Doctors' 'pill mill' convictions partially tossed after U.S. Supreme Court ruling

Published 01/05/2023, 01:28 PM
Updated 01/05/2023, 02:00 PM

By Nate Raymond

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday overturned key parts of the convictions of two Alabama doctors accused of running a massive "pill mill" after the U.S. Supreme Court in June made it harder to prosecute physicians for illegally prescribing addictive drugs like opioids.

The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the convictions of Xiulu Ruan and John Couch for unlawfully dispensing controlled substances after finding that under a Supreme Court ruling in June in Ruan's case, jurors were wrongly instructed on how to determine their guilt.

But the three-judge panel declined to disturb their other convictions for conspiring to violate the Controlled Substances Act, commit racketeering and accept kickbacks from a bankrupt opioid drug manufacturer, Insys Therapeutics Inc.

Prosecutors must now decide whether to retry Ruan and Couch or move straight to resentencing on their remaining convictions. Ruan was serving a 21-year prison term and Couch was sentenced to 20 years.

Domingo Soto, Couch's lawyer, said he was considering his options including pursuing a further appeal. Lawrence Robbins, Ruan's lawyer, declined to comment. Prosecutors did not respond to requests for comment.

Prosecutors said Ruan and Couch misused their medical licenses to unlawfully prescribe addictive, powerful opioid painkillers without a medical necessity through a clinic in Mobile, Alabama that issued nearly 300,000 controlled-substance prescriptions from 2011 to 2015.

Prosecutors said they also received kickbacks from Insys to prescribe its fentanyl spray Subsys. Insys' founder, John Kapoor, and other executives were later convicted of conspiring to bribe them and other doctors to prescribe Subsys.

After the 11th Circuit largely upheld their 2017 trial convictions, Ruan appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing his trial was unfair because jurors were not required to consider whether he had a "good faith" reason to believe his numerous opioid prescriptions were medically valid.

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Used blister packets that contained medicines, tablets and pills are seen, in this picture illustration taken June 30, 2018. REUTERS/Russell Boyce/Illustration

The Supreme Court in June sided with Ruan, finding that once defendants produce evidence that they were authorized to dispense controlled substances like opioids, prosecutors must prove they knew they were acting in an unauthorized manner.

The justices, though, left it to the 11th Circuit to decide whether any mistakes in the jury instructions warranted reversing his conviction.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2025 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.