The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN W. DARRAH, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a motion to reconsider and motion to strike filed
by Defendant, Dr. Krishnaswami Sriram. The motion to reconsider relates
to the Court's sentencing rulings dated November 5, 2003. The motion to
strike relates to exhibits the Government included in its response to Dr.
Sriram's motion to reconsider.
The factual background of this case is fully detailed in the Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 5, 2003. Therefore, the Court
will not review the facts here.
Dr. Sriram seeks to strike exhibits that the Government provided with
its response to Dr. Sriram's motion to reconsider because the exhibits
were not before the Court at the sentencing hearing. The Government
concedes that the exhibits were not before the Court at the sentencing
hearing but argues that the Court should not strike the new exhibits in
the interests of justice. Because the new exhibits were not presented
before the Court ruled on the multiple sentencing issues, it would be
improper for the Court to consider such exhibits when reviewing Dr.
Sriram's motion to reconsider. Accordingly, Dr. Sriram's motion to strike
is granted, and the Great West Life & Annuity Insurance
Company memorandum and the Government's new loss calculation exhibits are
Dr. Sriram seeks reconsideration of the Court's finding that the
Government proved by a preponderance of the evidence an amount of loss of
$48,634.17 based on Dr. Sriram's billing for services while he was on
vacation and not within the United States.
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function of correcting
clear errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence which
could not have been adduced during the pendency of the underlying motion.
See United States v. Dombrowski, 1994 WL 577259 (N.D. Ill. Oct.
18, 1994) (Dombrowski). Although the Rules of Criminal Procedure
make no provisions for a motion to reconsider, the propriety of such
motions in a criminal case has been established. See Dombrowski,
1994 WL 577259 at *3.
The Court found that the amount of loss due to Dr. Sriram's criminal
activity included $48,634.17 for services claimed to have been performed
while Dr. Sriram was, in fact, on vacation and not within the United
States. The finding was based on Dr. Sriram's admission that he had
submitted false and fraudulent claims that he had examined and treated
patients on certain dates, when, in fact, he was not in the United States
on the specified dates, and the travel information from Dr. Sriram's
passport entries and specified billing records. Dr. Sriram presents no
evidence that there was a clear error of law or facts and presents no
newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, Dr. Sriram's motion to reconsider
the Court's ruling as to the amount of loss is denied.
Dr. Sriram also seeks reconsideration of the Court's two level
enhancement because Dr. Sriram violated a judicial order. Dr. Sriram
argues that the Government failed to prove that Great West Life
& Annuity was a "health care benefit program."
In its previous Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court held that Dr.
Sriram was subject to a two level enhancement pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(4)(C) for a violation of a judicial order.
Dr. Sriram admitted that he submitted false claims after an August
16, 2000 temporary restraining order was issued that prohibited him from
defrauding any "health care benefit provider" and/or from obtaining, by
means of false or fraudulent representation, any money under the custody
or control of any "health care benefit program." The temporary
restraining order did not define "health care benefit provider."
Furthermore, the Court held that Dr. Sriram billed Great West for
alleged services and was reimbursed by Great West for such
alleged services. Such evidence is sufficient to show by a preponderance
of the evidence that Great West was a health care benefit program
as included in the judicial order. See U.S.S.G. 6A1.3(a);
USA v. Poison, 285 F.3d 563, 566 (7th Cir. 2002) (at sentencing,
"the court may consider relevant information without regard to its
admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial, provided
that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its
Dr. Sriram's motion to reconsider the Court's ruling as to this
enhancement is denied.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Reconsider is denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...