United States v. Vinod Patel
694 F. App'x 991
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Vinod Patel co-owned First Michigan Home Health Care, which billed Medicare/Medicaid and insurers for prescription drugs and home-health services that were often not dispensed or were procured through kickbacks.
- Patel recruited patients via marketers, paid physicians kickbacks, and worked with PA James Burdette, who prescribed drugs billed to government programs; pharmacies owned by Patel’s brother filled many prescriptions.
- Patel was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit health-care fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and conspiracy to pay/receive health-care kickbacks (18 U.S.C. § 371); sentenced to concurrent prison terms and ordered to pay $7,238,276 restitution.
- The PSR attributed an intended loss of $8,072,955 to Patel (total First Michigan billings plus prescriptions filled at brother-owned pharmacies); Patel objected that the government had not shown particular bills were fraudulent.
- The district court affirmed the PSR loss calculation with only the statement that the PSR author “got it right”; Patel appealed, arguing multiplicity, improper loss calculation procedures under Rule 32, and erroneous restitution amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Patel) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether charging conspiracies under § 1349 and § 371 was multiplicitous | The two counts arose from the same course of conduct and thus are duplicative | The statutes punish different offenses; each requires proof of a fact the other does not | Not multiplicitous; convictions affirmed (Blockburger test applies) |
| Whether the district court properly resolved disputed loss under Rule 32 | The government failed to prove specific bills were fraudulent; PSR total is unsupported and was disputed | The PSR calculation was correct and supported; district court accepted PSR | Procedural error: district court failed to make the required factual findings under Rule 32; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether the methodology for calculating amount of loss was clear-error | Loss based on aggregate billings was not proven to be Patel’s fraudulent loss | Aggregate billings are an acceptable basis and commentary supports prima facie inference | Amount-of-loss calculation requires district-court findings; lack of findings is reversible error (remand) |
| Whether restitution amount ($7,238,276) was improper | Restitution reflects amounts not proven fraudulent specifically to Patel | Restitution may be based on total billed amounts and court has latitude under MVRA | Restitution affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion in setting restitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Swafford v. United States, 512 F.3d 833 (6th Cir.) (standard for reviewing multiplicity questions)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test whether each statutory provision requires proof of a fact the other does not)
- Fowler v. United States, 819 F.3d 298 (6th Cir.) (§ 1349 and § 371 convictions are not multiplicitous)
- Sinito v. United States, 723 F.2d 1250 (6th Cir.) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for single vs. multiple conspiracies under same statute)
- Poulsen v. United States, 655 F.3d 492 (6th Cir.) (Rule 32 requires explanation of calculation methods for contested facts)
- Lang v. United States, 333 F.3d 678 (6th Cir.) (defendant must produce some evidence beyond denial to put PSR amount in dispute)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S.) (procedural reasonableness requires proper calculation of Guidelines range)
- United States v. Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369 (6th Cir.) (district court need not make detailed findings to impose restitution)