Case o' The Week: Ninth Needles Government - Hong and "Use" in Section 1028A
Judge Paez drives the point home, in a case of first impression.
United States v. Hong, 2019 WL 4315165 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2019), decision
available here.
Players:
Decision by Judge Paez, joined by Judges Clifton and D.J. England. Big win for
former CD Cal AFPD Carlton Gunn.
Facts: Hong
owned and operated massage and acupuncture clinics. Id. at *1. He gave
his patients’ Medicare-eligibility info and identities to physical therapy
companies, who then billed Medicare. Id.
In reality, however, the
clients received massage and acupuncture (not covered by Medicare), and essentially
no physical therapy (covered by Medicare). Id. at *2. Hong received the
majority of the Medicare payments. Id. Notably, this is what the
patients wanted – they came seeking massage and acupuncture, not physical therapy.
Id.
Hong was charged, tried, and convicted of fraud and kickback counts, and
of two counts of aggravated identity theft. Id. at *3. “The government
alleged that Hong used the names and Medicare-eligibility information of
patients to submit, with the help of his co-schemers, claims for benefits
without lawful authority.” Id. at *7.
Issue(s): “Hong
argues there was insufficient evidence of aggravated identity theft [because] .
. . this fraudulent billing does not constitute a ‘use’ of the patients’
identities within the meaning of the aggravated identity theft statute.” Id.
“[This] argument presents a new question for our court: whether the fraudulent
billing demonstrated in this case constitutes a ‘use’ of the patients’ identities
under section 1028A.” Id.
Held: “Hong provided massage services to patients to treat their
pain, and then participated in a scheme where that treatment was misrepresented
as a Medicare-eligible physical therapy service . . . Neither Hong nor the
physical therapists ‘attempt[ed] to pass themselves off as the patients.’ . . .
. Hong’s fraudulent scheme ran afoul of other statutes—namely, health care
fraud and unlawful remunerations—but not section 1028A. We hold that Hong did
not ‘use’ the patients’ identities within the meaning of the aggravated
identity theft statute. Accordingly, we reverse Hong’s [agg ID] convictions . .
. . .” Id. (citations omitted).
“Hong
participated in and, through kickbacks, profited from a health care fraud
scheme. His conduct, however, falls short of aggravated identity theft as it is
contemplated in the statute. We therefore reverse Hong’s convictions for aggravated
identity theft and remand for resentencing.” Id.
at *9.
Of Note: Section 1028A is the infernal “agg ID theft” statute.
Carrying a two-year mand-min, it is a charge frequently abused by the
government. See, e.g., United States v. Bercovich, 615 Fed.Appx. 416 (9th
Cir. 2015), mem. (permitting § 1028A counts where identities were used with the
person’s active consent). Hong is thus particularly welcome -- a rare appellate
limitation for this generally boundless offense.
In Hong, Judge Paez
carefully analyzes the word “use” in the agg ID statute, and recounts with
approval the approaches of the First and Sixth Circuits (both of which reject §
1028A charges in this context). Hong, 2019 WL 4315165 at *7-*8.
Beware of the boundaries of Hong’s
new rule –convictions can be upheld where there was impersonation or
forgery. Id. at *8 & n.8. Nonetheless, any limit is a good limit: Hong
helps.
How to Use:
Must one argue all defense theories when moving for a Rule 29 dismissal?
When that didn’t happen in Hong, the government argued that several appellate
theories were waived. See id. at *5 (discussing Graf).
Federal trial attorneys
should read Hong’s Rule 29 discussion carefully: if we articulate a specific Rule
29 theory at trial, our appellate comrades will thank us later if we try to articulate
them all.
For Further
Reading: Az Appellate AFPD Keith Hilzendeger found
a hen’s tooth: a full week’s calendar staffed by Ninth judges. See Ninth
Circuit calendar here. No visiting judges, no
D.J.s, see blog entries here, just Western appellate judges.
This feat was made possible with the influx
of Trump-nominated jurists: Judges Miller, Bennett, and Bade all sat on this
Pasadena calendar.
Image
of acupuncture from https://www.relaxoncloud9.com/pins-needles/2018/6/4/9-facts-about-acupuncture
Steven Kalar,
Federal Public Defender N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
Labels: Agg ID Theft, Paez, Rule 29, Section 1028A, Statutory Construction, Trump appointees, Visiting Judges
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home