Brius Healthcare

A summary of what happened?

Brius Healthcare is California’s largest operator of nursing homes, owned by Shlomo Rechnitz. Despite its size and prominence, Brius Healthcare has faced multiple controversies and legal challenges regarding the quality of care provided at its facilities. Here are three major concerns and accusations against the company:

1. Substandard Patient Care and Regulatory Violations:

Brius Healthcare has been frequently cited for providing inadequate care in its facilities. A state audit revealed that Brius facilities had significantly higher rates of deficiencies and citations compared to other nursing homes in California. These deficiencies included poor hygiene, lack of proper medical care, and unsanitary conditions. This raised concerns about the safety and well-being of residents under their care.

2. Financial Mismanagement and Exploitation of Funds:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Brius Healthcare received millions of dollars in federal relief funds meant to support nursing homes. However, there have been allegations that these funds were not appropriately used to improve patient care or support frontline workers, but instead absorbed into the company’s broader operations, sparking accusations of financial exploitation.

3. Legal Battles and Settlements:

Brius has been involved in numerous lawsuits, including a 2023 class action lawsuit accusing the company of widespread fraud, regulatory violations, and failing to meet industry standards, which harmed residents. Additionally, Brius facilities have settled with the state and federal governments over allegations of providing illegal kickbacks to doctors in exchange for patient referrals.

These ongoing issues have led to calls for greater regulatory oversight and improvements in the quality of care at Brius Healthcare’s nursing homes. The company has also faced significant public scrutiny due to the persistent concerns surrounding the treatment of its elderly residents.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

What was Brius Healthcare trying to hide?

Brius Healthcare‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Brius Healthcare in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Brius Healthcare may be trying to remove from the internet –

Here is a list of adverse news, allegations, lawsuits, sanctions, complaints, and negative reviews against Brius Healthcare, owned by Shlomo Rechnitz:

1. Substandard Patient Care and Deficiencies

• Brius Healthcare has been criticized for providing inadequate care at many of its facilities. A 2018 state audit found that Brius-owned nursing homes had significantly higher rates of deficiencies compared to other facilities in California. Issues included unsanitary conditions, neglect of patients, and failure to provide basic medical care, which led to numerous federal and state citations.
• Source: California State Senate Audit​

2. Deaths and Neglect

• Brius has been involved in several high-profile cases of patient deaths due to neglect. For example, a facility was decertified after a resident died from an untreated infection caused by a neglected wound. This incident highlighted severe lapses in care that have drawn regulatory scrutiny.

3. COVID-19 Funds Mismanagement

• Brius Healthcare received over $35 million in COVID-19 relief funds, but there have been allegations that these funds were not used to improve conditions for residents or support healthcare workers. Critics claim that the funds were absorbed into the company’s operations rather than directly benefiting those most in need during the pandemic.
• Source: Intelligence Line​

4. Legal Actions and Settlements

• In October 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed against Brius Healthcare for widespread fraud, misrepresentation, and regulatory violations. The lawsuit alleged that the company consistently failed to meet industry standards, resulting in harm to residents.
• Brius has also settled a $3.8 million lawsuit with state and federal governments over allegations of providing illegal kickbacks to doctors for patient referrals.

5. Licensing Loopholes and Lack of Oversight

• Brius has been accused of exploiting legal loopholes to operate nursing homes without formal licenses for years. This has raised ethical and regulatory concerns as it allowed the company to avoid full state oversight while continuing to operate facilities with substandard care.
• Source: Intelligence Line​

6. Regulatory Sanctions and Facility Closures

• Multiple Brius facilities have been decertified, losing access to Medicare and Medi-Cal funding, which underscores the severity of regulatory violations. In one case, three Brius nursing homes were threatened with closure due to persistent violations.

7. Scathing Reviews from Industry Watchdogs

• Advocacy groups like California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR) have been vocal about Brius Healthcare’s failures. They have criticized the company for poor patient outcomes, neglect, and misuse of federal relief funds, calling for stricter oversight and regulatory action to protect residents.

These issues have drawn attention to Brius Healthcare’s operational and ethical challenges, leading to calls for greater regulation and improved care standards in its facilities.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Brius Healthcare (or actors working on behalf of Brius Healthcare), we will inform Brius Healthcare of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Brius Healthcare may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Brius Healthcare, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Brius Healthcare to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Brius Healthcare made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Brius Healthcare is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Brius Healthcare

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).

Is Brius Healthcare Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Brius Healthcare used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Brius Healthcare could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Brius Healthcare have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Brius Healthcare is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Brius Healthcare creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Brius Healthcare either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Brius Healthcare, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Brius Healthcare is in great company ….

What else is Brius Healthcare hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Brius Healthcare] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Brius Healthcare that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.