Opinion ID: 801968
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Howard Grant2

Text: Grant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he “joined the conspiracy or executed a scheme to defraud either on his own or in concert with others.” Grant argues that the government’s “primary theory of prosecution” is that Grant joined the conspiracy by choosing not to report the illegal activity at Onward after he learned about it. The jury heard enough credible evidence, however, to determine that Grant’s role was much more than a failure to report fraud; instead, Grant actively participated in the fraud. Grant took the stand in his own defense. He acknowledged that the prescriptions would have been fraudulent regardless of whether they had his forged signature and regardless of whether he actually signed them because the prescriptions were for equipment that was not medically necessary for the beneficiaries. Testimony from Moten and Okonkwo showed that Grant himself 2 Grant was sentenced to 41 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $121,742.62 in restitution to be paid jointly and severally with other defendants. 5 Case: 11-20013 Document: 00511881596 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/08/2012 No. 11-20013 demanded payment for redoing prescriptions he knew to be fraudulent.3 For example, Vinitski said Grant was “asking for money to . . . redo the prescription order and sign it with his signature” for the forged prescriptions sent by Okonkwo and that “Dr. Grant wanted money to make those patients’ prescriptions correct.” Vinitski also said that: (1) Grant knew what was going on and had demanded $10,000 to redo the prescriptions; (2) she was going to pay Grant because “that’s what Dr. Grant is demanding”; and (3) “she would need Dr. Grant to redo the paperwork when she had to pay him the money.” Okonkwo testified that Edem, the doctor from whom he obtained the prescriptions with Grant’s forged signature, told him that he paid the doctors at Grant’s medical facility $100 per durable medical equipment prescription. The jury could reasonably infer that Grant expected to be paid for the prescriptions he admitted were fraudulent based on testimony that Grant told Vinitski that he had been “cheated . . . out of money for those prescriptions” by Edem. Furthermore, Grant continued to speak on the phone repeatedly with Vinitski and Edem, even after he found out that Vinitski had bought prescriptions from Edem with Grant’s forged signature.4 Grant testified that he had continued to talk to Vinitski and Edem in an effort to gather information for the qui tam lawsuit he was considering filing regarding the fraud. However, as the district court held, the jury could reasonably have found that Grant’s explanation for the phone calls was not credible considering that he provided 3 Grant argues that multiple witnesses testified that Vinitski is not credible. However, “[i]n assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not evaluate the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses, but view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.” United States v. Doggins, 633 F.3d 379, 383–84 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, as the district court noted, the jury’s credibility determinations were reasonable because Grant gave the jury ample reason to doubt his own credibility. 4 Grant spent 484 minutes (141 calls) on the phone with Vinitski and 73 minutes on the phone with Edem between November 2008 and January 2009. 6 Case: 11-20013 Document: 00511881596 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/08/2012 No. 11-20013 false information about his relationship with Edem to the attorneys he contacted about filing the qui tam lawsuit.5 See Loe, 262 F.3d at 432. Grant also argues that because there was no proof that he received payment from the conspiracy, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of health care fraud. However, as the district court observed, neither the conspiracy nor the substantive counts with which Grant was charged required the government to prove that Grant benefitted financially from his participation in the health care fraud scheme. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1347 and 2.