Bond conditions prevent Zamora’s release in healthcare fraud case

More than 60 days after a federal judge granted her release, Meisy Zamora remains in custody after facing difficulty in meeting the conditions of her release.

Zamora is facing charges of healthcare fraud for her alleged participation in a scheme to defraud health insurers by misdiagnosing and over-treating patients. Her husband, Dr. Jorge Zamora-Quezada, and two of their employees, were also charged for their alleged role in the scheme.

Zamora, who earned a medical degree in Mexico, worked in her husband’s clinic and is accused of pressuring employees to keep the clinic filled with patients and to alter medical records.

She pleaded not guilty to all the charges against her.

Zamora has remained in custody since her arrest in July 2018 after U.S. Magistrate Judge Juan F. Alanis declined to set a bond at the time over concerns she was a flight risk.

But then two months ago, on Aug. 2, Alanis decided to revoke the order keeping Zamora behind bars, stating there were conditions that could be set to ensure her future appearance in court.

Alanis set a $250,000 bond with a $25,000 deposit. U.S. District Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa, who reaffirmed her release upon appeal, raised the required deposit amount to $40,000.

But the requirement that has impeded her release is that an individual with assets worth at least $210,000, the amount after the 40,000 deposit, serve as a co-surety.

In a motion filed Oct. 7, Zamora’s attorney, Christopher Sully, noted that an individual who applied to serve as a co-surety for Zamora was rejected by the court for unspecified reasons.

“Since then, Mrs. Zamora has continued to search for another individual who can be a suitable potential co-surety with these qualifications,” the motion stated, “but has been unable to find any, at least not any with sufficient net worth if their homestead is not counted.”

The motion therefore requests that the applicant be reconsidered or that the conditions be revised to allow a corporate surety.

“Mrs. Zamora does not know why the individual co-surety applicant was disapproved, but if that applicant was disapproved for any reason other than net worth or solvency, she respectfully requests that the individual be reconsidered and approved,” the motions states, “as long as that applicant can meet the Bail Reform Act’s requirements of solvency and of sufficient net worth to secure the bail bond.”

Sully also requests that other individuals should be allowed to use their homestead to demonstrate their net worth. Those with sufficient assets, the motion requests, should be allowed to be co-surety regardless of their citizenship or criminal history “or any other factor not listed in the Bail Reform Act.”

Neither government prosecutors nor the court had filed a response to the motion as of press time.

The trial for Zamora, Zamora-Quezada, and the two employees, is scheduled for Nov. 21.