Former Pike County Surgeon Charged With Evading Tax Payments And Submitting False Documents To The IRS

SCRANTON – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Dr. Robert Gorrell, who formerly worked for Wayne Memorial Hospital in Honesdale, Pennsylvania, was charged with evading payment of his income taxes, and with filing a false document with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  The indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in Scranton on December 8, 2015, but remained sealed until Dr. Gorrell was found and arrested in Texas on February 11, 2016.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, the indictment charges Gorrell, age 65, with engaging in a years-long pattern of activities to avoid paying over $148,000 in tax deficiencies. The grand jury charged Gorrell with, among other things, causing his tax preparer to file Form 1040 tax returns and Form 433-A collection statements that falsely claimed Gorrell paid for his own medical malpractice insurance.  Gorrell also allegedly lied to IRS agents and submitted forged documentation to the IRS in support of his claims.  The activities occurred between October 2006 and April 2012.

The indictment also charges Gorrell with causing his tax preparer to file a Form 433-A collection statement with the IRS that falsely claimed he paid for his own medical malpractice insurance, failed to report the extent of his bank accounts, and failed to report his ownership of a Porsche Cayenne.

The investigation was conducted by the IRS, Criminal Investigations.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Phillip J. Caraballo.

Indictments are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.

A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The maximum penalty under federal law is five years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.       

# # #