United States v. Wheeler
889 F. Supp. 2d 64
D.D.C.2012Background
- Wheeler, CEO and owner of Health Advocacy Center (HAC), was charged with health care fraud (1347) and 34 counts of false statements (1035) related to Medicaid billing from 2006-2008.
- HAC submitted hundreds of allegedly false manual therapy claims to D.C. Medicaid, including claims for services not performed or outside HAC’s facility.
- The government alleged Wheeler controlled billing and was the primary preparer and submitter of Medicaid claims; more than $3 million was paid on the false claims and deposited to Wheeler-controlled accounts.
- Evidence included Wheeler’s personal purchases and attempts to acquire property; testimony suggested she concealed records by moving files to her home.
- Defendant moved for acquittal, new trial, and to dismiss Counts 2-35 as multiplicitous; the court denied these motions and proceeded to address multiplicity separately.
- The court held that §1347 requires proof of a “scheme to defraud” and that §1035 requires a false statement; the two statutes have distinct elements, permitting cumulative punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supported a rational verdict on intent to defraud | Wheeler conspired to defraud Medicaid; circumstantial evidence showed intent and concealment | Insufficient proof of knowing and willful defrauding intent | Sufficient evidence supported the verdict |
| Whether a new trial is warranted for alleged government misconduct | Misconduct allegations required reversal | Three statements by witnesses and closing were prejudicial | No new trial required; curative instructions mitigated prejudice |
| Whether Counts 2-35 are multiplicitous of Count 1 under Blockburger | 1347 and 1035 have overlapping elements; multiplicitous | One offense subsumes the other; multiple punishments improper | Counts 2-35 are not multiplicitous; two statutes have distinct elements and permit cumulative punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Campbell, 702 F.2d 262 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (standard for review of verdicts on Rule 29 motions)
- United States v. Cook, 526 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2007) (sufficiency of evidence to support a guilty verdict)
- United States v. Schaffer, 183 F.3d 833 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (mens rea inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Dearing, 504 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2007) (intent to defraud may be inferred from proof of a scheme)
- United States v. Johnson, 231 F.3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (consideration of case closeness and mitigation of errors in Rule 33/29 analysis)
- United States v. Cabrera, 734 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2010) (multiplicity and Rule 33/29 governing standards)
- United States v. Williams, 825 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2011) (substantial rights and harmless error framework for Rule 33)
- Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (standard for disregard of inadmissible evidence)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harms analysis for substantial influence of error in jury verdicts)
- United States v. Fraza, 106 F.3d 1050 (1st Cir. 1997) (Blockburger analysis of non-identical elements between fraud and false statements)
- United States v. Nash, 115 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1997) (bank fraud versus false statements not multiplicitous under Blockburger)
- United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinct elements for related offenses under Blockburger)
- United States v. Dupre, 117 F.3d 810 (5th Cir. 1997) (multiplicity analysis when offenses share partial overlap)