I. Summary of the Methodology for the Investigation of the William A. Hinton Drug Laboratory
During the past year, the Legal Division oversaw the Office’s continued work related to the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute (Hinton Drug Lab). In 2012, the Office undertook an investigation of the Hinton Drug Lab. The Office issued its report in March 2014 (Hinton Report). In February 2016, the Office issued a supplemental report that described the results of the Office’s retesting of drug samples (Supplemental Report).
After the OIG issued its Hinton Report and Supplemental Report, the Supreme Judicial Court in 2017 dismissed over 21,000 drug convictions because of former chemist Annie Dookhan’s malfeasance at the Hinton Drug Lab between 2003 and 2011. In 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court dismissed an additional 16,000 drug convictions because of former chemist Sonja Farak’s malfeasance at the State Laboratory Institute in Amherst (Amherst Drug Lab) between 2004 and 2013. Because Ms. Farak had been a chemist  at the Hinton Drug Lab from 2003 to 2004, her misconduct at the Amherst Drug Lab brought additional scrutiny to her time at the Hinton Drug Lab.
In 2020, the Office continued to work collaboratively with district attorneys’ offices that were seeking more information about the Office’s Hinton investigation in response to post-conviction litigation of Hinton Drug Lab-related cases. As a part of this effort, in April 2021, the Office issued a summary of the methodology the Office used for its investigation of the Hinton Drug Lab. The summary described how the Office conducted the investigation and included information about how the Office’s investigation methodology encompassed Ms. Farak and the other chemists at the lab. It did not recap the full background of the Hinton Drug Lab crisis or the extensive findings from the Office’s investigation. That information is contained in the Office’s Hinton Report and Supplemental Report, which detailed the Office’s comprehensive review of the lab over the course of thirty-nine months.
II. Civil Recovery Unit
The Legal Division’s Civil Recovery Unit (CRU) has continued its charge of investigating and pursuing civil actions to recover money on behalf of the Commonwealth and local governments. The CRU investigates and develops matters for potential civil recovery, in partnership with other Office divisions and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. In the past year, the CRU has recovered over $1.6 million in collaboration with the Attorney General’s Office.
Below are highlights of the CRU’s work over the past year.
A. Telemarketing Operation Settlement
The CRU investigated allegations that Pioneer Products Inc. (Pioneer) and Noble Industrial Supply Corp. (Noble), and their owners and presidents, Richard Weber and Benno Schubert, used high-pressure techniques and misleading statements to induce municipalities to spend large amounts on supplies that they did not order. Pioneer and Noble did business across the state; they sold cleaning supplies, specialty products for fire departments and other chemical products to local governments.
The CRU’s investigation found that Pioneer and Noble employed a common scheme for over 10 years, targeting scores of municipalities. After a customer’s initial order, a salesperson would call back and say that they were sending the next order, even though the municipality had not agreed to additional purchases. If the municipality disputed the order, the Pioneer or Noble employee engaged in misleading and intimidating sales methods to compel the municipality to accept additional shipments. Through these misleading calls, the companies caused municipalities to pay for merchandise that they had not ordered.
In June 2020, Pioneer and Noble agreed to discontinue their business in Massachusetts for one year and to pay $850,000 to settle the allegations of misleading, deceptive business practices. Under the settlement that CRU negotiated in collaboration with the Attorney General’s Office, the companies were also required to implement new policies and practices and to retrain their employees. As a result of the settlement, the Office and Attorney General’s Office returned nearly $400,000 to 43 cities and towns victimized by Pioneer and Noble. In addition, the municipalities kept all merchandise that the companies had shipped. The Office and the Attorney General’s Office recouped the cost of the investigation and the balance of the settlement went to the Commonwealth’s General Fund.
B. Settlement with Statewide Bridge Contractor
The Office’s Internal Special Audit Unit (Transportation Unit) and the CRU investigated allegations that NEL Corporation (NEL), a Massachusetts-based bridge contractor, overbilled MassDOT. As a result of the investigation, the Transportation Unit and the CRU found that NEL overbilled MassDOT under contracts to repair and maintain bridges throughout the state. Specifically, NEL charged MassDOT for items that NEL was required to provide at its own expense under the contracts, including certain tools, equipment, sanitary facilities and personal protective equipment.
In March 2021, NEL agreed to a $700,000 settlement with the Office and the Attorney General’s Office. As part of the settlement, NEL agreed to implement measures to prevent future overbilling, including designating a contract manager to ensure that the company only bills MassDOT for work, supplies and equipment allowed under the contract. In addition, NEL agreed to hire an outside auditor to review NEL’s billing on all open MassDOT contracts annually and provide a copy of the audit to the Transportation Unit. These measures will remain in effect for five years.
C. Civil Recoveries from Former State Troopers
The CRU worked with the Office’s Division of State Police Oversight (State Police Division) and the Attorney General’s Office to investigate and resolve civil claims arising out of the overtime abuse scandal at the Massachusetts State Police (MSP) Troop E.22 The MSP had determined that several members of Troop E were paid for overtime hours they falsely reported working. Following the MSP’s investigation, the CRU and the State Police Division investigated further and developed civil recovery actions against members of Troop E.
In April 2021, the CRU settled civil claims with two former troopers related to their overtime pay. As alleged in complaints filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Kevin O’Brien and Robert Freniere submitted for overtime hours they did not work. The troopers had been assigned special overtime shifts intended to reduce accidents, crashes and injuries on state highways. The troopers were supposed to be highly visible and on patrol, targeting aggressive and speeding drivers.
The MSP and the State Police Division found that Mr. O’Brien falsely claimed to have worked more than 1,056 hours across 480 shifts between 2015 and 2017, and that Mr. Freniere falsely claimed to have worked more than 369 hours across 136 shifts between 2015 and 2016. Under consent judgments filed in Suffolk Superior Court, Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Freniere repaid the Commonwealth $80,000 and $30,000, respectively. Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Freniere neither admit nor deny the allegations in the complaints.
Additional Resources
Contact for OIG Annual Report 2020: Legal Division
Online
Phone
Address
| Date published: | April 30, 2021 |
|---|