Peter Schatzberg DC v. WCAB (Bemis Co Inc)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that the defendants in Medlock “did not use patient names ‘during, in relation to, or for the purpose of helping to commit’ [the health care fraud] because they really did transport those patients” (quoting Medlock, 792 F.3d at 706)
• interpreting Medlock and noting, hypothetically, that if a pharmacist “inflated the amount of drugs he dispensed, the means of identification of the [prescribing] doctor and patient would not have facilitated the fraud”
• \The salient point is whether the defendant used the means of identification to further or facilitate the health care fraud.\
• “The salient point is whether the defendant used the means of identification to further or facilitate the health care fraud.”
• cit- ing United States v. Medlock, 792 F. 3d 700, 705 (CA6 2015)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).