United States v. Surgery Center Management, LLC, 23-1941

Julian Omidi and his company SCM were convicted of multiple counts including mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, aggravated identity theft, and false statements related to healthcare fraud.
The convictions stemmed from a scheme in which Get Thin, managed by Omidi, submitted fraudulent insurance claims using fabricated diagnoses, forged signatures, and falsified patient data.
The district court issued significant restitution orders and forfeiture judgments, which Omidi and SCM appealed.
Appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the adequacy of jury instructions, certain evidentiary rulings, and the appropriateness of the restitution award.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed these numerous arguments and ultimately affirmed the convictions and the restitution award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of materiality (fraud/false statements)	Government failed to prove misrepresentations were material to insurance payments	Misrepresentations naturally tended to influence insurance decisions	Evidence was sufficient; conviction affirmed
Jury instructions on recklessness and knowledge	Jury was incorrectly instructed about recklessness as equivalent to fraud intent	Instructions were correct or any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence	No reversible error; instruction harmless
Constructive amendment/variance by jury instructions	Instructions on deliberate ignorance/reckless indifference expanded beyond indictment	Jury was properly instructed about ways to prove mens rea; no amendment	No constructive amendment or variance
Restitution award to insurers as MVRA victims	Insurers as mere administrators not proper MVRA victims; no actual loss shown	Insurers suffered loss and were obligated to recover/return payments, loss proven	Restitution affirmed; insurers are victims

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (jury may find materiality if statement is capable of influencing the relevant decisionmaker)
United States v. Lindsey, 850 F.3d 1009 (standard for materiality in fraud cases)
United States v. Luong, 965 F.3d 973 (appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Pelisamen, 641 F.3d 399 (plain error review applies absent renewal of acquittal motion)
United States v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (jury instructions and constructive amendment analysis)
United States v. Adamson, 291 F.3d 606 (distinguishing constructive amendment versus variance in indictments)
United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160 (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843 (financial loss evidence relevant to intent to defraud)
United States v. Bonds, 608 F.3d 495 (agency relationship supports party admission under evidence rules)
United States v. Dubin, 599 U.S. 110 (discussing the "crux" of identity theft in healthcare fraud)