United States v. Vishnu Meda
812 F.3d 502
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Javidan (part-owner/manager of Acure Home Care) and Meda (physical therapist) were convicted after a joint trial for Medicare fraud and a kickback conspiracy involving recruiting beneficiaries and submitting false claims.
- The government alleged Acure paid physicians and marketers for referrals and obtained beneficiaries’ Medicare info by offering cash/medication; Meda signed revisit notes for patients he did not visit.
- Meda had been previously tried and acquitted in a separate Patient Choice/All American conspiracy; the Acure indictment followed and overlapped in time by several months.
- Post-trial motions raised double jeopardy and prosecutorial vindictiveness claims by Meda; Javidan challenged multiple evidentiary rulings (coconspirator statements, exclusion of her husband’s and a proposed witness’s testimony) and sentencing calculations.
- District court denied the pretrial dismissal and evidentiary relief, adopted the PSR loss and leadership findings for sentencing (but imposed a below-Guidelines term); Sixth Circuit affirmed convictions and Javidan’s sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy (single conspiracy) | Meda: Patient Choice/All American and Acure were one continuous conspiracy; acquittal on first bars retrial | Government: Two distinct conspiracies based on differing timeframes, central actors, and overt acts | Affirmed — totality-of-circumstances test favors separate conspiracies (3 of 5 factors supported government) |
| Prosecutorial vindictiveness | Meda: Indictment for Acure was retaliatory after he refused plea/acquitted earlier | Government: Indictment based on separate conduct at Acure; no evidence of retaliatory motive | Affirmed — no evidence of vindictiveness; presumption of probable cause unrebutted |
| Admission of coconspirator statements | Javidan: Shahab’s testimony recounted statements by individuals who were not her coconspirators | Government: Testimony showed those speakers (doctors, marketers) participated in Acure scheme | Affirmed — record supports coconspirator findings (or any error harmless) |
| Exclusion of husband Khoubyari’s testimony | Javidan: Husband would present alternate, exculpatory account of a February 2009 meeting; exclusion violated confrontation and defense rights | Government: Testimony would be hearsay; offered to prove truth of event, not just state of mind | Affirmed — testimony was hearsay and exclusion (if error) harmless given record |
| Denial of immunity / witness-intimidation claim re: Sarah Khan | Javidan: Court should compel government to grant immunity or prevent cross-examination to allow Khan to testify | Government: Khan was advised and chose counsel; prosecutors may refuse immunity; no prosecutorial misconduct | Affirmed — court cannot force immunity; no improper conduct shown and claim fails |
| Sentencing (loss amount & leadership) | Javidan: Loss overstated; Acure not entirely fraudulent; she was not an organizer/leader | Probation/Govt: PSR supported $2.2M loss and 3B1.1 enhancement based on ownership, signature authority, and role | Affirmed — district court’s reasonable-loss estimate and leader enhancement not clearly erroneous; below-Guidelines sentence was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wheeler, 535 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for appellate review of conspiracy dismissal on double jeopardy grounds)
- United States v. WRW Corp., 986 F.2d 138 (6th Cir. 1993) (double jeopardy/conspiracy analysis)
- Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (2003) (double jeopardy protects against second prosecution after acquittal)
- Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) (double jeopardy principles)
- United States v. Sinito, 723 F.2d 1250 (6th Cir. 1983) (five-factor totality test for determining whether multiple conspiracies are the same)
- United States v. Enright, 579 F.2d 980 (6th Cir. 1978) (procedures for making on-the-record coconspirator findings)
- United States v. Martinez, 430 F.3d 317 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard for concluding Government met Rule 801(d)(2)(E) burden by preponderance)