UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM LAWRENCE SIEFERT, M.D. (24-5384); TIMOTHY EHN, D.C. (24-5385) - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM LAWRENCE SIEFERT, M.D. (24-5384); TIMOTHY EHN, D.C. (24-5385)

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Nov 24, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Michael Ferrara, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant Siefert.

Attorneys 2: Ronald W. Chapman II, CHAPMAN LAW GROUP, Troy, Michigan, for Appellant Ehn. Dermot Lynch, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Michael Ferrara, Lindsay Gerdes, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant Siefert.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Ronald W. Chapman II, CHAPMAN LAW GROUP, Troy, Michigan, for Appellant Ehn.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Dermot Lynch, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Judge(s): GILMAN, DAVIS, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington

DAVIS, Circuit Judge. Timothy Ehn and William Siefert executed a health-care-fraud scheme at the heart of the opioid epidemic. Ehn owned and operated a pain clinic in northern Kentucky. With the help of Siefert, Ehn created a testing scheme that involved using patients’ medical conditions as a front to conduct specialized urine drug tests that were billed at a higher rate than the routine tests most patients needed. This scheme began in 2017 and lasted, for Siefert, until he stopped working at the clinic in 2019 and, for Ehn, until 2021. Both Ehn and Siefert were indicted for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, health care fraud, and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Siefert was also indicted for unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. A jury ultimately convicted Siefert of health care fraud and Ehn of health care fraud and conspiracy to commit the same. Both defendants appeal those convictions on various grounds and challenge the procedural reasonableness of their sentences. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

Attachments: