Mass Tort Update- |
- Philadelphia, PA 215-567-3500
- |
- Red Bank, NJ 732-747-9003
Mass Tort Update
HUMPHREYS v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Publication Date: July, 1997
Facts: A doctor who wrote prescriptions for controlled substances in the names of individuals other than the patient (so as to protect the privacy of the patient - a public figure) may have violated regulations of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). However, before the doctor's registration to prescribe such drugs could be revoked, the DEA would have to consider the doctor's defense, that what he did was an accepted medical practice for famous patients with mental conditions, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The defendant, a Pittsburgh doctor, had practiced for over 35 years without any disciplinary actions. He was the personal physician for a former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice who was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit "Acquisition or Obtaining of Possession of a Controlled Substance by Misrepresentation, Fraud, Forgery, Deception, or Subterfuge" and numerous other violations of law. The doctor was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and received immunity in return for his testimony against the Justice.
The criminal charge, as well as an investigation by the DEA, stemmed from the Justice's attempts to keep his mental health problems out of public sight. For many years, he visited psychiatrists and psychologists for the treatment of clinical depression and anxiety. These doctors prescribed various tranquilizers and antidepressants, which the Justice paid for out of his own pocket to preserve his privacy. Some years later, however, he revised his method of assuring his privacy. The Justice asked the doctor to prescribe various controlled drugs for him in the name of certain of his employees (secretaries and a law clerk). For more than ten years, the doctor wrote approximately 34 prescriptions for drugs in this manner, including Valium, Diazepan, Ativan, and Serax.
The individuals named on the prescriptions always gave the drugs to the Justice. They did not take the medications themselves or resell them. The doctor was aware of the Justice's diagnosed condition, believed each medication prescribed was for an appropriate medical purpose and prescribed the substances in appropriate dosages and at acceptable time intervals. Although the doctor did not examine the Justice each time he prescribed drugs, the doctor did examine him before the first prescription and approximately every six months thereafter. Although the doctor was aware that the Justice was continuing to see other doctors, he was not aware of any other medications prescribed by these other doctors and did not attempt to coordinate his prescriptions with those of these other doctors. The defendant received no money for writing these prescriptions.
The DEA ordered that the defendant's DEA certificate of registration be revoked and that his pending application for renewal of the registration be denied. The primary defense was that, by prescribing the medication in the names of the Justice's close associates, he was attempting to protect the Justice's privacy in a manner common and acceptable in standard medical practice for famous patients with mental conditions. However, the DEA did not consider this defense in making its decision. Because of the DEA's failure to consider the doctor's defense, the revocation was reversed on appeal. The case was sent back to the DEA to consider the defense raised by the defendant
| Enter any relevant background information or case specifics so that we can best understand your situation: | ||
|
To Prevent Automated Submissions, Enter the 4 Digit Number Shown Below
(OR YOU MAY CALL US DIRECTLY AT 888-375-7600) |
||
 1746
|
||