First healthcare company receives declination under new DOJ Corporate Enforcement Policy

On July 29, 2026, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) National Fraud Division declined to seek criminal charges against Campus Eye Management and its parent company, Campus Eye Management Holdings LLC, citing the company's self-disclosure of the alleged misconduct, cooperation with the investigation, and efforts to strengthen compliance policies and procedures. This marks the first time a healthcare company has received a declination under DOJ’s Department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP), which was introduced in March 2026. The case exemplifies DOJ’s continued efforts to incentivize self-disclosure.

Campus Eye Management and its founder and former chief executive officer, E. Bruce DiDonato, allegedly conspired to bill both Medicare and private insurers for unnecessary diagnostic eye tests and to provide kickbacks to surgeons for referrals over an eight-year period. DOJ further alleged that the tests were not utilized as part of any treatment decision because they were either duplicative of tests already received or because they “were not reviewed by DiDonato or any optometrist, and in most instances the ophthalmologists did not review or rely on the tests to inform their treatment decisions in advance of surgery.” DOJ also alleged that the scheme resulted in $3.4 million in fraudulent Medicare claims, of which approximately $1 million was paid.  

DOJ further alleged that kickbacks were paid to healthcare professionals through sham agreements that were described as fee-for-service consulting contracts that were, in fact, payments based on a percentage of the Medicare reimbursement a given practice had generated through ordering diagnostic testing during the previous year. DiDonato then allegedly leveraged the company’s Medicare business when marketing the company to private equity investors.

As part of the resolution, Campus Eye Management agreed to pay approximately $1 million in restitution to the victims.

While Campus Eye Management received a declination, DOJ unsealed a seven-count indictment against DiDonato in New Jersey.

DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy 

In March 2026, DOJ announced its CEP, applicable to all corporate criminal matters across the Department, except antitrust violations. See our previous client alert on this topic here. The CEP announcement highlighted the Criminal Division’s commitment to transparency in describing the benefits available through voluntary self-disclosure and clarified the pathways through which companies may obtain corporate resolutions, including:

• CEP declinations for companies that voluntarily disclose, fully cooperate, and appropriately remediate, where no aggravating circumstances are present
  
  
• Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) for companies that fully cooperate and timely remediate but are otherwise ineligible for a declination
  
  
• The Criminal Division’s discretion to determine an appropriate resolution that does not meet the requirements of a declination or NPA

Similarly, DOJ’s White Collar Enforcement Plan, released in May 2025, highlighted the Criminal Division’s renewed core tenets of “focus, fairness, and efficiency” in enforcing white collar crime.

Declination decision and individual indictment

DOJ’s decision to decline prosecution of Campus Eye Management rested on several factors set forth in the CEP that align with themes emphasized in the White Collar Enforcement Plan. 

1. Campus Eye Management timely self-disclosed the alleged misconduct and fully cooperated with the investigation, including agreeing to cooperate in ongoing government investigations and prosecutions.
   
   
2. Campus Eye Management conducted an internal review of its billing, payment, and compensation practices and subsequently implemented changes to those practices. 
   
   
3. The company also enhanced its compliance program by instituting risk-assessment and monitoring processes, hiring additional compliance personnel, and implementing compliance training.

DOJ also cited the nature and seriousness of the offense, the absence of aggravating factors, and Campus Eye Management’s agreement to compensate victims as factors supporting the declination. 

Broader implications of the declination decision

A notable feature of this resolution is how DOJ addressed financial remedies. Although DOJ calculated approximately $3.7 million in fraudulent claims, it accepted a $1 million disgorgement payment after an independent ability-to-pay analysis determined that a larger amount “would substantially threaten the continued viability” of the Campus Eye Management entities. For middle-market companies contemplating self-disclosure, this may signal that DOJ is prepared to right-size monetary obligations where the company can demonstrate financial hardship.

The declination also presents implications beyond the healthcare sector. When DOJ announced the CEP in March 2026, some practitioners questioned whether the policy – which drew on approaches used in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and national security enforcement matters – would gain traction in other areas. The Campus Eye Management resolution provides an early indication of how DOJ may apply the CEP’s self-disclosure incentives across its enforcement portfolio. Companies in regulated industries that have viewed voluntary disclosure frameworks as limited to FCPA or sanctions contexts may find the resolution informative in evaluating how DOJ applies the CEP in other enforcement areas. 

Similar to other recent corporate prosecutions, such as the Balt resolution in March 2026, DOJ is pursuing charges against DiDonato, the individual principally involved in the alleged Medicare scheme. DOJ cited the company’s agreement to continue cooperating with “any ongoing government investigation and prosecutions,” which may refer to the charges against DiDonato. In addition, the change in ownership referenced in DOJ’s materials may be relevant in the overall factual context of the resolution. 

More broadly, the combination of a corporate declination and a seven-count individual indictment is consistent with DOJ’s stated emphasis on individual accountability, including pursuing individuals while providing incentives for corporate self-disclosure, cooperation, and remediation. The declination letter requires Campus Eye Management to “continue to fully cooperate” with ongoing investigations, including making personnel available for testimony “as determined in the sole discretion of the Government.” A similar approach was reflected in the recent Balt resolution, in which DOJ declined to prosecute the French medical device company under its newly implemented Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy while simultaneously securing indictments against David Ferrera, a former Balt USA executive, and Marc Tilman, a Belgian consultant, for their alleged roles in a healthcare bribery scheme. See our previous client alert on the resolution here. 

In both matters, DOJ cited voluntary self-disclosure and cooperation, including the provision of information concerning individuals involved in the alleged misconduct, while preserving the ability to pursue individual prosecutions. Companies evaluating self-disclosure may therefore wish to consider the extent to which ongoing cooperation obligations could include providing information relevant to investigations of individual actors.

Context within historical uptick in healthcare fraud prosecutions

A declination in a healthcare fraud case is also notable given DOJ’s continued focus on prosecuting this type of conduct as part of its overall white collar enforcement strategy. In the White Collar Enforcement Plan, the first high-impact area identified for investigation was “[w]aste, fraud, and abuse, including health care fraud and federal program and procurement fraud that harm the public fisc.” In 2025, 84 percent of total recoveries under the False Claims Act came from the healthcare and life sciences sectors, amounting to more than $5.7 billion.

The regional Medicare Fraud Strike Force and the DOJ–US Department of Health and Human Services False Claims Act Working Group have continued to investigate and pursue healthcare fraud-related cases in 2026.

The Campus Eye Management declination suggests that a declination may be available in certain circumstances where a company conducts an internal investigation, voluntarily self-discloses, and enhances its compliance program.

Practical implications for companies

The Campus Eye Management declination highlights several considerations relevant to corporate compliance and enforcement matters.

• Companies may consider maintaining processes to identify and investigate potential instances of noncompliance.
  
  
• Buyers of healthcare entities may consider conducting thorough due diligence and evaluating whether self-disclosure is appropriate if potential noncompliance is identified.
  
  
• Companies that elect to voluntarily self-disclose may wish to carefully consider the timing of any such disclosure, including balancing the need to gather sufficient information with the need to make a disclosure in a timely fashion.
  
  
• Once a disclosure is made, DOJ may expect continued cooperation with any additional investigation, and such cooperation may be relevant to investigations involving individual employees.
  
  
• Companies may be expected to demonstrate that they have taken appropriate remedial steps, including any necessary changes to their internal compliance program.

Notwithstanding the potential benefits identified by DOJ, decisions regarding self-disclosure remain highly fact-specific. Even where a company believes it may qualify for a declination, DOJ retains discretion in determining the appropriate resolution. As a result, companies may consider the potential risks and benefits associated with self-disclosure.

DLA Piper lawyers assist companies in navigating internal investigations, government-facing investigations, enforcement actions, and compliance matters. For more information, please contact the authors.