September 27, 2021

News

News Network

Federal Court Orders North Carolina Pharmacy, Pharmacy Owner, and Pharmacist-in-Charge to Pay More Than $1 Million and Stop Dispensing Opioids

27 min read
<div>A federal court in the Eastern District of North Carolina entered a consent judgment and injunction requiring a North Carolina pharmacy, Seashore Drugs Inc., its owner, John D. Waggett, and its pharmacist-in-charge, Billy W. King II, to pay $1,050,000.00 in civil penalties and to cease dispensing opioids or other controlled substances, the Department of Justice announced.</div>

A federal court in the Eastern District of North Carolina entered a consent judgment and injunction requiring a North Carolina pharmacy, Seashore Drugs Inc., its owner, John D. Waggett, and its pharmacist-in-charge, Billy W. King II, to pay $1,050,000.00 in civil penalties and to cease dispensing opioids or other controlled substances, the Department of Justice announced.  

The consent order resolves a complaint filed by the United States alleging that Seashore Drugs, Waggett, and King repeatedly filled prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act.  The United States alleged that, for years, defendants ignored well-known “red flags” of drug diversion and drug-seeking behavior when filling prescriptions for controlled substances.  These prescriptions often involved well-known, highly addictive, and highly abused painkillers such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone, along with other “potentiator” drugs — drugs that heighten the euphoric effects of opioids, like carisoprodol (i.e., Soma) and alprazolam (i.e., Xanax). 

“The Department of Justice continues to use all tools at its disposal to combat the opioid crisis,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.  “Reports indicate that COVID-19 has exacerbated many of the opioid crisis’s underlying causes.  As a result, the Civil Division, DEA, and other law enforcement partners have redoubled efforts to ensure that pharmacies that fail to uphold their obligation to dispense controlled substances lawfully are held accountable.”

“Opioid addiction and abuse have devastated communities across our nation, and eastern North Carolina is no exception,” said Robert J. Higdon, Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina.  “As the last line of defense between these dangerously addictive substances and our communities, pharmacists and pharmacies play a critical role in stemming the tide of the opioid epidemic.  Seashore, Waggett, and King ignored that responsibility and, instead, made matters worse.  Today’s order demonstrates our office’s continued, unwavering commitment to hold responsible all who had a role to play in this crisis — from distributors, to prescribers, to the pharmacies who ultimately put the pills in patients’ hands.”

“These pharmacists abandoned their code of ethics,” said Robert J. Murphy, Special Agent in Charge of the DEA. “If diversion of controlled substances is suspected, pharmacists must investigate and resolve any red flags before filling a prescription. These steps are necessary to comply with the law and to protect patient health. We will not hesitate to use all federal resources necessary to ensure that members of the health care industry follow the law.”

As alleged in the complaint, which included several patient examples, many prescriptions raised multiple red flags, but Seashore Drugs, Waggett, and King failed to take the required steps to resolve those red flags and ensure the prescriptions’ legitimacy before filling them.  The red flags allegedly ignored by Seashore Drugs, Waggett, and King were numerous and included, among others:

  • Combinations of controlled substances that were highly unlikely to serve a legitimate medical purpose and/or were known “cocktails” favored by drug abusers, including numerous “cocktails” written by a physician whose prescribing privileges ultimately were suspended by the North Carolina Medical Board for improper opioid prescribing;
  • Extremely high doses of opioids dispensed for years on end, including high-dose opioid prescriptions written by a prescriber located in another state hundreds of miles away and written for members of the same family; and
  • Repeated early fills of prescriptions allowing individuals, over time, to receive many extra doses of opioids and other controlled substances.

As set forth in the complaint, this conduct led Seashore to develop a reputation in the local pharmacy community as a place that filled prescriptions other pharmacies refused.  And within the pharmacy, it is alleged that King often filled prescriptions for customers his own pharmacists, no longer on shift, previously refused to fill.  Seashore staff even reported to King that individuals were exchanging recently dispensed drugs on the bench outside the pharmacy, but King took no action.  Multiple customers who filled opioid prescriptions at Seashore died from prescription-drug overdoses within days after Seashore dispensed their pills. 

The defendants have not admitted the allegations in the complaint, but the parties agreed to resolve the case without further litigation.  The court adopted the parties’ agreement and entered a consent order that, among other things:

  • Permanently prohibits Waggett from dispensing opioids or other controlled substances;
  • Prohibits King from dispensing Schedule II controlled substances, including most opioids, for 180 days and then requires King to submit to further DEA monitoring for 3 years; and
  • Permanently prohibits Waggett and King from serving as a manager, owner, operator, or pharmacist-in-charge of any entity, including a pharmacy, that administers, dispenses, or distributes controlled substances.

Trial Attorney James W. Harlow of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch and Assistant U.S. Attorneys C. Michael Anderson and John E. Harris of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina represented the United States.  The Greensboro Resident Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration investigated the case.  Additional investigatory assistance was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General and the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy.

For more information about the Consumer Protection Branch and its enforcement efforts, visit its website at http://www.justice.gov/civil/consumer-protection-branch.

More from: December 16, 2020

News Network

  • HHS Leverages Public Feedback to Advance Landscape Analysis on Emerging Technologies for Aging, Underserved Populations
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    February 3, 2021 By: [Read More…]
  • Three Foreign Nationals Charged with Conspiring to Provide Material Support to ISIS
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced today that three Sri Lankan citizens have been charged with terrorism offenses, including conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization (ISIS).  The men were part of a group of ISIS supporters which called itself “ISIS in Sri Lanka.”  That group is responsible for the 2019 Easter attacks in the South Asian nation of Sri Lanka, which killed 268 people, including five U.S. citizens, and injured over 500 others, according to a federal criminal complaint unsealed today.
    [Read More…]
  • Joint Statement Calling for a Ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Hawaii Couple Indicted in Tax Fraud Scheme
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Honolulu, Hawaii, returned an indictment today charging a Hawaii husband and wife with conspiring to defraud the United States and filing a false tax return. The wife was also charged with four counts of money laundering.
    [Read More…]
  • Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Rabbitt Delivers Remarks at the PPP Criminal Fraud Enforcement Action Press Conference
    In Crime News
    Over the course of the past six months, the COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc across our country and presented unprecedented challenges for ordinary Americans from all walks of life. 
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken with Kuwait Television
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks at Top of Meeting with the Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN Nations
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Imposter sent to prison after claiming to be federal immigration officer
    In Justice News
    A 53-year-old Laredoan [Read More…]
  • Judicial Security Legislation Stalls, Awaits Congressional Action in 2021
    In U.S Courts
    On Wednesday afternoon, the United States Senate considered but failed to act on the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2020, legislation that would enhance the security protections for federal judges nationwide.
    [Read More…]
  • Biomedical Research: NIH Should Publicly Report More Information about the Licensing of Its Intellectual Property
    In U.S GAO News
    Research conducted at Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) labs led to 4,446 U.S. patents owned by the agency covering a range of inventions from 1980 through 2019. During that period, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had 93 patents—2 percent of the total—that contributed to the successful development of 34 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and brought to market, including vaccines and treatments for cancer. These 34 drugs were developed by pharmaceutical companies and were associated with 32 licenses granted to them by NIH. As shown in the figure, these licenses have generated up to $2 billion in royalty revenue for NIH since 1991, when FDA approved the first of these drugs. Three licenses generated more than $100 million each for the agency. Royalties from NIH Licenses of Inventions Associated with FDA-Approved Drugs, 1991 to February 2020 When licensing its inventions, NIH prioritizes the likelihood that the licensee can successfully develop a drug by considering such factors as technical expertise and the ability to raise capital. Consistent with federal interpretation of technology transfer statutory authorities, NIH does not consider the affordability of the resulting drug. NIH provides limited information to the public about its licensing activities. For example, the agency does not report which of its patents are licensed or release metrics that would enable the public to evaluate how licensing affects patient access to resulting drugs. Increasing the transparency of its licensing activities could improve the public’s and policymakers’ understanding of NIH’s management of its intellectual property. HHS monitors for unauthorized use of its inventions (infringement) and has taken steps to protect its rights. HHS relies primarily on inventors at its labs to monitor for potential infringement and generally encourages potential infringers to license the inventions. If cases proceed to litigation, HHS relies on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to protect its rights. Since 2009, HHS has worked with DOJ to defend its intellectual property in several cases in the U.S. and abroad and has referred one case to DOJ for litigation against an alleged infringer. HHS labs conduct research that can contribute to the development of new life-saving drugs. HHS may grant rights to its inventions by licensing the patents to pharmaceutical companies that conduct the additional development activities and testing necessary to bring drugs to market. Public health experts and patients’ rights advocates have raised concerns about the prices of drugs developed with federal support. GAO was asked to review HHS’s management of its intellectual property. This report examines (1) the extent to which HHS-owned intellectual property has contributed to the development of FDA-approved drugs, (2) what is known about the licenses associated with FDA-approved drugs, (3) factors NIH prioritizes when licensing its inventions and information about licensing it makes public, and (4) steps HHS has taken to protect its rights. GAO reviewed relevant laws and agency documents, analyzed patent and licensing data, and interviewed HHS officials, academic experts, industry representatives, and nongovernmental organizations. GAO is making two recommendations, including that NIH provide more information to the public about the licensing of its intellectual property. HHS concurred with GAO’s recommendations. For more information, contact John Neumann, (202) 512-6888, NeumannJ@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Health and Human Services
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found In April 2020, GAO identified 55 priority recommendations for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Since then, HHS has implemented eight of those recommendations by, among other things, taking actions to improve the quality of care in the Indian Health Service's federally-operated facilities and improve the accuracy and completeness of Medicaid data to expedite their use for program oversight. In addition to the eight priority recommendations HHS implemented, four recommendations are no longer open priority recommendations, primarily because they became a lower priority as a result of recent regulatory or programmatic changes. In May 2021, GAO identified 18 additional priority recommendations for HHS—including some recommendations related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic—bringing the total number of priority recommendations to 61. These recommendations involve the following areas: COVID-19 response and other public health emergency preparedness; Public health and human services program oversight; Food and Drug Administration oversight; National efforts to prevent, respond to, and recover from drug misuse; Improper payments in Medicaid and Medicare; Medicaid program; Medicare program; Health information technology and cybersecurity; and Health insurance premium tax credit payment integrity. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic underscores the need for sustained attention on improving HHS's operations. Implementing our priority recommendations could help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of key federal health care programs and funding, including those relevant to the nation's ongoing response to COVID-19. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact A. Nicole Clowers at (202) 512-7114 or ClowersA@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprise Development: USAID Needs to Develop a Targeting Process and Improve the Reliability of Its Monitoring
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found For fiscal years 2015 through 2020, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) generally planned to spend at least $265 million annually on micro, small, and medium-sized enterprise (MSME) assistance, according to annual reports to Congress known as Section 653(a) reports. We found that planned spending amounts for MSME assistance in operational plans differed from the spending plans in the Section 653(a) reports, with the total planned spending exceeding the annual Section 653(a) report levels. USAID has not developed a process to support compliance with statutory requirements to target MSME resources to activities that reach the very poor and to small and medium-sized enterprise resources to activities that reach enterprises owned, managed, and controlled by women. We identified three key gaps that impair USAID's ability to develop such a process. First, USAID has not identified the total funding subject to the targeting requirements. Second, although USAID has programs designed to help the very poor, it is unable to determine the amount of funding that reaches this group. Third, although USAID has MSME activities that benefit women, it has not defined enterprises owned, managed, and controlled by women and does not collect data by enterprise size. These gaps leave USAID unable to determine what percentage of its MSME resources is going to the very poor and enterprises owned, managed, and controlled by women. USAID-Funded Small Enterprise Activities in Georgia, Afghanistan, and Ghana USAID collected and reported incomplete and inconsistent data in its process for monitoring MSME assistance. USAID surveys its missions and bureaus annually to collect data on the amounts and results of MSME assistance. However, USAID collected and reported incomplete data on its MSME assistance in fiscal year 2019, the year of the most recent report. It did not send the survey to all relevant missions and bureaus, and fewer than half of those that received the survey responded. Moreover, USAID's fiscal year 2019 reporting on assistance that reached the very poor included activities from only three of 21 missions that responded to its survey. USAID guidance states that its data should clearly and adequately represent the intended result. Without complete and consistent data, USAID cannot ensure that it is reporting accurate information to Congress on its MSME assistance. Why GAO Did This Study Millions of poor families throughout the developing world derive income from MSME activities. For decades, USAID has sought to use MSME assistance as a tool to achieve economic growth and poverty reduction in low-income countries. To improve programs and activities relating to women's entrepreneurship and economic empowerment, Congress passed the Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment (WEEE) Act of 2018. Congress included a provision in this statute for GAO to assess USAID's MSME assistance. This report examines (1) USAID's planned MSME assistance for fiscal years 2015–2020; (2) the extent to which USAID targeted its MSME assistance to women and the very poor and developed a targeting process that it uses to comply with statutory requirements; and (3) the extent to which USAID has an appropriate process for monitoring its MSME assistance. GAO analyzed USAID documents and planned spending levels and interviewed USAID officials in Washington, D.C., and at 10 missions in regions in which USAID operates.
    [Read More…]
  • VA Disability Benefits: Process for Identifying Conditions Presumed to be Service Connected and Challenges in Processing Complex Gulf War Illness Claims
    In U.S GAO News
    GAO has reported on the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) use of research to identify and add new illnesses to its list of presumptive conditions for both Gulf War Illness and Agent Orange—a tactical herbicide used extensively during the Vietnam Era. VA entered into agreements with the National Academy of Sciences to assess the link between certain exposures and illnesses experienced by veterans, and uses the Academy's findings to inform its lists of presumptive conditions. GAO also reported in 2017 that VA did not have a single set of uniform criteria to define Gulf War Illness (a case definition) that could improve research, clinical diagnosis, and treatment of Gulf War veterans. GAO recommended that VA prepare and document a plan to develop a single case definition. In response, VA convened a group of subject matter experts from VA and the Department of Defense to create a multi-step plan to develop a case definition. According to VA, it is in the final stages of the plan and will bring together experts in 2021 to review new research and work toward delineating a definition. Further, according to VA, the department continues to support research on conditions related to Gulf War service as well as Agent Orange exposure and will use the findings to consider future presumptive conditions. In 2017, GAO reported on challenges that VA faced in processing complex, presumptive disability claims for veterans who served in the Gulf War—claims that were being denied at higher rates than other disability claims. At the time of GAO's review, VA officials stated that Gulf War Illness claims may be denied at a higher rate, in part, because they are not always well understood by VA staff, and veterans sometimes do not have medical records to adequately support their claims. The challenges we identified included: Inconsistent requests for disability medical exams. VA claims processors can request that a veteran undergo a disability medical exam to help determine whether the conditions in the claim exist and are linked to service. GAO found that claims processors were inconsistent in asking for an exam, in part, due to confusion about the guidance. VA issued training on the topic and in April 2017 completed a review of Gulf War claims to assess the effectiveness of the training and help ensure future consistency. Inconsistent disability medical exam reports. Veterans Health Administration disability medical examiners did not always complete medical exam reports properly and sometimes offered a medical opinion when one was not necessary. GAO recommended that VA require all examiners to complete Gulf War medical exam training before conducting these exams, and VA implemented this recommendation. Since our 2017 report, VA has allowed contracted medical examiners to complete these exams, and in 2018 GAO found VA was not monitoring whether all contractors completed required training. GAO recommended VA improve its oversight of training, but the department has not fully implemented this recommendation from GAO's 2018 report. VA provides disability compensation to millions of veterans with service-connected disabilities. Veterans are generally entitled to these benefits if they can prove their injuries or illnesses were incurred or aggravated by active military service. For certain claims, VA presumes a condition is due to a veteran's service. For example, VA can provide benefits to any veteran with certain symptoms, from respiratory disorders to gastrointestinal issues, who served in Southwest Asia from 1990 to the present, without the veteran needing to prove cause. GAO refers to these as Gulf War Illness claims. In 2017, GAO issued Gulf War Illness: Improvements Needed for VA to Better Understand, Process, and Communicate Decisions on Claims ( GAO-17-511 ), which identified needed improvements in VA's processing of Gulf War Illness claims. In 2018, GAO issued Agent Orange: Actions Needed to Improve Accuracy and Communication of Information on Testing and Storage Locations ( GAO-19-24 ). This statement summarizes information from these reports on how VA determined certain presumptive conditions and challenges VA faced with processing Gulf War Illness claims. In GAO's 2017 report, it recommended that VA develop a plan to establish a single case definition of Gulf War Illness and make Gulf War Illness training mandatory for medical examiners. VA implemented the recommendations. For more information, contact Elizabeth Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • New U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia Achieves LEED® Gold
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Social Media Influencer Charged with Election Interference Stemming from Voter Disinformation Campaign
    In Crime News
    A Florida man was arrested this morning on charges of conspiring with others in advance of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election to use various social media platforms to disseminate misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.
    [Read More…]
  • New York Businessman Pleads Guilty to Tax Evasion
    In Crime News
    A Woodsburgh, New York, businessman pleaded guilty today to tax evasion, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.
    [Read More…]
  • The Jones/Hill Joint Venture
    In U.S GAO News
    A joint venture protested the solicitation cancellation of a Department of the Navy contract for base operations and support services, contending that the Navy's (1) study resulting in its decision to cancel the solicitation was biased by a conflict of interest, (2) study was unjustified, (3) in-house management plan was misevaluated, and (4) assertion that in-house performance was comparable to contracted performance was unreasonable. GAO held that the Navy's study was flawed in several areas and could not be used as a reason to cancel the solicitation. Accordingly, the protest was sustained and GAO recommended that the Navy (1) issue a new solicitation drafted by individuals who will not also be drafting the in-house management plan, (2) prepare a new management plan with supporting documentation, (3) present the new plan for private sector solicitation, and (4) reimburse the protester for all expenses associated with filing the protest.
    [Read More…]
  • Utah Company and Its Owner Plead Guilty to Wildlife Trafficking Charges
    In Crime News
    A Utah man and his company Natur Inc. pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court in Salt Lake City to violating the Lacey and Endangered Species Acts.
    [Read More…]
  • Two Individuals Charged for their Roles in Massive Cattle Ponzi Scheme
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Colorado returned an indictment that was unsealed Tuesday charging an Illinois woman and a Georgia man with running a Ponzi scheme that raised approximately $650 million from investors across the country.
    [Read More…]
  • Department Press Briefing – July 7, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.