Connection lost
Server error
United States v. Borrasi Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Physician convicted of Medicare fraud for accepting payments disguised as salary in exchange for patient referrals. Appellate court affirmed, upholding evidentiary rulings and the jury instruction that a violation occurs if inducing referrals is one purpose of the payment.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the Medicare anti-kickback statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b) is violated if any part of a payment is intended to induce referrals, rejecting a “primary motivation” test. It also clarifies the inadmissibility of hearsay within otherwise admissible business records.
United States v. Borrasi Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Dr. Roland Borrasi, owner of Integrated Health Centers, S.C., was convicted of Medicare fraud for a scheme with Rock Creek Center, L.P., a psychiatric hospital. Borrasi and other Integrated physicians received payments, disguised as salaries for purported administrative roles (e.g., Borrasi as “Service Medical Director”), from Rock Creek in exchange for referring Medicare patients. Evidence showed these roles involved minimal or no actual duties, with false time sheets submitted to conceal the bribes. Over several years, $647,204 in potential bribes were paid. At trial, the government introduced hospital committee meeting minutes to show Borrasi’s and his associates’ infrequent attendance, supporting the claim that their salaries were not for legitimate services. Borrasi sought to introduce substantive comments within these minutes, referencing reports of alleged work performed, to argue he earned his salary. The district court admitted the minutes for attendance but excluded the substantive comments as hearsay. The jury was instructed that the anti-kickback statute was violated if inducing referrals was one purpose of the payments, even if other legitimate services were also compensated.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court err in instructing the jury that the Medicare anti-kickback statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, is violated if inducing patient referrals is one purpose of a payment, rather than the primary purpose, and did it err by excluding as hearsay substantive comments within otherwise admissible business records (meeting minutes)?
The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The district court did Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem i
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the district court err in instructing the jury that the Medicare anti-kickback statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, is violated if inducing patient referrals is one purpose of a payment, rather than the primary purpose, and did it err by excluding as hearsay substantive comments within otherwise admissible business records (meeting minutes)?
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the broad scope of the Medicare anti-kickback statute under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris ni
Legal Rule
The Medicare anti-kickback statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(1), is violated if one Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Legal Analysis
The court rejected Borrasi's argument for a "primary motivation" test for violations Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur a
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, is violated if **one