State v. McWilliams, 283 P.3d 187

Mary McWilliams, a Medicaid beneficiary, received Home and Community Based Services including personal care attendants (PCAs) O. McWilliams and Sharnette McWilliams; spouse PCA exemption under regulation may apply.
McWilliams submitted timesheets through SKIL, which paid him net $7.75 per hour for daytime services and $20 per overnight sleep cycle.
Medicaid prohibited PCAs from providing services to a beneficiary while hospitalized, and the enrollment form warned against billing for such time; McWilliams nonetheless claimed hospital hours.
State charged McWilliams with conspiracy with Sharnette and with Medicaid fraud for submitting false claims totaling $3,704.78 for hospital hours not allowable under Medicaid.
District court acquitted the conspiracy charge but convicted McWilliams of fraud, relying on the Personal Care Attendant Acknowledgement form; Court of Appeals reversed; State sought Supreme Court review; opinion now affirms the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is sufficient evidence of fraud under 21-3846(a)(1).	McWilliams argues no intent to defraud since hospital services were authorized by his boss.	State argues intent to defraud can be inferred from acts and the signed form.	Yes; evidence supports intent to defraud and the false claim.

State v. Gutierrez, 285 Kan. 332 (2007) (sufficiency review standard; rational basis for guilt)
State v. Martinez, 290 Kan. 992 (2010) (evidence may be inferred from acts and circumstances)
State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 (2011) (court does not reweigh evidence on sufficiency review)
State v. Houck, 240 Kan. 130 (1986) (illustrates charging specificity and scope of offenses)
State v. McMannis, 12 Kan. App. 2d 464 (1987) (insufficient evidence when charged for different offense than proven)
Slaymaker v. Westgate State Bank, 241 Kan. 525 (1987) (fraud element requires an untrue statement known to be untrue)