Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

United States v. Starks

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
157 F.3d 833 (1998)


Facts

Andrew Siegel (defendant) was the president of Future Steps, a corporation that developed and operated drug addiction treatment programs. Future Steps contracted with a Florida hospital that participated in the Medicare program, to operate a chemical dependency unit for pregnant women. Siegel initialed each page of the contract, including a provision explicitly forbidding Future Steps from making any payment for patient referrals in violation of the federal anti-kickback statute. Angela Starks (defendant) and Barbara Henry (defendant), Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services employees, were assigned to a federally-funded research project advising pregnant women about drug abuse treatment options. Starks and Henry were informed that they were prohibited from accepting outside employment that might be a conflict of interest with their work on the project. Siegel offered to pay Starks and Henry $250 each for every patient they referred. For nearly one year, Starks and Henry discretely accepted money for referring 18 women to Future Steps from Siegel. At trial, several of the referred women testified that Starks and Henry made threats that the state would take away their babies if they did not receive treatment from Future Steps. A jury found Starks, Henry, and Siegel guilty for violating the anti-kickback statute and each appealed. On appeal, it was argued that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the proper mens rea standard of the statute and that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Birch, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.