United States v. Williams, Civ. A. No. 75-1091.
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | Wiley A. Branton, Washington, D. C., for defendant |
| Citation | 416 F. Supp. 611 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Patrick M. WILLIAMS and Charles R. Ector, t/a Woodridge Pharmacy, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 12 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 75-1091. |
416 F. Supp. 611
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Patrick M. WILLIAMS and Charles R. Ector, t/a Woodridge Pharmacy, Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 75-1091.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Division.
July 12, 1976.
Thomas G. Corcoran, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Wiley A. Branton, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
JOHN H. PRATT, District Judge.
By order dated March 10, 1976, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment herein. Thereafter, on June 4, 1976, the Court held a hearing on the penalty to be assessed at which plaintiff and defendants had an opportunity to present witnesses and cross-examine. Based on that hearing and the entire record herein, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Findings of Fact
1. During the period extending from April 29, 1973 through September 10, 1975, defendant Williams failed to prepare and maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the receipt and distribution of Preludin 75 mg. Endurets, a Schedule II preparation containing phenmetrazine and its salts. Affidavit of Robert C. Williamson dated December 23, 1975, ¶¶ 4-5, Exhibit A to plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; Affidavit of Zenon Grundkowski dated January 2, 1976, ¶ 3, Exhibit B to plaintiff's motion supra; Report of Investigation, last page, Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint.
2. During the period extending from April 29, 1973 through September 10, 1975, defendant Williams failed to prepare and maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the receipt and distribution of Ritalin 20 mg. tablets, a Schedule II preparation containing methylphenidate. Affidavit of Robert C. Williamson supra, ¶¶ 4-5; Affidavit of Zenon Grundkowski supra, ¶ 3; Report of Investigation supra, last page.
3. During the period extending from April 29, 1973 through September 10, 1975, defendant Williams filled 55 incomplete prescriptions. Affidavit of Robert C. Williamson supra, ¶ 1; Affidavit of Zenon Grundkowski supra, ¶ 1; Report of Investigation supra, p. 6.
4. During the period extending from April 29, 1973 through September 10, 1975, defendant Williams filled at least 92 xeroxed prescriptions. Affidavit of Robert C. Williamson supra, ¶ 1; Affidavit of Zenon Grundkowski supra, ¶ 1; Report of Investigation supra, pp. 7-8.
5. During the period extending from April 29, 1973 through September 10, 1975, defendant Williams filled 42 prescriptions bearing Dr. Dent's name but obviously not signed by him. Affidavit of Robert C. Williamson supra, ¶¶ 6-8; Affidavit of Zenon Grundkowski supra, ¶ 3; Affidavit of Thomas M. Dent, III, M.D., dated December 23, 1975, ¶¶ 1-2, Exhibit C in support of motion for partial summary judgment; Report of Barry M. Spittle, Exhibit A to plaintiff's memorandum on civil penalty to be assessed.
6. Between December, 1972 and the end of 1975, defendant Williams dispensed approximately 336,900 Preludin 75 mg. Endurets
7. Defendant Williams grossed approximately $65,000 from the sale of Preludin and Ritalin in this period. Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories; Deposition of Patrick M. Williams.
8. Between 1972 and 1975, phenmetrazine was one of the most commonly abused drugs, if not the most commonly abused drug, in the District of Columbia. Exhibits D, E and F in support of plaintiff's memorandum on civil penalty to be assessed.
9. From May 10, 1973 to August 10, 1973, Boehringer-Ingelheim, the manufacturer of Preludin, imposed a moratorium on its distribution in the Washington area. Exhibit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, No. C 98-0085 CRB.
...e.g., United States v. Leasehold Interest in 121 Nostrand Avenue, 760 F.Supp. 1015, 1035 (E.D.N.Y. 1991); United States v. Williams, 416 F.Supp. 611, 614 (D.D.C.1976). At oral argument, and in their supplemental memoranda, defendants insist that the federal government has chosen to bring a ......
-
US v. Poulin, Civil A. No. 93-12265-REK.
...905 F.2d at 695. Compliance with reasonable commercial recordkeeping practices is no defense to liability. United States v. Williams, 416 F.Supp. 611, 614 (D.D.C.1976). Knowing or intentional violations of the statute are subject to criminal penalties. 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5). A civil fine of......
-
US v. Stidham, No. 95-0438-CB-C.
...Village Pharmacy, 1990 WL 165907 (E.D.Pa.1990); United States v. Barbacoff, 416 F.Supp. 606 (D.D.C.1976) and United States v. Williams, 416 F.Supp. 611 (D.D.C. 1976). The Green court succinctly summarized the Act's regulatory scheme as Every registrant under the Controlled Substances Act en......
-
U.S. v. Green Drugs, No. 89-1850
...gains have been realized." Although the issue has received some mention in cases decided under the statute, United States v. Williams, 416 F.Supp. 611, 614 (D.D.C.1976); United States v. Barbacoff, 416 F.Supp. 606, 610 (D.D.C.1976), it is apparently one of first impression before the Courts......
-
U.S. v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, No. C 98-0085 CRB.
...e.g., United States v. Leasehold Interest in 121 Nostrand Avenue, 760 F.Supp. 1015, 1035 (E.D.N.Y. 1991); United States v. Williams, 416 F.Supp. 611, 614 (D.D.C.1976). At oral argument, and in their supplemental memoranda, defendants insist that the federal government has chosen to bring a ......
-
US v. Poulin, Civil A. No. 93-12265-REK.
...905 F.2d at 695. Compliance with reasonable commercial recordkeeping practices is no defense to liability. United States v. Williams, 416 F.Supp. 611, 614 (D.D.C.1976). Knowing or intentional violations of the statute are subject to criminal penalties. 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5). A civil fine of......
-
US v. Stidham, No. 95-0438-CB-C.
...Village Pharmacy, 1990 WL 165907 (E.D.Pa.1990); United States v. Barbacoff, 416 F.Supp. 606 (D.D.C.1976) and United States v. Williams, 416 F.Supp. 611 (D.D.C. 1976). The Green court succinctly summarized the Act's regulatory scheme as Every registrant under the Controlled Substances Act en......
-
U.S. v. Green Drugs, No. 89-1850
...gains have been realized." Although the issue has received some mention in cases decided under the statute, United States v. Williams, 416 F.Supp. 611, 614 (D.D.C.1976); United States v. Barbacoff, 416 F.Supp. 606, 610 (D.D.C.1976), it is apparently one of first impression before the Courts......