United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
OF DR. SAHUL
H. CLELAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Government's superseding indictment charges Defendant
Millicent Traylor with one count of conspiracy to commit
health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, one
count of conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and five counts of
health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347.
Government intends to call Dr. Yasmin Sahul to testify at
trial. Defendant has filed a motion in limine to exclude the
doctor's testimony based on Federal Rules of Evidence
401, 403, 701, and 702. (Dkt. # 156.) The parties discussed
the motion on the record at a status conference on May 10,
2018, and the Government subsequently filed its response.
(Dkt. # 158.) Upon review of the parties' briefs, the
court concludes that the proposed testimony is admissible and
will deny Defendant's motion.
Mobile Physicians (“Metro Mobile” or “the
clinic”) was a medical treatment clinic in Detroit,
Michigan owned by Jacklyn Price. It was a Medicare provider
and submitted claims directly to Medicare. (Dkt. # 1, Pg. ID
33.) Defendant worked at Metro Mobile as an unlicensed
physician-a medical school graduate who has not obtained a
medical license. Dr. Sahul worked at Metro Mobile for four
days in March of 2015 before she quit. During that time she
assessed and treated six patients while working alongside Dr.
Janarthanan. Undisputedly, she never worked with or met
may be introduced at trial only if it is relevant.
“Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to
make a fact more or less probable than it would be without
the evidence and (b) the fact is of consequence in
determining the action.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. Proposed
evidence will be deemed relevant if it is probative of one of
the elements of the crimes charged in the indictment.
Relevant evidence is generally admissible, Fed.R.Evid. 402;
however, the court may exclude evidence from trial that is
relevant, if its “probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing
the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time,
or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Fed.R.Evid. 403. “Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when
it ‘tends to suggest decision on an improper basis,
' but is not unfairly prejudicial when it only damages
the defendant's case due to the legitimate probative
force of the evidence.” United States v.
Houston, 813 F.3d 282, 291 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting
United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 567 (6th
Regarding witness testimony,
If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the
form of an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witness's perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's
testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
Fed. R. Evid. 701. Opinion testimony of an expert witness-a
person qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education”-is not so limited. Fed.R.Evid.
702. An expert witness may testify in the form of an opinion
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence ...