United States v. Ferris, 5:18-cr-00159

Dr. James Ferris, a physician employed by Physicians at Home (PAH) and practicing at MOMAC in Wellston, is indicted on 103 counts for unlawful distribution of controlled substances (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and Medicare fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1347).
Allegation: Ferris pre-signed blank Schedule II prescriptions; pharmacist Katherine Dossey filled them using PAH patient records and delivered drugs to patients; Dossey submitted Medicare claims; PAH owner Sherry Isbell cooperated.
On May 4, 2017, the Oklahoma Medical Board held a disciplinary hearing based on the same allegations; Ferris testified under oath and the Board suspended his license 30 days, fined $5,000, and ordered continuing education.
Ferris moved in limine to exclude evidence of the Medical Board proceedings, its findings, and his testimony there, arguing irrelevance and undue prejudice/confusion under Rules 401, 402, and 403.
The Government argued the Board findings and testimony are relevant to the § 841 inquiry and admissible, subject to limiting instruction to prevent juror deference.
The Court did not admit or exclude the materials categorically; it reserved ruling, found the Board’s findings could be relevant but potentially prejudicial, and required the parties to present proffers outside the jury’s presence and consider a limiting instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Medical Board findings/outcome	Board findings are relevant to whether Ferris prescribed outside the usual course of practice and thus probative of § 841 counts	Board proceedings are irrelevant or, if relevant, substantially more prejudicial and likely to confuse or lead juror deference	Reserved: court acknowledged relevance but potential for unfair prejudice; parties must proffer evidence before jury and court may give limiting instruction
Admissibility of Ferris’s prior Medical Board testimony	Prior testimony is admissible if relevant, material, more probative than prejudicial, and fits a hearsay exception	Prior testimony should be excluded as prejudicial; Fifth Amendment concerns argued but testimony was voluntary	Reserved: prior testimony not automatically admissible; must satisfy relevance, Rule 403, and hearsay/exceptions; court to rule outside jury; Jackson v. Denno hearing not required

Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (court may rule in limine but may change rulings during trial)
Nelson v. United States, 383 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir.) (practitioner unlawful if prescribing outside usual course of practice)
Moore v. United States, 423 U.S. 122 (registered physicians can be prosecuted under § 841 when activities fall outside usual professional practice)
Toombs v. United States, 713 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir.) (prior testimony admissibility requires relevance, materiality, hearsay exception analysis)
Curtis v. United States, 344 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir.) (evidence is prejudicial only when it suggests decision on an improper basis)
Jones v. Stotts, 59 F.3d 143 (10th Cir.) (district court may change in limine rulings)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (involuntary confessions require a fairness hearing)