United States v. Sri Wijegoonaratna
922 F.3d 983
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- Sri Wijegoonaratna was the attending physician/associate medical director at California Hospice Care (CHC) and was paid over $325,000 while working there; he recruited patients, completed histories and physicals, certified hospice eligibility, and participated in team meetings.
- CHC paid recruiters, falsified records, and certified many patients as terminally ill though most did not die within six months; hospice eligibility requires physician certification that prognosis is less than six months.
- Wijegoonaratna was indicted and tried on seven counts of health care fraud for certifying seven patients as terminally ill and causing Medicare/Medi‑Cal billing; the defense argued he merely copied prior nursing assessments and lacked criminal intent.
- During closing, defense counsel misidentified an intake form as a nursing assessment; the government rebutted by arguing staff copied Wijegoonaratna’s diagnosis into the intake form; defense objected and moved for mistrial, which the court denied; jury convicted on all seven counts.
- At sentencing the PSR applied differing Guidelines versions: most counts under the 2010 Manual and one count under the 2016 Manual (raising his guideline range); the district court applied the 2016 range (108–135 months) and imposed 108 months total; Wijegoonaratna challenged prosecutorial misconduct, loss calculations, application of the pretrial‑release enhancement, and an ex post facto violation.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions, rejected the prosecutorial‑misconduct claim and most sentencing objections, but held that the district court erred by using the revised (2016) Guidelines to calculate the range for counts arising from conduct that occurred before the revision and remanded for resentencing on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Wijegoonaratna) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal | Government contended intake forms reflected copying of doctor’s diagnosis by staff; argued inference was supported by evidence | Counsel argued prosecutor misstated facts — no evidence staff copied doctor; sought mistrial | No misconduct: inference was reasonable from evidence; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Rule 32 factual findings on loss | Government satisfied clear‑and‑convincing showing of loss and court presided over trial so had sufficient information | Objected that court failed to make explicit Rule 32 findings on disputed loss amount | Court complied with Rule 32: judge addressed objections and expressly overruled them |
| Loss amount supporting 18‑level enhancement | Government treated bills for patients alive at discharge as fraud loss; argued defendant’s involvement in recertifications and conduct supported attribution | Argued not all patients alive at discharge were fraudulently certified and he shouldn’t be liable for later recertification billing | Finding of loss and defendant’s responsibility not clearly erroneous; sufficient evidence supported enhancement |
| Ex post facto challenge to applying 2016 Guidelines to pre‑revision conduct | Government treated offense as continuing conduct supporting use of later Manual | Defendant argued counts were separate — applying a later Manual to pre‑revision conduct increased punishment and violated ex post facto clause | Vacated in part and remanded: because government charged multiple counts (not a single continuing offense), court must calculate ranges under the Manual in effect when each count’s conduct occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perlaza, 439 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussed standard for reviewing closing‑argument misconduct)
- United States v. Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (framework for assessing prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice)
- United States v. Hermanek, 289 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2002) (limits on prosecutor’s closing argument: comment on evidence and reasonable inferences)
- United States v. Castro, 972 F.2d 1107 (9th Cir. 1992) (applying revised Guidelines to a continuing offense does not violate ex post facto clause)
- United States v. Anekwu, 695 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2012) (different Guidelines ranges appropriate where counts involve different conduct under different Manuals)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate courts must ensure proper Guidelines calculation before reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Ortland, 109 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 1997) (applying a post‑offense Guidelines revision that increases punishment raises ex post facto concerns)
- United States v. Evans‑Martinez, 611 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 2010) (requirement that district court correctly calculate Guidelines range even if defendant did not raise issue below)