Opinion ID: 2804139
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Transcript of Wiretapped Conversations

Text: At trial, the government relied heavily on transcripts of conversations that had been recorded through wiretaps that the FBI placed at Home Care Hospice. One such 4 Kolodesh did not lodge a contemporaneous objection to the prosecutor’s conduct; rather, he raised the issue for the first time in his motion for a new trial. We therefore review the District Court proceedings for plain error insofar as this argument is concerned. United States v. Brennan, 326 F.3d 176, 188 (3d Cir. 2003). Under that standard, “an appellate court may, in its discretion, correct an error not raised at trial only where the appellant demonstrates that (1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings; and (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). 7 conversation between Kolodesh and Pugman related to a letter that a Medicare fiscal intermediary, Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators, LLC (“Cahaba”), sent to Home Care Hospice. The letter requested patient data for the 2006-2007 fiscal year to determine whether Home Care Hospice’s claims had exceeded the cap for new patients, the cap being a limit on the total annual amount CMS would reimburse for each hospice patient. The letter requested the number of new patients admitted during a defined period, but, depending on how the letter was interpreted, the period could be understood to be twelve or thirteen months. Knowing that they had overbilled Medicare, Kolodesh and Pugman decided to submit thirteen months of data and to misrepresent several patients as new when they had been previously discharged but since readmitted. During the recorded conversation, Kolodesh said to Pugman, “We have to f them over this time, one more time and be smart about it … .” (App. at 1261.) The government referred to this comment twice in its opening statement and four times in its closing argument. Kolodesh did not object to any of those references.5 Calling his remark the “F Medicare Statement,” Kolodesh now argues that the translation and transcription of it, which was originally in Russian, was inaccurate. (Opening Br. at 19.) He also says that the government should have told the jury that the statement did not appear in the original transcription of the conversation. According to Kolodesh, the failure to get a good translation and the failure to tell the jury that his F Medicare Statement appeared only in the later 5 Kolodesh did object to questions to Pugman about what Kolodesh meant, but not to the admissibility of the statement itself or the government’s use of that statement. 8 transcription constitute prosecutorial misconduct. He seems to forget, however, that he stipulated at trial to the truth and accuracy of the transcripts. He thus invited any error and cannot complain now. United States v. Stewart, 185 F.3d 112, 127 (3d Cir. 1999) (limiting plain-error review to errors that were not invited); see also United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 660 (3d Cir. 1993) (“A defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself, particularly where, as here, it is not clear that the defendant was prejudiced thereby.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Kolodesh also argues that the government’s reliance on the F Medicare Statement constitutes misconduct because it was irrelevant to the crimes charged in the indictment. On the contrary, though, his crude and concise comment was directly relevant to the twenty-one counts of health care fraud. It helped establish the fraudulent nature of the claims his company submitted and his mental state in causing those submissions. The statement was also relevant to the charged conspiracy. Among the overt acts supporting that charge, the indictment listed the obstruction of a Medicare audit in early 2007. That 2007 audit was separate from the later inquiry by Cahaba that prompted the F Medicare Statement during the recorded conversation. In February 2007, Cahaba sent Home Care Hospice a letter notifying it that Cahaba would conduct a prepayment audit for twenty to forty claims covering a portion of the 2005-2006 fiscal year. Kolodesh directed Pugman to bring one of their field nurses into the office and pay her specifically to assist in changing patient records so that they would appear to be compliant. As a result, the audit led to the denial of only two claims out of 9 twenty. Kolodesh’s statement, “‘We have to f them over this time, one more time and be smart about it …’” (App. at 1261 (emphasis added)), is relevant to establishing the fraudulent nature of Home Care Hospice’s response to the 2007 audit, as well as being relevant to Kolodesh’s corresponding mental state and to the existence of an agreement to defraud Medicare. Thus, the District Court did not plainly err in permitting Kolodesh’s own words to be admitted against him and allowing the government to refer to them freely.6