United States ex rel. El-Amin v. George Washington University
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
533 F. Supp. 2d 12 (2008)
- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
Four nurse anesthetists (nurses) (plaintiffs) brought suit against George Washington University (university) (defendant), alleging that the university submitted false claims for anesthesia services to Medicare. The nurses sought to introduce evidence that the university’s anesthesiologists failed to comply with a Medicare regulation called the seven-steps regulation. The seven-steps regulation required anesthesiologists to perform seven tasks for each patient. The nurses contended that evidence of the anesthesiologists’ failure to perform one or more of the seven tasks constituted routine-practice evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 406. The university explained that its anesthesiologists’ conduct was not uniform for all patients but varied based on the type of anesthesia procedure involved and the individual patient’s condition. Subsequently, the university filed a motion in limine with the district court, arguing that evidence of the anesthesiologists’ conduct should not be admitted as routine-practice evidence under Rule 406.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
