preview

Sila Luis Case Summary

Decent Essays

Although the law can be challenged in some cases, there are still others that successfully support the law. In the case Luis v. United States, Sila Luis was indicted in the state of Florida on Medicare defrauding charges in the amount of $40 million dollars. This case came before the Supreme Court because the prosecutors of this case obtained a pretrial ordering to freeze her assets, “tainted” and legitimate (Root, 2016). They felt even the legitimate assets Luis had could be traced back to the crime at hand, and amounted to an estimated $15 million that could not be connected to any alleged activities (Root, 2016). Seeing as Luis had not been convicted of any crimes in connection with the case, the court stated, “the defendant in this case …show more content…

Kinast gained Christian Berry as a patient in 2007. He later on prescribed Christian with an antidepressant drug called Paxil. This drug is associated to suicidal thoughts and hostile behavior, predominantly in teenagers and young adults. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encouraged that a warning label be placed on the drug informing users that this drug must be used but paired with the clinical treatment. There should be close observation on patients who take this drug (Botos, 2013). Claims were made that the doctor and the Neurocare Center were negligent “by failing to properly evaluate, diagnose, and treat the patients’ neurological condition. The family also included affidavits from two other medical professionals backing up their claim. Dr. Kinast’s lawyers denied any liability and requested a jury hear the case. The court released an order stating that all required court cost deposits must be paid within five days of the demand. The demand of a jury by one party however does not validate a jury demand unless the costs have been paid, which is required by the order (Botos, 2013). Motions were filed and facts were gathered from both sides, while the $200 jury court costs still went unpaid. After a period of time, Berry’s lawyers asked Judge Forchione to strike the demand because of nonpayment. The next day, the lawyers representing Kinast paid the money to the court, although they were a day too late (Botos, 2013). The judge ruled that the missed the

Get Access