United States of America v. Patka et al, No. 1:2017cv00062 - Document 30 (S.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 24 Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Firoz M. Patka, M.D. in the amount of $1,200,000.00. This case stands closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 7/2/2018. (pts)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States of America v. Patka et al Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, •k k Plaintiff, * CV 117-062 * V. * 5 FIROZ M. PATKA, M.D., * Defendant. ORDER Before judgment. the Court (Doc. 24.) is Plaintiff's motion for default For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. I. BACKGROUND Defendant is a doctor of medicine registered to dispense Schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances in the State of Georgia. Plaintiff, the United States of America, alleges that Defendant violated Section 829 of the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), 21 U.S.C. § 829, by improperly dispensing Schedule II controlled substances. Defendant, who practiced Specifically, Plaintiff claims that at three different locations, would pre-sign blank prescriptions so that physician assistants — who otherwise could prescribe only Schedule III, IV, and V drugs — Dockets.Justia.com could prescribe Schedule II controlled substances in Defendant's absence. Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant on May 26, 2017. (Doc. appear. 1.) Defendant Plaintiff moved failed for an to entry answer of or otherwise default, and on December 22, 2017, the Clerk entered default against Defendant. (Docs. 20, 21.) judgment On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff moved for default against Defendant. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff sought damages of $3.3 million and requested an evidentiary hearing to establish its requested damages. hearing on April 25, 2018, The Court held an evidentiary and heard evidence related to Defendant's liability as well as damages. II. DISCUSSION Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, a court may enter default judgment against a defendant when: (1) both subject- matter and personal jurisdiction exist; (2) the allegations in the complaint state a claim against the defendant; and (3) the plaintiff has shown the damages that it is entitled to. See Pitts ex rel. Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1356-58 (S.D. Ga. 2004). ^'[A] defendant's default does not court in entering a default judgment." in itself warrant the Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). Default judgment is warranted only ^^when there is a sufficient basis in the pleadings Terrace for Found./ omitted) the entered.'' 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (internal ''defaulted judgment quotation defendant is marks deemed to Surtain v. Hamlin {11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). admit And the although plaintiff's a well- pleaded allegations of fact, [a defendant] is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law." Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The upshot of this standard is that "a motion for default judgment is like a reverse motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." Id. Thus, when evaluating a motion for default judgment, a court must look to see whether the "complaint contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1. Jurisdiction The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because this case arises under personal federal law. jurisdiction over 28 U.S.C. Defendant § 1331. because It the issue occurred in the Southern District of Georgia. also conduct has at 21 U.S.C. § 842(c)(1)(A); see also Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. V. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 923 (2011). 2. Liability Plaintiff alleges that Defendant § 842 by pre-signing blank prescriptions. violated 21 U.S.C. Section 842 states that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any person . . . who [is registered to dispense controlled substances] to distribute or dispense a controlled substance in violation of section 829 of this title." 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1). Section 829 states that "[ejxcept when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in schedule II . . . may be dispensed without prescription of a practitioner . . . ." the written 21 U.S.C. § 829(a). For purposes of § 829, a valid ''written prescription" means: A prescription for a controlled substance to be effective must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice. The responsibility for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances is upon the prescribing practitioner, but a corresponding responsibility rests with the pharmacist who fills the prescription. An order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional treatment or in legitimate and authorized research is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of section 309 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 829) and the person knowingly filling such a purported prescription, as well as the person issuing it, shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations of the provisions of law relating to controlled substances. 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04. The that Court Defendant schedule II allegations blank finds that violated controlled in its prescriptions Plaintiff § 829 by substance. complaint that so his that sufficiently unlawfully Plaintiff Defendant physician prescribe Schedule II drugs in his absence. established dispensing made was a detailed pre-signing assistants could (Doc. 1 SlSl 34-71.) Plaintiff also prescriptions was alleged that ^^outside the Defendant's usual course pre-signing of of professional practice [and] in violation of the requirements of the CSA."^ (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff's pleadings contain a sufficient basis to find Defendant liable. 3. Damages Section 842(c) provides that every violation § 829 carries a civil penalty of up to $25,000. Government's § 829(a). allegations 21 established U.S.C. § 842(c). 299 separate violations The of The Court must now determine the appropriate civil penalty to impose. ''When determining monetary penalties under § 842(c), district courts have frequently considered four factors: (1) the level of defendant's culpability, (2) the public harm caused by the violations, (3) defendant's profits from the violations, and (4) defendant's ability to pay a penalty." Advance Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. United States, 391 F.3d 377, 399 (2d ^ Additionally, Plaintiff included in its motion for default judgment evidence supporting the allegations made in its complaint. Specifically, it offered a written affidavit from an expert. Dr. Gene Kennedy, who declared that "it is the responsibility of the prescribing physician to validate each prescription under his signature" and "in a situation where schedule II prescriptions are being provided by physician assistants without oversight and on presigned prescription forms, all such prescriptions are illegal . outside the course of normal medical practice . . . [and] not medically legitimate." (Doc. 27-3, at 3.) Dr. Kennedy also declared that after reviewing a sample of patient files related to the prescriptions at issue, he believed that "[Defendant's] scheduled medication prescribing for these patients was outside the usual course of medical practice and not medically legitimate." (Id. at 2.) Cir. 2004). After considering these factors, the Court finds that a penalty of $1,200,000 is appropriate in this case. coming to things, its conclusion, Plaintiff's prescribed drugs discussing the the Court evidence and of the Plaintiff s negative public considered, street expert health among value witness In other of the testimony consequences resulting from irresponsible opioid prescription practices. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, default judgment JUDGMENT amount in of favor the Court (doc, of 24) GRANTS and Plaintiff $1,200,000. The Plaintiffs ORDERS and Clerk the against SHALL Clerk to Defendant CLOSE TERMINATE all deadlines. motion this for ENTER in the case and ^ ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this icX. day of July, 2018. ^CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT N COURT DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
