Commonwealth v. Rogal
120 A.3d 994
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Rogal appeals a November 18, 2013 judgment of sentence imposing 1–7 years’ imprisonment on 31 convictions.
- Convictions include corrupt organizations, conspiracy, theft by deception, attempted theft by deception, and insurance fraud.
- The Pain Center (TPC), run by Rogal and his daughter Kim Rogal, billed insurance using CPT code 61790 for a low-risk RFS procedure.
- TPC billed substantially higher reimbursements (about $4,800) under CPT 61790 than the actual procedure ($300–$400).
- Insurance companies flagged and eventually rejected the improper billing; Blue Cross/Excellus began flagging in 2009, Horizon and Aetna had earlier notices.
- Trial proceeded after a 15-month grand jury investigation; Rogal and Kim Rogal were represented by the same firm during grand jury proceedings but pursued separate counsel for trial; Rogal challenges sufficiency, evidentiary gatekeeping, and conflict-of-interest issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for corrupt organizations and conspiracy | Rogal lacked shared criminal intent and involvement | Evidence shows Rogal controlled TPC and knew of billing scheme | Sufficient evidence supported both convictions |
| Gatekeeping for dual lay/expert testimony by Dr. Dubeck | Dual testimony confusion harmed Rogal | Court properly admitted dual witness role and provided instructions | No reversible error; proper gatekeeping and admissibility |
| Conflict of interest in defense representation | Dual representation created potential conflict affecting Rogal | Waiver by Rogal and Kim negates conflict claim | Waiver valid; no prejudice established; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sufficiency review allows circumstantial proof; evidence viewed in light of verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19 (Pa. Super. 2013) (web of evidence can establish conspiratorial agreement)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 451 A.2d 1373 (Pa. Super. 1982) (dual representation requires showing possible harm; waiver possible)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 429 Pa. 458 (1968) (dual representation requires showing possibility of harm)
- Commonwealth v. Breaker, 456 Pa. 341 (1974) (dual representation and conflict-of-interest principles)
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942) (per se impermissibility of dual representation? (contextual in the rule))