The Vohra Wound Physicians lawsuit ended on November 21, 2025, when the company and its founder, Dr. Ameet Vohra, agreed to pay $45 million to resolve Department of Justice allegations that they had used the company’s electronic medical records software to systematically overbill Medicare for wound care procedures.1DOJ announcement, November 21, 2025 The settlement resolved a False Claims Act complaint the government had filed just seven months earlier, and it left Vohra operating under a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the HHS Office of Inspector General. The company did not admit liability and said it disagreed with the government’s factual assertions.
What the Government Accused Vohra of Doing
The DOJ filed its civil complaint on April 4, 2025, in the Southern District of Florida against Dr. Vohra, Vohra Wound Physicians Management LLC, and VHS Holdings P.A. The case was assigned to Judge Roy K. Altman. It was filed without a whistleblower, meaning the government investigated and brought the case on its own rather than acting on a qui tam tip.
Vohra is a physician-led practice that sends doctors into nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities to treat chronic wounds at the bedside. According to the complaint, it serves more than 3,000 facilities across 28 states with over 300 physicians, conducting roughly 1.4 million patient visits per year. The government alleged a nationwide scheme built on three connected practices.
The first was upcoding. Prosecutors alleged that Vohra programmed its proprietary EMR software to classify every wound debridement as a surgical procedure, regardless of what the physician actually did at the bedside. Surgical debridement involves cutting away tissue and pays significantly more under Medicare than routine nonsurgical wound care. The complaint said doctors were often performing the simpler care while the system billed for the more expensive version.
The second was automatic double-billing. The EMR software allegedly auto-applied Modifier 25 to evaluation and management claims, which let the company bill Medicare separately for an office-type exam on the same day as a debridement, even when no distinct exam had taken place.
The third involved the physicians themselves. The government alleged that Vohra hired doctors who lacked wound care expertise, gave them training that blurred the line between surgical and nonsurgical debridement, and never taught them Medicare billing rules. Doctors were told to let the EMR handle coding. They were then measured against revenue-based debridement quotas and rewarded or penalized on procedure volume, which prosecutors said pushed them to overtreat patients or falsely document services. The complaint also alleged that the EMR system automatically inserted clinical language into patient charts that the treating physician had not written or reviewed.
Why the Case Moved So Fast
Vohra initially fought the complaint. On May 16, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing the government’s complaint was fatally vague. They said the DOJ had not identified specific false claims with the detail required under federal fraud pleading rules, had not clearly defined what separates “selective” from “surgical” debridement, and had not shown the company caused any false billing given that individual physicians actually submit claims to Medicare. The defense also argued the complaint referenced scattered date ranges across 2017, 2018, and 2019 without establishing a clear fraud timeframe.
The court never ruled on the motion. According to Vohra, two days after the company moved to dismiss, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services removed several Vohra affiliates from Medicare payment eligibility. The company called the timing “transparent retaliation” and filed a separate lawsuit against CMS that summer, arguing the suspension was designed to “improperly strong-arm” a settlement in the False Claims Act case.
Losing Medicare eligibility is existential for a practice whose business is billing Medicare for wound care in nursing facilities. By the end of July, the parties had filed a notice of settlement in principle, and Vohra ultimately agreed to a “global resolution” that also dismissed its own lawsuit against CMS. Judge Altman signed the final order dismissing the False Claims Act case with prejudice on November 29, 2025.
What the $45 Million Settlement Requires
The $45 million payment resolves the government’s civil claims without any admission of liability. The larger practical burden on the company comes from the five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the HHS Office of Inspector General, effective November 20, 2025, and running through November 2030. It covers Dr. Vohra personally and more than a dozen affiliated entities, including regional Vohra Wound Physicians practices in Illinois, California, New York, Texas, Florida, and other states, along with several Post Acute Care Physicians entities.
Under the agreement, Vohra must maintain a compliance program and implement a formal risk assessment process. It must hire an independent review organization to audit its claims and its health information technology systems, an audit aimed directly at the EMR manipulation allegations at the heart of the case. Company executives and owners, including Dr. Vohra, must submit annual compliance certifications.
Where the Case Fits in Medicare Wound Care Enforcement
The Vohra settlement arrived during an aggressive federal push against wound care billing fraud. Medicare spending on skin substitutes alone rose from $256 million in 2019 to over $10 billion by 2024. The DOJ and HHS relaunched a joint False Claims Act Working Group that explicitly prioritized the “manipulation of Electronic Health Records systems to drive inappropriate utilization of Medicare-covered products and services,” a priority that tracks the Vohra allegations closely. In January 2026, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brenna Jenny said the DOJ has “a lot more skin substitute cases in the pipeline.”
What This Means for Patients and Facilities
Vohra remains operational under the terms of the Corporate Integrity Agreement. The DOJ’s announcement did not address whether the company’s Medicare participation has been fully restored after the suspension that prompted its CMS lawsuit, though the global resolution was intended to settle that dispute as well. Nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities that contract with Vohra, and patients receiving bedside wound care through the practice, should expect the company’s billing and EMR systems to be under independent review for the next five years.