2 page-paper brief for a case - Essay Example

Inserts Inserts of Supervisor Inserts of 27,09 UNITED S OF AMERICA, Versus SDI FUTURE HEALTH, INC.; TODDSTUART KAPLAN, JACK BRUNK.I. FACTSUnited States of America Government (Plaintiff) sued SDI FUTURE HEALTH, INC.; Todd Stuart Kaplan and Jack Brunk (Defendants) for participating in a scheme together with doctors and heart diagnostic companies to defraud the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, the Medicare program and healthcare insurance operators by demanding payment for services that they never rendered.

According to the accusation, the SDI defendants were illegally providing medical diagnostic and testing services to clients. SDI owned and ran clinics in Nevada, and in 10 other states. SDI defendants aggressively marketed a test for diagnosing a common sleep disorder. According to an affidavit sworn by IRS Special Agent Julie Raftery, they at times billed twice for their services and made reward payments to doctors who participated in their tests. The US government claims that SDI employees who were in participating physicians’ offices would persuade patients to take part in a sleep study.

As the cardiac diagnostic companies doing business with SDI would claim to complete a report of the results of the sleep studies, SDI staff would put fake stamps bearing the signatures of physicians reports. SDI would then recommend that a patient should take part in further studies, in which the patient’s health insurer would pay for them. The affidavit revealed cases of suspected tax fraud. At the end of a 2 year investigation led by the Internal Revenue Service with the active participation of 4 other federal and state agencies, investigators concluded that SDI Future Health, Inc.

had committed Medicare fraud. Based on the results gotten from the investigation, IRS Special Agent Julie Raftery sought for a warrant to search SDIs premises on January 28, 2002. The warrant was based on an affidavit which had information collected from 3 former employees and 2 associates of SDI. II. JUDGMENTFor the United States of America Government III. LEGAL PRINCIPLE A. ISSUE (Rule of Law) Whether the warrant incorporated Special Agent Rafterys affidavit can be evaluated to check if it meets [the Fourth Amendments] requirements.

If incorporated, then the affidavit should be evaluated to see if it satisfies deficiencies in the warrant. B. HOLDING (Answer) YesIV. REASONING A. GENERAL ANALYSISThe SDI defendants also purportedly forced patients to make visits to SDI clinics, and told them that their assigned doctors had asked them to participate in the sleep studies. The US government states that Kaplan and Brunk lack a base to challenge the search and collection of materials from SDI’s premises. According to the government, a corporate defendant has standing with respect to searches of corporate property and holding of corporate records.

Hence, the US government only considers the Fourth Amendment standing of Kaplan and Brunk. All their evidence is admissible as to charges against as long as SDI lacks standing. B. APPLIED ANALYSISSDI’s entire business seems to have been based on the conducting of fake sleep studies, and the affidavit supports the conclusion that SDI’s purportedly deceitful conduct was regular. This provides some to support the conclusion that Kaplan and Brunk personally had an anticipation of confidentiality in the searched areas and held materials.

Works CitedU.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney. District of Nevada. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Case No. 2:05-cr-0078-PMP-GWF. The Honorable Philip M. Pro. Web 27 Sep. 2012.