FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Behavioral Health Worker Pleads Guilty to Billing D.C. Medicaid for Therapy Sessions That Never Happened

Said Nassor, 46, of Silver Spring, Maryland, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud for billing Medicaid for services not provided.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 27, 2026, 4:35 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON – Said Nassor, 46, of Silver Spring, Maryland, guilty on August 27, 2026, in U.S. District Court to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro. The plea was entered before U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. According to court documents, Nassor was employed beginning in August 2022 as a Community Support Worker at a D.C. Medicaid provider. From approximately January 2022 through at least February 2025, he conspired with company employees and other community support workers to submit false and fraudulent claims to D.C. Medicaid. The scheme involved billing the maximum number of units regardless of medical necessity, billing a full hour for telehealth calls regardless of actual duration, and billing for diagnostic assessments at inflated times. From July 27, 2022, through June 23, 2023, Nassor documented over 701 hours of telehealth services across six patients when, according to call records, he actually spent roughly 172 minutes with them. On October 21, 2024, he created and billed for three telehealth encounters to an undercover FBI employee who posed as a patient; none of the encounters took place. Investigators determined that Nassor's participation caused a loss to Medicaid exceeding $250,000. The investigation was conducted by the FBI Washington Field Office and the D.C. Office of the Inspector General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Facci.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 127 Aug 2026, 20:35current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.