Showing posts with label DEA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DEA. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

San Jose Doctor Pleads Guilty To Federal Charge of Unlawfully Distributing Hydrocodone and Committing Health Care Fraud. Make Sure Your Practice Follows California Pain Medication Guidelines.

Record keeping and following the California pain management protocols are key for physicians who prescribe scheduled medications for pain management. California revised its protocols called “Guidelines for Prescribing Controlled Substances for Pain” in November 2014 and expects all physicians to be familiar with it. You can download a copy of it with its attachments from the link above which is my public dropbox account. 

Under federal and state law, if the physical examination does not demonstrate legitimate medical need which must be documented, then the prescription is no longer protected by the DEA rules allowing physicians to prescribe. It is then treated like an illegal drug and opioids, like cocaine, are treated harshly under the sentencing guidelines. Even board certified pain management doctors need to be careful to make sure their record keeping and physical examination protocols are up to date. Every doctor can have a bad or busy day, but with scheduled drugs such allowances are simply not tolerated.  I recommend that doctors and clinics systemize as much as they can which is sometimes not done in small or solo practices. A recent case shows why this is so important.

San Jose pain management physician Venkat Aachi, indicted on October 9, 2018, has now pleaded guilty to distributing hydrocodone outside the scope of his professional practice and without a legitimate medical need, and to health care fraud. This is a huge blow to his practice and profession.  On March 26, 2019, his guilty plea was accepted by the Honorable Edward J. Davila, U.S. District Judge.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

California Pharmacy Pays $75,000 Settlement for Failing to Keep Accurate Records of Controlled Substances Inventory


As part of the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) increased enforcement on prescription addiction and prescribing, pharmacies are facing an increased number of inspections and audits on their inventory and recordkeeping. 

Recently, in June 2018, a pharmacy in Lakeside, California known as Archana Corporation doing business as Leo’s Lakeside Pharmacy and its owners paid $75,000 to resolve allegations that they failed to properly account for controlled substances. This is a civil settlement but it can also raise issues with the Pharmacy Board. 

Failure to comply with DEA rules and regulations can result in fines or loss of DEA permit. Schedule II prescription and inventory records must be available for two years. It is always a good idea for pharmacies to review their procedures and ensure that these records are being maintained properly since an audit can turn into an expensive and time-consuming dispute with the DEA and create collateral issues with the Pharmacy Board. 

Green and Associates






Sunday, May 27, 2018

Northern California Pain Management Doctors Agree To Pay $260,000 To Settle Civil Claims Following DEA Inspection Regarding Adequacy of Controlled Substances Records


Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) inspections can have significant financial repercussions if the logs and records of controlled substances are not properly maintained. A recent case illustrates how this happens and is a reminder for practices and pharmacies to be sure their business is compliant in this regard.  

In January 2014, the DEA inspected the controlled substance ordering and dispensing records relating to Pain Medicine Consultants, Inc., a medical practice which had offices in multiple Bay Area locations (Novato, Pleasant Hill, and Pleasanton). 

The government alleged that the DEA inspection uncovered multiple violations of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 by the practice and the physicians in the group who have the DEA registrationsThe government specifically alleged that between January 10, 2012, through January 17, 2014, the medical practice and the physicians failed to:

(1) keep and maintain adequate records pertaining to controlled substances, as required by 21 C.F.R. § 1304, et seq.; 

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Indictment Filed Against Northern California Physician For 36 Counts of Unlawfully Distributing Oxycodone by Prescribing It "Outside the Course of Usual Professional Practice"

When it comes to prosecuting physicians for unlawful prescribing of opioids or scheduled drugs, federal authorities have more stringent laws and sentencing guidelines. Recently a physician was arrested last year by the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and charges were not filed. However, just more than six months later federal charges were filed against the same physician. 

On or about July 11, 2017, Christopher Owens, a physician licensed to practice in California, was indicted on charges relating to unlawfully prescribing oxycodone. Dr. Owens now lives in Indiana but previously practiced at UCSF. Dr. Owens is presumed innocent and charges in an Indictment are not evidence. The DEA is one of the investigating agencies and can also proceed administratively against the physician.

The Indictment alleges that over a three-year period between September of 2012 and June of 2015, Dr. Owens intended to act outside the course of usual professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose when he prescribed oxycodone on numerous occasions.  In sum, Owens is charged with 36 counts of distributing oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Each count of oxycodone prescription can carry a separate long sentence.

Dr. Owens was arrested on Tuesday, July 11, 2017, in Indianapolis, Indiana, and was to appear in Indiana before a U.S. Magistrate Judge for a detention hearing on Monday, July 17th. He will then be ordered to appear in San Francisco federal court.

Dr. Owens was a well known vascular surgeon who had privileges at UCSF. He was placed on administrative leave back in June 2016 according to UCSF just a few days after his girlfriend passed away due to a drug related overdose. Later, UCSF reported that they revoked his privileges in October 2016. 

Then in early November 2016, the San Francisco DA's Office filed 99 counts for distributing, prescribing or giving away controlled substances against Dr. Owens. The charges were dismissed and it seems there was a decision to allow the federal authorities to pursue the case.  

These federal charges for prescribing or distributing oxycodone can be very serious with sentences up to 20 years and a mandatory minimum 10 year sentence. The mandatory minimum sentence can be negotiated with a plea agreement but when the government picks and chooses the prescription counts, these cases can be difficult to defend unless there was legitimate medical need for the prescription. It is usually a battle of the experts and a microscope is taken to the medical records and the patients' prior medical history.

In addition to the criminal case, the physician will also face the DEA and the Medical Boards of each state in which he is licensed. There can also be potential malpractice cases although each of the prescriptions are more than two years old. Publicity can bring out malpractice cases. Collateral consequences of this type of case is often as punishing as the potential prison time and fines. 

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. 
Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law
Email: tgreen@greenassoc.com
Office: 213-233-2260

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

CVS Pharmacy Inc. Pays $5 Million to Settle Alleged Violations of the Controlled Substance Act in Sacramento Federal Case

As is the norm, national chain pharmacies get fines and compliance plans while small businesses get criminally prosecuted. A recent settlement between the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) with a national chain pharmacy is no different.

On or about July 5, 2017, CVS Pharmacy Inc. agreed to pay $5 million to resolve federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) allegations that its pharmacies in the Eastern District of California failed to keep and maintain accurate records of Schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances. This payment covered only one federal court district. 

CVS also agreed to an administrative compliance plan with the DEA. The payment and plan resolve the United States’ allegations that during the period from April 30, 2011, through April 30, 2013, CVS pharmacies failed to provide effective controls and procedures to guard against diversion when CVS allegedly failed to:
(1) record the amount received and the date received of Schedule II drugs on DEA-222 Forms;
(2) maintain DEA-222 Forms and keep them separate from other records;
(3) record the date of acquisition of controlled substances in Schedules II through V; and
(4) maintain invoices for drugs in Schedules III through V and keep the records separate from non-controlled substance records; and conduct a biennial inventory on one specific day.

Under the settlement reached July 5, 2017, CVS acknowledged that its DEA-registered pharmacies were and are required to comply with the CSA, and that nine CVS pharmacies in the Eastern District of California failed to fulfill these recordkeeping obligations in a manner fully consistent with CVS’s responsibilities under the CSA. The settlement and compliance plan cover the 168 CVS pharmacies that operated in the Eastern District of California from April 30, 2011, through April 30, 2013.
The allegations resolved by this settlement were uncovered during a DEA investigation that began in 2012 after CVS self-reported thefts and losses of hydrocodone, a Schedule III drug at the time, at five of its Sacramento-area pharmacies. Under the CSA, DEA-registered pharmacies are obligated to report any thefts or significant losses of controlled substances to DEA.

On the compliance side, to address the issues uncovered by this investigation, CVS made improvements to its pharmacies in the Eastern District of California by, among other things, instituting annual CSA compliance training of its pharmacy staff, increasing loss prevention oversight, and excluding controlled substances prescriptions from the volume metric that can impact pharmacy staff compensation.

All non-chain pharmacies can learn from this compliance plan and how record keeping issues can result in large fines. It's especially critical for non-chains since they can get their DEA pulled and even criminal prosecution.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.
Email: tgreen@greenassoc.com
Office: 213-233-2260


Monday, December 12, 2016

California Facilities Owned By Rideout Health to Pay Civil Monetary Penalties and Agree to 3-Year Compliance Plan to Resolve Controlled Substance Act Claims

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is becoming more aggressive about enforcing recordkeeping and other rules for controlled substances in hospitals, surgery centers, urgent care clinics and so on. We have handled audits by the DEA and fines are a significant part of their enforcement. A recent case shows what can happen to health care facilities when the recordkeeping rules are not followed. This case also shows that even with cooperation the fines can be significant.

On December 6, 2016, Rideout Health entered into a settlement agreement in which it will pay the United States $2,425,000 to settle the federal claims of alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act including record keeping. The alleged violations were by three of Rideout Health’s facilities in Yuba and Sutter Counties: Rideout Memorial Hospital, Fremont Medical Center, and Feather River Surgery Center. There were no allegations of diversion or improper prescribing. 

This settlement arises from a DEA investigation that began after DEA received information from the California State Board of Pharmacy that Fremont Medical Center’s DEA Registration had expired, and that from October 23, 2012, to October 23, 2014, pharmacy technicians at Rideout Memorial Hospital were transporting controlled substances between Rideout Health facilities with little or no security controls in place.

In addition, Rideout Health has agreed to a three-year compliance plan. The payment and plan resolve the United States' claims that the three Rideout Health facilities failed to properly record and maintain thousands of transactions involving controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations.

The settlement also resolves the United States’ contention that the system Rideout Health used during that time to distribute controlled substances between these facilities failed to provide sufficient security controls. 

There was a lot of cooperation here once the investigation began. Rideout Health worked with the DEA and the United States Attorney’s Office to develop a detailed compliance plan to address the deficiencies in Rideout Health’s handling of controlled substances. 

Rideout Health also took proactive steps to reorganize its Compliance Department to improve controls with respect to the purchase, storage and dispensing of controlled substances. The compliance plan with the DEA is designed to advance Rideout Health’s ability to meet its record keeping requirements and enhance its ability to detect and prevent drug diversion. These are the type of actions that begin once any entity becomes aware of an investigation. Being proactive is very important and does not indicate weakness or constitute an admission of wrongdoing. It is just good practice.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.
Email: tgreen@greenassoc.com
Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law



Saturday, February 27, 2016

Texan Physician Pleads Guilty To Illegally Prescribing Pain Medication Norco After Search Warrant and Undercover Agent Visit.

The DEA and State Medical Boards are continuing to send in undercover agents to physicians to determine whether they are conducting physical examinations that comply with the standard of care before prescribing pain medications to patients. A recent Texan case illustrates how these undercover visits can result in a criminal prosecution.

On September 24, 2014, in Longview, Texas, a Board Certified Physical Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation, with over 15 years' experience in pain management, Dr. Sameer A. Fino evaluated an undercover law enforcement agent who was posing as a new patient.  During that visit, Dr. Fino did not perform any physical examination of the agent.  After meeting with the agent for approximately six minutes, Dr. Fino wrote the undercover agent a prescription for 60 units of Norco ® 10 mg, which is an opioid pain medication containing hydrocodone.  

The DEA targeted Dr. Fino due to his prescribing patterns and for other reasons. Search warrants by the DEA and Health and Human Services Agents were later executed on Dr. Fino's office and a pharmacy that was in the same building. At that point, he was the target of a criminal investigation. 

In order to resolve his criminal investigation and a related civil action, on February 17, 2016, Dr. Fino pleaded guilty before United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for dispensing controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.

Saturday, November 28, 2015

San Diego Pharmacy Owners Pay $750,000 to Resolve Civil Drug Diversion, Record Keeping and Logbook Allegations After DEA Audit

On November 17, 2015, a group of San Diego pharmacies and their owners paid $750,000 to the federal government to resolve allegations that they mishandled significant amounts of highly addictive and frequently abused prescription narcotics, as well as ephedrine or pseudoephedrine products. This was a civil settlement with the DEA and any true wrongdoing of a criminal nature appeared to be done by pharmacy technicians.

In addition to paying $750,000 in settlement to the government, Medical Center Pharmacy has committed to implementing new inventory control procedures to assure full accountability of all controlled substances.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

90 Year Old Federal Judge Sentences 79 Year Old Physician to 5 Years For Distributing Hydrocodone and Money Laundering in Los Angeles Federal Court

(Liz O. Baylen / Los Angeles Times)
Here is a follow-up on a blog post about a physician Dr. Andrew Sun who had plead guilty to one count of distributing hydrocodone in federal court in Los Angeles on June 19, 2014. The case took a different turn in that Judge Real refused to take Dr.Sun's plea. This occurs if at the change of plea hearing the defendant does not agree that there is a factual basis for the plea. The case was then set for trial and a three day trial was held in August 2014.

At the trial, Dr. Sun was found guilty on numerous counts of distributing hydrocodone (21 USC Section 841(a)(1) and money laundering (18 USC 1956(a)(1)). On January 5, 2015, Judge Real sentenced Dr. Sun to 63 months in federal prison. Judge Real essentially gave a 3 year term on each of 17 distributing hydrocodone counts and ordered that they run concurrently (at the same time). On the two money laundering counts, there was a sentence of 1 year on each count with those counts. Judge Real allowed Dr. Sun to have until February 2015 to self surrender.

The age of the physician is an interesting fact here. The U.S. Attorney's Office sought a sentence of 20 years while the defense argued for community services and no prison time. Judge Real in imposing a 5 year sentence on a man who is almost 80 years' old seemed to take age into account as well as the other facts and circumstances brought out at trial. Interestingly, Judge Real is approximately 90 years' old and has a reputation for being compassionate towards defendants and believes in rehabilitation. The Los Angeles Times article on this case can be found here. It is an interesting testament to how we are living longer and how certain professionals can practice late into their life.

However, as professionals age there needs to be some realistic checks into their capacity to run medical practices and work at a load they did earlier in their career. Dr. Sun's attorneys noted in their sentencing brief that Dr. Sun began having problems with the Medical Board and in other areas and questioned whether his age, pride, dementia or senility were a factor but did not have any evidence to use that as a defense. It is unfortunate that this is how he is ending his medical career, I am seeing a number of cases involving older professionals who have lost their judgment on what the professions require of them, are unwilling to retire for many understandable reasons, and get themselves into legal difficulties that they never had for the first 40 years of their careers.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.

Monday, December 1, 2014

Frequently Asked Compliance Questions About DEA Registration


Compliance with federal and state laws by health care providers (physicians, physician assistants, and advanced nurse practitioners) is critical. One of the frequently asked questions we receive is whether DEA registrants have to complete a separate registration when they practice at different locations. There is no simple answer to this question but the answer depends on whether the various locations are in the same state and whether there is any direct dispensing of controlled substances at the various locations.

What is the DEA law? It's always best to start with the statute or regulation as that is your road map.  Title 21 C.F.R. § 1301.12(a) states, “A separate registration is required for each principal place of business or professional practice at one general physical location where controlled substances are manufactured, distributed, imported, exported, or dispensed by a person.” 

Question: But I am not "dispensing," I am prescribing so do I need a DEA registration at the other locations?
Answer: Yes since under DEA law  the term "dispense" includes prescribing.Title 21 U.S.C. § 802(10) defines the word “dispense” as including the prescribing of a controlled substance.

Question: I have three offices in California where I am prescribing controlled substances, do I need a separate DEA registration for each office?
Answer: If you are only prescribing and are not maintaining supplies of controlled substances, administering, or directly dispensing controlled substances in these other locations in the same state, then you do not need to register the other offices.  21 C.F.R. § 1301.12(b)(3).

If your other practices are dispesing or administering controlled substances (even Schedule III or IV), that office needs a separate DEA registration. For example, if you have a weight loss clinic that dispenses phentermine in three different locations in the state then you need DEA registrations at each office.  Another example is that if your office injects human growth hormone (Schedule III) at different locations, then you need DEA registrations at each location. Even if you have the phentermine or HGH shipped to only one office and then have it transported to the other offices, you need DEA registration at each office.

Question: If I work locum tenens in other states do I need a separate DEA registration in that state?
Answer: Yes. You will need to obtain a separate DEA registration in each state where they plan to administer, dispense, or prescribe controlled substances.

Question: If am working solely in a hospital/clinic setting, can I may use the hospital’s DEA registration instead of registering independently with DEA if the hospital agrees?
Answer: Yes this is allowed under 21 C.F.R. § 1301.22(c).

Importance of Compliance. Make sure you are complying with all DEA registration requirements. Failure to follow them can result in discipline by the DEA and state licensing boards. One of the most common failures is for those practices that are dispensing controlled substances such as weight loss clinics who dispense phentermine. 

Compliance is not difficult but it does require setting up systems where all providers and staff must follow the rules. Failure to comply with these rules could result in criminal violations. Thus, following DEA rules helps protect everyone. We would rather focus on compliance rather than representing businesses and individuals when there have been violations but often our clients did not know the rules until there was an audit or visit by the DEA, government agency or licensing boards. Take the time and make sure you and your office is in compliance. One good thing is to review your compliance at the beginning of the year so that it is reviewed on a regular basis.

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.
Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law


Wednesday, November 5, 2014

FAQ About Rescheduling All Hydrocodone Combination Products from Federal Schedule III to Federal Schedule II

We have received questions from physicians and pharmacies about the new DEA rules for hydrocodone combination products (HCPs).  Effective October 6, 2014, the DEA rescheduled HCPs from federal Schedule III to federal Schedule II.  This change impacts how hydrocodone combination products are prescribed and dispensed in California. Federal requirements for prescribing and dispensing Schedule II controlled substances will apply to all hydrocodone combination products. This means, among other thing, a very limited ability to orally prescribe HCPs (see below) and ability to authorize refills.
This “up scheduling” is a major change for California. According to CURES, over 1 billion dosage units of HCPs were dispensed last fiscal year in California. HCPs are the most frequently prescribed opioid in the United States: nearly 137 million prescriptions for HCPs were dispensed in 2013.
Here are frequently asked questions and answers: 
Question 1: Does this mean California law has also reclassified ALL hydrocodone combination products as Schedule II controlled substances?
Answer 1: This is a technical question where federal law governs. Technically, there has been no equivalent change to California law, or to the controlled substance schedules in California. But for many intents and purposes, the practical effect will be the same: that all prescribers and practitioners in California will be required to treat HCPs as Schedule II controlled substances.
Question 2: Are prescriptions written for HCPs before October 6, 2014 that are presented to the pharmacy for dispensing on or after October 6, 2014 to be dispensed as a Schedule II or Schedule III controlled substance? 
Answer 2: If the prescription is first presented on or after October 6, it must follow federal Schedule II requirements. For example, this means no HCP prescription issued on or after this date may authorize any refills. It also means that as of October 6 oral, telephone or fax-transmitted prescriptions for HCPs are no longer possible. 
Question 3:  Can the remaining refills for HCP prescriptions written and filled before October 6 as a Schedule III, be dispensed after October 6?   
Answer 4:  Yes. The DEA has stated that it will allow refills on HCPs written and initially filled before October 6 (under Schedule III requirements and limitations), to be dispensed up to six months from October 6, 2014 (until April 8, 2015). This extends the Schedule III treatment of prescriptions for HCPs written and initially dispensed prior to October 6, 2014 to the maximum allowable period for Schedule III refills. Of course, the original date on the prescription cannot exceed 180 days, or the maximum allowable period for Schedule III refills. 
If there are any questions for prescribing physicians or dispensing pharmacists, err on the safe side and seek consultation so that you comply with the federal laws and regulations. Patients may be frustrated by the change in the law but do not let them pressure you into prescribing or dispensing unless you are fully compliant. 
Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.

Saturday, November 1, 2014

DEA and Medical Boards Target Weight Loss Clinics and Phentermine

We have seen more investigations of physicians or advanced practitioners (physician assistants and nurse practitioners) prescribing phentermine to patients.  Phentermine is a Schedule IV drug and we have seen increased scrutiny of weight loss clinics and investigations into the physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurses who work at them.

The investigations include the following topics:

1.   The business structure of the weight loss clinics and whether management companies or non-physicians are involved in the business.

2.   Whether the physician established a bona-fide doctor-patient relationship before prescribing phentermine to patients.

3.   Whether the physician obtained a thorough history or complete a thorough physical examination prior to initiating treatment utilizing a Schedule IV controlled substance.

4.   Whether the physician continued prescribing phentermine to a patient who had failed to lose weight after taking the controlled substances over a period of thirty days.

5.   Whether the physician had initiated treatment utilizing a Schedule IV controlled substance without having performed a review of the patient's prior medical and weight-loss program records to determine that the patient had made a substantial good-faith effort to lose weight in a treatment program utilizing a regimen of weight reduction based on caloric restriction, nutritional counseling, behavior modification and exercise, without the utilization of controlled substances, and that said treatment had been ineffective.

6.   Whether physician had dispensed drugs having addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining liability otherwise than in the course of legitimate professional practice.

7.   Whether the physician had violated 21 C.F.R. Section 1306.04(a) which requires that a controlled-substance prescription "be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice."

8.   Whether the phentermine is being properly stored and dispensed under state and federal rules. Are the DEA logs maintained properly? Is the receptionist or a medical assistant improperly handing the phentermine to the patients? Is the phentermine properly labeled with instructions?

9.   Are referral fees given to patients for referring friends in violation of state anti-kickback and referral fee rules?

10.    Is the phentermine being given at a discount if private or government insurance is billed for other services?

We handled one case outside of California where law enforcement sent in a  confidential informant to gather information on the physician’s weight loss practice. The government informant was female, short and weighed over 210 pounds at the time of her initial visit to the practice and it was obvious that law enforcement chose her to participate in the investigation because she was not only obese, but had a number of other medical conditions as well.

In that case, the physician was investigated for prescribing phentermine (controlled substances) to the undercover without performing an adequate physical examination, properly documenting her medical history, recording adiposity measurements such as BMI or waist circumference, conducting any laboratory testing, or verifying that the undercover had made good faith efforts to lose weight without the aid of controlled substances. We helped obtain the dismissal of criminal charges but the DEA and Medical Board still pursued the physician.  


If you have medical weight loss as part of your practice, now is the time to get compliant with state and federal rules and regulations -- before there is an an investigation.  Have us or another experienced firm conduct an audit and make sure you comply before the Medical Board or DEA pays your office a visit or requests records from your office.  If there is an investigation, get counsel right away so you do not respond to records requests or interview requests without representation. 

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.
Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law
213-233-2260
Email: tgreen@greenassoc.com


Sunday, August 18, 2013

Los Angeles Doctor Pleads Guilty In Federal Court To Distribution Of Hydrocodone And Agrees To Surrender Medical License As Part Of Plea Agreement

On August 12, 2013, a Los Angeles doctor, James William Eisenberg (age 72),  pleaded guilty before United States District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald to one count of distribution of hydrocodone (Vicodin and Norco) in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 841 for writing hundreds of prescriptions for various controlled substances after his DEA license was revoked.  As part of the plea, Dr. Eisenberg has agreed to surrender his medical license. This surrender agreement is becoming more common as part of plea agreements in the Central District of California. 

Dr. Eisenberg’s problems arose in December 2011 when his DEA license was suspended while he was working in Arizona.  In July 2012, a DEA administrative judge determined that Dr. Eisenberg acted as a “drug dealer” and issued an order permanently revoking his DEA registration. The orders issued by the administrative judge were based on findings that Dr. Eisenberg, who at the time was working out of a “medical marijuana” club in Arizona, “lacked a legitimate medical purpose and acted outside of the usual course of professional practice” when he wrote prescriptions for OxyContin and Xanax in exchange for $150 cash payments. The DEA judge also found that Dr. Eisenberg wrote “medical marijuana” recommendations to undercover officers posing as patients, and that Eisenberg prescribed OxyContin to one of the undercover agents “before [Eisenberg] had even performed a physical examination.”

DEA investigators later learned that Eisenberg continued to prescribe controlled substances, including hydrocodone, in violation of the DEA’s orders. A review of a California Department of Justice database that tracks prescriptions showed that, following the suspension of Dr. Eisenberg’s registration number, patients filled more than 1,700 of his prescriptions for controlled substances, including more than 1,200 prescriptions for hydrocodone.

DEA investigators executed a federal search warrant on one of Dr. Eisenberg’s West Hollywood offices on February 19, 2013. The affidavit in support of the search warrant shows that the government used surveillance and undercover operations to gather evidence on whether Dr. Eisenberg continued to write prescriptions for controlled substances in violation of the DEA’s revocation order. The evidence included an operation in which an undercover agent, posing as a patient, obtained a prescription from Eisenberg for hydrocodone and alprazolam (Xanax). Dr. Eisenberg was indicted on May 10, 2013.


Dr. Eisenberg is scheduled to be sentenced on December 9, 2013. The statutory maximum in this case is 10 years in federal prison but it is not expected that the sentence would be that high. The plea agreement has an agreed base offense level of 18 for the drugs prescribed and the U.S. Attorney’s Office will seek a 2-level enhancement for abuse of position of trust under USSG Section 3B1.3. Dr. Eisenberg will also receive a 2 or 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. 

Without considering any other factors, this places him in the rough range of 24-33 months of custody under the guidelines which are not binding on the judge. Sentencing in federal cases is akin to a bench trial and there are many factors and considerations that come into play in determining the sentence. Dr. Eisenberg’s age and health may be a factor as well.

In our practice we often see that is the older physicians or ones who have had personal problems that end up with these issues and there are often mitigating factors and circumstances that can be raised at sentencing. However, it would be preferable if health care professionals realize the huge risks they are undertaking in today's world when they work at clinics where they write prescriptions without medical necessity or where other statutes and regulations are violated. I cannot imagine that this physician ever thought he would be charged as if he were a drug dealer and that this is how his career would end. It is quite tragic but hopefully others can learn from his case. 

Posted by Tracy Green
Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law
213-233-2260



Friday, September 14, 2012

Los Angeles Times Reports On Lawyers Who Defend Doctors - Attorney Tracy Green Quoted

(Liz O. Baylen / Los Angeles Times)
Attorney Tracy Green was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times for an article regarding a case against a former physician Lisa Tseng presently pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. This article is entitled "Prosecution of Doctor in Overdose Cases Worries Physicians."

Ms. Tseng who surrendered her license last year has been charged with manslaughter for allegedly prescribing painkillers with little or no medical examination to three patients who later overdosed. For the record, Ms. Green does not and has not represented Ms. Tseng and would never comment on a current or former client.

Given the emphasis on the rise of prescription drug abuse and addiction in the United States, physicians who prescribe narcotics for pain management are caught in the cross-hairs of this "war" against prescription drug addiction. Any physician who prescribes pain medication -- even on occasion -- should keep up on this issue and ensure that their medical record keeping and protocols meet the standard of care.

Ms. Green just finished a Medical Board trial this week on a physician who prescribed pain medication to an undercover DEA agent and was facing an Accusation due to the deficiencies in his physical examination and record keeping. It is our belief that the DEA is reviewing CURES reports on physicians and checking to see if any patients in their 20s and 30s are receiving scheduled pain medication and other narcotics and are referring cases to the Medical Board for record review.

For more information, contact:
Green and Associates, Attorneys at Law
213-233-2260
Email: tgreen@greenassoc.com
Website: www.greenassoc.com







Thursday, December 9, 2010

Elderly New York Doctor Arrested On Charges Of Distributing Painkillers

 
The DEA is taking an active stance across the country on physicians who prescribe painkillers to patients without medical necessity.  On November 16, 2010, Dr. Felix Lanting, age 83, was arrested on a charge of conspiracy to distribute oxycodone in Grant City, New York. At the time he was arrested, the federal agents also conducted a search warrant.  Charges were filed in the Eastern District of New York.

Dr. Lanting garnered some unwanted attention when he was interviewed in August 2010 by the press  for a story on a state-run database of patients who have had prescriptions filled from multiple sources.
Of his approach with dealing with patients seeking prescriptions, he said: "We take their word and we depend on the pharmacists' computers."

Obviously, that quote is not the standard for physicians in today's world.  Although Dr. Lanting may have been quoted out of context, this was not a great quote for public viewing. We can expect to see an increase in filings against physicians for subscribing painkillers. 


Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation.
Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced California health care fraud attorney, prescription fraud attorney, California DEA lawyer, and California Medical Board attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com.

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed health care providers in California and throughout the country. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Physicians and Nine Others Indicted For Online Pharmacies & Charges Of Illegally Distributing Drugs In San Francisco Federal Court


On September 1, 2010, a San Francisco federal grand jury indicted 11 defendants including one physician for participating in three separate but related conspiracies to distribute controlled substances outside the scope of professional medical practice. It is Case Number CR 10 - 0642 RS. The United States Drug Enforcement Agency issued a press release summarizing this multi-defendant case. 

This indictment was obtained in connection with an international investigation of illegal Internet pharmacies that began in 2005. The investigation has resulted in the indictment of 37 federal defendants, the conviction of 26 individuals on federal criminal charges, and the dismantling of more than five Internet pharmacies. Please note: An indictment contains only allegations against an individual and, as with all defendants, the individuals listed in the government's press release must be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

There are three related conspiracies in the Indictment. In the first alleged conspiracy, called the "Safescripts Online" conspiracy, eight individuals allegedly conspired to distribute in excess of $22.2 million worth of controlled substances outside the scope of professional medical practice and without establishing a legitimate medical purpose for the drugs from November 2004 and continued until December 2006. The second is the "Pitcairn conspiracy" which allegedly ran between May 2003 and April 2007.  The third one is the "United Mail Pharmacy Services" conspiracy, which allegedly began in January 2006 and ended in March 2008.

This case related to Internet pharmacy website selling Schedule III and IV drugs (a) phendimetrazine; (b) diazapam (Valium); (c) phentermine; and (d) clonazepam. In essence, the Indictment alleges that the defendants at the pharmacy reviewed online questionnaires which asked customers to briefly describe medical history. The doctor defendants allegedly did not examine the "customers" and did not obtain a complete medical history and there was no effort made to confirm the accuracy of the information provided.  The doctor defendant authorized the prescription and the owners/employees of fulfillment pharmacies filled and shipped the orders to the customers.

The individuals charged are from around the United States and outside the country and reflect the geographic spread of internet pharmacies. All of the defendants were charged with (1) conspiracy to distribute schedule III and IV controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and (2)  conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). In addition, all but one defendant were charged with distribution of the schedule IV controlled substance Phentermine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and all but another defendant were charged with conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq. Please email Ms. Green at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2260 to schedule a complimentary 30-minute consultation.

Any questions or comments  should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced California health care fraud attorney, prescription fraud attorney, California physician lawyer, and California Medical Board attorney at tgreen@greenassoc.com.

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing licensed health care providers in California and throughout the country. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/





Wednesday, June 30, 2010

DEA Serves Search Warrants On Physicians & Pharmacies Connected To San Diego Chargers & Padres

The Los Angeles Times reported today that U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents served 10 search warrants on June 29, 2010 on physicians and pharmacies affiliated with the San Diego Padres baseball and San Diego Chargers football teams. According to the article which cited unnamed federal authorities, the agents were checking the records of controlled substances, which physicians and pharmacies are required to maintain under law.There are currently no criminal or administrative charges, but the investigation is ongoing, said Amy Roderick, DEA spokeswoman in San Diego.

The article can be found at:

DEA serves search warrants on doctors, pharmacies connected to San Diego Chargers, Padres [Updated]

Attorney Commentary:  For the physicians and pharmarcies who were served with search warrants, this is the opportune moment for them to do everything they can to avoid any criminal or administrative charges or fines. There are record keeping requirements that the DEA imposes and it is critical to have an organized response to the warrants and any subpoenas or inspections. 

Posted by Tracy Green, Esq.  Any questions should be directed to Tracy Green, a very experienced Los Angeles physician attorney and Los Angeles health care attorney. You can email her at tgreen@greenassoc.com or call her at 213-233-2261.

The firm focuses its practice on the representation of licensed professionals, individuals and businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal proceedings. They have a specialty in representing health care providers and physicians in California and throughout the country. Their website is: http://www.greenassoc.com/

DISCLAIMER

DISCLAIMER: Green & Associates' articles and blog postings are prepared as a service to the public and are not intended to grant rights or impose obligations. Nothing in this website should be construed as legal advice. Green & Associates' articles and blog postings may contain references or links to statutes, regulations, or other policy materials. The information provided is only intended to be a general summary. It is not intended to take the place of either the written law or regulations. We encourage readers to review the specific statutes, regulations, and other interpretive materials for a full and accurate statement of their contents and contact their attorney for legal advice. The primary purpose of this website is not the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service and this website is not an advertisement or solicitation. Anyone viewing this web site in a state where the web site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state, should disregard this web site.

The information provided on this website is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to create, and does not create, a lawyer-client relationship with Green & Associates, Attorneys at Law. Sending an e-mail to Tracy Green does not contractually obligate them to represent you as your lawyer, or create any type of client relationship. No attorney-client relationship will be formed absent a written engagement or retainer letter agreement signed by both Green & Associates and client and which specifies the scope of the engagement.

Please note that e-mail transmission is not secure unless it is encrypted. E-mail messages sent to Ms. Green should not include confidential or sensitive information.