Appellant,. Charles Hinkle, practiced general dentistry in Tulsa, Oklahoma, from 1991 until January 11, 1993. On that date he was convicted of 134 counts of mail fraud and
The jury concluded that Hinkle mailed “super bills,” or invoices to insurers, falsely claiming that he had performed procedures that were more time consuming and expensive than the ones actually performed. The procedures at issue are catalogued in a publication distributed by the American Dental Association, the American Dental Association CDT-1 Current Dental Terminology, First Edition 1990-1995: A User’s Manual. This publication contains descriptions of dental procedures, assigning them identification numbers (ADA codes) to be used for invoices and records. As is customary in the profession, Dr. Hinkle utilized the ADA codes in his super bills to advise the insurance companies what he was seeking payment for.
Following a lengthy trial at which the prosecution called twenty-eight witnesses and introduced ovеr 600 exhibits, the jury found that Hinkle performed prophylaxis on children and billed the insurance companies for more severe periodontal “root scaling,” аnd performed applications of sealants on children’s teeth while billing for more complex “composite resin restorations.” The evidence wаs partly documentary — a comparison of the patients’ records kept in his office and the super bills sent to the insurance companies — and pаrtly testamentary. There was testimony that patient charts were altered to, reflect more expensive procedures. Expert witnesses testified to finding nо evidence that these procedures were performed on the patients in question. Hinkle endeavored to put the foregoing in dispute. He testified оn his own behalf and called six witnesses.
On appeal, Hinkle asserts several grounds of reversal.
First, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. “[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidеnce in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reаsonable doubt.”
Jackson v. Virginia,
The charge of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, requires proof of a scheme to defraud and use of the mails in furtherance of the scheme.
United States v. Allen,
The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Hinkle and some of his staff fraudulently billed for more expensive procedures than were actually performed. As earlier stated, the billings were for procedures designated and assigned numbers in the publication
American Dented Association CDT-1 Current Dental Terminology.
Hinkle’s first attack is that the edition used on the trial, that of 1990-1995, had not been published at the time Hinkle did the billings at issue here. Hinkle argues that there are important differences between the 1991 edition used at trial and the 1987 edition in effect at the time Hinkle’s super bills were prepared. However, the 1991 edition admitted at the trial without objection contains the identical code numbers and descriptions of all of the procedures that were at issue here — prophylaxis, scaling, sealant and rеsin — as did the 1987 version extant at the time Hinkle prepared the fraudulent super bills.
1
Significantly, no
Accordingly, the jury received appropriate evidеnce concerning the nature of the dental procedures both as performed and as later billed and .ADA’s classification of such dental procedures applicable at all times involved in the charges. Further, Hinkle, in his testimony, having referred to and been questioned about the edition in evidence at the trial and having not taken issue with its accuracy or relevance at the time, cannot do so now. 2 Accordingly, the date of publications used on the trial of the ADA CDT-1 cannot now be claimed to cause a failure of proof. Hinkle’s other attacks on the sufficiency of the evidence are no more than rearguments of credibility issues which the jury resolved against him.
Hinkle next contends that as to a major prosecution witness who had been treated by a psychiatrist, the distriсt court abused its discretion in 1) declining to allow cross-examination about the witness’ mental health; 2) refusing to permit the defense to obtain the said witness’ psychiаtric records; and 3) declining to permit the witness’ psychiatrist to testify. 3 This, Hinkle claims, prevented him from attacking the witness’ credibility, and violated his Sixth Amendment rights of confrontation and compulsory process to confront his accuser and to obtain witnesses in his favor.
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause guarantees the right to cross-examine witnesses,
Davis v. Alaska,
The district court excluded evidence that the witness was seeing a psychiatrist because the court saw nothing in the psychiatrist’s file or in the testimony given by the psychiatrist in camera that suggested thаt the witness’ credibility or perceptive capabilities were impaired. On the contrary, the psychiatrist testified that the witness had no tendency to hallucinate, perception of reality was not distorted, and the witness could distinguish between truth and falsehood. On the basis of this, the- court below declined to permit the psychiatrist to testify before the jury. The court did allow a certain letter from the file to be used as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach her testimоny, though the source of the statement was not to be disclosed.
The district court did not, however, rule out all testimony regarding the witness’ mental health. Indeed, Hinkle’s cоunsel could have cross-examined the witness generally on this issue but never did so, although he cross-examined extensively on issues of bias, malice and motive to liе.
In sum, the limitations imposed were well within the discretion of the trial court. In
Foster v. United States,
We have considered Hinkle’s further grounds for reversal and find them to be without merit. 4 Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Notes
. 01110 — Prophylaxis—adult
01120 — Prophylaxis—child
04341 — Periodontal scaling and root planing, per quadrant
02385 — Resin—one surface, posterior permanent
The jury was given dental definitions for each of the foregoing in great detail.
. Indeed, Hinkle's counsel cross-examined and examined other witnesses on the basis of its provisions.
. The Court below, observing that this effort was nothing more than the attempt to stigmatize the witness before the jury as a psychiatric patient, conducted all proceedings on this issue in camera and the briefing in this court on this issue was also in camera. We accordingly maintain the anonymity of the witness in this opinion.
. The defendant's motion to transfer in camera pleadings is granted.