Republicans have a long road ahead of them. They can afford to lose only three votes, and so far, at least three lawmakers have indicated they would vote against the current version of the bill.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Netanyahu in cross-examination: I was ‘political carcass' from 1999 to 2002
The prosecution's questioning, led by attorney Yehonatan Tadmor, focused on the depth and extent of Netanyahu's friendship with Arnon Milchan. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a 'political carcass' between 1999 and 2002 - meaning that his friendship with billionaire Hollywood producer-turned state's witness Arnon Milchan was purely personal, the prime minister argued against the prosecution's notions, at the cross-examination hearing of his criminal trial testimony on Wednesday. The prosecution's questioning, led by attorney Yehonatan Tadmor, focused on the depth and extent of Netanyahu's friendship with Milchan, at the hearing in the Tel Aviv District Court. The prosecution's thesis is that this friendship had political manifestations, laying out the basis for Case 1000 - one of the three cases levied against the prime minister - while Netanyahu insisted that the friendship was deeply personal, and that the insinuation that it was political is beneath it. Unlike on Tuesday, the prosecution on Wednesday moved its questioning further along and got more of them in, though the defense objected wherever it could. The judges showed a little less leniency towards the delays on Wednesday, preferring in most cases to move the questioning along. In Case 1000, or the 'Illegal Gifts' affair, Netanyahu is on trial for advancing legislation favorable to Milchan, while receiving gifts from him in the form of cigars and champagne, worth thousands of shekels. Tadmor asked about what was dubbed the 'Bibi Law,' which was passed in 2002 and permitted the running of politicians who had previously served as prime ministers. At the time, this would only have been applicable to Netanyahu. However, the coalition at the time fell soon after, making the law irrelevant. In what became a common objection, every time the prosecution tried to present new information with which to base questions off of to Netanyahu, the defense objected on the same legal grounds as on Tuesday: The materials were contradictory and external to those already presented in the case, and so are invalid. Judge Oded Shaham insisted that the decision issued on the matter on Tuesday - 'which we all remember clearly' - specified that submitting evidence during cross-examination is not within the accepted legal framework. The judges later permitted the presentation of such materials, not to be submitted as evidence, but rather only presented to gauge an answer from Netanyahu, starting from next week. What is valuable to the prosecution here is Netanyahu's answer, less the materials themselves. Tadmor argued that the 'Bibi Law,' which was proposed as an amendment to Basic Law: The Government, was advanced with Netanyahu in mind. It passed initial readings in the Knesset on December 18, 2000, in a 63-45 vote. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon won the elections that came shortly thereafter. Tadmor explained that Netanyahu was the only relevant public figure it would have related to at the time. The question then, regarding those years, was the relevance of the friendship with Milchan at that time, around 1999, when it would have carried political consequences. Tadmor asked Netanyahu what he knew of the public's perception of the law itself. 'I understood at the time that some people wanted me back, but I knew that I had no such intention, a sentiment I shared with Milchan.' He added, pointedly, 'I said this to you yesterday: I had no intention to return to politics.' He explained, 'From 1999 until 2002, I was out of the political picture, both because I couldn't get back in, and because I didn't want to.' Tadmor pointed out that Netanyahu viewing and calling himself a 'political carcass' throughout this series of questions is not an account he told police in his interrogations, and also that one month after he lost the Likud primaries in 2002 to Sharon, he was made foreign minister and finance minister in his government - so how could he have asserted that his political career was over when he jumped right into it? Netanyahu insisted that between 1999 and 2002, he never wanted to return to politics, and that this was clear to his close circles, to people like Milchan. Tadmor insisted, in turn, that this simply wasn't true specifically in 2002, around election time. Netanyahu explained that he had no political horizon to return to. 'Israel was in its worst financial position it had been in years. I knew that these positions would bury me, and even more than that - I never stood a chance to become prime minister.' He continued, 'So I asked myself: If I were to become prime minister again, why would that be? The answers for me were the financial mess and Iran, though I knew that the price for it would be massive. But, I figured I would fulfill at least one of my goals - to shift Israel financially.' He added that he knew, going into it, that it was political suicide. What this does is underscore the prosecution's position, that his political reality changed or was influenced by his friendship with Milchan. In 2005, Netanyahu was elected as opposition head, a position he served in until 2009, when he became prime minister. Tadmor proposed that being an opposition head is not a 'political carcass,' and that he had indeed planned his return to politics, in what was presumably an attempt to show inconsistencies in Netanyahu's character as a witness. 'My understanding at the time, at least during those first two years [1999-2001], was that my political life span was over. It took time for that to change,' explained Netanyahu. Tadmor presented a poll from the time showing that Ehud Olmert's party, Kadima, was sinking. Olmert won the elections in 2006 and served as prime minister until 2009. One year before the elections, a Smith Institute poll commissioned by Ynet found that Netanyahu was 'the most appropriate figure to lead the country,' Tadmor showed. Netanyahu dismissed it, saying that other polls showed the exact opposite and that, in fact, Kadima bounced back. 'My friendship with Milchan was completely disconnected from politics and had no effect or was affected by any of my political ups and downs!' Netanyahu charged. The prime minister insisted that politically, he was beaten from 2006 to 2009, and that his friendship with Milchan stayed even stronger throughout these 'intense political losses.' Netanyahu moved to attack Tadmor, saying that he was pushing a specific narrative that doesn't exist. Netanyahu's outburst gave Tadmor the invisible point he really wanted - calling his reliability into question. 'This whole narrative line is absurd,' said Netanyahu. Tadmor said, 'The way in which you describe your closeness and the development of your friendship doesn't reflect reality.' Netanyahu responded, 'The opposite is true: We had a true and real friendship right off the bat, a friendship that bled into our family relations as well.'
CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
Judge orders tranche of documents in Kilmar Abrego Garcia case to be made public
Washington — The federal judge overseeing the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia ordered a batch of documents to be unsealed Wednesday in response to a request from a media coalition that includes CBS News. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said seven records must be be made available on the public docket for Abrego Garcia's case, though one of the documents contains redactions. She also said the transcript from an April 30 hearing will be partially unsealed and include redactions that aim to protect potentially classified information or other sensitive material. Xinis' order was in response to a request to unseal court records made by more than a dozen news organizations, including CBS News. The judge found that the media outlets "rightly contend that, at common law, the public enjoys a presumptive right to access court records, overcome only when outweighed by competing interests." The Justice Department opposed the request to make the records public on two grounds: the filings in question are discovery materials that are typically not available to the press and the public; and keeping the documents sealed is needed to protect national security and prevent sensitive information from being disseminated. As to those arguments, Xinis said "neither withstand scrutiny." One batch of three documents had been available to the public but were then sealed following an April hearing. Another record is a three-page Justice Department request to pause for one week the court's order to turn over certain information about efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from Salvadoran custody. The document that contains redactions is from Abrego Garcia's lawyers and urged the judge to maintain the original deadlines for information to be produced. The final records made public are a brief, one-sentence notice and additional request from the Justice Department for Xinis to pause proceedings to avoid interfering with efforts to "resolve this litigation." Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran migrant who had been living in Maryland since he arrived in the U.S. illegally in 2011. He was arrested in March and deported to El Salvador, where he was initially held in the notorious maximum-security Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT, with a group of more than 230 men, mostly Venezuelans, accused of being gang members. The State Department said in April that Abrego Garica had been moved to a lower-security facility in Santa Ana. But the Trump administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia's deportation to El Salvador was a mistake, as he had been granted a legal status in 2019 known as withholding of removal that forbade the Department of Homeland Security from removing him to his home country of El Salvador because he was likely to face persecution by local gangs. The Trump administration has claimed Abrego Garcia is a member of the gang MS-13, citing an allegation from a confidential informant and the clothes he was wearing when he was arrested in 2019, after which he was released from custody. His lawyers have denied Abrego Garcia has any ties to MS-13, and said he has never been charged or convicted of a crime in the U.S. or El Salvador. The Trump administration is seeking to dismiss Abrego Garcia's case.
