Opioid Distribution
Opioid Distribution – Legal Framework (U.S. Federal Law)
Opioid distribution offenses fall primarily under:
1. Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 841
This statute makes it a federal crime to:
Manufacture
Distribute
Dispense
Possess with intent to distribute
a controlled substance, including opioids such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, fentanyl, and heroin.
The government must show:
The substance is controlled.
The defendant knowingly and intentionally distributed it.
If charged as a doctor/pharmacist, distribution must be outside the usual course of professional practice or without a legitimate medical purpose.
2. 21 U.S.C. § 846
Makes it a crime to attempt or conspire to distribute opioids.
3. Distribution “Outside Professional Practice”
For medical professionals, the standard comes from Supreme Court case law (below). Evidence may include:
Excessive dosages
“Pill mill” operations
Lack of physical exams
Cash-only practices
Ignoring signs of addiction or diversion
Important Case Law (Detailed Explanations)
1. Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022)
Issue:
What mental state must the government prove to convict a doctor for unlawful opioid distribution?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the government must prove the doctor knew or intended that their prescriptions were unauthorized.
Details:
Previously, doctors could be convicted based on an objective standard: whether their prescribing fell outside typical medical practice. Ruan changed this dramatically by requiring subjective intent—meaning prosecutors must show the doctor actually knew they were prescribing without a legitimate medical purpose.
Impact:
Stronger protections for physicians acting in good faith.
More difficult for prosecutors in opioid-overprescription cases.
2. United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975)
Issue:
Can doctors be prosecuted under §841 like street dealers?
Holding:
Yes. A physician who prescribes controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice acts like any other drug dealer under §841.
Details:
Moore, a licensed physician, issued enormous numbers of methadone prescriptions without proper medical evaluation. The Court stated that the CSA does not provide physicians immunity if they act outside legitimate medical practice.
Impact:
Foundation case for prosecuting “pill mill doctors.”
Established the “outside the usual course of professional practice” standard later refined in Ruan.
3. United States v. Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2006)
Issue:
How should the jury evaluate a physician’s good-faith belief when prescribing opioids?
Holding:
The court held that “good faith” is measured by an objective standard—what a reasonable doctor would do—rather than the doctor’s own subjective beliefs.
Details:
Dr. Hurwitz argued he was aggressively treating chronic pain and acted in good faith. The court rejected a purely subjective standard.
Impact:
Frequently cited in opioid cases—until Ruan changed the landscape.
After Ruan, Hurwitz’s objective standard is weakened but still historically influential.
4. United States v. Volkman, 797 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2015)
Issue:
Can a physician be criminally liable for overdose deaths under §841?
Holding:
Yes—if the prescriptions were unlawful and caused death.
Details:
Dr. Volkman prescribed massive quantities of oxycodone, methadone, and other opioids through pain clinics in Ohio. Four patients died from overdoses. Evidence included:
Ignoring drug screens
Cash-only operations
Minimal medical examinations
Impact:
Demonstrates how prosecutors connect unlawful prescriptions to overdose deaths.
Shows how opioid distribution prosecutions can result in life sentences.
5. United States v. McIver, 470 F.3d 550 (4th Cir. 2006)
Issue:
What constitutes "acting outside the usual course of professional practice"?
Holding:
The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing patterns that indicate illegitimate prescribing.
Details:
Red flags included:
Prescribing dangerous combinations (opioids + benzodiazepines)
Insufficient medical records
Prescribing without examinations
Impact:
Clarified practical indicators of unlawful opioid distribution by practitioners.
Widely cited for defining professional standards.
6. United States v. Ignasiak, 667 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2012)
Issue:
Whether improper medical documentation and reckless prescribing can support a §841 conviction.
Holding:
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to show unlawful distribution.
Details:
Ignasiak prescribed opioids and sedatives in large quantities with:
Missing or fabricated medical records
Minimal examinations
Known drug-seeking patients
Impact:
Highlights how poor recordkeeping itself is evidence of unlawful distribution.
Strengthens prosecutors’ ability to use documentation failures in court.
7. United States v. Feingold, 454 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2006)
Issue:
Is “good faith” a valid defense for physicians?
Holding:
Yes—but the standard is objective (pre-Ruan).
Details:
The case involved a doctor who prescribed massive amounts of opioids and benzodiazepines. The court held that “good faith” means acting in accord with accepted medical practice—not personal belief.
Impact:
Still cited but effectively modified by Ruan’s subjective intent requirement.
Legal Themes Across Cases
1. Knowledge and Intent
After Ruan, intent is critical: the government must prove knowing unlawful action.
2. Medical Records
Incomplete or fraudulent documentation is strong evidence of unlawful distribution.
3. Red Flags
Courts repeatedly cite:
Cash-only clinics
High-volume prescriptions
No examinations
Dangerous drug combos
Ignoring obvious addiction signs
4. Causing Death
When unlawful, distribution can trigger sentencing enhancements if use of the drug results in death.
RELATED Blog
comments