United States v. Arvinder Singh, Rosanna Cerone and Toni Coons

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
390 F.3d 168, 2004 WL 2663629, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24367 (2004)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Probable cause for a search warrant may be established by information that is several months old if it depicts ongoing criminal activity, and a federal statute allowing forfeiture of a medical license used to facilitate a drug felony does not violate the Tenth Amendment, particularly when it directly serves the purpose of federal drug enforcement laws.


Facts:

  • Dr. Arvinder Singh owned and operated Diagnostic Interventional Pain Management & Rehabilitation Services, Inc. (the "Practice") in Albany, New York, specializing in chronic pain management from 1996-1999.
  • Singh employed other physicians and non-physician medical personnel, including nurses Margaret Peruzzi, Pamela Madej, and Rosanna Cerone, and billing clerk Toni Coons.
  • Singh developed a scheme where he and other physicians pre-signed entire books of triplicate Schedule II Controlled Substance prescription forms and provided them to non-physician personnel to fill out and issue to patients without physician involvement.
  • Nurses routinely saw established patients for follow-up office visits without a physician present, evaluating conditions based on oral information and "body sheets" but not performing physical examinations.
  • The Practice routinely submitted claims to health care benefit programs for these nurse-only visits using CPT codes 99212 through 99215, which are designated for physician 'evaluation and management' and require face-to-face physician involvement.
  • Singh instructed Nurse Madej to include information in her dictation notes that would falsely suggest his involvement in her nurse-only visits to obtain reimbursement, and told Nurse Cerone to alter patient charts after a state investigator visit.
  • Data showed Singh billed the vast majority of nursing visits under CPT codes 99214 or 99215, resulting in $459,670.89 worth of claims for nurse-only visits billed under the higher codes.
  • Billing clerks at the Practice, including Toni Coons, frequently "upcoded" the level of CPT codes on superbills before generating claim forms for submission.

Procedural Posture:

  • On July 22, 1999, Magistrate Judge Smith issued a warrant authorizing the search of the Practice suite and Dr. Arvinder Singh’s home.
  • On July 23, 1999, Magistrate Judge Yanthis issued a warrant authorizing the search of Singh’s office in Port Chester.
  • On July 27, 1999, the Government submitted an amended application, affidavit, and search warrant to Magistrate Judge Sharpe, who authorized supplemental language for computer seizures but stated he would not have issued the warrant for Singh's home based on the original information.
  • On July 27, 1999, federal agents executed search warrants at Singh’s offices in Albany and Port Chester and at his home.
  • In September 2001, a federal grand jury returned a sixty-five-count superseding indictment charging Singh with health care fraud, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, and causing/aiding illegal distribution of controlled substances.
  • Prior to trial, Singh moved to suppress the items seized during the execution of the search warrants and for a Franks v. Delaware hearing, both of which were denied by the district court.
  • Prior to trial, co-defendant Rosanna Cerone pled guilty to participating in the fraud scheme and the drug conspiracy and testified as a cooperating witness at trial.
  • Prior to trial, co-defendant Toni Coons pled guilty to participating in the "up-coding" fraud scheme.
  • A jury trial was held in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Scullin, C.J.), which resulted in Singh's conviction on sixteen health care fraud counts and all drug counts.
  • The district court denied Singh’s post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal on the drug counts or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the fraud and drug counts.
  • The district court sentenced Singh to forty-six months’ imprisonment, ordered restitution of $227,127.82, and ordered forfeiture of his New York medical license.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

1. Does an affidavit supporting a search warrant establish probable cause for a residence search when the information is partially stale but depicts ongoing criminal activity and there is a reasonable nexus to the residence? 2. Does the federal forfeiture of a medical license for a drug felony, as permitted by 21 U.S.C. § 853(a), violate the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states? 3. Did the district court err in its calculation of intended loss for sentencing purposes, particularly regarding a defendant's knowledge of payment caps?


Opinions:

Majority - Miner, Circuit Judge

1. Yes, the affidavit established probable cause for the search of Singh's residence and offices. The court found that the information, though some was more than twenty months old, described an ongoing and long-term criminal activity, which lessens the significance of the passage of time for staleness claims. The affidavit provided a sufficient nexus between the alleged criminal activities (health care fraud and illegal drug distribution) and Singh's residence, especially considering the testimony that Singh’s wife was involved in the practice's business payables and payroll at their home. The court also held that the Leon good faith exception applied, as it was objectively reasonable for agents to rely on the warrants, and Singh failed to make a substantial showing for a Franks hearing regarding intentionally false or recklessly disregarded information. 2. No, the federal forfeiture of Singh's medical license under 21 U.S.C. § 853(a) does not violate the Tenth Amendment. The court distinguished this case from Linder v. United States because Singh was prosecuted under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which aims to strengthen drug abuse law enforcement, unlike the revenue-focused Harrison Act in Linder. The forfeiture provision directly serves the CSA's purpose, and the forfeiture of a license used to facilitate a narcotics offense has only a de minimis effect on the state's power to regulate medicine, as it does not prevent the state from issuing a new license. Furthermore, Congress specifically provided for such forfeiture. 3. Yes, the district court erred in its calculation of intended loss for sentencing purposes, specifically regarding the assumption that Singh intended to inflict the full amount billed despite common knowledge of payment caps. The court vacated the sentencing judgment and remanded for further proceedings on this matter. It reasoned that Singh, being familiar with billing procedures and the practice's receipts, likely knew that insurance companies and Medicare paid fixed rates lower than the billed amounts. The court distinguished this from United States v. Ravelo, where the defendant had no way to know credit card limits, and rejected United States v. Miller to the extent of any inconsistency. The court affirmed Singh's conviction regarding the sufficiency of evidence for health care fraud, finding no ambiguity in the CPT codes that would negate fraudulent intent, and affirmed the jury instructions, finding no plain error or constructive amendment of the indictment.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the application of the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirements in complex white-collar criminal investigations involving ongoing schemes, particularly concerning staleness and nexus for residential searches. It also definitively establishes the constitutionality of federal forfeiture of professional licenses, like medical licenses, when those licenses are used to facilitate federal drug felonies, thereby strengthening federal enforcement powers in drug abuse cases and distinguishing the CSA from older revenue-based statutes. The partial vacatur and remand on the sentencing loss calculation introduces an important nuance regarding 'intended loss' under the Sentencing Guidelines, suggesting that a defendant's demonstrated knowledge of reimbursement caps should be considered, which could impact future fraud cases where billed amounts differ significantly from expected payments.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States v. Arvinder Singh, Rosanna Cerone and Toni Coons (2004) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.