This post is co-authored by Julianna M. Charpentier, a member of Robinson+Cole’s Enforcement, Investigations + Litigation in Health Care team.

Earlier this year, a Florida jury fully acquitted two owners of an independent clinical laboratory located in San Antonio, Texas accused of conspiring to commit health care fraud and wire fraud. Defendants Diego Sanchez Chocron and Gregory “Milo” Caskey were charged alongside their laboratory co-owner Enrique Perez-Paris and two patient recruiters to whom they were accused of paying kickbacks. The Department of Justice alleged that Sanchez Chocron, Caskey, and Perez-Paris conspired to falsely bill Medicare and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) COVID-19 Uninsured Program $44 million for COVID-19 and genetic testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prosecutors alleged that the laboratory owner defendants paid kickbacks, that the tests were medically unnecessary, and that the defendants billed for tests not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency-use authorization. Perez-Paris (and the two alleged kickback recipients) pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health care fraud in the weeks leading up to the trial and he testified against his former partners.

Perez-Paris pleaded guilty in February 2025 to one count of the superseding indictment that he “knowingly and willfully combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed with others, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349, to commit health care fraud….including Medicare and the COVID-19 Claims Reimbursement to Health Care Providers and Facilities for Testing, Treatment and Vaccine Administration for the Uninsured Program (“HRSA COVID-19 Uninsured Program”).”

Unlike Perez-Paris, Sanchez Chocron and Caskey proceeded to trial. While their acquittals may be relatively rare, particularly in light of their alleged co-conspirator’s guilty plea and testimony, the jury’s verdict was foreshadowed by a pair of rulings from the bench.

First, Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II granted in part the two defendants’ motion to strike certain portions of the superseding indictment, agreeing with the defendants that HRSA did not incorporate Medicare coverage rules requiring provider authorization for a COVID-19 test, and holding that “the Government may not argue that a failure to procure authorization from a healthcare provider for a COVID-19 test automatically constitutes a violation of the HRSA Terms and Conditions.”  Judge Ruiz further held that “failure to procure authorization from a healthcare provider for a COVID-19 test under the HRSA Terms and Conditions does not automatically establish a violation of the criminal statutes set forth in the Superseding Indictment.” Judge Ruiz was careful to note that the government could use the fact that tests were not ordered by a healthcare provider as evidence of defendants’ knowledge and intent, as well as in connection with the materiality of defendants’ alleged representations to the HRSA uninsured program.

Second, Judge Ruiz also granted the defendants’ motion for acquittal on charges that they conspired to pay kickbacks and commit money laundering.  

The jury appears to have agreed with the arguments made by defense counsel who argued that the evidence presented established their clients’ good faith beliefs that their actions were legal, and that the tests were not medically unnecessary, as demonstrated by the defendants’ actions in consulting with counsel and other experts. 

The full acquittal of Sanchez Chocron and Caskey underscores the importance of the intent elements of the Anti-Kickback Statute and other fraud statutes.  Despite the government’s reliance on co-defendant testimony and allegations of widespread misconduct, the jury found the evidence insufficient to convict. Key rulings by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II—particularly those limiting the government’s interpretation of HRSA requirements and dismissing kickback and money laundering charges—significantly shaped the trial’s trajectory. Ultimately, the verdict affirms that, even in high-stakes federal prosecutions, defendants who act in good faith and seek appropriate legal guidance can prevail when they have the facts and the law on their side.