United States v. DeLia
906 F.3d 1212
10th Cir.2018Background
- Steven DeLia, a licensed physician and Army Reservist, pre-signed ~5,000 blank prescription forms for his clinic staff before a 2010 deployment; staff used them to issue Schedule II prescriptions without proper physician supervision.
- Oklahoma medical authorities investigated, confiscated thousands of pre-signed prescriptions, and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (state Medicaid agency) paid claims for the services/prescriptions.
- DeLia surrendered his medical license in 2012; in January 2016 he signed a limited waiver extending the statute of limitations from January 5, 2016 through July 31, 2016.
- A federal grand jury indicted DeLia for health-care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 on June 15, 2016 for conduct occurring Feb.–Nov. 2010.
- District court denied DeLia’s motion to dismiss as time-barred, reasoning the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) tolled the limitations period; the jury convicted.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held the WSLA did not apply and the waiver did not revive an already-expired limitations period; the conviction was reversed and the indictment dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (DeLia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (18 U.S.C. § 3287) toll the 5-year limitations period for § 1347 health-care fraud when the alleged victim is a state Medicaid agency that receives federal funds? | WSLA applies because Medicaid is a federal–state program and the alleged fraud involves federal funds or otherwise affects federal property/interests. | WSLA does not apply because § 1347 requires only fraud against a “health care benefit program” (here a state agency); the government need not prove fraud against the federal government or federal property. | WSLA does not apply; offense charged did not require defrauding the United States or its property, so tolling unavailable. |
| Can a defendant’s express waiver revive a statute of limitations that already expired at the time the waiver was signed? | Waiver can extend or suspend the limitations period as agreed; defendant signed a waiver extending prosecution window. | A waiver cannot revive a limitations period that had already expired and, in any event, DeLia did not knowingly waive an already-expired period. | Waiver did not revive expired period; by its terms it extended only an unexpired limitations period and was strictly construed against the government. |
| Was DeLia’s waiver of the statute of limitations knowing and voluntary such that it waived the expired portion of the limitations period? | (Implicit) Waiver was valid and binding. | Waiver was not knowing as the charged conduct’s limitations period had already lapsed before signing. | Waiver scope construed narrowly against drafter; it did not cover already-expired claims, so DeLia retained the statute-of-limitations defense. |
| Should conviction stand despite untimely indictment if government proves exceptions? | Government relied on WSLA and waiver as independent grounds to render indictment timely. | Indictment is time-barred absent WSLA or effective waiver. | Indictment was time-barred; conviction vacated and case remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (narrow construction of WSLA; WSLA applies only where defrauding the United States is an essential ingredient)
- Grainger v. United States, 346 U.S. 235 (WSLA applied where offense involved false claims against a federal agency)
- Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1970 (WSLA narrow construction reaffirmed; applies only to criminal offenses)
- Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (policy rationale for statutes of limitations; repose protection)
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (statutes of limitations promote timely prosecution and preserve evidence)
- Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (limitations defense is nonjurisdictional; government bears burden to show timeliness or exception)
- United States v. Flood, 635 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir.) (defendants may expressly waive statute-of-limitations defense; waiver must be knowing and voluntary)
- Barnes v. United States, 776 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for statutory-interpretation issues)
- Reitmeyer v. United States, 356 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.) (criminal statutes of limitations construed in favor of repose)