ShareThis Page
Charges waived to court in insurance fraud case |

Charges waived to court in insurance fraud case

| Friday, November 21, 2008 12:00 a.m

Two owners of Connellsville’s Burns Drug Store — a former employee and Burns Wholesale Drug Corp. charged with insurance fraud brought by the state Office of the Attorney General — have waived their rights to a preliminary hearing before District Judge Ronald Haggerty.

The hearings were set to take place today.

Brothers Louis David Stern, 60, and Jay Steven Stern of Connellsville are charged with two counts of insurance fraud and one count each of theft by deception, criminal conspiracy and tampering with public records or information.

Also named as a defendant is Burns Wholesale Drug Corp., 131 W. Crawford Ave., Connellsville, as well as former Burns pharmacist Chris Michael Ruby.

Ruby, 34, of 148 Tollhouse Road, Greensburg is charged with three counts of insurance fraud and a count each of Medicaid fraud, theft by deception, criminal conspiracy and tampering with public records or information. He additionally is accused of violating the state’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.

The charges against the defendants stem from an alleged scheme operated between June 26, 2003, and Aug. 10, 2006, in which about 1,700 fraudulent prescriptions written in names of Stern family members and Ruby were billed to insurance companies.

Investigators checked with the doctors whose names allegedly were forged on some of the Stern family and Ruby prescriptions and many of them had no records of treating them, according to court papers. Some of the doctors treated Stern family members and Ruby but never prescribed many of the listed medications.

According to records, fraudulent prescriptions were billed for the Stern family before, during and after Ruby’s employment at Burns.

The three men are free on $50,000 bond.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.