INTERNATIONAL LAW OFFICES OF PUGH AND AMBROSE, P.C.

Dublin, La Jolla, Beverly Hills, New Orleans, Suffield, Washington D.C.

(860) 668-2433
Fax/modem line: 860/668-7978
82 North Main Street
Suffield, Connecticut 06078

This letter is written to be submitted to persons or institutions who Dr. James Jaramillo determines have a legitimate need to know the substance and resolution of the insurance reimbursement litigation known as US v. Jaramillo.

As will be detailed below, a fair assessment of the events of US v. Jaramillo do not reflect negatively on Dr. Jaramillo's abilities as a physician or a research leader nor do they cast a negative light on his character or ethics.

I am the Ambrose of the above law firm. A complete recitation of my qualifications and that of the law firm is available at our website http://www.patentlaw.com/. I am currently out of the U.S. During this period, I can be reached by minimum delay at my JackAmbrose@Justice.com e-mail.

My qualifications that are most relevant to the issues of Dr. Jaramillo are my years as a prosecutor for Los Angeles County, California in the Major Frauds unit and substantial private practice of law.

I noticed as a prosecutor for Los Angeles County that the press would like to take the highest estimates of loss to make a news story and I am forced to admit that before being put to proof, I indulged the press to my advantage.

The apellate opinion in US vs. Jaramillo clearly indicates that the government attempted to show the Dr. Jaramillo had over billed millions of dollars but pitifully failed to defeat Dr. Jaramillo on this issue at trial. The trial court set the amount of loss by the government at $12,573. The government appealed the trial court decision but Dr. Jaramillo prevailed. The trial court treated the matter as a civil case and fined Dr. Jaramillo $12,573. Since the trial itself costs each side hundreds of thousands of dollars, it is clear that Dr. Jaramillo was vindicated.

But, a cynic would say "Why was there any loss at all?" The answer is that Dr. Jaramillo employed an individual for decades who was not licensed in the US. Billings for this professional were permissible while Dr. Jaramillo was in direct supervision but according to the trial court, when Dr. Jaramillo went on vacation, he could not directly supervise theis employee and could not bill for him even though Dr. Jaramillo had arranged for a substitute licensed psychiatrist during his absences. This billing error is the only misconduct of any kind found to have been committed by Dr. Jaramillo.

Dr. Jaramillo has given me much information about the parties involved in the original US vs. Jaramillo as well as the more recent attempts to gain advantage by attacking his character. I have completely ignored the motivation of Dr. Jaramillo's attackers (financial in both cases) and the information I have been given about their conduct because I was able to understand and hopefully explain this matter exclusively by the use of court documents.

I have noticed that these attacks have been very distressful for Dr. Jaramillo and because of that I would request that any further explanation be sought from me rather than the doctor.

This is not the first time that I have been in the position of an attorney writing a letter explaining past conduct of a client. Without exception, these types of issues have been brought up by persons with no relationship with the past conduct who hope to gain something by disclosure or threat of disclosure.

The Jaramillo litigation involves US government health insurance reimbursement. Since the inception of these programs as very big business, many physicians that I have known have been involved in government reimbursement attempts. Some of these physicians were criminal frauds, some simply became used to high income, some were ignorant and some (Dr. Jaramillo) should never have been bothered. These cases in my experience have been characterized by incompetence and extremely slow work on the part of government investigators coupled with excessive zeal by government lawyers.

My source of information for this report is the opinon of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued on October 7, 1996. This court is only one level below the United States Supreme Court and its written opinion is not only the final word but is also an excellent summary of prior proceedings. This decision makes irrelevant other court opinions or news accounts prior to the appellate decision date.

Respectfully,

John J. Ambrose, Jr., Attorney at law

At sentencing, the court determined that the amount of loss to the 
government was $12,573, which was the total amount Jaramillo claimed for 
services provided by Meyerowitz when Jaramillo was out of Albuquerque. This 
amount formed the basis for all the counts in the indictment except the conspiracy 
count. At sentencing, the government contended that it proved at trial that the 
loss to the three programs greatly exceeded the amounts involved in the charged 
counts and asked the court to calculate the loass to the government at $259,922. 
The record, however, supports the court's determination on the amount of loss.

                     PUBLISH 
              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 10/7/96
                  TENTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

         Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

v.
                         No. 95-2159, 95-2182
JAMES D. C. JARAMILLO,

        Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee.