In United States v.
Ashokkumar R. Babaria, ___F.3d ___, No.
14-2694 (3d Cir. 12/31/14), Dr. Babaria pled guilty to 42 U.S.C. §1320a-7b(b)(2)(A) for
making kickbacks to physicians in order to obtain referrals to his business for
the purpose of performing medical diagnostic testing on patients whose bills
were paid by Medicare and Medicaid. He
received the kickbacks while at the same time certifying, on behalf of the lab
doing the testing, that there were none. The government’s payments for services
that resulted in kickbacks exceeded two million dollars. Despite the illegal
activity, medical records were not falsified, the government was not billed for
testing that did not occur, and patient care was not compromised.
At
sentencing, Dr. Babaria objected to a two-level adjustment for abuse of a position
of trust pursuant to USSG §3B1.3, and a four-level adjustment for aggravating
role pursuant to USSG §3B1.1(a), resulting in a recommended Guidelines range of
70-87 months’ imprisonment . The statutory maximum capped the guidelines range
at 60 months imprisonment, and the District Court, applying both adjustments, imposed
a sentence of 46 months’ incarceration, a $25,000 fine, and reimbursement of
all government fees paid as a result of patients whose doctors received kickbacks.
On
appeal, Dr. Babaria argued that it was error to apply the §3B1.3 adjustment
because he neither occupied nor abused a position of trust. The Court, after
reviewing the Comments to 3B1.3, restated prior case law describing three
factors that determine whether a position of trust exists: “(1) whether the
position allows the defendant to commit a difficult-to-detect wrong; (2) the
degree of authority to which the position vests in defendant vis-à-vis the
object of the wrongful act; and (3) whether there has been reliance on the
integrity of the person occupying the position.” Using these criteria, the Court concluded Dr.
Babaria held a position of trust, as in his position he certified compliance
with anti-kickback rules, yet concealed the kickbacks. He held a position that
both allowed him to commit wrongs and allowed him to make those wrongs harder
to detect. He was not subject to any supervision over his actions with respect
to the business and its relations with the government. His position in the
organization was a significant factor in his ability to commit the crime.
The
Court cautioned that Dr. Babaria’s medical license was not the determinative
factor in applying 3B1.3. His actions in his minimally supervised position led
to application of the enhancement, not his medical license. While the District
Court considered his medical license when applying the enhancement, the license
was not the sole determinant.
The
Court summarily dismissed Dr. Barbaria’s other arguments and allowed his
sentence to stand.
Image from The
New Yorker.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.