United States v. Bobo

344 F.3d 1076, 2003 WL 22006279
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedAugust 26, 2003
Docket02-11011
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 344 F.3d 1076 (United States v. Bobo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Bobo, 344 F.3d 1076, 2003 WL 22006279 (11th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

DUBINA, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Dr. Philip Bobo appeals his convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States and any health care benefit program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1347(1), and attempt to defraud any health care benefit program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347(1). On appeal, Dr. Bobo asserts numerous grounds of error, but we find one issue dispositive: whether the district court erred by denying Dr. Bobo’s motion to dismiss the indictment because the conduct alleged in the indictment was legally insufficient to support Dr. Bobo’s conviction for health care fraud. Because we conclude that the district court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment, we decline to address the other issues raised on appeal. 1 For the reasons that follow, we reverse the district court’s order denying *1078 Dr. Bobo’s motion to dismiss the indictment and vacate Dr. Bobo’s convictions.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

A federal grand jury indicted Dr. Bobo for conspiracy to defraud the United States and a health care benefit program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1347(1) (Count I); attempt to defraud a health care benefit program, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347(1) (Count II); and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count III). Dr. Bobo pled not guilty and moved to dismiss the indictment. The district court denied Dr. Bobo’s motion to dismiss Counts I and II, but granted the motion as to Count III. 2 The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found Dr. Bobo guilty of conspiracy to defraud a health care benefit program and attempt to defraud a health care benefit program. Following a sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Dr. Bobo to 27 months imprisonment on the two counts, to be served concurrently, followed by three years supervised release, and imposed a $60,000 fine.

B. Facts

Dr. Bobo and Neighborhood Health Services

Dr. Bobo has been a board-certified emergency room/trauma physician since 1973, working primarily at Druid City Hospital in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. He also served as medical director of the Alabama Fire College, where he trained firemen and paramedics in emergency medical services. Governor Don Siegelman appointed Dr. Bobo State Emergency Medical Director, and Dr. Bobo served on Governor Siegelman’s transition team from November 1998 to January 1999. Dr. Bobo also held other medical-related positions, including physician for the University of Alabama football team, and plant physician at Uniroyal Goodrich. In addition, Dr. Bobo founded Emergicare, a seven-day clinic where patients do not need appointments in order to see a doctor.

In the 1980’s, Dr. Bobo and three other doctors, pediatrician Dr. Phil Phillips, general surgeon Dr. Charles Rose, and obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Karl Harbin created Neighborhood Health Services (“NHS”), ¿ limited liability corporation. The doctors formed NHS to provide primary medical care to patients who would otherwise be forced to use the emergency room. Dr. Bobo and attorney Boolis Boo-haker are the administrators of NHS. Dr. Bobo serves as managing partner and owns 51 percent of NHS. Mary Jo Looser, former administrator of the maternity waiver program for the health department in a five county area, serves as executive program director of NHS. NHS has two other employees, Charlotte Jamison, care coordinator director, and Dr. Pat Lagrone, director of quality assurance.

The Medicaid Maternity Waiver Program

Ms. Gwendolyn Williams, Commissioner of the Alabama Medicaid Agency from 1995-1999, testified at Dr. Bobo’s trial that Congress created the Maternity Care Program (“MCP”) in 1997 to address Alabama’s high infant mortality rate and low *1079 level rate of prenatal care. The MCP’s purpose was to ensure comprehensive medical services to pregnant women on medicaid, beginning with prenatal treatment and following mother and child through the postpartum stage.

Ms. Williams worked with federal agencies to construct a special maternity medicaid program, labeled a “waiver program,” because it requires the patient to waive mandated medicaid requirements such as “freedom of choice.” The program, entitled Maternity Waiver Program (“MWP”), waives certain medicaid requirements in exchange for an established network of services, specific doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers. Under the program, the expectant mother has a case manager who functions as an overseer of the mother’s medical treatment. Ms. Williams worked with the Alabama Medicaid Agency to increase reimbursement rates and also worked with the Department of Health and other agencies to establish a solid network of providers. After initial tests in a few counties, the program expanded statewide.

Under the MCP, the Alabama Medicaid Agency divided the state of Alabama into 13 districts. The districts at issue in this case are District 4, which consists of Lamar, Fayette, Pickens, Tuscaloosa, and Bibb counties, and District 7, which consists of Green and Hale counties. Entities within each district wishing to provide MWP services bid competitively to offer a complete package of benefits including prenatal visits, delivery, postpartum medical care, and case management. Ms. Williams testified that approximately 70 percent of the funding for the program comes from the federal government via the United States Department of Health and Human Services, with the remaining 30 percent of funding provided by the State. The initial statewide budget to finance the MWP was $100,000,000.

Ms. Williams’ Association with Dr. Bobo

Ms. Williams testified that she first met Dr. Bobo in early 1998, when he expressed an interest in the MWP. After that first meeting, Ms. Williams stated that Dr. Bobo called her almost weekly, offering suggestions about the MWP. Ms. Williams testified that Dr. Bobo’s calls became increasingly hostile, so that she ultimately refused to accept his calls. In July 1998, however, Ms. Williams met with Dr. Bobo to discuss whether the MWP would use requests for proposals (“RFP”) or invitations to bid (“ITB”) to seek potential providers. Dr. Bobo requested that the MWP use the RFPs because then price would not be the sole determining factor that the agency would consider in awarding the contracts. Dr. Bobo also relayed his concerns over the length of the process and the delays in awarding the contracts. Ms. Williams responded that she did not have the authority under state law to use only RFPs.

Consequently, in October 1998, the agency released the ITBs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Nadege Auguste
Eleventh Circuit, 2025
United States v. Thomas Ukoshovbera A. Gbenedio
95 F.4th 1319 (Eleventh Circuit, 2024)
United States v. Jeremie Saintvil
Eleventh Circuit, 2023
Paz Cuenu v. United States
S.D. Florida, 2022
United States v. Benjamin Jenkins
Eleventh Circuit, 2022
United States v. Juan Carlos Bazantes
978 F.3d 1227 (Eleventh Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Steven Deason
965 F.3d 1252 (Eleventh Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Jesse Andre
601 F. App'x 836 (Eleventh Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Shawn M. Hernandez
554 F. App'x 804 (Eleventh Circuit, 2014)
In re Lowry
78 A.3d 1276 (Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania, 2013)
United States v. Rajashakher P. Reddy
534 F. App'x 866 (Eleventh Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Willie Daren Durrett
524 F. App'x 492 (Eleventh Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Roger Lee Shoss
523 F. App'x 713 (Eleventh Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Renee Garrett
467 F. App'x 864 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)
United States v. McGarity
669 F.3d 1218 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Schmitz
634 F.3d 1247 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Wayerski
624 F.3d 1342 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
United States v. McCoy
678 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (M.D. Georgia, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
344 F.3d 1076, 2003 WL 22006279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bobo-ca11-2003.