Same Day Multiple Prescriptions
 Why is Our Government Pursuing a War on Doctors?

Free Electronic Newsletter

This section generally deals with criminal prosecutions of medical professionals involving allegations of prescription drug diversion; see generally the DEA's Diversion Control Website [HTML]. A subset of these cases involves the drug Oxycontin. Such diversion cases should be contrasted with the issues raised in, for example, Medical Marijuana cases.

United States v. Hitzig, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 7012 (4th Cir. April 14, 2003). $[Lexis]
Summary: The defendant doctor was convicted of illegally dispensing phentermine and fenfluramine (phen-fen), oxycodone, and hydromorphone to twelve patients. He appealed his conviction on thirty-four counts of illegally dispensing controlled substances, contending that the trial court erred in not requiring the prosecution to prove, as an essential element of the charged crimes, that he did not have a legitimate medical purpose for dispensing the controlled substances. The appellate court rejected the defendant’s argument, after reviewing 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and finding that the elements necessary for conviction were (1) a knowing or intentional attempt to distribute or dispense (2) a substance known to be controlled (3) in an unauthorized manner. On the defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence argument, the court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish that Hitzig had exceeded the bounds of professional medical practice in dispensing the drugs.

United States v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1999). [LII] $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: This opinion affirms the conviction of a physician on one count of conspiring to distribute unlawfully controlled substances and two hundred-thirty counts of unlawfully distributing controlled substances. The court also upheld the jury’s determination that Dr. Dicter’s license should be forfeited to the government in connection with his sale of schedule II and III drugs to acquaintances in exchange for cash payments.

United States v. Moyer, 182 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 1999). [PDF] $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: Dr. Moyer stole morphine from intravenous units of her patients in a hospital intensive care unit, and later replaced the stolen morphine with saline solution. This opinion affirmed her conviction of four counts of tampering with a consumer product and six counts of obtaining a controlled substance through fraud, in violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

United States v. Polito, No. 96-3022, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7308, 1997 WL 178879 (6th Cir. Apr. 11, 1997). $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: Failing to find reversible error, the court affirmed a podiatrist’s conviction of seven counts of distribution of narcotics. The court noted that Dr. Polito issued prescriptions outside the usual course of medical practice by prescribing schedule II drugs with only a cursory evaluation of his patients who never indicated pain as a result of foot problems.

Konstantin v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 50 F.3d 15 (9th Cir. 1995). $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: This opinion upholds a Drug Enforcement Administrator’s decision to revoke Dr. Konstantin’s DEA registration for five years for prescribing controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose and for violating federal regulations regarding the storage and record-keeping of controlled substances. After only brief physical examinations, Konstantin provided drugs to three undercover agents who did not complain of pain.

United States v. Tran Trong Cuong, 18 F.3d 1132 (4th Cir. 1994). $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: In proceedings below, Dr. Tran was convicted of 127 counts of knowingly and willfully distributing and dispensing by prescription controlled substances outside the usual course of medical practice. The court below noted that Tran’s patients faked their symptoms of pain in order to feed their addictions and that Tran’s examinations of these patients were perfunctory. This opinion reverses the convictions and remands the case for a new trial based on the improper admission of expert testimony in violation of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

People v. Lonergan, 267 Cal. Rptr. 887 (Cal Ct. App. 1990). $[Lexis] $[Westlaw]
Summary: This opinion affirms the conviction of a physician for prescribing a combination of controlled substances that have a heroin-like effect in violation of the California Health and Safety Code. The Schedule III substances were prescribed to a known drug addict seeking treatment for back pain, and to two undercover drug agents who were given the substances without a physical examination. The court upheld the convictions, noting that the physician “knew the prescriptions were not being issued for legitimate medical purposes in the usual course of professional treatment.”