Opinion ID: 4524736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: dr. bacon’s challenge to the summary charts

Text: We also reject Dr. Bacon’s challenge to the admission of the summary charts. The government satisfied all of the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 1006. We agree with the government that the instant charts include no “assumptions” which, under our decision in United States v. Richardson, 233 F.3d 1285, 1293–94 (11th Cir. 2000), would have to be supported by evidence in the record. Dr. Bacon argues only that there is an inference in the charts that all of his prescriptions were illegitimate. We agree with the government that the charts do not indicate that all of Dr. Bacon’s prescriptions were illegitimate. Rather, the charts purport only to be a true record of the number and type of each prescription. And this was brought home to the jury when counsel for Dr. Bacon asked William Reyes (who supervised the 6 Case: 18-15145 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 7 of 10 preparation of the charts and testified) which of the prescriptions were legitimate and which were illegitimate. He answered that that was beyond his expertise, making it obvious to the jury that the charts did not purport to indicate legitimacy or illegitimacy. Moreover, even if that inference were deemed the kind of “assumption” requiring evidence, there was ample evidence that most of Dr. Bacon’s prescriptions were comparable to the ones examined by the two expert doctors and opined by them to be without legitimate medical purpose and outside of the usual course of professional practice. In other words, there was ample evidence that most of Dr. Bacon’s prescriptions were in fact illegitimate. V. DR. BACON’S CHALLENGE TO THE TWO EXPERT WITNESSES Dr. Bacon also argues that the district court erred in allowing Drs. Kaufman and Kennedy to testify as experts. We reject this argument as wholly without merit. Dr. Bacon argues, in conclusory fashion, that there was an insufficient demonstration that the methodology employed by the two doctors was reliable; in particular, he argues that there was a lack of detail as to how they applied the authoritative sources from which they said they derived the standards they applied. Dr. Bacon’s argument is conclusory, failing to suggest the kind of detail he believes is lacking. The demonstration of reliability in this case is substantially similar to that approved by this court in United States v. Azmat, 805 F.3d 1018, 1041–43 (11th Cir. 2015), and readily passes muster in this case also. 7 Case: 18-15145 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 8 of 10