U.S. v. Clinical Leasing Service, Inc., No. 90-3251

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore JOHNSON, SMITH and WIENER; JOHNSON
Citation925 F.2d 120
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLINICAL LEASING SERVICE, INC. d/b/a Delta Women's Clinic, Inc. and Delta Women's Clinic, Delta Women's Clinic, Inc., Kiat Varnishung, M.D., Roy Claude Wood, Jr., M.D., Richardson B. Glidden, M.D., Defendant-Appellants. Summary Calendar.
Docket NumberNo. 90-3251
Decision Date01 March 1991

Page 120

925 F.2d 120
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLINICAL LEASING SERVICE, INC. d/b/a Delta Women's Clinic,
Inc. and Delta Women's Clinic, Delta Women's Clinic, Inc.,
Kiat Varnishung, M.D., Roy Claude Wood, Jr., M.D.,
Richardson B. Glidden, M.D., Defendant-Appellants.
No. 90-3251
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
March 1, 1991.

Lawrence Blake Jones, David C. Whitmore, Scheuermann and Jones, New Orleans,

Page 121

La., for Delta Women's Clinic, Inc., et al.

William F. Wessel, Victoria L. Bartels, Charlotte A. Lagarde, Wessel, Bartles & Ciaccio, New Orleans, La., for Dr. Varnishung.

Charles Cotton, New Orleans, La., for Clinical Leasing.

Thomas Landers Watson, Nancy Ann Nungesser, Asst. U.S. Atty's., John P. Volz, U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for U.S.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before JOHNSON, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:

Clinical Leasing Service, Inc., and three affiliated doctors, Kiat Varnishung, Roy Claude Wood, Jr., and Richardson B. Glidden, challenge the district court's imposition of civil penalties for the dispensation of controlled substances without proper registration. Among other arguments, the defendants allege that the federal statutory registration requirements are unconstitutionally vague. Unable to conclude that the defendants' arguments have merit, this Court affirms the judgment of the district court.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the late summer of 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") received information that physicians associated with the Delta Women's Clinic in New Orleans, Louisiana, were distributing controlled substances. Because no physician or other individual was registered to dispense controlled substances from this facility, the DEA sent an investigator to the clinic. The investigator toured the clinic and observed that several controlled substances, including the potentially toxic drugs centrax and hydrocodone, were stored on the premises. She noted that some of these controlled substances were packaged in stapled, unmarked envelopes. The investigator provided clinic officials with copies of the federal regulations regarding the proper dispensation of controlled substances and warned them that the clinic could not administer or distribute such substances until a physician received a separate registration on the premises.

In the eight months after the initial inspection of the Delta Women's Clinic, the DEA processed two applications for registration on the clinic premises. Both of these applications, one filed by Dr. Kiat Varnishung and the other filed by Dr. Roy Claude Wood, Jr., were approved in the spring of 1989. Shortly thereafter, however, another DEA investigator procured an Administrative Inspection Warrant 1 on the premises of the Delta Women's Clinic. This investigator discovered a number of patient files which revealed that physicians had distributed controlled substances at the clinic between the date of the initial inspection and the date that the DEA approved the registration of Dr. Vanishung and Dr. Wood.

On July 11, 1990, after a series of investigations of the pharmaceutical procedures at the Delta Women's Clinic, the Government filed this action against the operator of the clinic and the three physicians who had illegally distributed the controlled substances. The district court granted the Government a partial summary judgment on liability issues. After a short trial, the district court imposed a fine of $337,000 against Clinical Leasing Service and fines of $134,000, $118,000 and $26,000 against Dr. Varnishung, Dr. Wood and Dr. Glidden, respectively.

This Court finds that the "judgment of the District Court is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous" and, therefore, affirms its decision. Loc.R. 47.6. We write, however, to explain our rejection of the defendants' complaint that the federal statutory registration requirements are unconstitutionally vague.

Page 122

II. DISCUSSION

Federal law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights v. Rumsfeld, Civil Action No. 03-4433 (JCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 5 Noviembre 2003
    ...S.Ct. 1186 (relying in part on dictionary definition for purposes of vagueness analysis); United States v. Clinical Leasing Serv., Inc., 925 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir.1991) (same); House v. United States, I.R.S., 593 F.Supp. 139, 142 (W.D.Mich. 1984) The operative terms of the Solomon Amendmen......
  • Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. v. Rumsfeld, CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-4433 (JCL) (D. N.J. 11/5/2003), CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-4433 (JCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 5 Noviembre 2003
    ...at 501, n.18 (relying in part on dictionary definition for purposes of vagueness analysis); United States v. Clinical Leasing Serv., Inc., 925 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 1991) (same); House v. United States, I.R.S., 593 F. Supp. 139, 142 (W.D. Mich. 1984) The operative terms of the Solomon Ame......
  • Roark & Hardee Lp v. City of Austin, No. 06-51670.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 27 Marzo 2008
    ...and consider whether the ordinance is impermissibly vague in all its applications, see also United States v. Clinical Leasing Serv., Inc., 925 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir. 1991), keeping in mind that we must first apply the statute to Plaintiffs' conduct before considering hypothetical scenarios......
  • Advance Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. U.S., No. 02-6233.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 3 Diciembre 2004
    ...imposes penalties that, "although civil in description, are penal in character," United States v. Clinical Leasing Serv., 925 F.2d 120, 122 & n. 2 (5th Cir.1991), the statute is sometimes deemed "quasi-criminal" and subjected to stricter vagueness review, Village of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights v. Rumsfeld, Civil Action No. 03-4433 (JCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 5 Noviembre 2003
    ...S.Ct. 1186 (relying in part on dictionary definition for purposes of vagueness analysis); United States v. Clinical Leasing Serv., Inc., 925 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir.1991) (same); House v. United States, I.R.S., 593 F.Supp. 139, 142 (W.D.Mich. 1984) The operative terms of the Solomon Amendmen......
  • Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. v. Rumsfeld, CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-4433 (JCL) (D. N.J. 11/5/2003), CIVIL ACTION NO: 03-4433 (JCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 5 Noviembre 2003
    ...at 501, n.18 (relying in part on dictionary definition for purposes of vagueness analysis); United States v. Clinical Leasing Serv., Inc., 925 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 1991) (same); House v. United States, I.R.S., 593 F. Supp. 139, 142 (W.D. Mich. 1984) The operative terms of the Solomon Ame......
  • Roark & Hardee Lp v. City of Austin, No. 06-51670.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 27 Marzo 2008
    ...and consider whether the ordinance is impermissibly vague in all its applications, see also United States v. Clinical Leasing Serv., Inc., 925 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir. 1991), keeping in mind that we must first apply the statute to Plaintiffs' conduct before considering hypothetical scenarios......
  • Advance Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. U.S., No. 02-6233.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 3 Diciembre 2004
    ...imposes penalties that, "although civil in description, are penal in character," United States v. Clinical Leasing Serv., 925 F.2d 120, 122 & n. 2 (5th Cir.1991), the statute is sometimes deemed "quasi-criminal" and subjected to stricter vagueness review, Village of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT