From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Strogov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1995
216 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 12, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant, a podiatrist, was a participating physician in the Medicaid program. The evidence at trial established that she systematically defrauded Medicaid by misrepresenting that she had provided custom-made orthotics fabricated from three-dimensional casts for her Medicaid patients and billed Medicaid under its procedure code 90473 when in fact she had only furnished prefabricated orthotics after tracing her patients' feet or taking a footprint.

The defendant argues that the evidence was not legally sufficient to show that code 90473 required a podiatrist to make a cast of the feet and that she so understood it. We disagree. The testimony of Dr. Joseph Guy, Director of the Medicaid Management Information Systems, explained that procedure code 90473 called for a fabricated orthotic device for which the participating provider had taken a plaster cast of the patient's feet. He stated that casting and fabrication were required under this code. Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's assertion on appeal, the language of procedure code 90473 is not ambiguous and, on its face, gives notice that in order to bill thereunder, a podiatrist must have made a three-dimensional mold of her patient's feet (see, People v. McDonald, 215 A.D.2d 504; People v Feldman, 204 A.D.2d 347). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Strogov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1995
216 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Strogov

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EMILIA STROGOV…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 12, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 721

Citing Cases

Strogov v. Attorney General of New York

On June 12, 1995 petitioner's conviction was affirmed on her direct appeal to the Appellate Division of the…

People v. McDonald

The basis for these convictions was defendants' submission of claims to the Medicaid program for custom-made…