Court Opinion

ID: 9468102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:04:42.737679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:41.099443
License: Public Domain

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
In my view the subsection of the statute cited in the indictment, 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(A) encompasses the referral of patient work from one health care provider to another. That is what occurred here. There is no claim that the defense would have been different if subsection (B) had been charged. I cannot accept the majority view that subsection (A) is violat*808ed only if the patient himself physically journeys to the office where the referred services are performed. It should make no difference whether the substance to be analyzed arrives at the defendant’s premises in a bladder or in a bottle.
I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that there was a fatal variance between the crime charged and the crime of which appellant was convicted.