United States v. Patricia Ann Solomon
876 F.3d 855
6th Cir.2017Background
- Pain Center of Broward (PCB) in Ft. Lauderdale sold large oxycodone prescriptions from 2008–2014; clinic owner Shumrak ran it for profit and many patients came from out of state, especially Kentucky.
- Clinic practices included cursory exams, large monthly prescriptions (e.g., 180x30mg + 90x15mg oxycodone), advertising low-cost prescriptions, and substantial out-of-state traffic; seven Eastern Kentucky drug crews used PCB as a pill source.
- Defendants: Carroll Elliott (security guard), Lucille Frial-Carrasco (physician/medical director), Patricia Solomon (physician assistant). All were indicted in the Eastern District of Kentucky for conspiracy to distribute oxycodone and convicted by a jury.
- Solomon made incriminating statements during a post-raid interview at the clinic; she moved to suppress arguing custodial interrogation and Miranda violations; the district court denied suppression.
- The district court ordered $10 million in forfeiture, credited $8 million previously forfeited by Shumrak, and apportioned the remaining $2 million among defendants; after appeal, the government conceded Honeycutt requires recalculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue — trial in Eastern District of Kentucky (Frial‑Carrasco) | Government: conspiracy distributed pills to Kentucky; venue proper where intended effects occur. | Frial‑Carrasco: Kentucky purchasers were mere buyers, not coconspirators; no overt act occurred in Kentucky. | Venue in Eastern District of Kentucky is proper because the conspiracy’s intended effects (distribution/use) were in Kentucky; venue may be based on intended destination. |
| Sufficiency of evidence (Elliott) | Govt: Elliott’s conduct (crowd control, warning agents, shuttling prescriptions) showed knowing participation. | Elliott: actions only placed him near conspiracy; insufficient to prove knowing joining. | Conviction upheld; circumstantial evidence permitted a jury to infer knowing participation in the conspiracy. |
| Need for expert testimony to show prescriptions outside legitimate medical practice (Frial‑Carrasco & Solomon) | Govt: lay jury could find prescribing plainly illegitimate given quantities, cursory exams, clinic practices; expert testimony not required. | Defendants: expert required to show prescriptions were outside professional practice. | No error; where malpractice is plainly evident to lay jurors, expert testimony is not required to convict medical professionals. |
| Miranda/custody (Solomon) | Govt: interview was non‑custodial at workplace exam room; Miranda not required. | Solomon: raid conditions, closed door, escort to restroom, and request to surrender license made interrogation custodial. | Trial court properly denied suppression; totality of circumstances showed Solomon was not in custody (Panak factors favor government). |
| Forfeiture calculation (post‑Honeycutt) | Govt concedes §853(a)(1) forfeiture limited to property each defendant actually acquired; no joint-and-several liability. | Defendants sought recalculation to their individual proceeds. | Forfeiture orders must be remanded for recalculation consistent with Honeycutt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (forfeiture under §853(a)(1) limited to property the defendant actually acquired; no joint-and-several liability)
- United States v. Turner, 936 F.2d 221 (6th Cir. 1991) (drug importation conspiracy may be prosecuted where drugs reach intended final destination)
- United States v. Word, 806 F.2d 658 (6th Cir. 1986) (expert testimony not required when prescribing practices are plainly illegitimate and understandable to lay jurors)
- United States v. Panak, 552 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2009) (factors for assessing whether interrogation is custodial)
- United States v. Avery, 128 F.3d 966 (6th Cir. 1997) (knowledge and participation in conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1985) (venue proper where the effects of the crime are suffered)