Did the court unlawfully affirm convictions on a negligence theory?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has repeatedly held that a statement or omission is materially misleading, and thus fraudulent, only if it could influence the targeted decisionmaker. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the petitioners’ fraud convictions, reasoning that “common sense,” not any legal or contractual duty, should have apprised them that failing to flag delayed clinical tests for insurers could mislead a “person of ordinary prudence and comprehension.” Did the court unlawfully affirm convictions on a negligence theory?