United States v. Meislin, 108 F. Supp. 3d 38

Meislin was convicted on 23 counts of health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1035 (jury verdict dated Feb. 25, 2015).
Meislin moved under Rule 33 for a new trial and Rule 29 for acquittal, alleging improper evidence and an erroneous aiding-and-abetting instruction.
The government sought to admit Rule 404(b) evidence via Erica Stell about prior double-billing and knowledge of wrongdoing at a prior clinic.
Exhibits 50 and 42 related to Upstate Pain Management billing history and claims, including times when Dr. Kuthuru was not in New York, were admitted under Rule 803(6) and 902(11).
The government argued Meislin aided and abetted the doctor who allegedly submitted false Medicare bills; the defense argued lack of knowledge and intent.
The court denied both the Rule 33 and Rule 29 motions, upholding the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury’s findings on all counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 404(b) Stell evidence was properly admitted	Meislin claims Stell testimony was improper and prejudicial.	Government argues Stell shows state of mind and knowledge.	Proper for state-of-mind, probative and not substantially prejudicial.
Whether Medicare claim summaries were admissible	Exhibits 50/42 violated confrontation or were misused.	Documentation authenticated under Rule 803(6) and 902(11); 1006 summary allowed.	Admissible; proper foundation and summary admissibility satisfied.
Whether the court erred by giving an aiding and abetting instruction	Insufficient evidence that Meislin knew of the underlying offense.	Evidence showed Meislin knew it was improper and aided the scheme.	Evidence supported aiding and abetting liability.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the health care fraud convictions	Insufficient knowledge/intent to defraud Medicare established.	Evidence, including audits and witness testimony, showed knowledge and intent.	Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions under § 1347.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conspiracy conviction	No clear agreement proven between Meislin and Dr. Kuthuru.	Testimony supported underlying agreement and participation.	Conspiracy count upheld; rational juror could find intent and agreement.

United States v. Botti, 722 F. Supp. 2d 207 (D. Conn. 2010) (Rule 33 requires extraordinary circumstances for new trials)
United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2001) ( Rule 33 discretion limited; credibility weighing allowed)
United States v. Sanchez, 969 F.2d 1409 (2d Cir. 1992) (credibility and weighing witness testimony proper in Rule 33)
United States v. Shellef, 732 F. Supp. 2d 42 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (comprehensive Rule 404(b) analysis and credibility factors)
United States v. Scott, 677 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 404(b) purpose, relevance, and probative value)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (probative value and chain of inferences for 404(b))
United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011) (balance of probative value and prejudice in 404(b))
United States v. Edwards, 342 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2003) (non-propensity purposes of 404(b))
United States v. Hamilton, 334 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2003) (aiding and abetting elements and knowledge)
United States v. Lorenzo, 534 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008) (circumstantial evidence suffices; reasonable doubt)