United States v. Price
2:16-cr-20437
E.D. Mich.May 16, 2018Background
- Defendant Millicent Traylor is charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, conspiracy to pay/receive kickbacks, and multiple counts of health care fraud related to prescriptions and Medicare billing at Metro Mobile Physicians.
- Metro Mobile was a Medicare-provider clinic in Detroit owned by Jacklyn Price; Traylor worked there as an unlicensed physician.
- Dr. Yasmin Sahul worked at Metro Mobile for four days in March 2015, treated six patients, and subsequently quit; she never met Traylor.
- The Government seeks to call Dr. Sahul to testify about her firsthand observations: inappropriate narcotic prescribing, poor management of maintenance medications, lack of standard equipment, and substandard patient care.
- Traylor moved in limine to exclude Sahul’s testimony under Rules 401, 403, 701, and 702 as irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and beyond Sahul’s lay/expert qualifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of Sahul’s testimony to fraud/kickback charges | Testimony shows Metro Mobile practices supporting scheme to obtain Medicare payments for unnecessary narcotics | Testimony is only evidence Metro Mobile was a "shoddy" clinic and is irrelevant to Traylor’s conduct | Admissible: testimony is relevant to conspiracy and scheme; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Lay vs. expert testimony | Much of Sahul’s testimony is factual/lay based from personal observations | Sahul lacks specialized pain-management credentials to give expert opinions | Admissible: observations are lay testimony; limited expert opinion is supported by her medical experience |
| Sahul’s qualifications to offer expert opinions on prescribing practices | Sahul has 14 years outpatient experience across facilities including pain-related outpatient care | Sahul lacks particular pain-management specialty and only worked 4 days at Metro Mobile | Qualified: experience suffices to offer limited expert opinion on observed practices; not barred as unreliable |
| Basis/sufficiency of Sahul’s opinions | Opinions are grounded in specific medical-record notations and firsthand observations (e.g., prescriptions in her name after departure, negative drug test yet narcotics prescribed, signs of doctor-shopping) | Opinions are speculative given brief tenure and small sample of patients | Admissible: testimony has a reasonable factual basis; challenges go to weight, not admissibility; Government agreed Sahul will not offer global conclusions about the clinic |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Houston, 813 F.3d 282 (6th Cir.) (defines unfair prejudice standard under Rule 403)
- United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.) (discusses improper-basis prejudice and Rule 403 analysis)
- United States v. Rios, 830 F.3d 403 (6th Cir.) (summarizes Rule 702 requirement that expert be qualified, testimony relevant and reliable)
- In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517 (6th Cir.) (expert testimony admissibility and weight considerations)
- United States v. Ramer, 883 F.3d 659 (6th Cir.) (admissibility of expert opinion where reasonable factual basis exists)
- United States v. L.E. Cooke Co., 991 F.2d 336 (6th Cir.) (expert testimony must not be speculative; reasonable factual basis required)