DOJ Has Few Allies, Many Foes In High Court Opioid Brawl

The felony conviction of an Alabama doctor who prescribed fentanyl in quantities so immense he may have influenced a drugmaker’s stock price. But as U.S. Supreme Court justices are set to scrutinize the conviction on Tuesday, numerous scholars and corporate groups are calling it ominous and unfair, with virtually no one backing the DOJ.

Kevin Mulry discusses with Law360:

With that conduct in mind, experts say the lopsided amicus situation is mainly about ensuring a level playing field for all doctors to defend themselves in Controlled Substances Act cases, as opposed to a belief that Ruan and Kahn were wholly beyond reproach.

“What [the amici] are trying to present to the justices is that the standard [they] set has to be fairly applied to a doctor who’s criminally prosecuted where the facts are not as egregious,” Farrell Fritz PC partner Kevin P. Mulry said in a Friday interview.

When the Supreme Court hears arguments on Tuesday morning, a central question will be how juries should assess the intentions of a doctor accused of prescribing narcotic painkillers outside “the usual course of his professional practice” — a key regulatory phrase that’s in dispute.

Read the full article on Law360 here:

DOJ Has Few Allies, Many Foes In High Court Opioid Brawl – Law360