Skip to main content

Samantha P. Kingsbury

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1829

Follow:
Share:

Samantha’s practice focuses on health care enforcement defense matters. These matters often involve criminal and administrative actions brought against health care providers and companies by state and federal governmental and regulatory agencies. She also has experience in assisting clients with internal investigations of potential violations of the federal anti-kickback statute, the Stark law, and the False Claims Act, among other statutes and regulations. Samantha also has experience preparing self-disclosures and other reports relating to such enforcement matters, as well as developing internal compliance programs.

In addition to enforcement defense matters, Samantha handles licensure and regulatory filings for a variety of health care clients, with a focus on hospitals and clinical laboratories. In this capacity, she has worked on several large transactions in Massachusetts involving the change of ownership of major hospital systems. Similarly, Samantha has assisted national clinical laboratories with respect to licensure and reimbursement issues resulting from a change of ownership.

Samantha also handles a wide variety of pro bono matters at Mintz. She helps manage the firm’s Lawyers Clearinghouse program, through which Mintz attorneys provide legal representation to residents of Boston-area homeless shelters. She also represents victims of domestic violence through the firm’s Domestic Violence Project.

Before joining Mintz, Samantha completed a fellowship as a Special Assistant District Attorney for the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office. In this role she prosecuted several jury and bench trial matters, handled evidentiary motions and conducted arraignments and pre-trial hearings.

During law school, Samantha served as a legal intern at Casa Myrna Vazquez, Inc., a nonprofit organization working to end domestic violence in the lives of women and children. At Mintz, Samantha continues to work with victims of domestic violence through the firm’s Domestic Violence Project. She also participates in a variety of other pro bono matters.

In 2008, Samantha was a Mintz Summer Associate.

During law school, she served as administrative editor of the American Journal of Law and Medicine.

Education

  • Boston University School of Law (JD)
  • College of the Holy Cross (BA)

Experience

  • Secured a dismissal of a False Claims Act suit brought by an ex-employee whistleblower who accused the company of knowingly overcharging Medicaid for the cost of pharmaceuticals.

Recognition & Awards

  • Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers Rising Star: Health Care list (2017-2018)
  • Phi Beta Kappa

Involvement

  • Member, American Health Lawyers Association
  • Member of the Board of Directors for Wediko Children's Services

Languages

- Spanish

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Viewpoint General

Insys Bankruptcy Filing Immediately After Global Settlement Triggers Powerful Remedies

June 25, 2019 | Blog | By Samantha Kingsbury, Laurence Freedman

Over the last two years, much of the healthcare world has been watching the government’s prosecution of Insys Therapeutics for its sales and marketing practices related to its Subsys spray.  Subsys is powerful and highly addictive fentanyl spray (administered under the tongue) that was approved by the FDA in 2012 for the treatment of persistent breakthrough pain in adult cancer patients who were already receiving, and tolerant to, regular opioid therapy.  On June 5, 2019, DOJ announced a global resolution with Insys, including criminal pleas, a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), a civil settlement agreement, and a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA).  Then, on June 10, 2019, Insys filed for bankruptcy protection, which triggered DOJ and HHS’s ability to upend these agreements and impose powerful criminal, civil, and exclusion remedies against Insys. While much of the coverage of this case over the last few years has focused on the high-profile prosecution and conviction of company executives (including Insys’s founder) and other employees who were accused of paying kickbacks to prescribers in exchange for increased prescriptions and increased doses of Subsys, the resolution of this case on the corporate side has proven to be equally fascinating. 
Viewpoint General

FCA Defendant Abandons Petition Before the Supreme Court

May 22, 2019 | | By Samantha Kingsbury, Brian Dunphy

This latest installment in our ongoing coverage of the Polukoff False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam case might be one of our last posts about the case. Last week, Intermountain Health Care, Inc. and IHC Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Intermountain Medical Center (Intermountain), one of the hospital defendants in this matter, which had previously filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on issues relevant to this case (as we reported in February), filed an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss before the high court.
Viewpoint General

FCA Relator and U.S. Weigh in on Defendants' Argument that the FCA is Unconstitutional

May 9, 2019 | Blog | By Samantha Kingsbury, Brian Dunphy

As part of our ongoing discussion of the Polukoff False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam case (involving allegations that certain heart procedures performed by a cardiologist, and billed for by two hospital defendants, were not medically necessary), we reported in February that some defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. 
Viewpoint General
As many of our readers know, we have been closely following the Polukoff False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam case in the Tenth Circuit for the lessons it might offer in defending FCA cases premised on allegations related to lack of medical necessity (among other topics).  Recently, we had the opportunity to consider this case from a different angle: the lessons it might offer to bankruptcy counsel advising clients who are or have been the subject of a health care fraud investigation and/or FCA qui tam case. 
Viewpoint General
As many of our readers know, we have been closely following the Polukoff False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam case, which is based on allegations that certain heart procedures performed by a cardiologist were not medically necessary.  The latest development in this case came a few weeks ago, when defendants Intermountain Health Care, Inc. and IHC Health Services, Inc. d/b/a Intermountain Medical Center (Intermountain) filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The Petition raised two issues: (1) whether a court may create an exception to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s particularity requirement when the plaintiff claims that only the defendant possesses the information needed to satisfy that requirement; and (2) whether the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions violate the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution.
Viewpoint General
Nearly one year ago, on January 25, 2018, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Regulatory Reform Task Force issued a memorandum entitled “Limiting Use of Agency Guidance Documents In Affirmative Civil Enforcement Cases.”  Many refer to this memorandum as the “Brand Memo” because it was authored by Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand.  The Brand Memo implemented the prohibition previously issued by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in November 2017 against, in part, DOJ using guidance documents issued by other agencies “to create binding standards by which [DOJ] will determine compliance with existing statutory or regulatory requirements” (the “Sessions Memo”).
Viewpoint General

Tenth Circuit Rejects Request for Rehearing in Closely Watched FCA Medical Necessity Case

November 13, 2018 | Blog | By Samantha Kingsbury, Laurence Freedman

In a three-sentence order issued on October 29th, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant a Request for Rehearing in the closely watched Polukoff case. One of the questions raised in the Request was whether, by submitting a claim for reimbursement and certifying the medical necessity of the charged service, providers also certify that the claim meets all of the standards set forth in the Medicare Program Integrity Manual (MPIM).
Viewpoint General
Last week, Bruce Sokler and Farrah Short from Mintz’s Antitrust practice group published a detailed alert regarding the Third Circuit’s reinstatement of an antitrust suit brought by medical device manufacturer LifeWatch Services, Inc. (“LifeWatch”) against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and five of its member insurance plan administrators: LifeWatch
Last week, Mintz’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group published a new Qui Tam Update, which analyzes 46 health care-related False Claims Act qui tam cases unsealed in February and March 2018 and the trends they reflect:
Last week, Mintz’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group published a new Qui Tam Update, which analyzes 60 health care-related False Claims Act qui tam cases unsealed in December 2017 and January 2018 and the trends they reflect.

News & Press

Given the many substantive and strategic lessons to be learned from FCA investigations and litigations, bankruptcy counsel advising the various constituents impacted by an FCA case should be mindful of these potential lessons, as they may raise issues relevant to the bankruptcy estate, says Health Law attorney Samantha Kingsbury in this article.
Karen Lovitch, practice leader of the Mintz Health Law Practice, Eoin Beirne, a Member in the firm’s Litigation practice, along with Associates Samantha Kingsbury and Mackenzie Queenin authored the last in a four-part series of articles on health care enforcement trends in 2017.
Three attorneys from Mintz author the second installment of a four-part series recapping key government policies, regulations and enforcement actions from 2016 and discussing their potential impacts on 2017.

Events

Faculty
May
12
2016

Anti-Kickback Fundamentals

ABA | Health Law

Webinar