Oregon Court Orders Jury Trial in Expansive Medical Fraud Case

Defendant Tammy Heartridge pleads not guilty to allegations of practicing medicine without a license as court sets bail and release conditions

An Oregon court on Tuesday August 11th, 2026, ordered that criminal proceedings against Tammy Heartridge move forward to a jury trial after the defendant entered a plea of not guilty to a sweeping series of fraud and malpractice allegations. The hearing, presided over by Judge Van Diesel, focused on arraignment procedures, the defendant’s plea, and conditions for release pending trial.
According to charges presented before the court, Heartridge is accused of falsely representing herself as a licensed medical professional and providing medical treatment to patients without legal authority to do so. Prosecutors allege the conduct occurred over an extended period and involved numerous patients. The indictment includes 45 counts each of medical fraud, document forgery, insurance fraud, wire fraud, professional malpractice, and the unlawful practice of medicine.
Representing the state, Assistant District Attorney Samuel Douglas Dimmadome argued that the case was the result of a substantial hospital investigation. He told the court that investigators identified 45 documented incidents and alleged that the defendant knowingly led patients, hospital personnel, and others to believe she possessed medical qualifications she did not lawfully hold. Prosecutors stated they intend to present hospital records, investigative materials, witness testimony, recorded statements, and other evidence in support of those allegations.

Defense attorney Natalie Callahan informed the court that her client understood the seriousness of the charges and the potential consequences associated with them. While acknowledging Heartridge’s nervousness, Callahan stated that the defendant was aware of the proceedings and prepared to contest the allegations through the judicial process.

When asked to enter a plea, Callahan responded on behalf of her client that Heartridge pleaded not guilty. Judge Van Diesel subsequently confirmed that the matter would proceed toward trial. The defense then formally exercised the defendant’s right to a trial by jury, a request the court accepted.
A significant portion of the hearing centered on bail conditions. Assistant District Attorney Dimmadome argued that the defendant posed a flight risk, citing what the state described as a previous escape attempt. Prosecutors requested bail of $500,000, electronic location monitoring, travel restrictions, and mandatory appearances at future court proceedings.

The proposed amount prompted an emotional reaction from Heartridge, who objected to the state’s request before being instructed by counsel to remain seated. Callahan apologized for the interruption and argued that a $500,000 bail would effectively prevent her client’s release. The defense urged the court to impose conditions that would address the state’s concerns without resulting in what it characterized as de facto detention.

After considering arguments from both sides, Judge Van Diesel warned the defendant against further courtroom outbursts and ruled that bail would be set at $75,000 rather than the amount requested by prosecutors. The court also ordered continuous electronic monitoring through an ankle bracelet, a condition that will remain in effect while the case proceeds.

Both the prosecution and defense accepted the court’s ruling. The state requested that the monitoring conditions remain in place throughout the proceedings, while the defense indicated it would comply with the release requirements imposed by the court.

The hearing attracted considerable public attention, with spectators closely following developments and reacting to several moments throughout the proceeding. Despite occasional interruptions from the gallery, court officials maintained order and completed the arraignment without further incident.
Before adjourning the session, Judge Van Diesel instructed the defendant to comply fully with all court orders and future appearances. Heartridge acknowledged the court’s directives, and the arraignment concluded shortly afterward. Arrangements for the jury trial are expected to follow.

As the case moves toward trial, the allegations remain unproven. Heartridge is presumed innocent unless and until a jury determines otherwise. The upcoming proceedings will provide the first opportunity for the evidence outlined by prosecutors to be examined in full before a fact-finder.