Opinion ID: 2663136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Safe Harbor Instruction

Text: Turner argues on appeal that, with respect to Counts III and IV, the 10 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(1). 11 Case: 12-20707 Document: 00512581995 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/02/2014 No. 12-20707 district court erred in failing to instruct the jury about the safe harbor provision in the Anti-Kickback Statute, which exempts from liability “any amount paid by an employer to an employee (who has a bona fide employment relationship with such employer) for employment in the provision of covered items or services.” 11 The safe harbor provision is an affirmative defense which the defendant must prove, and a defendant who fails to present evidence supporting the defense is not entitled to the jury charge. 12 “A district court’s jury instructions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, considering whether the instruction, taken as a whole, is a correct statement of the law and whether it clearly instructs jurors as to the principles of law applicable to the factual issues confronting them. Any error is subject to harmless error review.” 13 Here, Turner did not present a defense case, and on appeal, she makes a conclusory assertion that the evidence presented by the government proves that she was merely an employee of the Family Companies. Turner does not point to any relevant evidence concerning her employee status. Though she points to the fact that she submitted referral forms, approved by doctors, to other workers associated with the Family Companies, that is irrelevant to the determination of her status as an employee or independent contractor. Because Turner failed to present any evidence in support of the safe harbor affirmative defense, the district court did not err in failing to include the 11 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(3)(B). 12 See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 505 F. App’x 385, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2013) (The defendants were not entitled to safe harbor defense where, among other things, they were paid a fee or commission for Medicare beneficiary referrals; they did not receive regular paychecks, only referral payments; they received no training or direction from the alleged employer; they obtained their own leads and sources for referrals; and they were not required to keep regular office hours.). 13United States v. Aldawsari, 740 F.3d 1015, 1019 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted). 12 Case: 12-20707 Document: 00512581995 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/02/2014 No. 12-20707 instruction.