United States v. Abdisalan Hussein, No. 22-1275 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Defendant ended up at a Twin Cities chiropractic clinic after an automobile accident. The visit resulted in a job: the clinic hired him to recruit patients. And then another one did too. Defendant’s role was to bring in as many accident victims as possible. Each new patient could undergo treatment up to $20,000, the limit of basic economic benefits available under most Minnesota automobile insurance policies. After a jury trial, the district court ordered Defendant to pay $187,277 in restitution to the insurance companies he defrauded. On remand, the amount of restitution decreased. This time, the district court concluded that Defendant qualified as a runner for only 53 of the 65 victims, which dropped the award to $155,864. Defendant, for his part, has adopted an all-or-nothing strategy: he does not believe he owes a single penny of restitution.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant received up to $1,500 per patient he recruited, which satisfies the pecuniary-gain requirement. A series of text messages establishes the remaining elements. When the clinic owner later said she was “praying for some ice and snow” to bring in more clients, Defendant replied that he had “been praying for [the] last four weeks.” It was reasonable to conclude from these messages that Hussein “directly procure[d]” these patients with at least a “reason to know,” if not actual knowledge, that the provider’s purpose was to obtain benefits under an automobile-insurance contract.
Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Shepherd and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see United States v. Luna, 968 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2020), where the court vacated the restitution award for reexamination. On remand, the district court concluded that defendant qualified as a "runner" or recruiter for 53 of the 65 victims in the insurance fraud scheme, dropping the restitution award from $187,277 to $155,864; defendant appeals, arguing he owes no restitution. The district court's order is affirmed, and defendant's argument that he was not a runner in the scheme is rejected, as defendant was paid a fee for every patient he recruited for treatment and had reason to know, if not actual knowledge, that the service provider's purpose was to obtain payment under an auto insurance policy; neither of the exceptions in the applicable Minnesota fraud statute apply to defendant.
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.