DOJ’s First Healthcare Fraud Declination Under the New Corporate Enforcement Policy: Key Lessons From the Campus Eye Management Resolution and the CEO’s Continuing Exposure

On July 29, 2026, the Department of Justice’s National Fraud Enforcement Division announced that it had declined to prosecute Campus Eye Management Holdings LLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Campus Eye Management LLC (collectively, “Campus Eye”), under Part I of DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). Campus Eye, which provided billing and other management services to an optometry practice and affiliated eye surgery center, received a notice that the DOJ declined to prosecute Campus Eye, taking into consideration that the company voluntarily disclosed the misconduct, fully and proactively cooperated with DOJ’s investigation, and timely and appropriately remediated the wrongdoing. Campus Eye also agreed to pay $1 million to patients affected by the disclosed practices. According to DOJ, this is the first declination involving a healthcare company under the department-wide CEP announced in March 2026.

Separately, DOJ announced a seven-count indictment against Campus Eye’s founder and former CEO, E. Bruce DiDonato. The indictment alleges that, from at least 2015 through March 2023, DiDonato conspired to bill Medicare for unnecessary or duplicative diagnostic eye tests and paid kickbacks to ophthalmologists in exchange for patient referrals. DOJ alleges that DiDonato concealed the kickbacks through sham consulting agreements, including monthly “flat-fee” payments that were actually based on a percentage of Medicare reimbursements for the diagnostic eye tests performed on patients. According to the indictment, DiDonato caused approximately $3.4 million in fraudulent claims to be submitted to Medicare, of which Medicare reimbursed approximately $1 million. DiDonato is further alleged to have marketed the business to private equity investors based, in part, on those reimbursements and sold a majority equity interest in Campus Eye Management Holdings LLC in December 2021. Following the acquisition, DiDonato maintained a minority equity interest and acted as Campus Eye Management LLC’s initial manager until he was terminated in 2023 and removed as a manager in 2024 pursuant to the declaratory judgment of the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Campus Eye resolution provides an early illustration of how DOJ intends to apply its new department-wide CEP in healthcare fraud matters. The DOJ declination and indictment highlight practical considerations for healthcare companies and investors concerning compliance programs, voluntary self-disclosure, individual accountability, and deal diligence, including the importance of evaluating voluntary disclosures and other remedial compliance measures based on diligence findings.

Proactive Compliance Strategies

Healthcare companies should evaluate whether their compliance programs properly identify and address healthcare fraud, kickbacks, and billing compliance issues. Specifically, companies should regularly review compensation, referral, and management services agreements as well as medical documentation policies for compliance with applicable law and any safe harbors or exceptions. Companies should also maintain effective reporting channels and clear procedures for preserving records and conducting investigations. Because delays may affect eligibility for a DOJ declination, potential misconduct should be promptly addressed.

Voluntary Self-Disclosure Considerations

Organizations considering voluntary self-disclosure should carefully evaluate both the potential benefits and risks. Although timely disclosure, cooperation, and remediation may support a declination, disclosure may also require restitution or disgorgement and continued cooperation. The Campus Eye resolution demonstrates that DOJ may decline to prosecute a company also involved in fraudulent practices while simultaneously pursuing criminal charges against individuals allegedly responsible for the same misconduct. Thus, where individuals in company leadership may be implicated, in-house counsel and compliance personnel should have independent reporting and oversight mechanisms in place to ensure decisions are made in the best interest of the company.

Compliance Due Diligence

Healthcare investors and acquiring organizations should also emphasize compliance diligence during a deal process, particularly where a target’s value depends heavily on Medicare or other federal healthcare program reimbursement. If potential misconduct is identified, the organization should promptly consider whether self-disclosure is appropriate and evaluate the potential costs that could be incurred to take remedial action, including potential post-closing changes to billing and compensation policies, improved monitoring, the addition of compliance personnel, and targeted training. Companies should also anticipate potential financial remedies and maintain detailed financial records if they intend to assert an inability to pay. Although the Campus Eye resolution suggests that demonstrated financial constraints may affect the disgorgement amount, any requested reduction is likely to require significant financial disclosure and scrutiny.

* * *

The Goodwin Healthcare team will continue to monitor DOJ healthcare fraud enforcement developments and the evolving application of the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy. For more information on the issues discussed in this alert, please contact the authors; reach out to Goodwin’s Government Investigations, Enforcement & White Collar Defense, False Claims Act, or Healthcare Regulatory & Compliance teams; or contact the Goodwin lawyer with whom you typically consult.

Explore more coverage of emerging topics of interest to the healthcare industry on our Health Headlines page.