United States v. Carol-Lisa Gutman
711 F. App'x 20
2d Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Carol‑Lisa Gutman, a former postal employee injured in 1987, received OWCP federal disability benefits from ~2001–2016 totaling about $429,677.
- Government alleged Gutman knowingly made false statements to treating physicians that were reported to OWCP, sustaining her continued benefits.
- Key evidence: annual physician reports (Dr. Neil Lava until 2006; Dr. George Forrest thereafter) stating severe physical limitations based largely on Gutman’s reports; surveillance/video (2001–2016) and neighbor testimony showing extensive yard work and household activities inconsistent with those limitations.
- Gutman signed multiple OWCP forms acknowledging an obligation to report improvement and that false statements could lead to prosecution.
- Trial resulted in convictions for five counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), two counts of federal employees’ compensation fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1920), and one count of theft of government money (18 U.S.C. § 641).
- Gutman appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence (intent and causation/materiality) and a district‑court response to a jury note asking for a definition of “atypical affective disorder.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency—intent to defraud for wire fraud | Evidence (video, witnesses, physician reliance) shows Gutman knowingly misled doctors and OWCP | Gutman lacked intent to defraud; activities did not prove deliberate falsehood | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence (video, contradictions, signed forms) supports intent |
| Sufficiency—causing false statements to OWCP (compensation fraud) | Gutman caused physicians’ false reports by providing false accounts | Gutman argues doctors would not have changed evaluations; thus she did not "cause" false statements | Affirmed: jury could disbelieve physician testimony and conclude Gutman caused false statements |
| Sufficiency—materiality and receipt of >$1,000 (compensation fraud) | Misrepresentations were capable of influencing OWCP decisions; payments exceeded $1,000 | Gutman contends statements were immaterial or did not result in >$1,000 in benefits | Affirmed: statements capable of influencing OWCP; payments were substantial and tied to continued benefits |
| Jury instruction—judge’s response re: “atypical affective disorder” | Not argued by plaintiff (government) beyond evidence reliance; judge’s response adequate | Gutman argues judge erred by telling jury definition not provided and implying it wasn’t necessary | Affirmed: even if error, no prejudice — disorder was tangential and defense did not rely on it to negate intent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Silver, 864 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Broxmeyer, 616 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010) (burden and deference in sufficiency review)
- United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558 (2d Cir. 2015) (fraudulent intent can be proven circumstantially via known misrepresentations)
- United States v. Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 1999) (circumstantial proof of intent in fraud cases)
- Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) (definition of materiality: natural tendency to influence decisionmaking body)