After an
undercover investigation into the family medical clinic where defendant worked
for a licensed doctor, she was charged with two counts of Medicaid fraud and
one count of the unlawful practice of a health profession. She was convicted as charged after a bench
trial. On appeal, defendant challenged,
among other things, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her convictions. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals
affirmed her convictions. The Supreme Court
has directed oral argument on defendant’s application for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether the statutory exception in MCL 333.16294
is an element of the offense for which the prosecutor has the burden of proof,
see People v Rios, 386 Mich 172
(1971); but see People v Langlois,
325 Mich App 236 (2018); (2) if the statutory exception is an element of the
offense, whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the evidence was
sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction under MCL 333.16294 and
specifically, whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the
defendant’s actions were consistent with the practice of medicine and therefore
could not be delegated to her under MCL 333.16215; and (3) if the statutory
exception is not an element of the offense, whether defense counsel rendered ineffective
assistance for failing to raise a delegation defense and bring the relevant
statutory provisions to the trial court’s attention. In addition, defendant shall address whether
the evidence was sufficient to sustain her convictions under MCL 400.607(1),
and specifically whether the evidence was sufficient to show that she was in
possession of facts under which she was aware or should have been aware that
her conduct was substantially certain to cause the payment of a Medicaid
benefit. See MCL 400.602(f).