United States v. Eddie Louthian, Sr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11752
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Eddie Wayne Louthian, Sr., president and business manager of Saltville Rescue Squad, was indicted for a scheme to submit false claims to Medicare and Anthem for non-emergency dialysis transports of three patients (JR, NH, BM).
- Investigators showed the three patients could walk, drive, shop, and perform daily activities, undermining representations that they were bedridden or non-ambulatory.
- Squad employees testified that Louthian directed forging/altering Certificates of Medical Necessity (CMNs) and pre‑filling call/trip sheets with false narratives to obtain payments.
- At trial Louthian was convicted of conspiracy and substantive health-care fraud counts, four false-statements counts, and perjury for false grand-jury testimony; the Squad was acquitted; money‑laundering counts were dismissed by the jury.
- The district court ordered criminal forfeiture ($907,521.77) and sentenced Louthian to 48 months’ imprisonment (a downward variance from a Guidelines range of 121–151 months).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for health‑care offenses | Gov’t: evidence (videos, witnesses, records) shows Louthian caused false statements to obtain payments | Louthian: prosecution failed to prove transports were not medically necessary | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports convictions for false statements and fraud; convictions rest on fraudulent representations, not mere eligibility disputes |
| Sufficiency of evidence for perjury (grand jury) | Gov’t: Louthian knowingly lied about stretcher use; video contradicted his testimony | Louthian: ambiguity in question meaning; answer could be literally true | Affirmed — jury could rationally find the answer false and material; Hairston inapplicable here |
| Verdict inconsistency (conviction vs. Squad acquittal) | Louthian: acquittal of Squad makes his conviction inconsistent and requires relief | Gov’t: inconsistent verdicts permissible; many reasons juries may acquit one defendant and convict another | Affirmed — inconsistent verdicts do not justify relief under Powell; no exception recognized |
| Sentence and forfeiture challenges | Louthian: sentence excessive; district should have granted downward departure for age/health; criminal forfeiture improper (should have been civil) | Gov’t: court considered departures and varied downward; criminal forfeiture mandatory under statute | Affirmed — appellate review bars second-guessing discretionary departure denial; 48 months reasonable (substantive variance); criminal forfeiture procedures were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitfield v. United States, 695 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2012) (substantial‑evidence standard on review of jury verdict)
- Powell v. United States, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Hairston v. United States, 46 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 1995) (perjury conviction vacated where answer had an obvious, non‑perjurious meaning)
- Sarwari v. United States, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing Hairston and addressing question ambiguity)
- Madrigal‑Valadez v. United States, 561 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2009) (framework for reciting facts in the government’s favor on sufficiency review)