United States v. Gamble
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
737 F.2d 853 (1984)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
U.S. postal inspectors concocted an elaborate scheme to catch doctors defrauding insurance companies. The inspectors obtained false driver’s licenses and registered and insured vehicles they did not own. The police provided accident reports describing accidents that never happened. Posing as accident victims, inspectors went to Dr. John Gamble (defendant), a Black doctor serving an impoverished community. The inspectors said they were unhurt but wanted insurance money. Gamble explained how to make insurance claims for medical bills and conducted routine physical examinations. Gamble told one inspector who was not hurt just to “play it up.” Gamble also advised that neck and back injuries would work best as difficult to prove, explaining injuries had to be written up to that effect for someone to “make some money out of the deal.” The inspectors returned complete insurance forms mailed from and to the insurance company, falsely describing injuries. The insurance company paid out $320 in claimed medical expenses. Gamble charged $10 or $12 for each office visit, and the inspectors kept the rest of the money. Gamble was convicted of mail fraud and appealed, arguing the government’s conduct violated due process.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Logan, 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. 46,500 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.
