Case o' The Week: Gov't Be-"Holden" to Ninth for New Rule - Holden, Health Care Fraud, and Continuing Offense
Hon. Judge Ronald M. Gould |
SOL hook means doc is cooked.
United States v. Holden, 2015 WL
7769350 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2015), decision available here.
Players:
Decision by Judge Gould, joined by
Judges Hawkins and Ikuta.
Facts: Dr. Holden, a podiatrist, was charged in a 59 count
indictment, with 56 counts of health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1347. Id. at *1. Holden successfully
moved to dismiss many of the counts as being outside the five year statute of
limitations. Id. The government superseded,
alleging in a count (“revised Count 41”) one
act that was within the statute of limitations. The government consolidated the
other (outside-of-statute-of-limitations) offenses into this revised Count 41,
and dubbed it a “continuing scheme to defraud.” Id. The district court denied Holden’s challenge to revised Count
41.
Issue(s): “We focus on Holden's challenges to the original and
superseding indictments . . . .. We must decide: (1) whether revised Count 41
was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) whether revised Count 41
improperly broadened the charges against Holden; (3) whether revised Count 41
alleged an execution of a fraudulent scheme; and (4) whether the inclusion of
two counts in the superseding indictment resulted in a constructive amendment
to the original indictment.” Id. at
*1 (footnote omitted).
“On appeal, Holden challenges the Second Superseding Indictment on several grounds. He contends that revised Count 41 should have been dismissed because it violated the statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a), broadened the charges against him, and failed to allege an execution of a fraudulent scheme.” Id. at *2.
“On appeal, Holden challenges the Second Superseding Indictment on several grounds. He contends that revised Count 41 should have been dismissed because it violated the statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a), broadened the charges against him, and failed to allege an execution of a fraudulent scheme.” Id. at *2.
Held: “We have not previously considered whether health care
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 is a continuing offense.”. . . . .
“Like the Fifth Circuit, we have already held that § 1344 is a continuing offense. See United States v. Najjor, 255 F.3d 979, 983–84 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Nash, 115 F.3d 1431, 1441 (9th Cir.1997). We have also held that § 1344 is to be used as an interpretive model for § 1347. See United States v. Awad, 551 F.3d 930, 937–38 (9th Cir.2009). We agree with the Fifth Circuit and hold that health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 is a continuing offense.” . . . .
“So long as the “indictment was written so as to allege only one execution of an ongoing scheme,” id., we hold that the government may charge a single health care fraud scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 even when several acts in furtherance of the scheme fall outside the statute of limitations.” Id. at *3.
“Like the Fifth Circuit, we have already held that § 1344 is a continuing offense. See United States v. Najjor, 255 F.3d 979, 983–84 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Nash, 115 F.3d 1431, 1441 (9th Cir.1997). We have also held that § 1344 is to be used as an interpretive model for § 1347. See United States v. Awad, 551 F.3d 930, 937–38 (9th Cir.2009). We agree with the Fifth Circuit and hold that health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 is a continuing offense.” . . . .
“So long as the “indictment was written so as to allege only one execution of an ongoing scheme,” id., we hold that the government may charge a single health care fraud scheme in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 even when several acts in furtherance of the scheme fall outside the statute of limitations.” Id. at *3.
Of Note: You win the dismissal of an indictment or of charges.
How long does the government have to re-indict, if you are now outside of the
statute of limitations? Holden recounts
the rule, found in 18 U.S.C. § 3288: six months from dismissal. Id. at *4 (if no grand jury is sitting - otherwise, it is sixty days). Query, however, whether a new
indictment under this rule “impermissibly broaden[s] the charges”– Section 3288
isn’t a blank check for a fresh start before the grand jury.
How to Use:
The result of this decision of first
impression is that (presumably) the jury heard a great deal of evidence about
offense conduct that was clearly outside of the statute of limitations. Reading
between the lines of this brief opinion, it appears that the majority of the fraudulent billing was
outside of the five year statute of limitations– but the conduct was all
imported into the trial through the “hook” of a within-statute transaction.
With health care fraud prosecutions on the rise, Holden is a decision worth the read: it can easily broaden your client’s
worries over imprudent billing decisions well beyond the statute of limitations.
For Further
Reading: “What
is the role of the federal government in ending mass incarceration?” That, and
other questions, are tackled in a very interesting report by the PRISON Policy
Initiative. Take a look at the “whole pie” representation of who incarcerates
whom in the U.S.. It is a fascinating graphic of the breakdown of offenses,
local, state, and federal incarceration.
For a narrative of the incarceration report,
and the pie chart “How many people are locked up in the United States?,” [A:
2.3 million on any given day!] visit
the entry here.
Image
of the Hon. Ronald M. Gould from http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/09/03/ninth-circuit-panel-could-bring-more-good-news-marriage
Pie Chart image from http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2015.html
Steven Kalar,
Federal Public Defender, N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
Labels: 18 USC 1347, Fraud, Gould, Health Care Fraud, Statute of Limitations, Superseding Indictments
1 Comments:
Nice Post!!!
electrical engineering
Post a Comment
<< Home