Opinion ID: 813898
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count 7: Level of Back Pain

Text: After viewing footage of Bagshaw caring for her alpacas and hearing evidence of Bagshaw volunteering at an alpaca convention, attending the YLEO conventions, and traveling, a reasonable juror could have concluded that Bagshaw misrepresented the consuming level of her back pain. Further, a reasonable juror could have concluded that this statement was material. Bagshaw argues that the transcript from the QAR interview was never made part of her Department of Labor Office of Workers’ Compensation file, and therefore statements it contained could have not have influenced the Department’s decisions regarding benefits. However, Agent Dancer testified that statements made during the QAR interview prompted the Office of Inspector General to continue its investigation and commence surveillance. From this testimony, a reasonable juror could have concluded that Bagshaw’s statements during the interview influenced the actions of the Department of Labor. Bagshaw furthers argues that the statements made during the QAR interview were not made in connection with the application for or receipt of benefits—a required element of making false statements to obtain workers’ compensation—because the QAR interview was designed to gather evidence for prosecution, not to determine whether Bagshaw was entitled to benefits. However, a - 38 - No. 12-3074 United States v. Bagshaw reasonable juror could have concluded that the QAR interview was made in connection with the application for or receipt of benefits because Agent Dancer stated that the purpose of the interview was to investigate workers’ compensation fraud.