SC06-157 – State Of Florida v. John Anthony Rubio, Et Al.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Supreme Court » 2007 » SC06-157 – State Of Florida v. John Anthony Rubio, Et Al.

State: Florida

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: SC06-157

Case Date: 07/12/2007

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
____________ No. SC06-157 ____________

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. JOHN ANTHONY RUBIO, et al., Appellees. [July 12, 2007] REVISED OPINION WELLS, J. This case is before the Court on appeal from a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, State v. Rubio, 917 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), which held a state statute to be invalid. This Court has jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The defendants were charged in a 130-count information. The counts were: (1) racketeering, in violation of section 895.03(3), Florida Statutes (2002); (2) conspiracy to commit racketeering, in violation of section 895.03(4), Florida

Statutes (2002); (3-55) Medicaid provider fraud, in violation of section 409.920(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2002); (56-129) split-fee patient brokering, in violation of section 817.505(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002); and (130) white collar crime, in violation of section 775.0844, Florida Statutes (2002). The following facts were set out in the Fifth District's decision. Defendants Sonia Guzman and Anamaria Mendez are Miami dentists who were recruited to provide dental services in Orlando to Medicaid-eligible children. Guzman and Mendez billed Medicaid and then split the fees with defendants John Rubio and Gustavo Fernandez. Rubio and Fernandez solicited Medicaid-eligible children primarily from public housing areas and transported them to and from the clinic. Five Medicaid recipients were examined by a pediatric dentist, who found no evidence to support the claims submitted on their behalf. The defendants were charged with violation of the above statutes on October 27, 2003. According to the defendants, the fee arrangement was between their corporations. Rubio's company provided management services for the dentists, including marketing for the dental practice and handling the business aspects of the dental practice. Guzman and Mendez performed the clinical work. In return for getting a turnkey dental office and marketing, Rubio's company was paid between 42% and 43% of the compensation received by the dentists for their services.

-2-

The defendants moved to dismiss all charges. On February 1, 2005, following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, dismissing all counts because it determined that the statutes under which the defendants were charged were unconstitutional, that the counts against the defendants were multiplicitous, and that a proper predicate for the racketeering and white collar crime charges was not established. The State appealed this dismissal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's decision. The Fifth District affirmed the trial court's decision that the Medicaid provider fraud statute,

Download SC06-157 – State Of Florida v. John Anthony Rubio, Et Al..pdf