United States v. Christopher Perry
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12405
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Christopher Perry was convicted by a jury of three counts: Social Security fraud, federal health benefit program fraud, and health care fraud.
- Indictment alleged Perry concealed and failed to disclose employment and earnings, which allegedly affected eligibility and amounts of benefits, with intent to fraudulently secure benefits.
- Indictment identified Perry's employment history from 1996 through the charged period as the triggering event for disclosure obligations, and alleged concealment of that employment constituted the fraud.
- Perry worked for multiple employers while receiving disability benefits and Medicare, and did not report employment until a 2008 work activity report.
- District court denied motions to dismiss the indictment and to acquit; Perry was convicted on all counts.
- On appeal, Perry challenged the sufficiency of the indictment, the statute of limitations, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the health care fraud conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency for Counts 1–2 | Perry argues counts 1–2 lack essential event disclosure details. | Perry contends the counts fail to specify the triggering event and some elements. | Counts 1–2 sufficiently charged the essential elements, including triggering event. |
| Specific intent to defraud in Counts 1–3 | Indictment alleged intent to defraud in each count. | Indictment did not adequately allege specific intent for all counts. | Indictment properly charged intent to defraud across counts. |
| Count 3—scheme and artifice to defraud | Indictment set forth a scheme to defraud Medicare and related LTC programs. | No additional factual pleading required beyond the charged scheme. | Indictment adequately alleged a scheme and artifice to defraud. |
| Statute of limitations | Crimes were continuing offenses; conduct within five-year period preserved indictment. | Limitation began in 1999 upon discovery of non-disclosure. | District court correctly treated offenses as continuing; no time-bar. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for healthcare fraud | Evidence showed concealed employment and continued benefits, showing fraud. | Insufficient direct proof of fraudulent intent. | Evidence supported rational jury verdict; substantial evidence of scheme to defraud. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Woolfolk, 399 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 2005) (heightened pre-trial indictment sufficiency review)
- United States v. Kingrea, 573 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (elements of offense must be charged and inform defendant)
- United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (U.S. 2007) (indictment must set forth crimes in terms of the statute with accompanying facts)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1974) (indictment must descend to particulars when offense defined by generic terms)
- United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666 (4th Cir. 2004) (indictment must describe essential facts constituting the offense)
- United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890 (4th Cir. 2000) (definition of scheme or artifice to defraud includes concealment and deceit)
- United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129 (4th Cir. 2013) (intent to defraud may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Phythian, 529 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2008) (sufficiency of evidence in health care fraud case with undisclosed employment)
- United States v. Kivanc, 714 F.3d 782 (4th Cir. 2013) (continuing offense statute of limitations considerations in fraud)
- United Med. & Surgical Supply Corp. v. United States, 989 F.2d 1390 (4th Cir. 1993) (continuing-offense doctrine and statute-of-limitations analysis)