Paulus tries to exclude study from trial
Feb. 21—ASHLAND — Lawyers for Dr. Richard Paulus are trying to fight against the admission of a study a federal appeals court said should've been at his first trial, which led to his conviction being overturned in 2020.
Dr. Richard Paulus was convicted in 2016 at jury trial for performing unnecessary heart stents, then billing Medicare and Medicaid for them.
In 2020, the Sixth Court of Appeals overturned Paulus' conviction after it was found out a key piece of evidence — a letter discussing an independent review of Paulus' work — had been improperly excluded by a trial judge.
After much litigation to get the information to do with the study of 1,048 stent procedures between 2009 and 2010, Paulus' attorneys are now arguing that some of the evidence is inadmissible, with a caveat.
Typically in a trial, evidence is introduced through a witness. Take a typical state court case for homicide — even though the evidence officer does no investigation of the case, because he or she is in charge of holding the evidence in storage, they must take the stand in order to introduce the evidence to a jury.
King's Daughters Medical Center asked for the American Medical Foundation to perform an audit of stents performed by Paulus and other cardiologists at the hospital, pursuant to an inquiry made by the U.S. Justice Department into alleged fraudulent practices.
Prosecutors wanted to have the executive director of AMF, Evelyn Baram-Clothier, introduce the evidence, along with two doctors who performed some reviews.
Paulus' attorneys are arguing that with the exception of a couple doctors who have died since the study was performed, all the doctors who performed the review should testify, characterizing testimony by Baram-Clothier to their reviews as "hearsay."
Since 1987, Baram-Clothier said no doctor involved with reviews at AMF has been made to testify at a trial. Paulus attorneys have argued that without the other doctors testifying about their conclusions, the jurors will not get a complete picture of the study.
Prosecutors have characterized any exclusion of the records through Baram-Clothier's testimony as "a gross miscarriage of justice" stating that there's nothing illegal about how the evidence is introduced.
A ruling has yet to be made in the case.
(606) 326-2653 — henry@dailyindependent.com
