People v. Payne, Docket No. 111884
| Citation | 177 Mich.App. 464,442 N.W.2d 675 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 111884 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James D. PAYNE, D.O., and James D. Payne, D.O., P.C., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and Frank J. Monticello, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
Catchick & Dodge by James M. Catchick and David A. Dodge, Grand Rapids, for defendants-appellees.
Before SULLIVAN, P.J., and SAWYER and MARILYN J. KELLY, JJ.
The people appeal from an order of the circuit court dismissing the amended informations on two counts of the complaint against defendants. We affirm.
The prosecutor filed a nineteen-count complaint in district court charging defendants with one count of conspiracy to defraud Medicaid, M.C.L. Sec. 400.606; M.S.A. Sec. 16.614(6), one count of conspiracy to defraud a health care corporation, M.C.L. Sec. 752.1005; M.S.A. Sec. 28.547(105), five counts of billing the Medicaid program for services rendered by nonmedically-trained office staff, M.C.L. Sec. 400.607; M.S.A. Sec. 16.614(7), five counts of billing the Medicaid program for anesthesiology services not rendered, M.C.L. Sec. 400.607; M.S.A. Sec. 16.614(7), and five counts of billing Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan for anesthesiology services not rendered, M.C.L. Sec. 752.1003; M.S.A. Sec. 28.547(103). Additionally, the following two counts were also charged:
In Bay City, Michigan, between the dates of February 1, 1986 and April 1, 1987, Defendants James D. Payne, D.O., P.C., and James D. Payne, D.O., using a common plan or scheme to defraud the State of Michigan, Medicaid program, knowingly made or presented, or caused to be made or presented, numerous false claims to employees of the State of Michigan, Medicaid Program, contrary to MCL 400.607(1).
(MAXIMUM PENALTY: 4 years and/or $50,000 fine)
In Bay City, Michigan, between the dates of February 1, 1986 and April 1, 1987, Defendants James D. Payne, D.O., P.C., and James D. Payne, D.O., using a common plan or scheme to defraud Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, a health care corporation, knowingly made or presented, or caused to be made or presented, numerous false claims to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, contrary to MCL 752.1003(1).
(MAXIMUM PENALTY: 4 years and/or $50,000 fine).
The district court dismissed two of the original counts; however, the two above-quoted counts remained. Furthermore, only those two counts are relevant to this appeal.
The prosecutor subsequently amended the above-quoted counts by attaching a list of the alleged false claims upon which the informations were based. A total of 505 false claims were listed in support of the information. However, the trial court subsequently granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended informations for those two counts, concluding both that the charged crime, i.e., common plan or scheme, does not exist and, even if it did, the prosecutor would have had to establish the crimes at the preliminary examination.
On appeal, the people argue that they are permitted to aggregate separate violations of the law and charge one count alleging a "common plan or scheme." As noted above, the common plan or scheme charged in the instant case was based upon the alleged 505 false claims submitted by defendants between November 3, 1986, and April 1, 1987.
Some courts have accepted the concept of aggregating separate or ongoing violations of a statute into one count, alleging a common plan or scheme. The federal courts have permitted this under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, 1 United States v. Robinson, 651 F.2d 1188 (CA 6, 1981), and for traveling in interstate commerce with the intent to carry on an unlawful gambling activity in violation of the Travel Act, 2 United States v. Alsobrook, 620 F.2d 139 (CA 6, 1980). However, there do not appear to be any decisions by a Michigan court which have specifically addressed the propriety of aggregating separate violations into one count under a "common plan or scheme" theory. The case relied upon by the people, People v. Lee, 134 Mich.App. 278, 351 N.W.2d 294 (1984), did not specifically consider the propriety of charging a defendant under a common plan or scheme theory. Rather, the Lee Court considered a res gestae issue in such a case.
While we are not prepared to say that there are no circumstances under which a defendant may be charged under a common plan or scheme count, we do not believe that the charging of defendants in the case at bar under the common plan or scheme counts is appropriate. M.C.L. Sec. 400.607(1); M.S.A. Sec. 16.614(7)(1) makes it illegal to submit a false claim under the Medicaid statutes. Similarly, M.C.L....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Collins
...pretenses and Medicaid fraud cases. See People v. Harajli, 161 Mich.App. 399, 403–408, 411 N.W.2d 765 (1987); People v. Payne, 177 Mich.App. 464, 466–468, 442 N.W.2d 675 (1989). In Harajli, 161 Mich.App. at 401, 411 N.W.2d 765, the defendants were gasoline station owners who tampered with t......
-
People v. Cain
...violation, a less than unanimous jury verdict, or other particular evidentiary problems unique to a case. See People v. Payne, 177 Mich.App. 464, 468, 442 N.W.2d 675 (1989); see also generally People v. Cooks, 446 Mich. 503, 524, 521 N.W.2d 275 (1994). We do not see any of those troublesome......