Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-155 - USA v. Davis et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-155 - USA v. Davis et al
February 12, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER re 122 Motion to Exclude as to Elaine Davis (1); 125 Motion in Limine as to Pramela Ganji (2); 124 Motion to Exclude as to Godwin Ogbuokiri (3). In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND REFERS TO TRIAL IN PART the motions of defendants directed to "evidence relating to other home health companies." The motions directed to "evidence relating to Defendant Doctors' Part B Medicare claims", "evidence described as 'billing for services provided to dead beneficiaries'", and "data that shows the Defendant Doctors did not oversee the care of patients they certified for home health carethrough other HHCs" are REFERRED TO TRIAL; and "evidence of the defendants' home health certification practices at Christian and other HHCs" is DENIED, subject to the terms of this Order. Of course, the Court's rulings herein are without prejudice and subject to modification in the event any defendant opens the door for such evidence at trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent limiting instructions are desired by the defendant(s), counsel are instructed to prepare a short and concise limiting instruction, circulate it to the Government in an attempt to discern that such limiting instruction is without objection, and promptly provide such instruction to the Court prior to trial.Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/12/2016. (my)ORDER re 122 Motion to Exclude as to Elaine Davis (1); 125 Motion in Limine as to Pramela Ganji (2); 124 Motion to Exclude as to Godwin Ogbuokiri (3). In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND REFERS TO TRIAL IN PART the motions of defendants directed to "evidence relating to other home health companies." The motions directed to "evidence relating to Defendant Doctors' Part B Medicare claims", "evidence described as 'billing for services provided to dead beneficiaries'", and "data that shows the Defendant Doctors did not oversee the care of patients they certified for home health carethrough other HHCs" are REFERRED TO TRIAL; and "evidence of the defendants' home health certification practices at Christian and other HHCs" is DENIED, subject to the terms of this Order. Of course, the Court's rulings herein are without prejudice and subject to modification in the event any defendant opens the door for such evidence at trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent limiting instructions are desired by the defendant(s), counsel are instructed to prepare a short and concise limiting instruction, circulate it to the Government in an attempt to discern that such limiting instruction is without objection, and promptly provide such instruction to the Court prior to trial.Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/12/2016. (my)ORDER re 122 Motion to Exclude as to Elaine Davis (1); 125 Motion in Limine as to Pramela Ganji (2); 124 Motion to Exclude as to Godwin Ogbuokiri (3). In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND REFERS TO TRIAL IN PART the motions of defendants directed to "evidence relating to other home health companies." The motions directed to "evidence relating to Defendant Doctors' Part B Medicare claims", "evidence described as 'billing for services provided to dead beneficiaries'", and "data that shows the Defendant Doctors did not oversee the care of patients they certified for home health carethrough other HHCs" are REFERRED TO TRIAL; and "evidence of the defendants' home health certification practices at Christian and other HHCs" is DENIED, subject to the terms of this Order. Of course, the Court's rulings herein are without prejudice and subject to modification in the event any defendant opens the door for such evidence at trial. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent limiting instructions are desired by the defendant(s), counsel are instructed to prepare a short and concise limiting instruction, circulate it to the Government in an attempt to discern that such limiting instruction is without objection, and promptly provide such instruction to the Court prior to trial.Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 2/12/2016. (my)