Kumar cases dismissed; Personal files ordered returned

Vijay Kumar
WEST BRANCH – All criminal charges against West Branch Dr. Vijay Kumar have been dismissed by Ogemaw and Iosco County; the last being an Oct. 23 dismissal by Iosco County Prosecutor Gary Rapp for what could have amounted to less than $60 in alleged Medicare and Medicaid billing errors.
Kumar had a series of charges dismissed against him over the past two years including insurance fraud charges on June 16 of this year in Ogemaw County. Criminal Sexual Conduct charges were dismissed on Nov. 2, 2016.

The charges originally stem from an investigation by Detective Veltman of the West

Branch Michigan State Police Post, who said in Ogemaw County Circuit Court testimony that a community resident (Whom UpNorthVoice.com declines to identify) suggested at a youth sporting event there may be issues with Kumar’s system of billing Medicaid. The Criminal Sexual Conduct charges arose as a result of the investigation of those claims.
Veltman didn’t list the resident as a confidential informant and was forced by Mienke in a Sept. 29, 2016 hearing to name the citizen in open court.

But the dismissals didn’t stop Michigan State Police officials and Ogemaw County Prosecutor Ladonna Schultz from battling to prevent Kumar from retrieving all of his personal and professional files in anticipation of a prosecution of Kumar by Iosco County Prosecutor Gary Rapp … that never came.

According to court transcripts, at a June 7 hearing in 34th Circuit Court, Kumar’s Attorney Brian Morley, filed a motion for the return of Kumar’s property. However, when Kumar went to pick up the files, MSP officials refused to release all of them.
On Oct. 6, visiting Judge Roy Mienke ordered that Schultz notify the Michigan State Police (MSP) to release … all documents pertaining to Kumar.
On or about July 6th of 2017, Dr. Kumar was contacted by MSP West Branch, advised that he could come pick up files, but troopers opted not to return all of his files, despite the court order,” the transcripts said.
Although Schultz indicated the prosecutor’s office does not control the MSP, Mienke said it could have been her obligation to notify them of the hearing as police need to provide a lawful reason why they wouldn’t return the property. MSP officials did not attend the hearing.
Mienke said:
The Court recognizes that the prosecutor does not have control over the State Police in this matter, but probably had a duty to inform the state police of this. And — and if you didn’t want to represent them then you should’ve had the attorney general representing the state police in this matter. So, the Court’s gonna grant the order that they be returned.”
Schultz insisted on several occasions the property should stay with the Michigan State Police to be used in the Iosco County case (which has since been dismissed).
You could’ve filed an answer and you could’ve said that there needed
to be a motion to reconsideration that it wasn’t filed properly,” Mienke said.
Mienke ordered the property be returned by Nov. 4. Schultz indicated she will be filing a motion to reconsider, which would allow the MSP to retain the records in regard to the now dismissed Iosco charges, and a federal case she implied could be activated to prosecute Kumar for less than $60 in questionable billing.
. . .
In regard to the CSC dismissal, on June 20, 2016, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert H. Mourning asked the Board of Physical Therapy Disciplinary Subcommittee to dismiss a complaint filed against Kumar to have his license to practice medicine suspended.
In the “Conclusions of Law” section of his June 20, 2016 decision, Judge Mourning wrote, “(I) conclude that there is a lack of credible evidence to support the allegations in the Complaint.”

Judge Mourning went on to write, “Further, to cast doubts on her testimony, a classmate of hers testified that (the complainant) told her that she had fabricated the complaint against (Kumar.)”

In spite of the administrative dismissal by Mourning on June 20, 2016, Schultz postponed the Ogemaw Circuit Court dismissal for months before eventually dismissing those charges on Nov. 2, 2016, well after the general primary election, in which Kumar was running
against Republican Daire Rendon for the 103rd House seat.

Note:

If a matter has not gone to trial, or if trial has not commenced, it cannot be dismissed “with prejudice.” Basically, “with prejudice” means that the court system at least began formal proceedings and for whatever reason (e.g., a mistrial during trial), it was dismissed. Prior to that time, it is a dismissal without prejudice. Schultz withdrew the charges.

Comments