By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

A Florida cardiologist recently had his medical license emergently suspended by the Florida Department of Health (DOH) for allegedly performing stem cell treatments on a patient. According to the emergency suspension order (ESO), the DOH had previously warned the doctor to stop performing these treatments in 2011. Now, his license is at risk of being revoked. To view the ESO click here.

Doctor’s License Suspended by the DOH for Allegedly Performing Stem Cell Treatments.

The DOH ordered the emergency suspension of the cardiologist’s medical license in March 2012. He is being accused of violating an emergency restriction order (ERO) against using stem cell treatments in Florida. He is also being accused of causing the death of a patient.

We want to be perfectly clear that these are just allegations being made by the DOH at this point in time. All persons are presumed to be innocent until found guilty in a court of law (or, in DOH licensure cases, in an administrative final order).

Stem Cell Treatment Allegedly Contributed to Patient’s Death.

According to the ESO, the doctor performed a stem cell treatment on a patient who had both pulmonary hypertension and pulmonary fibrosis. Both of these conditions restrict blood flow to the heart. According to the ESO, the stem cell treatment included harvesting adipose tissue from the patient’s abdomen and concentrating stem cells from the tissue in a lab. The concentrated stem cells were then infused into the patient’s bloodstream to help treat the patient’s pulmonary hypertension and pulmonary fibrosis. Allegedly, the cardiologist’s patient suffered a cardiac arrest and died during the treatment.

Doctor Now Awaits Administrative Hearing.

An administrative hearing regarding the doctor’s license suspension is scheduled for June 2012.

To view the administrative complaint issued by the DOH, click here.

To see a diagram or flow chart of the procedures followed by the Florida Department of Health, click here.

For an explanation of the differences between a formal administrative hearing and an informal administrative hearing under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, click here.

For the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, click here.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced with Emergency Suspensions and DOH Actions.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm are experienced in handling all types of DOH cases, including emergency suspensions, administrative complaints, investigations, administrative hearings, investigations, licensing issues, settlements and more. If you are currently facing adverse action by the DOH contact one of our attorneys by calling (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001. You can also visit our website for more information at http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/.

Sources:

Fitzpatrick, David and Drew Griffin. “Florida Suspends Doctor Accused of Illegal Stem Cell Therapy.” CNN. (Mar. 8, 2012). From: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/08/health/stem-cell-doctor-suspension/index.html

Miller, Reed. “Flouting Warning, Florida Stem-Cell Cardiologist has License Suspended.” theheart.org. (Mar. 8, 2012). From: http://www.theheart.org/article/1368039.do

About the Author:  George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law.  He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.  Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area.  http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone:  (407) 331-6620.

In Florida You Have Fifth Amendment Rights in a Department of Health Investigation of Your License

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

If you are contacted by a Florida Department of Health investigator, did you know that you are not required to make a statement or give any information that can be used against you?  If you are being investigated you have a right to refuse to speak with an investigator pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the equivalent rights given by the Florida Constitution, Article 1, Section 9.  However, because the Miranda decision does not apply to administrative proceedings, including licensure investigations, the DOH investigator does not have to inform you of this.

In some states other than Florida, the state’s law is such that a nurse, physician, dentist or other licensed health care professional is required to “cooperate” with the investigation, even though he or she may be punished or lose their license as a result.  THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN FLORIDA.

Florida Licensing Investigations Are Considered to Be “Penal” or “Quasi-criminal” in Nature.

Florida licensing investigations are considered to be “penal” or “quasi-criminal” in nature.  In Florida, a professional’s license is considered to be a property right.  So you also have the constitutional right not to be deprived of it without due process of law.  Due Process of law is guaranteed not only by the Florida and U.S. constitutional provisions cited above, but also by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Due process of law includes the right to be represented by an attorney in any proceedings that might be initiated that may result in your losing your license.

In Florida, a long history of legal cases has resulted in the common law rule that administrative proceedings that may result in loss of a license must afford all of the protections that a criminal defendant would have in a criminal case.

Case Law in Florida.

In a 2004 case involving the Florida Department of Health, the Florida First District Court of Appeal stated:

Initially, it should not be forgotten that because professional disciplinary statutes are penal in nature, they must be strictly construed with any ambiguity interpreted in favor of the licensee. See Ocampo v. Dep’t of Health, 806 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002);  Elmariah v. Dep’t of Prof. Reg., Board of Med., 574 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Cone v. Dep’t of Health, 886 So. 2d 1007, 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

The Florida Supreme Court confirmed that a licensee could assert a Fifth Amendment right in administrative proceedings in the 1973 case of State ex rel. Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (1973).

In Vining a real estate broker was charged by the Florida Real Estate Commission of violating the Real Estate License Law.  Id. at 488.  The broker filed a sworn answer, as he was required to do under Florida Statute Section 475.30(1).  Id.  The broker later argued that the Florida statute violated his right against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution.  Id.

The Florida Supreme Court agreed, holding that “the right to remain silent applies not only to the traditional criminal case, but also to proceedings ‘penal’ in nature in that they tend to degrade the individual’s professional standing, professional reputation or livelihood.”  Id. at 491 (citing Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 87 S.Ct. 625, 17 L.Ed.2d 574 (1967);  Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1964)).  More recently, courts have reaffirmed that Vining remains good law in Florida.  See Best Pool & Spa Service Co., Inc. v. Romanik, 622 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993);  Scott v. Department of Professional Regulation, 603 So. 2d 519, 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

In Best Pool & Spa Service Co., Inc. v. Romanik, 622 So. 2d 65, 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), for example, the Court of Appeal reiterated the ability of a defendant to claim the Fifth Amendment privilege in an administrative proceeding.  Best Pool involved a pool owner filing actions for negligence and breach of contract against a pool maintenance contractor and its president.  The circuit court required the president to answer questions at his deposition about his certifying to the county, in an application for license, that the contractor had liability insurance.  The Court of Appeal ruled that the president was allowed to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege with regard to questions on this issue.  The court stated in Best Pool: “requiring Kassover, the president, to answer these questions does violate his right against self incrimination, which applies not only to criminal matters but also administrative proceedings such as licensing.  Id. at 66.

There are many other cases which have held the same.

You Must Be Extremely Cautious When Dealing with a DOH Investigator or Any Investigator.

If you receive notice that a DOH disciplinary investigation has been opened against you, you may not even realize it or understand how serious the consequences may be.  The notice comes in the form of a simple letter or, more often nowadays, a phone call, followed by a letter.  The letter will be on Florida Department of Health letterhead and will, in most cases,  be signed by a person whose job title is “Medical Malpractice Investigator,” “Quality Assurance Investigator” or some other title that might throw you off.

If you think you are giving information to be used in connection with a true quality assurance matter, such as would be confidential and privileged in a hospital or health institution, think again.  This is an investigation that could result in your having to pay thousands of dollars in fines, thousands of dollars in investigative costs and suspension or loss of your license.  Worse yet are the other consequences that having discipline on your professional license will bring, including difficulty in obtaining employment, reports being made to national data banks, etc.  Please see some of the other articles we have on our blog and on our website about all of the unforeseen consequences of discipline on your license.

Have You Been Told the Investigation Is Not Aimed at You?  Watch Out!

Even if the investigator attempts to ensure you that the investigation is not aimed at you, watch out!  It may not be aimed at you today, but it may be aimed at you tomorrow.  Additionally, even if the particular investigation that you are being questioned about is not directed against you, there may be another investigation that has been opened against you.  Your statement can and will be sued against you in that other investigation.

I was told by a DOH investigator one time that my clients (who were a director of nursing (DON), assistant director of nursing (ADON), an administrator and a medical director) were not being investigated, but that another health professional was.  My clients cooperated and gave statements for use in the investigation of the other person.  A short time later, additional investigations were opened against all of them, too.  Fortunately we eventually had all of the charges against all of them dismissed.  But I have not trusted investigators since then.

Don’t Wait Until it is Too Late; Consult with a Health Law Attorney Experienced in Representing Health Professionals Now.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm routinely represent nurses, ARNPs, CRNAs, physicians, dentists, pharmacists, psychologists, mental health counselors, social workers, massage therapists, medical groups, clinics, pharmacists, pharmacies, home health agencies, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and other healthcare providers in licensing investigations, regulatory matters, in board actions and in administrative hearings.  Call now at (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 or visit our website www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author:  George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law.  He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.  Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area.  www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone:  (407) 331-6620.

Disclaimer: Please note that this article represents our opinions based on our many years of practice and experience in this area of health law. You may have a different opinion; you are welcome to it. This one is mine.  This article is for informational purposes only; it is not legal advice.

Emergency Suspension Orders and Medicaid Fraud

In the recent case of Mendelsohn v. State of Florida Department of Health, Mendelsohn’s license to practice medicine was suspended under an Emergency Suspension Order (ESO).

According to the ESO, Mendelsohn is licensed to practice medicine in Florida pursuant to the provisions of chapter 458, Florida Statutes. On December 9, 2010, he entered a plea of nolo contendere in federal court to a charge of conspiracy to commit fraud upon the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. As a result of his conviction, the Florida Department of Health immediately suspended his medical license without a hearing pursuant to section 456.074(1), Florida Statutes (2010), which states:

(1) The department shall issue an emergency order suspending the license of any person licensed under chapter 458 . . . who pleads guilty to, is convicted or found guilty of, or who enters a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, to:

. . .

(b) A misdemeanor or felony under 18 U.S.C. s. 669, ss. 285-287, s. 371, s. 1001, s. 1035, s. 1341, s. 1343, s. 1347, s. 1349, or s. 1518 or 42 U.S.C. ss. 1320a-7b, relating to the Medicaid program.

Mendelsohn argued that his federal conspiracy conviction was not related to the Medicaid program, so the Florida Department of Health could not issue an ESO without establishing that his actions posed an immediate danger to public safety.

Florida law requires that an order directing the immediate suspension of a practitioner’s license contain “every element necessary to its validity . . . on the face of the order.” In general, an ESO will not be upheld unless the order on its face sets out the specific facts and reasons for finding an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare, as well as the Florida Department of Health’s reasons for concluding that the procedure used is fair under the circumstances.

However, Section 456.074(1), Florida Statues, however, requires DOH issue an emergency order suspending a medical license in certain circumstances without regard to specific proof that a petitioner is acting in a way that poses an immediate danger to public safety.

But Mendelsohn asserted that the Florida Department of Health incorrectly found that his conviction required an ESO under section 456.074(1)(b). Section 456.074(1)(b) requires the Florida Department of Health to issue an ESO when a practitioner has been convicted of a “felony under 18 U.S.C. s. 669, ss. 285-287, s. 371, s. 1001, s. 1035, s. 1341, s. 1343, s. 1347, s. 1349, or s. 1518 or 42 U.S.C. ss. 1320a-7b, relating to the Medicaid program.”

Although Mendelsohn was convicted of a felony in violation of § 18 U.S.C. 371, he contended his conviction was not related to the Medicaid program, and thus, did not support the issuance of an ESO without further proof that he posed a threat to public safety.

The court ultimately agreed with Mendelsohn, deciding “the underlying facts do not qualify as one of those instances where the Florida Department of Health may issue an ESO without providing specific reasons why the suspension is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the public.”

Do not let the Florida Department of Health take away your license unless it is warranted. Contact a board certified health law attorney who is knowledgeable in handling these matters. For more information about Emergency Suspension Orders and other legal matters concerning healthcare providers visit www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

George Indest is an attorney, board certified by the Florida Bar in Health Law, who represents health care professionals and providers, including pain management clinics and pain management physicians.

In Brief: Florida Pain Management Clinic Laws

Every health profession has its own set of rules and regulations. This week, we’re examining Florida laws under which pain management clinics operate.

Because Florida has one of the worst drug trafficking problems in the country, law enforcement is making sure that punishments for any violations are severe. For example, if a patient dies of drug overdose and the prescriber is found to be responsible, he or she can be charged with homicide, which was the case for a Palm Beach County pain management physician (see this New York Times article).

The DEA, Florida Department of Health and Florida law enforcement are watching pain management clinics very closely in order to keep Florida’s drug trafficking problem under control. Make sure that your clinic abides by the following legislation, in order to prevent any interference with your practice.

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Section 458.3265, F.S.:

Definition of Pain Management Clinic:

“Pain-management clinic” or “clinic” means any publicly or privately owned facility:
(I) That advertises in any medium for any type of pain-management services; or
(II) Where in any month a majority of patients are prescribed opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or carisoprodol for the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain.

Registration:

Every pain-management clinic must register with the Florida Department of Health UNLESS:

1. That clinic is licensed as a facility pursuant to chapter 395;

2. The majority of the physicians who provide services in the clinic primarily provide surgical services;

3. The clinic is owned by a publicly held corporation whose shares are traded on a national exchange or on the over-the-counter market and whose total assets at the end of the corporation’s most recent fiscal quarter exceeded $50 million;

4. The clinic is affiliated with an accredited medical school at which training is provided for medical students, residents, or fellows;

5. The clinic does not prescribe controlled substances for the treatment of pain;

6. The clinic is owned by a corporate entity exempt from federal taxation under 26 U.S.C. s. 501(c)(3);

7. The clinic is wholly owned and operated by one or more board-certified anesthesiologists, physiatrists, or neurologists; or

8. The clinic is wholly owned and operated by one or more board-certified medical specialists who have also completed fellowships in pain medicine approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, or who are also board-certified in pain medicine by a board approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties and perform interventional pain procedures of the type routinely billed using surgical codes.

Physician Responsibilities:

1. A physician may not practice medicine in a pain-management clinic, if the pain-management clinic is not registered with the department. Any physician who qualifies to practice medicine in a pain-management clinic pursuant to rules adopted by the Board of Medicine as of July 1, 2012, may continue to practice medicine in a pain-management clinic as long as the physician continues to meet the qualifications set forth in the board rules. A physician who violates this paragraph is subject to disciplinary action by his or her appropriate medical regulatory board.

2. A person may not dispense any medication on the premises of a registered pain-management clinic unless he or she is a physician licensed under this chapter or chapter 459.

3. A physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced registered nurse practitioner must perform a physical examination of a patient on the same day that the physician prescribes a controlled substance to a patient at a pain-management clinic. If the physician prescribes more than a 72-hour dose of controlled substances for the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain, the physician must document in the patient’s record the reason for prescribing that quantity.

4. A physician authorized to prescribe controlled substances who practices at a pain-management clinic is responsible for maintaining the control and security of his or her prescription blanks and any other method used for prescribing controlled substance pain medication. The physician shall comply with the requirements for counterfeit-resistant prescription blanks in s. 893.065 and the rules adopted pursuant to that section. The physician shall notify, in writing, the department within 24 hours following any theft or loss of a prescription blank or breach of any other method for prescribing pain medication.

5. The designated physician of a pain-management clinic shall notify the applicable board in writing of the date of termination of employment within 10 days after terminating his or her employment with a pain-management clinic that is required to be registered. Each physician practicing in a pain-management clinic shall advise the Board of Medicine, in writing, within 10 calendar days after beginning or ending his or her practice at a pain-management clinic.

6. Each physician practicing in a pain-management clinic is responsible for ensuring compliance with facility and physical operations requirements

Inspection:

1. The department shall inspect the pain-management clinic annually, including a review of the patient records, to ensure that it complies with this section and the rules of the Board of Medicine.

2. During an onsite inspection, the department shall make a reasonable attempt to discuss each violation with the owner or designated physician of the pain-management clinic before issuing a formal written notification.

3. Any action taken to correct a violation shall be documented in writing by the owner or designated physician of the pain-management clinic and verified by followup visits by departmental personnel.

Penalties and Enforcement:

1. The department may impose an administrative fine on the clinic of up to $5,000 per violation for violating the requirements of this section; chapter 499, the Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act; 21 U.S.C. ss. 301-392, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; 21 U.S.C. ss. 821 et seq., the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act; chapter 893, the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act; or the rules of the department. In determining whether a penalty is to be imposed, and in fixing the amount of the fine, the department shall consider the following factors:

• The gravity of the violation, including the probability that death or serious physical or emotional harm to a patient has resulted, or could have resulted, from the pain-management clinic’s actions or the actions of the physician, the severity of the action or potential harm, and the extent to which the provisions of the applicable laws or rules were violated.
• What actions, if any, the owner or designated physician took to correct the violations.
• Whether there were any previous violations at the pain-management clinic.
• The financial benefits that the pain-management clinic derived from committing or continuing to commit the violation.

2. Each day a violation continues after the date fixed for termination of the violation as ordered by the department constitutes an additional, separate, and distinct violation.

3. The department may impose a fine and, in the case of an owner-operated pain-management clinic, revoke or deny a pain-management clinic’s registration, if the clinic’s designated physician knowingly and intentionally misrepresents actions taken to correct a violation.

4. An owner or designated physician of a pain-management clinic who concurrently operates an unregistered pain-management clinic is subject to an administrative fine of $5,000 per day.

5. If the owner of a pain-management clinic that requires registration fails to apply to register the clinic upon a change of ownership and operates the clinic under the new ownership, the owner is subject to a fine of $5,000.

For more information about Florida pain management clinics, visit www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

The 25 Biggest Mistakes Physicians Make After Being Notified of a Department of Health Complaint

The investigation of a complaint which could lead to the revocation of a physician’s license to practice medicine and the assessment of tens of thousands of dollars in fines, usually starts with a simple letter from the Department of Health (DOH).  This is a very serious legal matter and it should be treated as such by the physician who receives it.  Yet, in many cases, attorneys are consulted by physicians after the entire investigation is over, and they have attempted to represent themselves throughout the case.  Often, the mistakes that have been made severely compromise an attorney’s ability to achieve a favorable result for the physician.

These are the 25 biggest mistakes we see in the physician cases we are called upon to defend after a DOH investigation has been initiated:

1. Failing to keep a current, valid address on file with the DOH (as required by law), which may seriously delay the receipt of the Uniform Complaint (notice of investigation), letters, and other important correspondence related to the investigation.
2. Contacting the DOH investigator and providing him/her an oral statement or oral interview.  (Note:  There is no legal requirement to do this.)
3. Making a written statement in response to the “invitation” extended by the DOH investigator to do so.  (Note:  There is no legal requirement to do this.)
4. Failing to carefully review the complaint to make sure it has been sent to the correct physician (Note:  Check name and license number).
5. Failing to ascertain whether or not the investigation is on the “Fast Track” which may then result in an emergency suspension order (ESO) suspending the physician’s license until all proceedings are concluded.  (Note:  This will usually be the case if there are allegations regarding drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sexual contact with a patient, mental health issues, or failure to comply with PRN instructions.)
6. Providing a copy of the physician’s curriculum vitae (CV) or resume to the investigator because the investigator requested them to do so.  (Note:  There is no legal requirement to do this.
7. Believing that if they “just explain it,” the investigation will be closed and the case dropped.
8. Failing to submit a timely objection to a DOH subpoena when there are valid grounds to do so.
9. Failing to forward a complete copy of the patient medical record when subpoenaed by the DOH investigator as part of the investigation, when no objection is going to be filed.
10. Delegating the task of providing a complete copy of the patient medical record to office staff, resulting in an incomplete or partial copy being provided.
11. Failing to keep an exact copy of any medical records, documents, letters or statements provided to the investigator.
12. Believing that the investigator has knowledge or experience in hospital procedures, medical procedures or the health care matters or procedures being investigated.
13. Believing that the investigator is merely attempting to ascertain the truth of the matter and this will result in the matter being dismissed.
14. Failing to check to see if their medical malpractice insurance carrier will pay the legal fees to defend them in this investigation.
15. Talking to DOH investigators, staff or attorneys, in the mistaken belief that they are capable of doing so without providing information that can and will be used against them.
16. Believing that because they haven’t heard anything for six months or more the matter has “gone away.”  The matter does not ever just go away.
17. Failing to submit a written request to the investigator at the beginning of the investigation for a copy of the complete investigation report and file and then following up with additional requests until it is received.
18. Failing to wisely use the time while the investigation is proceeding to interview witnesses, obtain witness statements, conduct research, obtain experts, and perform other tasks that may assist defending the case.
19. Failing to exercise the right of submitting documents, statements, and expert opinions to rebut the findings made in the investigation report before the case is submitted to the Probable Cause Panel of your licensing board for a decision.
20. Taking legal advice from their colleagues regarding what they should do (or not do) in defending themselves in the investigation.
21. Retaining “consultants” or other non-lawyer personnel to represent them.
22. Believing that the case is indefensible so there is no reason to even try to have it dismissed by the Probable Cause Panel.
23. Attempting to defend themselves.
24. Believing that because they know someone on the Board of Medicine, with the Department of Health or a state legislator, that influence can be exerted to have the case dismissed.
25. Failing to immediately retain the services of a health care attorney who is experienced in such matters to represent them, to communicate with the DOH investigator for them, and to prepare and submit materials to the Probable Cause Panel.

 Bonus Point:

 26. Communicating with the Department of Health about the pending case.

Not every case will require submission of materials to the Probable Cause Panel after the investigation is received and reviewed.  There will be a few where the allegations made are not “legally sufficient” and do not constitute an offense for which the physician may be disciplined.  In other cases, an experienced health care attorney may be successful in obtaining a commitment from the DOH attorney to recommend a dismissal to the Probable Cause Panel.  In other cases (usually the most serious ones), for tactical reasons, the experienced health care attorney may recommend that you waive your right to have the case submitted to the Probable Cause Panel and that you proceed directly to an administrative hearing.  The key to a successful outcome in all of these cases is to obtain the assistance of a health care lawyer who is experienced in appearing before the Board of Medicine in such cases and does so on a regular basis.

For more information, on how to respond to a DOH investigation, or other legal matters, visit our website.

The DEA’s War on Pain Management

Within the last few years, raids on pain management clinics, as well as pharmacies, have been increasingly commonplace. The doctors, pharmacists, nurses and other health care professionals involved are carted away in handcuffs and must defend their practice.

According to the St. Petersburg Times, a South Florida pain management clinic has recently been shut down under emergency action by the Florida Department of Health (DOH). Several health care professionals at the clinic were arrested, their licenses revoked.

In this instance, the charges against these health care employees are not completely unwarranted. Patients confessed to authorities that members of the clinic knew they were shopping for drugs, and an employee revealed that he was asked to recruit patients by promising powerful drugs.

However, it is not uncommon for a pain management clinic or related practice to face investigation, especially in Florida. Federal and state agencies are doing everything and anything they can to prevent drug farming, which means a crackdown on health care providers. Dubbed “Operation Pill Nation,” this strict enforcement means more worries for health care professionals, who now must monitor patient needs under the DEA’s close watch.

If your medical practice specializes in pain management or a similar area, have a plan in place in the event that the DEA comes knocking on your door. Be aware of health lawyers that are familiar with these cases and can defend you in the event of a DEA raid. These proceedings are often very complicated, and you’ll want an experienced team of health law attorneys to properly defend you from criminal charges.

At The Health Law Firm, our team of lawyers specialize in the representation of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physicians assistants, nurse practitioners and other health care professionals involved in Department of Health, Diversion Control and Drug Enforcement Administration in Florida and throughout the United States. For more information about our knowledge in the practice of health law and DEA cases read our article on Pain Management and the DEA.