Case ID: f-appx_476/html/0481-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William J. CASEY, Appellant.
    No. 11-1139-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 12, 2012.
    Thomas J. Carr, Tully Rinckey PLLC, Albany, NY, for Appellant.
    Rajit S. Dosanjh, Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Richard S. Hartunian, Richard D. Beiliss, Assistant United States Attorney) Syracuse, NY, for Appellee.
    
      Present: AMALYA L. KEARSE, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

William J. Casey appeals from his conviction on four counts of knowingly falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact in connection with the application for, and the receipt of, federal workers’ compensation benefits in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1920. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

Casey argues principally that the government failed to present sufficient medical evidence to support the charges against him, because while he proffered the testimony of several medical doctors the government offered no medical testimony. However, the government presented more than 12 hours of video surveillance at trial showing Casey performing a variety of manual tasks, including lawn mowing and snow shoveling, while evidencing little sign of back pain. His doctor’s evaluations of Casey’s abilities were primarily based on his self-reporting of pain levels, and the jury was entitled to weigh those self-reports against the hours of video surveillance and reach its own conclusion as to whether Casey’s condition had improved. Further, the government presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Casey deliberately concealed improvements in his health and his ability to perform physical activity, as well as income from his self employment, in an effort to continue receiving workers’ compensation benefits.

We have considered all of Casey’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.