Commonwealth v. Biesecker
161 A.3d 321
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Angela Biesecker, mother and paid caregiver for her adult son E.B., participated in an OBRA waiver program that funds community-integration services for Medicaid recipients.
- E.B.’s Individual Service Plans (ISPs) authorized services from two agencies for July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010: Caring Companions (which employed Biesecker) and The Arc of Chester County.
- Timesheets showed overlapping billing: Caring Companions billed 1,843 hours and 608.25 of those hours overlapped with Arc hours; the Commonwealth paid $10,926.80 for the overlapping hours.
- Evidence included Arc staff testimony and records showing one-on-one services during the overlapping times (when Biesecker was not present), a Wildwood trip billed by Arc but also claimed by Biesecker, and later payments to Biesecker from her daughter’s separate caregiver payments.
- Biesecker conceded inaccurate timesheets but argued she actually performed integration services at other times and was entitled to payment; she claimed inadequate training on timesheet detail.
- A jury convicted Biesecker of Medicaid fraud, theft by deception, and receipt of stolen property; the Superior Court affirmed after reviewing sufficiency, evidentiary rulings, mistrial request, and weight-of-evidence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Biesecker's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Were elements of Medicaid fraud, theft by deception, and receipt of stolen property proven? | Evidence (timesheets, overlap with Arc records, trip records, money transfers, statements) shows Biesecker knowingly submitted false information to obtain payment. | Timesheets were inaccurate but she actually provided services at other times; mistakes were bookkeeping, not criminal intent. | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence and common-sense inferences support knowing/intentional conduct for all three convictions. |
| Admissibility of daughter’s fraud evidence (motion in limine) | Prior/family acts were admissible to show intent, absence of mistake, and plan; temporal and logical connection existed. | Link to daughter’s separate fraud was tenuous and prejudicial. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion—evidence probative for intent and not unduly prejudicial. |
| Mistrial request after prosecutor’s question about added security at CPA | Prosecutor’s remark was not so prejudicial as to prevent jury from weighing evidence objectively. | Comment prejudiced jury; required mistrial. | Affirmed: judge’s denial not an abuse of discretion; objection sustained and no fixed bias shown. |
| Weight of the evidence | Evidence supported jury’s credibility choices and findings of intent. | Verdict against weight because actual services were provided and issues concern recordkeeping. | Affirmed: trial court reasonably declined a new trial; verdict not against weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colonial Park Care Ctr., LLC v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 123 A.3d 1094 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2015) (background on Medicaid reimbursement)
- Doughty v. Commonwealth, 126 A.3d 951 (Pa. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency; circumstantial evidence)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 1029 (Pa.Super. 2008) (use of common-sense inferences when assessing mens rea)
- Matthews v. Commonwealth, 870 A.2d 924 (Pa.Super. 2006) (intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Diehl v. Commonwealth, 140 A.3d 34 (Pa.Super. 2016) (Rule 404(b) other-act admissibility principles)
- Cox v. Commonwealth, 115 A.3d 333 (Pa.Super. 2015) (need for a logical connection for other-act evidence)
- Cottam v. Commonwealth, 616 A.2d 988 (Pa.Super. 1992) (standard for mistrial relief for prejudicial prosecutorial remarks)
- Leatherby v. Commonwealth, 116 A.3d 73 (Pa.Super. 2015) (standard of review for weight-of-the-evidence claims)