Arizona woman gets years in prison for using stolen identity to get health care
A Maricopa County woman was sentenced to nearly nine years in prison and ordered to pay restitution after she accumulated nearly $300,000 in medical bills using a stolen identity, prosecutors said.
Between September 2022 and March 2024, Shannon Lee Smith, 48, used another woman's name to fraudulently obtain medical care from various hospitals and ambulance providers, according to a statement from the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.
The woman discovered her identity had been stolen when she received a bill from her insurance company for services she never received, the County Attorney's Office statement said.
Smith received care at the Banner Desert Medical Center in Mesa, according to her indictment. She was ordered to repay Honor Health, Maricopa Ambulance, Radiology Partners, Mayo Clinic and Aetna, the insurance company, according to her plea agreement.
"The impact of identity theft goes far beyond the financial implications," said Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell. "It takes away a victim's peace of mind and leaves them to deal with the fallout of having false information tied to their name. I am proud of the work our prosecution team has done to hold the defendant accountable and allow the victim to start reclaiming her life."
Victimized: Arizonans' stolen personal information used in large-scale fraud scheme
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona woman gets prison for using stolen identity for health care
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rejects Mexico lawsuit against US gunmakers
The US Supreme Court has blocked a lawsuit brought by Mexico that sought to hold American gunmakers accountable for playing a role in country's struggle with drug cartels. The court voted 9-0 to reject the suit, in the process upholding a 2005 law that shields gun manufacturers from liability if weapons they produce are misused. Mexico's government had argued that the "flood" of illegal guns across the border is a result of "deliberate" practices by US firms that they say appealed to cartel members with their products. The decision overturns a lower court's ruling that allowed the suit, brought against Smith & Wesson as well as other manufacturers, to proceed. The case is the first time the court has taken up the shield law, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA. At a hearing in March, the court appeared sceptical of Mexico's challenge, with justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum questioning the validity of the suit. Supreme Court wary of Mexico's fight against US gunmakers
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court spares US gun companies from Mexico's lawsuit
By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales, harming its government. The companies had argued for the dismissal of Mexico's suit, filed in Boston in 2021, under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these protections. "Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the border. Mexico's lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in Mexico. The suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful products. To avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. Mexico in the lawsuit sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico." Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the lawsuit. Mexico, a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million annually. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on March 4.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court blocks Mexico's $10B lawsuit alleging US gunmakers have fueled cartel violence
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed. The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime. Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law. But the justices found that Mexico hadn't made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. 'It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages. The case began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year. The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices. That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings. Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed. The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at
