Main Menu

Choi v. State

CRIMINAL LAW, HEALTH LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2023)
Katie Raya

In Choi v. State, 528 P.3d 463 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023) the court of appeals held that a personal care assistant convicted of medical assistance fraud was not entitled to an offset of the restitution damages for the value of services they provided and that the failure of the lower court to require the prosecution to provide evidence as to whether the victim had already been reimbursed for the losses resulting from the defendant’s actions was not plain error. (Id. at 465). Choi, a personal care assistant providing home based health services, was convicted of medical assistance fraud for falsely billing Medicaid by working while barred due to a criminal conviction and signing his wife’s name on timesheets. (Id. at 466). The court awarded the Alaska Department of Health & Human Services (DHSS) $62,043.77 in compensation to reflect the loss that DHSS suffered by making payments to Choi’s employer. (Id. at 467). Choi appealed, arguing that the amount should be offset by the value of the services he provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. (Id. at 468). He also argued that the lower court should have compelled the State to provide evidence regarding DHSS’s recovery from his employer for the same payments and should have reduced the restitution award consistent with those findings. (Id. at 470). The court emphasized that Alaska’s restitution statutes aim to provide full compensation to those injured by criminal conduct and clarified that restitution should reflect the actual damages or loss caused by the defendant’s actions and not the defendant’s unjust gain. (Id. at 467). In this case, the court reasoned that the true victim was not Medicaid beneficiaries, but DHSS. (Id. at 468). Accordingly, DHSS was entitled to compensation based on the difference between what it paid and the market value of the services Choi provided, which was zero due to his barrier criminal conviction and fraud. (Id.). Additionally, Choi’s claim that the court should have required evidence of recovery from his employer was not raised in during trial, and therefore required the increased standard of review of plain error. (Id. at 470). Affirming the lower court on both issues, the court of appeals held that a personal care assistant convicted of medical assistance fraud was not entitled to a reduction in restitution damages for services provided, and that there was no plain error in not compelling evidence to determine whether the victim had already been reimbursed. (Id. at 465).

Choi v. State

CRIMINAL LAW, HEALTH LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2023)
Katie Raya

In Choi v. State, 528 P.3d 463 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023) the court of appeals held that a personal care assistant convicted of medical assistance fraud was not entitled to an offset of the restitution damages for the value of services they provided and that the failure of the lower court to require the prosecution to provide evidence as to whether the victim had already been reimbursed for the losses resulting from the defendant’s actions was not plain error. (Id. at 465). Choi, a personal care assistant providing home based health services, was convicted of medical assistance fraud for falsely billing Medicaid by working while barred due to a criminal conviction and signing his wife’s name on timesheets. (Id. at 466). The court awarded the Alaska Department of Health & Human Services (DHSS) $62,043.77 in compensation to reflect the loss that DHSS suffered by making payments to Choi’s employer. (Id. at 467). Choi appealed, arguing that the amount should be offset by the value of the services he provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. (Id. at 468). He also argued that the lower court should have compelled the State to provide evidence regarding DHSS’s recovery from his employer for the same payments and should have reduced the restitution award consistent with those findings. (Id. at 470). The court emphasized that Alaska’s restitution statutes aim to provide full compensation to those injured by criminal conduct and clarified that restitution should reflect the actual damages or loss caused by the defendant’s actions and not the defendant’s unjust gain. (Id. at 467). In this case, the court reasoned that the true victim was not Medicaid beneficiaries, but DHSS. (Id. at 468). Accordingly, DHSS was entitled to compensation based on the difference between what it paid and the market value of the services Choi provided, which was zero due to his barrier criminal conviction and fraud. (Id.). Additionally, Choi’s claim that the court should have required evidence of recovery from his employer was not raised in during trial, and therefore required the increased standard of review of plain error. (Id. at 470). Affirming the lower court on both issues, the court of appeals held that a personal care assistant convicted of medical assistance fraud was not entitled to a reduction in restitution damages for services provided, and that there was no plain error in not compelling evidence to determine whether the victim had already been reimbursed. (Id. at 465).