United States v. Bajoghli

Defendant, a board-certified dermatologist, was indicted for executing a "scheme or artifice to defraud" when billing public and private healthcare benefit programs and related offenses. The district court granted plaintiff's motion to strike as unduly prejudicial certain financial details alleged in the indictment, a motion in limine to exclude evidence of post-scheme conduct the government intended to introduce to show defendant's consciousness of guilt; and a motion in limine to exclude all evidence of the scheme that was not directly related to one of the 53 specifically charged executions. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in limiting the government’s proof to that which is directly relevant to one or more of the 53 executions charged in the indictment, without taking into account the relevance of uncharged conduct to the alleged overarching scheme; the district court abused its discretion because it misapplied Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and 403 in excluding evidence of defendant's post-scheme conduct; and the district court abused its discretion where, because a violation of the healthcare fraud statute requires knowing and willful conduct, the government must establish defendant's intent to defraud. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Bajoghli" on Justia Law