Is wrongdoing legally admissible? If Not - why exactly?

Question

hospice fraud was actual,  
I.E.  
patient was referred to hospice from hospital with hospital admission diagnosis chronic terminal disease.  
Track record of who exactly made a referral apparently does not exist. 
Critical values of test on admission were communicated by non-existent person. Terminal diagnosis was recorded by doctor who had to know, since referred patient to hospital, that there was no terminal disease. 
Hospital records for hospice were generated from software system by non-existent person. 
Isn't situation LAF-able? I.E. legally admissible fraud?

Tim Akpinar · Answer

It could be difficult for an attorney to give a pass or fail to what would be or what would not be admissible toward the issue of fraud. It's fact intensive, and the court's judgment is based on the context surrounding the evidence. If the evidence supports the allegation of fraud, it can be admissible. Good luck

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

Under California law, evidence of wrongdoing is generally admissible in court if it is relevant to the case and not excluded by some other rule of evidence. However, there are several reasons why the situation you described may not be legally admissible as evidence of fraud: 
 
1. Hearsay: If the evidence of the referral, critical test values, and terminal diagnosis are based on out-of-court statements made by individuals who are not testifying in court, it may be considered hearsay and inadmissible unless an exception applies. 
 
2. Lack of authentication: If there is no clear record of who made the referral or communicated the critical test values, it may be difficult to authenticate the evidence and prove its reliability. 
 
3. Lack of foundation: To admit evidence of fraud, there must be a proper foundation laid, which includes showing that the evidence is relevant, the witness has personal knowledge of the evidence, and the evidence is authentic. 
 
4. Best evidence rule: If the evidence of fraud is based on hospital records, the original records (or properly authenticated copies) may need to be produced in court to satisfy the best evidence rule. 
 
5. Lack of specificity: If the evidence does not specifically show that the doctor knowingly and intentionally made a false diagnosis or referred the patient to hospice with knowledge that there was no terminal disease, it may not be sufficient to prove fraud. 
 
To make the evidence of fraud legally admissible, you would need to overcome these potential obstacles by properly authenticating the evidence, laying a proper foundation, and showing that it is specific enough to prove the elements of fraud. It may be necessary to consult with an attorney who specializes in healthcare fraud to determine the best way to proceed with the evidence in this case.

Q: Is wrongdoing legally admissible? If Not - why exactly?