Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Doctor Fined for Writing PRescriptions for Non-Patients(s)
The federal government has entered into a settlement agreement with Avinit Mitra, M.D., to conclude an investigation that led to civil claims that the doctor prescribed medications to a person or persons who were not his patient. The drugs in question were Opana and Oxycontin, both Schedule II controlled substances' usually prescribed for controlling severe pain. As a psychiatrist, Dr. Mitra is legally authorized to write prescriptions, but pain relief medications are not generally ordered by those in his specialty. The settlement, which requires the doctor to pay the gorvernment $45,000, was announced by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut in a release, which explained, “Congress, with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act, took steps to attempt to create 'a closed system' of distribution for controlled substances in which every facet of the handling of the substances, from their manufacture to their consumption by the ultimate user, was to be subject to intense governmental regulation. This mission was taken against the backdrop of trying to prevent the diversion and abuse of legitimate controlled substances while at the same time ensuring an adequate supply of those substances needed to meet the medical and scientific needs of the United States.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.