MEDICAL FRAUD and DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATION

In criminal fraud cases entries that are computer generated are now the norm.  However, in medical practices, handwritten entries are still common and the handwriting in medical records/charts often differs markedly from the the day to day, non-business handwriting of a physician.  Experts often look to see who saw a patient and then assert that the handwriting on a chart belongs to the same physician (or PA).  This shortcut is not permitted under the Evidence Code and handwriting statutes are very specific regarding the methods that can be used for identification.   When is a document "genuine".

With electronic documents metadata is often destroyed and the authenticity of a document and the alteration (or lack of altteration) of the contents is a hotbed of controversy in medical fraud cases.  It is not enough to object to the admission of a document by saying "I didn't sign that".  The rules are much more complex.

Electronic signatures are subject to scrutiny but it is often impossible to prove who entered the electronic signature on a particular document Claims of altered medical records arise less often when electronic records are kept but anything that is handwritten is subject to an allegation of alteration.

The examples could continue but in this blog I look at the key statutes that affect the authentication of documents.

Evidence Code Section 1413 allows a writing to be authenticated by a person who saw the writing made or executed, including a subscribing witness.

Evidence Code Section 1414 A writing may be authenticated by evidence that the defendant admitted the authenticity of the document. (1414 (a)) Alternatively, the prosecution can show that the defendant acted upon the document as “authentic” (1414 (b))

.
Evidence Code Section 1415 states that “[a] writing may be authenticated by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker.” Again, it is not the authenticity of the document that is at issue but the identification of handwriting as belonging to a particular person.

Evidence Code section 1416 states that a witness who is not otherwise qualified to testify as an expert may state his opinion whether a writing is in the handwriting. However this section requires personal knowledge of the verified handwriting of a person and some basis to opine that the questioned writing also belongs to that person.

If you are a medical professional facing charges of healthcare fraud, Daniel Horowitz is your best choice for a defense.  Daniel is a criminal defense specialist certified by the State Bar of California's Board of Legal Specialization.  He is a expert trial lawyer and has been a law school professor teaching trial law.   Daniel's criminal defense experience is teamed with years of representing medical doctors in a variety of matters ranging from peer review to fraud.  Call Daniel to set up an initial consultation.  Call (925) 283-1863.