United States v. Gabinskaya
829 F.3d 127
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Tatyana Gabinskaya, a licensed physician, was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy and substantive counts of health-care fraud and mail fraud arising from a scheme submitting no-fault insurance claims through medical professional corporations (PCs).
- New York requires medical PCs to be owned by licensed physicians; the indictment alleged Gabinskaya served as a paper owner while nonphysicians (Zemlyansky and Danilovich) actually controlled and profited from Clearview of Brooklyn Medical P.C.
- Evidence showed Gabinskaya signed incorporation and bank paperwork, received a fixed weekly payment, did not supervise staff, rarely attended the clinic, and did not bear financial risk or share profits.
- Gabinskaya gave sworn EUO testimony claiming regular supervision and patient interviews, which was contradicted by employee and patient testimony; the jury inferred consciousness of guilt from those misstatements.
- The district court instructed the jury to assess ownership by considering both formal indicia and economic realities (control, financial risk), not formalities alone; conviction and a one-year-and-one-day sentence followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Gabinskaya was a knowing straw owner/coconspirator | Government: evidence (paperwork, payments, false EUO testimony, lack of control) supports knowing participation | Gabinskaya: evidence insufficient to show she was the true owner or knowingly participated | Affirmed: a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Proper definition of “ownership” for no-fault reimbursement | Government: ownership may be shown by economic realities (control, risk, benefits) as well as formal indicia | Gabinskaya: ownership should be determined solely by formal corporate ownership (shareholder status) | Affirmed: jury may consider economic realities per New York law (Mallela) |
| Exclusion of evidence regarding coconspirators’ attorney misconduct | Government: attorney misconduct had minimal probative value and risked confusion/prejudice | Gabinskaya: evidence of attorney Tanella’s misconduct was relevant to credibility/knowledge | Affirmed: district court acted within discretion under Rules 401/403 to exclude the evidence |
| Denial of Rule 33 new-trial motion based on cumulative error | Government: no individual errors shown, so no cumulative-prejudice basis for new trial | Gabinskaya: cumulative effect of alleged errors warranted new trial | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion because underlying claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallela, 4 N.Y.3d 313 (2005) (New York Court of Appeals: ownership for no-fault eligibility may be determined by looking beyond paper ownership to actual control and economic realities)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence: verdict must be upheld if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Gowing, 683 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2012) (appellate court’s practice of viewing trial evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lyons, 843 F. Supp. 2d 358 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (civil finding that paper-owned PCs controlled by nonphysicians can constitute fraudulent licensing and misrepresentation)
- United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) (jury-charge review: examine the charge as a whole to determine legal adequacy)