Healthcare Billing, Reimbursement & Compliance Experts

State Court of Douglas County (GA) Judge Eddie Barker's opinion stated, "This Court therefore finds that Mr. Ulbrandt is a competent expert. His methodology is sufficiently reliable and through the application of his scientific and specialized expertise, his testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Mr. Tony Ulbrandt is DENIED."

(Jackson v. Sargent, Civil No. Case No.19SV0056)

State Court of Chatham County (GA) Judge Gregory Sapp's opinion stated, "the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs motion to exclude Mr. Blount's testimony regarding the reasonableness of her medical expenses. The Court finds this testimony might be helpful to the jury and the comparison of charges would be relevant to the jury's determination of reasonableness."

(Miller vs. HFW, Civil No. STCV1702110SA)

U.S. District Court (IL) Judge Amy J. St. Eve's opinion stated, "Mr. Blount's testimony is relevant under Daubert because it helps the trier of fact determine whether Chaudhry should be entitled to a benefit under the Policy—a benefit that is calculated based, in part, on Chaudhry's income prior to his disability."   

(Chaudhry vs. Provident Life,  Civil No. 12-cv-5838)

U.S. District Court (CO) Judge Michael Hegarty's opinion stated, "I view Mr. Blount has provided statistical data and demonstrating that, in comparison with other local hospitals, Sky Ridge is out of sync. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ [sic] Opposed Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Defendant’s Expert, L. Lamar Blount ... is denied without prejudice."

(Chapman v. Target, 19-cv-03240)

State Court of DeKalb County (GA) Judge Kimberly Anderson's opinion stated, "Plaintiff argues that Mr. Blount’s opinion in this case does not rely on accepted methodology, and therefore the Court cannot deem it sufficiently reliable under Daubert and O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702... Here, the Court finds that Mr. Blount’s testimony satisfies the reliability requirement as his methodology has a sufficient factual basis... Moreover, the Court finds Mr. Blount’s testimony about the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s medical bills is relevant."  

(Hassan v Kroger, Civil No. 18A68687)

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion stated, "Blount’s ... testimony did not violate the collateral source rule. Their testimony addressed the reasonableness and necessity of what Showan had paid for her discectomy. Whether the expenses were “reasonable and necessary” is a critical inquiry under Georgia law. ...Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of Blount..."

(Showan v. Krispy Kreme, No. 17-15547)

U.S. District Court (NJ) Judge Jerome Simandle's opinion stated, "Mr. Blount is qualified to testify as an expert on Medicare reimbursement and billing issues. He possesses specialized knowledge, based on his over thirty years extensive experience as a healthcare auditor addressing Medicare reimbursement concerns and through his published works."    

(Landau v. Lucasti, Civil No. 06-1229)

Muscogee County (GA) Superior Court Judge Maureen Gottrieds opinion stated, "“After hearing Mr. Blount's qualifications and testimony at the June 5, 2017 hearing on class certification, this Court finds that Mr. Blount is qualified to render an opinion as an expert in this case and therefore denies TMC's motion to exclude Mr. Blount's testimony.” 

(Enterprise Leasing and Danielle Bowden, et al v. The Medical Center, Civil Action File No. SU12CV2676)

Cobb County (GA) State Court Judge John Morgan's opinion stated, " The Court finds that based on Blount's testimony is reliable... The Court finds that Blount's testimony would assist the trier of fact. Blount's testimony may give jurors more detailed information in assessing whether Plaintiff's medical bills are reasonable when compared to other similar charges across the spectrum of hospitals and government care in the metro Atlanta area." 

(Bedgood v. Dunn, Civil File No. 17-A1576-3) 

State Court of Barrow  County (GA) Judge Currie Mingldorff's  opinion stated, "The Court finds that Lamar Blount's anticipated testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data that is expected to be admitted at trial, that it is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that he has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of this case... The Court finds that the anticipated testimony does not violate the collateral

source rule, and is instead offered to demonstrate whether medical bills were reasonable." 

(Diaz vs. Nicole Aten,  Civil No. 19-CV-000151)

Administrative Law Judges Sarah G. Ramos and Paul D. Keeper's opinion stated, “Evidence provided by … Mr. Blount persuasively established that Dr. Campbell unbundled the billing for services and, therefore, billed for services he did not provide. Although several charges were at issue, the May 30, 2001, charges for TA adequately demonstrated the unbundling.“  

(Texas State Board of Medical Examiners v. Andrew William Campbell, M.D., Docket No. 503-04-5717)

U.S. District Court (CA) Judge Christina Snyder's opinion stated, "The Court finds that Blount is qualified to testify as an expert in this case. Blount has served as an expert in the medical billing field and has testified regarding medical billing issues in state and federal courts.... The Court also concludes that Blount’s methodology...is a sound analytical method that will assist the jury in understanding the relatively complex issue of medical billing practices."    

(Glenwood v. Augment, Civil No. 10-8910)

State Court of Gwinnett  County (GA) Judge Carla Brown's opinion stated, "The Court finds further that whether Mr. Blount's opinions are based on reliable principles and methods... Therefore, the Court finds that the content of these resources is not the type information an average juror would have knowledge of and Mr. Blount's opinions thereon would assist a jury."  

(Jacobi vs. Doe, Civil No. 15-C-00359-3)