Richard Davis, the former director of a mental health counseling company called Innovative Family Services, was convicted by a bench trial of health care fraud for submitting false Medicaid claims. The company provided therapeutic day treatment to at-risk youth, and Medicaid reimbursed providers based on time units logged for specific services like face-to-face treatment and care coordination. Davis was accused of instructing employees to log two hours of care coordination and planning every day for every child, regardless of whether those services were actually rendered or if the time was spent on non-reimbursable tasks like documentation. The indictment focused on two specific dates, April 30, 2018, and May 9, 2018, alleging that Davis caused false claims to be submitted for care coordination not actually provided on those days. While the district court found Davis guilty, noting he set up a system that resulted in illegitimate charges, the appellate court found the evidence regarding the specific days in question was too speculative to sustain a conviction.
The court applied the sufficiency of the evidence standard, which requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government to see if any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The core legal issue was whether the government proved that the claims submitted were false. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1347, fraud requires proof that the claims were false or misleading. The court distinguished between internal timekeeping records, which may have been inaccurate, and the actual bills submitted to Medicaid. To bill three units for a day, a counselor needed to provide at least five hours of reimbursable work. For the two dates in question, the government failed to elicit testimony proving that the counselors did not provide at least five hours of reimbursable services. The court noted that while the counselors admitted to logging false information generally, the government offered no affirmative evidence that they failed to meet the five-hour threshold on those specific days. The majority emphasized that a 'whiff of fraud in the air' or a general practice of overbilling is insufficient to convict on specific counts without proof regarding the specific dates charged. The court stated, 'The voids in the proof here are too great.' The dissent argued that the majority demanded an impossible standard of proof by requiring the government to rule out every possible hypothesis of innocence, but the majority maintained that the government's failure to prove the specific element of falsity on the charged dates was clear.
The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal on the two counts of health care fraud. This decision limits the government's ability to prosecute health care fraud based solely on evidence of a general billing practice without specific proof that the false claims were submitted on the dates charged. It reinforces the requirement that the government must prove the falsity of the specific claims submitted, not just the existence of a flawed billing system. The decision leaves open the question of whether a general practice of fraud can support convictions on specific counts if the government can prove the specific claims were false, but in this instance, the lack of evidence on the specific dates mandated acquittal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download