United States v. Philip Michael, II
882 F.3d 624
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Philip Michael, a licensed pharmacist, was indicted on health-care fraud (Count 7) and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (Count 8) for submitting a Humana claim claiming a doctor (A.S.) prescribed Lovaza for a patient (P.R.) when no such prescription or request existed.
- The claim included A.S.’s National Provider Identifier and P.R.’s name and birth date; Aracoma Pharmacy recalled the submission and fired Michael.
- The district court dismissed Count 8, holding § 1028A(a)(1) covers only impersonation (i.e., assuming another’s identity), because Michael allegedly submitted the claim under his own name as the dispensing pharmacist.
- The government appealed the dismissal, arguing that “use[]” of another’s means of identification includes employing someone else’s identifying information to obtain reimbursement, even without direct impersonation.
- The Sixth Circuit considered statutory text, dictionary definitions, and precedent to decide whether “use” in § 1028A(a)(1) covers Michael’s alleged conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1028A(a)(1)’s word “uses” requires impersonation | Gov: “Uses” means employ/convert to service; covers submitting another’s IDs to obtain reimbursement | Michael: Statute reaches only assuming another’s identity; he submitted claim under his own name | Reversed district court: “Uses” includes employing others’ identifying information to facilitate predicate fraud |
| Whether using a provider/patient identifier that facilitates fraud satisfies § 1028A(a)(1) | Gov: Using those identifiers to fabricate a claim is ‘‘during and in relation to’’ the health-care fraud | Michael: Lying about entitlement is not the same as using another’s ID for aggravated identity theft | Held: If the IDs were used to further the fraud (facilitation/causation), § 1028A applies |
| Whether statutory title limits textual meaning to only identity-assumption cases | Gov: Title doesn’t override plain text | Michael: Title “Aggravated identity theft” implies only identity assumption | Held: Title cannot limit clear statutory text; Black’s definition supports unlawful taking/use without assumption |
| Whether accepting a broad reading yields limitless exposure | Gov: Other statutory limits (knowledge that ID belongs to another; ‘‘during and in relation to’’) constrain scope | Michael: Broad reading risks excessive sentencing enhancements | Held: Causation and knowledge requirements provide meaningful limits; indictment sufficient at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (use of an item can include non-typical uses; context controls meaning)
- Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74 (statutory “use” can be ambiguous; context resolves meaning)
- Medlock v. United States, 792 F.3d 700 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing uses that facilitated fraud from mere lies about entitlement; forging a doctor’s signature satisfied § 1028A)
- Miller v. United States, 734 F.3d 530 (6th Cir.) (interpreting “uses” to include acting on another’s behalf; clarified limits of mere lying)
- White v. United States, 846 F.3d 170 (6th Cir.) (submitting false IDs on clients’ behalf without impersonation satisfied § 1028A)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (knowing that the means of identification belonged to another is required)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (indictment must allege elements of the offense)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (statutory purpose or titles do not override plain textual meaning)