U.S. v. Paskon

2 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Smith

    573 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 2009)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a pharmacist's "working knowledge of what constitutes a valid prescription" could not "be divorced from having an awareness as to the quantity and quality of patient information a doctor must have in order to prescribe a particular drug"

    Dr. Mach placed no limit on the type of drugs that he would prescribe, allowed customers to choose the type and brand of drug that they desired for their self-stated alleged medical conditions, provided no limitations on the quantity of drugs that customers could obtain at one time or within a particular time period, and did not monitor dosage in any way. See, e.g., Moore, 423 U.S. at 142-43, 96 S.Ct. 335; Katz, 445 F.3d at 1026-28 (affirming a conviction where there was testimony that the doctor received no medical history, rarely performed physical exams, and provided month-long prescriptions every two weeks); see also United States v. Paskon, No. 4:07-CV-1161 (CEJ), 2008 WL 2039233, at *5 (E.D.Mo. May 12, 2008) (collecting cases "regarding the scope of `professional practice' . . . in the context of criminal prosecutions of physicians under 21 U.S.C. § 841"). The fact that Dr. Mach was paid per order approved also supports a finding that his prescriptions were for other than a legitimate medical purpose but rather for his "personal profit."

  2. United States v. Ahuja

    209 F. Supp. 3d 489 (D. Conn. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    See, e.g. , United States v. Butterbaugh , No. C14–515, 2015 WL 4660096, at *1 (W.D.Wash. Aug. 5, 2015) ; United States v. Paskon , No. 4:07–CV–1161, 2008 WL 2039233, at *1 (E.D.Mo. May 12, 2008) ; Salcedo , 2003 WL 21196843, at *2.--------