Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

2 

DUBIN v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

the patient’s means of identification was an ancillary part 
of the Medicaid billing process. 

I 
David  Dubin  helped  his  father  manage  a  psychological
services company.  This company submitted a claim for re-
imbursement to Medicaid for psychological testing by a li-
censed psychologist.  In fact, however, the claim overstated 
the qualifications of the employee who actually performed
the testing and who was only a licensed psychological asso-
ciate.  This  falsehood  inflated  the  amount  of  reimburse-
ment.  Petitioner also changed the date on which the exam-
ination  occurred.1    Even  with  the  inflation,  the  total 
reimbursement was only $338.  App. 49.  Petitioner was ac-
cordingly charged with healthcare fraud, a federal offense 
under  18  U. S. C.  §1347.    According  to  the  Government,
however,  petitioner’s  conduct  also  constituted  “[a]ggra-
vated identity theft” under §1028A(a)(1).

Section  1028A(a)(1)  applies  when  a  defendant,  “during 
and in relation to any [predicate offense], knowingly trans-
fers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means
of identification of another person.”  The predicate offenses 
include, 
fraud. 
§1028A(c)(4).  Section 1028A(a)(1) carries a severe penalty: 
a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison “in
addition to the punishment” for the predicate offense. 

others,  healthcare 

among  many 

According to the Government, this is a clear aggravated
identity  theft  case.  The  Government  argued  at  trial  that
§1028A(a)(1)  was  automatically  satisfied  because  peti-
tioner’s fraudulent billing included the patient’s Medicaid
reimbursement number (a “means of identification”).  The 
District Court was less sure.  “[T]his doesn’t seem to be an 
aggravated identity theft case” the court explained, as “the 

—————— 

1 The parties dispute whether changing the date affected the availabil-
ity of Medicaid reimbursement.  The Court does not reach that question, 
as the outcome of this case would be the same either way.