Opinion ID: 69278
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Skripka

Text: Skripka challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for conspiracy to commit health-care fraud, health-care fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering by concealment. Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, Skripka’s challenges fail. First, the Government introduced sufficient evidence to support Skripka’s conspiracy conviction. Prince Yellowe testified that Skripka knew that DME suppliers were paying cash kickbacks to the clinic because Skripka was present for many of the transactions.9 Skripka asserts that Yellowe’s testimony is not credible because he was testifying pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government. But this court reviews only the sufficiency of the evidence, not the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Brown, 553 F.3d 768, 780 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied sub nom Combs v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2812 (2009), and cert. denied, 78 U.S.L.W. 3177 (2009). Second, the evidence is sufficient to support Skripka’s convictions for health-care fraud. The Government introduced evidence that Skripka certified patients for power wheelchairs without conducting a meaningful physical examination, and with the knowledge that the patients failed to satisfy the Medicare requirements. The Government also introduced evidence that Skripka 9 Skripka argues that his conviction should be overturned because he was unaware of all members of the conspiracy. But the Government was not required to prove that Skripka knew all of the members of the conspiracy. See United States v. Garcia Abrego, 141 F.3d 142, 155 (5th Cir. 1998). 7 No. 07-20471 knew that Gottlieb was profiting from the issuance of prescriptions and CMNs, and Skripka continued to falsely certify patients for power wheelchairs. In addition to this testimony, there was other circumstantial evidence before the jury that supported its verdict. This evidence includes the large number of patients being transported by Brown to the clinic each day and the dispensing of an unusually high number of power wheelchairs. In light of this evidence, a reasonable jury could readily conclude that Skripka was aware of the scheme to defraud Medicare and actively participated in the health-care fraud. United States v. Achobe, 560 F.3d 259, 264 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 78 U.S.L.W. 3171 (2009). Third, the evidence is sufficient to support Skripka’s conviction of wire fraud. In addition to the evidence demonstrating that Skripka was aware of the scheme to defraud Medicare, the Government introduced evidence that Skripka opened up a bank account to allow Medicare funds to be deposited after Gottlieb’s accounts were frozen by the FBI. Based on this evidence, a rational jury could find that Skripka was guilty of wire fraud. See United States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 436 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[O]nce membership in a scheme to defraud is established, a knowing participant is liable for any wire communication which subsequently takes place or which previously took place in connection with the scheme.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Finally, the evidence is sufficient to support Skripka’s conviction for aiding and abetting money laundering by concealment. The evidence introduced at trial established that Skripka opened up multiple bank accounts for the purpose of concealing the Medicare funds from the Government. This evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for money laundering by concealment. See Brown, 553 F.3d at 787. 8 No. 07-20471