United States v. Joseph Zadeh
820 F.3d 746
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- DEA investigators, joined by Texas Medical Board agents, sought medical records of 67 patients of Dr. Joseph Zadeh in a diversion investigation of controlled substances; an initial on-site visit occurred Oct. 22, 2013.
- On Nov. 25, 2013 the DEA issued an administrative subpoena (with a one-year nondisclosure instruction) requesting specified medical-record information tied to prescriptions; Zadeh refused to comply.
- The government petitioned the federal district court to enforce the subpoena under 21 U.S.C. § 876(c); the magistrate judge recommended enforcement but struck the nondisclosure requirement and narrowed the subpoena’s scope per the government’s proposed limitations.
- The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and ordered enforcement; Zadeh appealed, raising preemption, notice/intervention, Fourth Amendment, and abuse-of-process arguments. This Court stayed enforcement pending appeal.
- The DEA relied on an agent’s affidavit asserting the records’ relevance to its investigation; the court treated the matter as an administrative-subpoena enforcement governed by the reasonable-relevance standard.
Issues
| Issue | Zadeh's Argument | DEA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas Occupations Code bars production (preemption) | State law prohibits disclosure of physician–patient records; so state law prevents compliance | CSA and DEA enforcement power preempt conflicting state law | Federal law (CSA) preempts state law to the extent it blocks compliance with a federal subpoena; state law not a defense |
| Whether state AG notice/intervention required under 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) | Preemption raising constitutional question triggers notice/intervention | Supremacy-Clause preemption cases differ; notice not required here | § 2403(b) not required in this context (better practice but not mandated) |
| Whether patients must be notified/intervene | Patients have privacy interests and should get notice/opportunity to intervene | Magistrate removed nondisclosure; patients could be notified and none intervened | No requirement to give notice now; nondisclosure was not enforced and no intervention occurred |
| Proper Fourth Amendment standard for subpoena enforcement | Medical records deserve heightened protection; balancing test or probable cause required | Administrative subpoenas invoke reasonable-relevance standard, which suffices | Reasonable-relevance standard applies; subpoena enforced as narrowed and sealed records protected |
| Whether enforcement should be denied for abuse of process | DEA agents’ conduct at the office (not identifying themselves) misled staff and suggests DOJ already had records | No evidence DEA intentionally misled or improperly accessed records; subpoena limited to already-identified patients | Abuse-of-process claim failed; Zadeh did not make a substantial showing of misuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (CSA’s federal regulatory goals and enforcement power support preemption where state law conflicts)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (classic statement of conflict preemption where state law obstructs federal objectives)
- Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111 (1965) (limits on three-judge-panel notification statutes in preemption contexts; comparison of Supremacy-Clause suits)
- Gilbreath v. Guadalupe Hosp. Found., Inc., 5 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 1993) (administrative subpoena for medical records enforced; federal law governs privilege defenses)
- United States v. Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc., 767 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard of review and limited role of courts in administrative-subpoena enforcement)