435 (2000). Defendant contends that the government did not meet the standard of proof for establishing health care fraud resulting in death. Section 1347 does not indicate the level of causation required for imposition of the enhanced penalties under subsection (a)(2). However, in United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301, 317 (6th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 538, 178 L.Ed.2d 395 (2010), this court held that proximate cause was the appropri nd for his two patients to die, he can be held responsible for their deaths if there was sufficient evidence that it “reasonably might or should have been foreseen ... that [his fraudulent conduct] would be likely to create a situation which would expose another to the danger of ... death.” Id.) see also Harris, 701 F.2d at 1102 (<HOLDING>). Id. at 319. Furthermore, a patient’s use of
holding that a death sentence for a conviction for the rape of a child where the crime did not result and was not intended to result in death of the victim was barred by the eighth amendment holding a wrongful death action may not be maintained for the death of an unborn child holding that if death results requirement under  241was satisfied because death was a foreseeable and natural result of defendants actions holding that action for wrongful death may generally not be maintained where death was selfinflicted holding that if a trial court has rejected death as a possible sentence double jeopardy bars the state from seeking the death penalty at resentencing even where rejection of the death sentence was based on a legal error