Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Sherley L. Beaufils's convictions and 87-month sentence arising from a Medicare fraud scheme involving fraudulent prescriptions for durable medical equipment. The court rejected her challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of a requested deliberate-ignorance instruction, the denial of a postconviction motion for a new trial, and a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement for perjury.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sufficient evidence supported Beaufils's convictions for health care fraud, false statements relating to health care matters, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy.
- Whether the district court plainly erred under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(b) by failing to inform the parties that it would not give their jointly requested deliberate-ignorance instruction and by omitting that instruction from the jury charge.
- Whether the district court clearly erred in imposing a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on perjury.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Beaufils's untimely motion for a new trial for lack of excusable neglect.
Holdings
- The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support Beaufils's convictions because the record permitted the jury to find that she knowingly and willfully participated in fraudulent Medicare-related conduct and made materially false attestations.
- The district court plainly erred by failing to inform the parties of its intended ruling on the jointly requested deliberate-ignorance instruction and then omitting the instruction, but the error did not affect Beaufils's substantial rights and therefore did not warrant reversal.
- The district court did not clearly err in finding that Beaufils committed perjury and applying the two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Beaufils's untimely motion for a new trial because counsel's intentional decision not to file the motion and any misunderstanding of the law did not constitute excusable neglect.
Key quotations
“Deliberate ignorance is simply one way the knowledge element of a criminal violation can be proven—another being actual knowledge.” (38)
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Beaufils’s convictions and sentence.” (46)
Factual background
Beaufils, a nurse practitioner, worked for telemedicine companies that generated durable-medical-equipment orders billed to Medicare. She signed thousands of orders for braces, including orders containing attestations that she had examined patients and verified medical necessity, although evidence showed that many patients had not been examined or contacted and that the records contained obvious inaccuracies. The orders were often generated in rapid clusters, and Beaufils received payments tied to the orders or charts. The evidence also showed that she continued submitting orders despite warnings and indications that the arrangements violated Medicare and anti-kickback requirements.
Procedural history
A superseding federal indictment charged Beaufils with conspiracy, health care fraud, false statements relating to health care matters, aggravated identity theft, and making false statements to a federal agency. The jury acquitted her on the health care fraud conspiracy count but convicted her on Counts 2 through 17; the district court imposed a two-level obstruction enhancement for perjury and sentenced her to 87 months' imprisonment. The district court later denied Beaufils's untimely motion for a new trial, and she appealed her convictions, sentence, and denial of the new-trial motion.