Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/625/111/57228/
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 01:19:02
Document Index: 64638481

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1396', '§ 1396', '§ 1396', '§ 1396', '§ 1396', '§ 445', '§ 333', '§ 1396', '§ 1396', '§ 1396', '§ 1396', '§ 1396']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Richard Tapert, Harvey Golden, Gerald Weingarden, Donaldfreedlander and Robertgash, Defendants-appellants, 625 F.2d 111 (6th Cir. 1980) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Sixth Circuit › 1980 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Richard Tapert, Harvey Golden, Gerald Weingarden, D...
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Richard Tapert, Harvey Golden, Gerald Weingarden, Donaldfreedlander and Robertgash, Defendants-appellants, 625 F.2d 111 (6th Cir. 1980)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 625 F.2d 111 (6th Cir. 1980) Argued April 17, 1980. Decided June 16, 1980
The principal issues on this appeal are whether the information under which appellants were convicted charges a violation of the pre-1977 version of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b) (1) (note one), and whether the statute is unconstitutional for vagueness. Then Chief District Judge Cornelia Kennedy, now a judge of this court, ruled that the payments to the doctors were kickbacks, that the information charges a violation of the statute and that the statute is not invalid for vagueness. We affirm.
Judge Kennedy denied the motions of appellants to dismiss the indictments. Thereafter, in a published opinion, she denied their motions for a rehearing. United States v. Weingarden, 468 F. Supp. 410 (E.D. Mich. 1979). In this opinion Judge Kennedy held that the pre-1977 version 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b) (1) prohibited the conduct charged in the information, and that the challenged statute was sufficiently clear to give to appellants adequate notice that their alleged conduct was illegal.
Prior to their guilty pleas, the appellants gave notice that they intended to appeal the ruling of the district court on the applicability of § 1396h(b) (1). To preserve the issue for appeal, they moved for arrest of judgment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 34 on the ground that the statute did not apply to their conduct and the district court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to accept their guilty pleas. This is the procedure approved by this court in United States v. Heller, 579 F.2d 990, 992-93, and n. 1 (6th Cir. 1978). See also North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S. Ct. 160, 167, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970); United States v. Cox, 464 F.2d 927, 941 (6th Cir. 1972). The Government concedes that the alleged defects raised by appellants are jurisdictional and not waived by their guilty pleas. Consequently the legal issue is properly before this court.
Approximate Date Amount of Source of Count of Payment Money Payment 3 October 27, 1976 $1,000 Spartan Laboratories, Inc. 4 November 22, 1976 $1,000 Spartan Laboratories, Inc. 5 December 28, 1976 $1,000 Spartan Laboratories, Inc. 6 March 1, 1977 $1,000 Spartan Laboratories, Inc. 7 March 1, 1977 $1,000 Spartan Laboratories, Inc.
All in violation of Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1396h(b) (1).
Approximate Date Amount of Source of Count of Payment Money Payment 11 May 27, 1974 $850 Titan Laboratories, Inc. 12 August 8, 1974 $900 Media Technology, Inc. 13 September 3, 1974 $1,500 Titan Laboratories, Inc. 14 October 24, 1974 $1,000 Titan Laboratories, Inc. 15 December 6, 1974 $1,500 Titan Laboratories, Inc.
Approximate Date Amount of Source of Count of Payment Money Payment 17 August 23, 1976 $200 M. A. Delaney, Inc. 18 August 23, 1976 $200 M. A. Delaney, Inc. 19 September 7, 1976 $200 M. A. Delaney, Inc. 20 September 10, 1976 $200 M. A. Delaney, Inc. 21 September 15, 1976 $200 M. A. Delaney, Inc.
Approximate Date Amount of Source of Count of Payment Money Payment 27 June 24, 1975 $200 Associate Physicians Services, Co. 28 August 12, 1975 $200 Associated Physicians Services, Co. 29 September 9, 1975 $500 Associated Physicians Services, Co. 30 October 17, 1975 $200 Associated Physicians Services, Co. 31 December 10, 1975 $200 Associated Physicians Services, Co.
Approximate Date Amount of Source of Count of Payment Money Payment 36 August 11, 1975 $200 Associated Physicians Services, Co.
We choose to follow the Seventh Circuit in Hancock, rather than United States v. Porter, 591 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir. 1979). The reasons for this conclusion are stated well by Judge Kennedy in her published opinion. 468 F. Supp. at 412-15.
I agree that the term "kickback" should be defined to include "a percentage payment . . . for granting assistance by one in a position to open up or control a source of income." United States v. Hancock, 604 F.2d 999, 1002 (7th Cir. 1978). The United States has an important interest in securing the honest administration of federally funded programs. United States v. Thompson, 366 F.2d 167 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 973, 87 S. Ct. 512, 17 L. Ed. 2d 546 (1966). I write separately to discuss a substantial issue of first impression concerning the construction of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b) (1) (1972): Is a physician, who provides services to medicaid patients and who receives illegal kickbacks from laboratories for the referral of those patients, for which referrals federal funds do not reimburse the doctor or the laboratory, a person who "furnishes items or services to an individual for which payment is or may be made in whole or part out of Federal funds . . . and who . . . receives any (1) kickback . . . in connection with the furnishing of such items or services . . .?" I concur with the majority's affirmative answer.
The legislative history bolsters my interpretation of § 1396h(b) (1) as enacted in 1972. Congress intended to prohibit in the administration of the Medicaid program any practices which were unethical or were proscribed by state law. H.R.Rep.No.92-231, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in (1972) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4989, 5007, 5093, 5308. The physicians' receipt of kickbacks for patient referrals to the laboratory is forbidden by both Section 21 of the Code of Ethics of the Michigan Association of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons and by state statute, Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 445.162. Similarly, a laboratory is prohibited from soliciting business by paying kickbacks. Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 333.20525(c) (1978). Since the language of the statute permits, § 1396h(b) (1) should be interpreted to effectuate congressional intent. Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212, 96 S. Ct. 498, 46 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1976); United States v. Tarter, 522 F.2d 520 (6th Cir. 1975). The ordinary meaning of the statutory language and the 1972 legislative history compel the conclusion that the physicians' receipt of kickbacks under the circumstances in this case is a violation of § 1396h(b) (1).
Finally, because the ordinary meaning of the plain language of § 1396h(b) (1) would have notified the defendants that their conduct was unlawful, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Hancock, 604 F.2d at 1002.
The amended § 1396h(b) (1) is as follows:
(b) (1) Whoever solicits or receives any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate) directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind
According to my construction of § 1396h(b) (1), the amended informations do state an offense. In his zeal to uphold the guilty pleas, the Assistant United States Attorney argued seriously that this Court should consider the amended informations to have been informally amended by oral argument and by his response to the defendants' motion to dismiss the informations. Further, he contended that the district court had implicitly granted leave for this informal second amendment. The Government's position is not supported in the record and is an attempt to play "fast and loose" with the established rules of criminal procedure and principles of due process. Such overly zealous advocacy should be tempered. In other respects, the Assistant United States Attorney prepared a fine brief