In re Wel!care Health Plans, Inc., 754 F.34 1234 (2014) 24 At L Weekly Fed. C 1422 754 F•3d 1234 United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. In re WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS, INC., Petitioner. No. 14-12422—B. I June 13, 2014. Synopsis Background: After several of its officers were convicted of healthcare fraud and making false statements, a provider of managed care services to government-sponsored health care programs moved to be recognized as a victim of its officers' crimes and sought restitution under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the motion. Provider then petitioned for writ of mandamus declaring it a victim within the meaning of the CVRA and MVRA, and directing the District Court to act accordingly. Holdings: The Court of Appeals held that: [1] traditional, highly deferential mandamus standard of review applied, and [2] provider was not a victim of its officers criminal conduct. Petition denied. West Headnotes (10) [1] Mandamus Cr= Criminal prosecutions Mandamus Scope of inquiry and powers of court Traditional, highly deferential mandamus standard of review, rather than normal appellate standards of review, applies to petitions for writs of mandamus filed pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), which ask Court of Appeals to direct district court to find victim status and order corresponding restitution. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3771(d)(3). Cases that cite this headnote [2] Mandamus Criminal prosecutions Because a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) is an action against the district court judge, it is a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3771(d)(3). Cases that cite this headnote [3] Mandamus 4- Nature and scope of remedy in