Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

University Hospital Entitled to Medicare Reimbursement for Pure Research, Plus Criminal Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff on August 25, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

US v. Quintero, 09-2715, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant and his getaway driver and girlfriend for bank robbery, and their sentences.  In affirming both the conviction and the sentence, the court held that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.  The court also held that the co-defendant's participation in the escape phase of the bank robbery was sufficient to convict her of being an accomplice in accordance with jury instructions.  Lastly, the co-defendant's sentencing enhancement for the discharge of a firearm was appropriate as the district court was reasonable in concluding that defendant's firing of the gun could be attributed to co-defendant as an aider and abettor.


Univ. of Chicago Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 09-3429, involved a University of Chicago Medical Center's claim for $2.8 million in Medicare reimbursements for indirect medical education (IME), based on its total full-time equivalent residents (FTEs) for the 1996 fiscal year that reflected the time medical residents spent conducting educational research unrelated to the care of Medicare patients.  In affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the hospital, the court held that, pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the hospital should have received reimbursement as part of its IME adjustment for pure research in 1996.

Etherly v. Davis, 09-3535, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of a petition for habeas relief from defendant's first degree murder conviction and a denial of state's motion to stay the judgment pending appeal.  In reversing, the court held that the Illinois Appellate Court identified the correct totality of the circumstances test, considered all relevant factors, and made a legally defensible determination that defendant's inculpatory statement was voluntary.  Also, the appellate court's analysis and conclusion were not objectively unreasonable under the law.

Related Resources:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard