Doctor shopping

Consider a senario, Grim. As you mentioned, you have a medical problem that causes you pain. In other posts I have mentioned that I also have a problem and a prescription for pain pills.
Say I was still living up there, you visited the farm, and after mentioning that you were out of pain pills I gave you a bottle of mine. We both would have violated the law with that.
Now, say while going back home you were pulled over for say, your auto license plate had fallen off, and while checking out your vehicle they found my pills. Assume that when they called me I told them that I had given them to you.
Now then, here is a situation that is quite similar to the Limbaugh situation where he got pills that were prescribed to the housekeeper's husband. So the question that I would like you to consider in this senario is should the police sieze and examine your medical records to see if you were "shopping" for pain pills?

Maybe, J, if Grim was addicted to the pills you gave him, especially if it was a very highly addicting one?

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

If someone knowingly fills prescriptions that exceed some maximum legal dose, they can be prosecuted. No need to drag the doctors or any other things that might be in the medical records into it.

Interviewing the doctor -- that's one privilege Rush fought and won in the courts to maintain for you.

My whole point WAS to have a cross referenced database so someone couldn't fill multiple prescriptions. Even with insurance, there is no requirement nor anything sinister in using different pharmacies. Also, you sign that you picked it up. I'm talking about a more detailed consent form. For example, you have received X dose of Z drug. The maximum allowable dose is Y. The total concurrent dosage cannot exceed this. You cannot possess more than X # of pills at one time. Stuff like that. No weaseling out that you didn't realize your overlapping prescriptions were breaking the law. No need to involve the doctors at all unless any individual doctor exceeded prescription limits.

... would make more sense. There's nothing to stop me from filling prescriptions at any pharmacy. Lots of people don't use insurance for prescriptions so no flag goes up. If I were single, I wouldn't bother with prescription coverage.

Prescription fraud by forgery is pretty easy to prove. Maybe they need to have some sort of seal or security features on those pads like they have on checks these days so duplication/copying is not possible. But this is flat out fraud and not related to doctor shopping.

My thoughts here are that doctor shopping can't be prosecuted without first going on a privacy-invading fishing expedition. If the law is re-written to set limits on legally filling prescriptions, it makes more sense to me.

Evie

The charge in the end? FORTY friggin pills. Insane

Article 1 Section 23 of the Florida Constitution guaranties the individual right to privacy. This section according to the Flordia Supreme Court cover the privilege you mention.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/searchdoc.aspx?DocumentType=Constitution

Wikipedia comments
To add:[1] ...An Historical Prospective Over forty years ago this Court confirmed that the State of Florida does not recognize a patient-physician testimonial privilege. MORRISON v. MhLMQUIST, 62 SO. 2d 415 (Fla. 2953). Eleven years ago that holding was reaffirmed in the context of a challenge to voluntary' ex parte contact between defense counsel and a plaintiff's treating physicians. See, CORALLUZZO v. FASS, 450 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1984) * In CORALLUZZO this Court could find "no reason in law or in zquity to disapprove" of voluntary ex parte conferences between defense counsel and treating health care providers. 450 So. 2d at 859 ....

...Relying upon MORRISON v. MALMQUIST, supra, the court pointed out that there is no physician-patient privilege in the State of Florida which would preclude such. contact becaus9 or' the witness' professional relationship with the plaintiff...

Also:[2]

Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), a group of physicians joined patients in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a New York statute that required physicians to report to state authorities the identities of patients receiving Schedule II drugs (controlled substances). The physicians alleged that such information was protected by the doctor-patient confidentiality, while the patients alleged that such disclosure was an invasion of their constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court did not disagree with the lower court's finding that "the intimate nature of a patient's concern about his bodily ills and the medication he takes . . . are protected by the constitutional right to privacy." However, the high court concluded (after balancing the state's interests) that "Requiring such disclosures to representatives of the State having responsibility for the health of the community, does not automatically amount to an impermissible invasion of privacy."

I'm not trying to make the case for one this side of the argument -- I'm only adding this to see if it will help with comments.

I asked for the link because I was unfamiliar with the case. You, per usual, failed to respond.

But, as usual, the two cases bear NO resemblence to each other. Rush has never even been accused of drug trafficking except in the tabloids. Furthermore, this was never an issue of what a legal dosage of these drugs is. Even in the end -- FORTY pills Dave.

Here's the meat of your case:

Paey?s doctor in New Jersey, Stephen Nurkiewicz, agreed to mail and fax prescriptions to him in Florida. To ensure that Richard would never run out of pills ? his worst nightmare ? Nurkiewicz left some of the prescriptions undated.

But Paey?s frequent refills drew the attention of law enforcement. Florida has seen a dramatic increase in the sale of black market painkillers. Convinced that Paey might have been re-selling the drugs, local police placed him under surveillance. After two months, they made their bust.

"They had guns and ski masks and, like, five, six people ran into the house and half of them took the kids and my mother in law. And the other one grabbed me," says Linda Paey. "And Rich kept on saying, 'Please, call my doctor. Can you call my doctor?' You know? 'Everything's fine. Call my doctor.' And they said they already have."

Indeed they had. The doctor was originally a suspect.

In interviews with the Drug Enforcement Administration, Nurkiewicz at first supported Paey and admitted mailing him undated prescriptions and, when pharmacists called, he verified the prescriptions.

But when he was later shown evidence that Paey had filled 200 prescriptions over a two year period for 18,000 pills, he then stated that all of the prescriptions were forgeries, including some he had originally verified to pharmacists. He was no longer a suspect, instead becoming a witness for the prosecution.

Presumably there's a way to confirm the fraudulent prescriptions, and apparently they did that!

That's not even CLOSE to what Rush was accused of even if you believe Rob's lie of 4000 over 6 months. The raid on his records says 2000 pills (not all painkillers BTW) over 7 months. 18000 over one year?

But this case is not even close:
"In Richard Paey's room, all over his room, there were the raw materials to make prescriptions," says Andringa. "They found a lot of documents that suggested forging prescriptions, copying prescriptions, in order to create new blank prescriptions."

In addition to the blank prescriptions, Andringa says police also found a copy machine, a doctor?s stamp and Nurkiewicz?s DEA number written in Paey?s address book.

"It's a crime to forge prescriptions, which is what he did, and it's a crime to use a forged prescription that you stole in order to get drugs from a pharmacy, which is what he did," Andringa says.

Oh -- Andringa?s office offered him a plea bargain, which carried no jail time as long as he admitted to the crimes.

Note, that's not admitting to selling, but to trafficking which the article states by law is only the possession of the pills. 1600 in 41 days with forged prescriptions. Quite different from ANYTHING alleged against Rush, BTW.

But prosecutor Andringa says that the jury was convinced by the evidence that Paey had forged some prescriptions.

"This case is not about pain patients. It's just not. This case is about prescription fraud," he says. "We were very reasonable in this case. But once somebody says, 'I'm not going to accept a plea offer however reasonable it is,' then ?"

"You throw the book," Safer says.

And a politically active DA didn't have a book to throw at Rush. I know it pains you to face the facts.

Rape? You like to throw that word around a lot lately. I seem to recall some here objecting and appealing to you personally to stop that. How sad you can't comply. Shows what's not worth YOUR concern.

him with. There was clear evidence of multiple inappropriate prescriptions -- that's what "doctor shopping" is. Forty pills represent ONE Rx! There's a clear and reprehensible difference between the wrist-slap that a popular conservative columnist got (especially reprehensible since until this became public, Rush has always advocated a zero-tolerance, hang 'em high policy on drugs) vs. throwing the book a a poor unknown SOB who wa merely trying to manage intractable pain. The whole premise behind the drug-trafficking charge (for which there was zero direct evidence, despite months of surveillance) was that if he'd actually taken as many pills as couldn't be accounted for, he'd be dead. But pain specialists will tell you that folks with truly severe intractable pain rapidly become "tolerant" to the pain meds, so that it takes higher and higher doses to block the pain -- doses that exceed the AMA guidelines for ethical prescriptions. That's not being "addicted" to drugs -- that's needing huge amounts to stop the pain, and it's a well-known phenomenon. But not to politicians and DAs!

As for not providing a link, you should be familiar with this story, as we had virtually this same discussion when 60 Minutes aired the piece in January, and I linked to their report then. With CNet's current *%&^ "advanced" search and its lack of "and" capabilties, I unfortunately can't find that thread.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

How many pills do YOU have legal prescriptions for? My husband had legal prescriptions for up to 6 a day of Vicodin that he could have extended for 6 months or more (with all the surgeries it could easily have been a year).

If Paey is a poor SOB so too was Rush, or do you deny that HE was in intractable pain? Conservatives can feel pain too you know. Paey was convicted by a jury of PRESCRIPTION FORGERY. FORGERY. FORGERY. That's not even on the same level as "doctor shopping" even if that did occur. If anything, Paey is the one that doctor shopped, but that's not what he was charged for.

You must have evidence nobody else does, including the prosecutors. Because there's only the 40 they could find that overlapped. Given the embarrassment the DA should feel over this, you betcha they would have charged more if they could. They knew they didn't have the goods. Admitted as much in a court of law when they tried to interview his doctors.

... before you make such inaccurate statements. Florida law does not require proof that he was selling for a trafficking charge. EIGHTEEN THOUSAND PILLS. I will have to go back and see your reaction to even the most pills Rush was accused in the tabloids of having.

15 counts of prescription forgery. Can't explain that crime away or excuse it. The prosecutor in Paey's case was willing to, but he wouldn't take the plea.

... about this issue.