According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Westchester urologist Dr. Nicole Fleischmann recently settled with the U.S. Department of Justice, admitting to billing Medicare for surgeries that were “not medically reasonable and necessary.”
According to the disclosed terms of the settlement, Dr. Fleischmann and a colleague, a urologist based in New Jersey, each agreed to pay more than $1 million to reimburse the government for these billings.
In announcing the settlement, U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton stated:
“Dr. Simon and Dr. Fleischmann performed unnecessary surgical procedures on their patients who suffered from urinary incontinence and then billed a taxpayer-funded program for these procedures… This illegal scheme violated the trust at the heart of doctor-patient relationships and our healthcare system.”
This is an unusual settlement which, in our view, has potential implications for patient safety. While the settlement specifically involves claims of unnecessary placement of medical implants (“InterStim” devices), it is our view that if a physician would “perform unnecessary surgical procedures” (according to the Department of Justice), then this raises questions about a physician’s overall judgment and medical ethics.
For patients treated by Dr. Fleischmann, if you are experiencing adverse effects of treatment, or if you believe surgical procedures may have been unnecessary or improper, you may be well advised to have your situation reviewed by competent legal counsel. Every patient has the right to question if their treatment was proper. Given what is described in this settlement as multiple “unnecessary” surgeries by this physician, we believe that urology patients of Dr. Fleischmann may have good reason to review and evaluate their care.
Other notable aspects of the Department of Justice release are described below.
Key Takeaways
- What Dr. Fleischmann Admitted and Paid: In June 2026, Dr. Fleischmann and a second physician, Dr. Robert Simon, resolved civil False Claims Act allegations for a combined $2.2 million, admitting they caused Medicare to pay for InterStim procedures that were “not medically reasonable and necessary” — including in some cases surgically placing implants before adequately testing the need for such devices.
- Why It May Matter (Beyond “InterStim” Placement Cases): If a physician is willing to perform surgery on a patient without first demonstrating need for the surgery, for financial gain, we question if this reflects a substandard surgical approach with potential to harm patients in many areas. If you received surgery from Dr. Fleischmann and question the appropriateness of care, we believe these developments may warrant a closer look.
- Who Should Request a Records Review, and Why Timing Matters: If you would like legal review of your care by Dr. Fleischmann or of other surgical procedures performed at White Plains Hospital, you should seek legal advice without delay — New York’s 2.5-year filing deadline may limit your options depending on when you were treated. See below.
What Dr. Fleischmann Admitted to the Department of Justice and Paid
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Robert Simon resolved a lawsuit alleging they violated the federal False Claims Act by billing Medicare for InterStim neurostimulation procedures that did not meet Medicare’s coverage requirements, covering conduct from 2011 through 2022. Dr. Fleischmann agreed to pay $1,101,044.80; Dr. Simon agreed to pay $1,112,695.88 — a combined settlement of approximately $2.2 million, plus interest on both amounts.
Potential Future Developments
Given the potential importance to patient safety, we will continue to monitor developments, to the extent made public by medical license enforcement agencies. As of this writing, there has been no published medical license discipline of physicians involved in the recent Department of Justice settlement.
Physician disciplinary proceedings are generally non-public under New York Public Health Law § 230. However, if an ultimate disciplinary action is taken, such actions are published online by the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct (“OPMC”) at https://www.health.ny.gov/professionals/doctors/conduct/index.htm.
While we are not aware of any ongoing proceedings by OPMC involving the physicians or conduct described in the Department of Justice settlement, the type of conduct described (if found true by OPMC) may, in our experience, be the type of conduct that may trigger investigation. If, for example, billing for unnecessary surgeries were found to rise to the level of actual “fraud,” this would fall squarely within the purview of OPMC to investigate and may potentially result in licensure action. See New York Education Law § 6530 (“Professional misconduct” defined to include “practicing the profession fraudulently”).
Why Patients Concerned About Any Surgery Should Review Their Care
The DOJ admission concerns InterStim procedures. Technically, the published details of the settlement do not admit or establish that other surgeries by Dr. Fleischmann were unnecessary. However, the expression “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” may have application in a circumstance where a settlement concerns, as reported, a long course of unnecessary surgeries and improper billing. In such a circumstance, we do believe that close attention is warranted to a wider range of medical care by a physician who, according to the Department of Justice, engaged in such conduct.
Who May Be Well Advised to Seek Legal Advice
Check Your Timing First
New York’s standard filing deadline is 2.5 years from your procedure. If Dr. Fleischmann treated you between 2011 and 2022, your standard deadline has likely already passed — but a claim can still be timely if a recognized exception applies, most often the continuous treatment doctrine, or a longer period under CPLR § 208 if you were a minor at the time.
This may be relevant to you if you were treated by Dr. Fleischmann for any surgical procedure — not only InterStim — and one of the following applies:
If You Have Reason to Question the Surgery, You May Also Want an Attorney to Evaluate It
- A later doctor’s opinion, a follow-up procedure, or your own understanding of your condition gives you reason to believe the surgery wasn’t medically necessary — even with no complication since
You Truly Believe “Something Went Wrong”
- While your “gut feeling” is not a substitute for legal review, it is often a useful starting point. If a patient has a genuine, nagging belief that “something went wrong,” it is often an indication that something may indeed have been done wrong, and an attorney review may be indicated.
- In particular, some telling signs of possible need for legal review include: you needed a second surgery to revise or correct the original procedure.
- You experienced a severe and unexpected “complication” from a surgery or procedure.
How We Investigate Potential Malpractice Cases Like This
Our review of potential cases like this starts with your personal account of what happened. We will listen to you and try to understand your beliefs about what happened as best we can. If your beliefs and the events sound like potential malpractice, we will then typically want to order your medical records — including the potential focus of malpractice, and often your “baseline” records for context.
We have deep expertise in surgical cases. And, where indicated, we will also retain board-certified physician experts in urology, gynecology, urogynecology and other areas that may apply, to help us evaluate whether the care you received met the accepted “standard of care.” We will also evaluate if you were properly informed of all matters concerning your surgery. Of note, all patients are entitled to be told the “risks, benefits, and alternatives” of any surgical procedure before the procedure is done. If this did not occur, resulting in patient harm, this can also support a claim for “Lack of Informed Consent” under New York Public Health Law § 2805-d.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the settlement mean I have a case?
No—every potential case is different. Also, you should keep in mind that this was a civil settlement, not a criminal case. Therefore, in this case there was no formal criminal charge, indictment, or “guilty” plea. However, according to the Department of Justice, there were “admissions” amounting to performing unnecessary surgeries. But what matters in your specific situation are the facts of what happened to you. We will typically be able to obtain these directly from your own records.
I needed a second surgery to revise or correct a procedure — could it be malpractice?
It’s possible, and worth evaluating. Revisions may happen for a range of reasons, including complications unrelated to whether the original procedure was necessary. Whether yours was the result of unnecessary or improper surgery is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Is there a deadline to bring a claim, and is it too late for me?
New York provides two and a half years from the date of the malpractice to file suit under CPLR § 214-a (Civil Practice Law and Rules).
What does it cost to have my case evaluated?
Our initial consultation is free as well as confidential. If we take your case, we work on a contingency basis — there is no attorney’s fee unless we obtain compensation for you. Court costs and case expenses are addressed in your fee agreement and based on a percentage of what is actually recovered in settlement or trial. New York caps the attorney’s fee in a medical malpractice case on a statutory sliding scale under Judiciary Law § 474-a.
Have Questions About Your Care?
If you have serious questions about your treatment by Dr. Fleischmann (or any physician) and believe that serious injury was caused by malpractice, our team is available to review your records and explain your options.
Free and Confidential Case Review
All consultations are without cost to you and confidential. If you have questions, please reach out to us. We will give you our evaluation and let you know your options.
This notice does not create an attorney-client relationship.
