United States v. Jacqueline Wheeler
410 U.S. App. D.C. 87
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Wheeler owned and managed the Health Advocacy Center and controlled all Medicaid billing from Jan 2006–Apr 2008.
- She submitted over $8 million in claims; Medicaid paid roughly $3.5 million, about $3.1 million for massage therapy.
- Investigators found numerous implausible bills (e.g., excessive hours, treatment while patients hospitalized elsewhere) and executed warrants seizing clinic/home records.
- A jury convicted Wheeler of healthcare fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1347) and false statements relating to health care (18 U.S.C. § 1035); district court sentenced her to concurrent prison terms and ordered restitution/forfeiture of the massage-therapy payments.
- On appeal Wheeler challenged evidentiary rulings (cross-examination and admission limits for “superbills”), denial of mistrial/new trial for allegedly prejudicial statements, Double Jeopardy sentencing, application of a position-of-trust enhancement, and the forfeiture/loss-amount calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause / limits on cross-exam of HHS investigator (Coates) | Limits prevented effective impeachment and denied confrontation | Limits were reasonable; defense could elicit key points and call its own witnesses | No violation; trial court’s reasonable limits did not deprive Wheeler of Confrontation rights (wide latitude to curb repetitive/confusing cross-exam) |
| Admissibility/foundation for superbills as state-of-mind evidence | Seized superbills and Coates’s review suffice to show Wheeler relied on them in billing | Prosecution: location of seizure and review do not show the superbills were used in billing; foundation required under Rule 104(b) | Proper to require foundation showing superbills were actually used in billing before admitting them for state-of-mind purpose |
| Mistrial / new trial for prejudicial statements (office manager’s remark; prosecutor’s closing; testimony about representative-payee funds) | Cumulative prejudicial comments warranted mistrial or new trial | Court gave prompt curative instructions; evidence of guilt was overwhelming, so no substantial prejudice | No abuse of discretion in denying mistrial/new trial; jurors presumed to follow strong curative instructions and evidence of guilt was overwhelming |
| Sentencing: Double Jeopardy, §3B1.3 position-of-trust enhancement, forfeiture/loss amount | Double jeopardy barred punishing same conduct under §§1347 and 1035; enhancement and wide forfeiture/loss amount improper | Statutes have different elements so no double jeopardy; position-of-trust enhancement consistent with majority view; Wheeler invited finding of >$2.5M loss so forfeiture/loss amount stands | No double jeopardy; no plain error on trust-enhancement given circuit split; forfeiture and loss calculation upheld (Wheeler invited the loss finding) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Foster, 557 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir.) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S.) (trial court has wide latitude to limit cross-examination under Confrontation Clause)
- United States v. George, 532 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir.) (Confrontation Clause satisfied if sufficient impeachment possible)
- Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (U.S.) (Double Jeopardy forbids multiple punishments absent clear congressional intent)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S.) (test whether statutes require proof of different elements)
- United States v. Mahdi, 598 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir.) (apply Blockburger to determine double jeopardy for statutory overlap)
- Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423 (U.S.) (plain-error standard where an argument was not preserved)