Pain clinic CEO faced 20 years for making patients "human pin cushions." He got 18 months.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Federal prosecutors sought a maximum prison sentence of nearly 20 years for the CEO of Pain MD, a company found to have given hundreds of thousands of questionable injections to patients, many reliant on opioids. It would have been among the longest sentences for a health care executive convicted of fraud in recent years.
Instead, he got 18 months.
Michael Kestner, 73, who was convicted of 13 fraud felonies last year, faced at least a decade behind bars based on federal sentencing guidelines. He was granted the substantially lightened sentence due to his age and health Wednesday during a federal court hearing in Nashville.
Pain MD CEO Michael Kestner leaves a federal courthouse in Nashville, Tennessee, followed by one of his lawyers, after being sentenced to 18 months in federal prison on May 14.
Brett Kelman/KFF Health News
U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger described Kestner as a "ruthless businessman" who funded a "lavish lifestyle" by turning medical professionals into "puppets" who pressured patients into injections that did not help their pain and sometimes made it worse.
"In the court's eyes, he knew it was wrong, and he didn't really care if it was doing anyone any good," Trauger said.
But Trauger also said she was swayed by defense arguments that Kestner would struggle in federal prison due to his age and medical conditions, including the blood disorder hemochromatosis. Trauger said she had concerns about prison health care after considering about 200 requests for compassionate release in other court cases.
"The medical care at these facilities," defense attorney Peter Strianse said, "has always been dodgy and suspect."
Kestner did not speak at the court hearing, other than to detail his medical conditions. He did not respond to questions as he left the courthouse.
Pain MD ran as many as 20 clinics in Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina throughout much of the 2010s. While many doctors were scaling back their use of prescription painkillers due to the opioid crisis, Pain MD paired opioids with monthly injections into patients' backs, claiming the shots could ease pain and potentially lessen reliance on pills, according to federal court documents.
During Kestner's October trial, the Department of Justice proved that the injections were part of a decadelong scheme that defrauded Medicare and other insurance programs of millions of dollars by capitalizing on patients' dependence on opioids.
The DOJ successfully argued at trial that Pain MD's "unnecessary and expensive injections" were largely ineffective because they targeted the wrong body part, contained short-lived numbing medications but no steroids, and appeared to be based on test shots given to cadavers — people who felt neither pain nor relief because they were dead. During closing arguments, the DOJ argued Pain MD had turned some patients into "human pin cushions."
"They were leaned over a table and repeatedly injected in their spine," federal prosecutor Katherine Payerle said during the May 14 sentencing hearing. "Over and over, month after month, at the direction of Mr. Kestner."
At last year's trial, witnesses testified that Kestner was the driving force behind the injections, which amounted to roughly 700,000 shots over about eight years, with some patients receiving up to 24 at once.
Four former patients testified that they tolerated the shots out of fear that Pain MD otherwise would have cut off their painkiller prescriptions, without which they might have spiraled into withdrawal.
One of those patients, Michelle Shaw, told KFF Health News that the injections sometimes left her in so much pain she had to use a wheelchair. She was outraged by Kestner's sentence.
"I'm disgusted that all they got was a slap on the wrist as far as I'm concerned," Shaw said May 14. "I hope karma comes back to him. That he suffers to his last breath."
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Major Social Security Mistakes Boomers Can't Stop Making
Retirement planning is both complicated and high-stakes — a recipe for mistakes with major financial consequences. And sure enough, Business Insider reported that more than half of Americans over 65 earn less than $30,000 a year. As you plan your own retirement, watch out for these Social Security mistakes plaguing current baby boomers. Check Out: Read Next: Too many people reach their early 60s and think: 'I've been paying into the system for decades, I need to lock in my share!' Unfortunately, that leaves them with far lower lifetime benefits than if they'd waited. 'Filing early means locking in a permanent reduction in benefits, up to 30% if your full retirement age is 67,' explained Christine M. Parisi, senior wealth advisor at R.W. Rogé & Company. If you take benefits at age 62, you receive just 70% of your full retirement benefit. At 67, you collect 100%. Wait until 70, and you receive 124% of your full Social Security benefit. Learn More: Plan to continue working for a while? Hold off on taking Social Security — and not just to secure higher benefits. 'If your earnings exceed the annual limit, the Social Security Administration may withhold $1 in benefits for every $2 you earn over the threshold,' Parisi added. 'Benefits can also push your income higher for Medicare-related costs like IRMAA, meaning you could end up paying more in premiums.' Plus, combining your salary with Social Security can push you into a higher tax bracket. You can end up handing much of that money right back to Uncle Sam. If one spouse earned significantly higher income, or worked for many years longer, their benefits will be higher. Plan to optimize those, perhaps by having that spouse delay benefits while the family lives on earned income or distributions from retirement accounts before taking benefits. Parisi noted that different rules apply to surviving spouses. 'If your late spouse worked long enough to qualify for Social Security, you may be able to start collecting survivor benefits as early as age 60. Unfortunately, many don't realize this is even an option until it's too late.' First and foremost, when you planned your retirement income, did you account for taxes? You'll still owe income taxes in retirement, at least under current tax laws. 'A portion of Social Security benefits are taxable, up to 85%, based on your provisional income,' said Keith Hensley of Florida Financial Planning. Many states tax Social Security benefits as well. The upshot? You may need more money saved for retirement than you thought. Again, you may be better off working another year and delaying Social Security benefits. It may not be too late for a Roth conversion to make sense. If you have a year with lower income, consider taking the tax hit and converting some of your traditional retirement funds to Roth accounts, so they can compound tax-free and you can avoid paying taxes on withdrawals in retirement. If Social Security is your only — or your primary — plan for retirement income, expect stormy seas ahead. William Connor, CFA and CFP with Sax Wealth Advisors, added some historical context. 'Social Security was created as a safety net for older Americans. It was not designed as a primary source of retirement income, and won't replace your working income.' Instead, combine it with other sources of income such as retirement accounts, health savings accounts (HSAs), taxable brokerage accounts, real estate investments and perhaps part-time fun working gigs. The less you rely on Social Security income, the more comfortable and secure your retirement will be. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks How Much Money Is Needed To Be Considered Middle Class in Every State? This article originally appeared on 5 Major Social Security Mistakes Boomers Can't Stop Making Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-UnitedHealth eyes $1 billion deal to exit Latin America as insurer refocuses on US, sources say
By Tatiana Bautzer and Sabrina Valle NEW YORK (Reuters) -UnitedHealth Group is weighing multiple bids for its Latin American operations, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter, as the insurer buckles down after a series of unprecedented missteps that include the ouster of its CEO and a reported criminal accounting probe. The largest U.S. health insurer has been trying to exit Latin America since 2022, but the sale of Banmedica has taken on increasing urgency in recent months as the insurer took hits on multiple fronts, according to one of the people. New CEO Steve Hemsley told shareholders last week that he was determined to earn back their trust after an earnings miss and a Wall Street Journal report that the company was under criminal investigation for alleged Medicare fraud. UnitedHealth has said it was not notified by the Department of Justice and that it stands by the integrity of its operations. Hemsley replaced Andrew Witty as CEO, who had been in the post for only a matter of months following the murder of his predecessor, Brian Thompson, in New York in December while on his way to a meeting with investors. The company has four non-binding bids for its Banmedica subsidiary, which operates in Colombia and Chile, for about $1 billion, according to both people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. UnitedHealth's shares tumbled 25.5% in May alone and year-to-date are down 40%. UnitedHealth left Brazil in 2023 and Peru in March. It's aiming to get around $1 billion for Banmedica's operations in Colombia and Chile, the people said. The two people said the company expects to set a deadline for binding proposals as soon as July. UnitedHealth received bids from Washington, D.C.-based private equity firm Acon Investments; Sao Paulo-based private equity firm Patria Investments; Texas non-profit health firm Christus Health; and Lima-based healthcare and insurance provider Auna, the people said. Auna is in talks with a financial partner, one of the sources added. Banmedica's annual earnings before income taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, is more than $200 million a year. Patria and Christus Health declined to comment. UnitedHealth, Acon and Auna did not respond to requests for comment. FAILED EXPANSION PLANS UnitedHealth bought Banmedica in 2018, with CEO David Scott saying he was "establishing a foundation for growth in South America for the next decades." At the time, UnitedHealth paid around 12 times Banmedica's EBITDA, according to one of the people. Three years later, the insurer decided to leave Latin America as it grappled with losses in its largest operation in the region, Brazil's Amil, which had been acquired a decade earlier. It divested from its Brazilian operations in late 2023. Banmedica is currently profitable, but is considered too small by UnitedHealth. It serves over 2.1 million consumers through its health insurance programs and has around 4 million patient visits annually across its network of 13 hospitals and 143 medical centers. UnitedHealth booked an $8.3 billion loss last year related to the sale of its South American operations - $7.1 billion stemming from the Brazil exit and $1.2 billion from Banmedica. "These losses relate to our strategic exit of South American markets and include significant losses related to foreign currency translation effects," the company said in a February filing. Brazilian investment bank BTG Pactual is advising UnitedHealth on the sale.
New York Post
30 minutes ago
- New York Post
Lawyers urging ‘caution' on antitrust remedies in Google search trial have cozy ties to Big Tech
A group of prominent lawyers claimed to be objective last month as they urged a federal judge to take 'caution' when imposing antitrust remedies against Google's online search empire — but many of them have cozy ties to Big Tech, The Post has learned. US District Judge Amit Mehta is expected to rule by August on the best way to rein in Google's illegal dominance over online search after ruling last year that the company was a 'monopolist.' The Justice Department, rather than merely punishing past misdeeds, wants Google and CEO Sundar Pichai to sell the Chrome web browser, among other remedies. On May 6, a group of former DOJ and Federal Trade Commission antitrust enforcers submitted an amicus brief warning the federal judge against aggressive remedies. The lawyers said their brief was made 'in support of neither party' and was intended to guide Mehta on following the 'proper remedy standard.' However, many of brief's coauthors have direct or indirect links to Google and other Big Tech firms. That includes Joe Sims, who last year dismissed criticism of Google's widespread evidence destruction as 'silly,' and Willard Tom, who once defended Google in the high-profile antitrust lawsuit filed by 'Fortnite' maker Epic Games. Their arguments closely match those of the defense offered by Google, which claims the DOJ's proposals go far beyond the bounds of antitrust law and that the court risks jeopardizing American AI leadership – and even national security. The lawyers' links to Big Tech raised alarms with Google's critics, including Sacha Haworth, executive director at the Tech Oversight Project, who told The Post that it 'speaks volumes that the only people rushing to Google's defense are people paid by Google to care.' 5 Google faces a potential breakup of its business in the search trial. AP 'If Google is broken up, it will be a win for our digital economy that will lead to lower prices and more choices for consumers,' Haworth added. Aside from a forced divestment of Chrome, the DOJ wants Google to share its search data with rivals. The agency has also asked Mehta to consider the potential impact of Google's massive investments in AI-powered search when crafting any remedies. Elsewhere, the feds want Google to be barred from paying billions to companies like Apple to ensure its search engine is set as the default option on most smartphones. They also propose a forced divestiture of Google's Android software if initial remedies prove ineffective. 5 Google, led by CEO Sundar Pichai, is fighting to avoid a forced divestiture of Chrome. Getty Images 'We've long said the DOJ's proposals go miles beyond the Court's decision,' a Google spokesperson said in a statement. 'We appreciate that a wide range of experts, academics and businesses agree.' An amicus brief – also known as a 'friend of the court' brief – generally includes information that interested third parties want to flag for the judge's consideration before reaching a verdict. In a filing, the brief's coauthors noted that they were not paid by any outside party and that no outside party had contributed to the writing. Contributors included Tad Lipsky, who heads up the competition advocacy program at George Mason University's Global Antitrust Institute – which has received millions in funding from Google and other Big Tech firms while frequently arguing for a light touch on antitrust enforcement. Sims retired as a partner at law firm Jones Day in 2016. In July 2024, Jones Day successfully secured dismissal of a class-action suit accusing Google of antitrust violations tied to its Maps service. 5 Google faced criticism for destroying employee chat logs that it had been ordered to preserve. REUTERS Last August, Sims raised eyebrows when he argued that Mehta was 'silly' for criticizing Google over its deletion of employee chat logs during the DOJ's search trial – in violation of court orders to preserve evidence. 'No firm has an obligation to create a paper trail for people or entities that may want to attack it,' Sims wrote on X. 'If anything, it has a fiduciary obligation to do just the opposite.' Tom is a former partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius who represented Google against 'Fortnite' maker Epic Games's antitrust lawsuit until his retirement in July 2022. Google eventually lost the suit in a bombshell ruling that has major implications for its 'Google Play' app store. Richard Parker previously represented Apple in the ebooks case bought the DOJ and currently works at Milbank Tweed, a firm that advised Google in the search trial and helped argue its ongoing appeal of the Epic Games verdict. The brief notes that Parker contributed in 'his personal capacity' and had 'not worked for Google on this matter or any other matter.' 5 US District Judge Amit Mehta is pictured. AFP/Getty Images Terry Calvani worked law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer from 2005 to 2019 – a period of time in which the firm served as an outside counsel for Google in several lawsuits. From 2020 to 2025, Calvini was a senior adviser at strategic communications firm Brunswick Group, which counts Google as a client. Several enforcers who backed the amicus brief, including Sims and Lipsky, are listed as authors for Truth on the Market – a competition law-focused blog with close ties to the Big Tech-funded International Center for Law and Economics. Jon Neuchterlein is a nonresident senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, which acknowledges on its website that it has received from donations from the likes of Google, Amazon, and Apple, among other tech firms. 5 Judge Mehta is expected to rule on potential remedies by August. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia From 2015 to 2024, Neuchterlein was a partner at the law firm Sidley Austin. During his tenure, the firm counted Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Intel among its clients. In their brief, the antitrust lawyers urged Mehta to take 'caution' when considering two elements of the DOJ's proposal – the forced Chrome divestiture and the search data-sharing requirement – to avoid overstepping the bounds of antitrust law. 'Antitrust remedies in a monopoly maintenance case are intended to terminate the unlawful conduct and prevent its recurrence, and remediate proven harm to competition caused by the illegal conduct,' the brief said. The lawyers added that remedies that 'further than that or that are not narrowly designed to achieve those goals can undermine the purpose of the antitrust laws by inhibiting the very robust competition that those laws are intended to promote.'
