United States v. Lemons, No. 14-1241 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseLemons applied for social security disability benefits after being diagnosed with a pain disorder caused by inflammation of a membrane that surrounds the nerves of the spinal cord. An ALJ awarded benefits and Lemons began receiving $802 per month. The ALJ, advised that Lemons’s condition was expected to improve, recommended follow-up review. The Administration failed to conduct the review and never contacted Lemons until it received an anonymous letter, including photographs of Lemons engaged in various activities. Investigators conducted surveillance. The Administration initiated review. Lemons responded that she could not pick up anything over 20 pounds nor sit more than 30 minutes without causing increased pain. The Administration discontinued benefits. Lemons appealed and chose to continue benefits during the process. Investigators met with Lemons’s treating physician, and showed her surveillance videos; the doctor revised her assessment and concluded that Lemons could perform some work. A cessation of benefits decision recorded a finding of “Fraud or Similar Fault.” Lemons was convicted of making a false statement, 18 U.S.C. 1001, and theft of government funds, 18 U.S.C. 641. The district court calculated a guidelines range of 27-33 months’ imprisonment, based on an intended loss totaling $284,018.64, varied downward, and sentenced Lemons to 12 months and one day. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. In action alleging defendant had fraudulently obtained Social Security disability benefits, the district court did not err in admitting material from defendant's Facebook page without omitting comments from third persons as the comments were part of defendant's conversations and made her responses intelligible to the jury and recognizable as admissions; while there is a hearsay issue present, defendant did not raise such an objection, limiting her objections to the district court to relevancy and prejudice; considering the record as a whole, the mistaken admission of hearsay on the Facebook page did not affect any substantial right and did not warrant a reversal; the court did not err in permitting the Hearing Office and ALJ to testify as lay witnesses regarding defendant's disability; district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to take notice of the Social Security Administration's regulations on overpayment; the district court did not err in calculating the intended loss as the amount defendant would have received had the fraud continued until she was 62 as there was sufficient evidence to show she intended to keep collecting disability benefits until she reached age 62.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.