United States v. Pellmann
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 26162
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Pellmann, a Wisconsin physician (radiology/vein clinic), was DEA-registered and operated two clinics providing imaging and vein-treatment services.
- He administered fentanyl (Schedule II) to patients and, beginning in 2009, ordered dramatically more morphine and fentanyl than in prior years, triggering DEA scrutiny.
- DEA records showed a large share of Pellmann's prescriptions were written to Jacquelynn Evans, a nurse who worked at his vein clinic and later became his patient.
- Evidence from Evans' home and Pellmann's clinic included hundreds of fentanyl and morphine vials, used syringes, and logs suggesting widespread, undocumented distribution outside normal practice.
- Pellmann admitted Evans was his patient and that he treated her with fentanyl and morphine at her home and at his own home, without proper documentation; he claimed trigeminal neuralgia as the diagnosis.
- At trial, the government presented extensive documentary and testimonial evidence; the government did not offer expert testimony on standard of care, and Pellmann was convicted on all counts; the district court later enhanced his sentence for obstruction of justice based on false statements to agents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of proof without expert testimony | Pellmann argues expert testimony is required to prove distribution outside practice and lack of legitimate purpose. | Pellmann contends lay evidence suffices to show outside-practice and illegitimate purpose. | Convictions affirmed; expert testimony not required given overwhelming evidence. |
| Obstruction of justice enhancement | N/A | N/A | District court properly applied the two-level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on Pellmann's false statements to DEA agents. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bek, 493 F.3d 790 (7th Cir. 2007) (expert testimony not always required; focus on patient-specific evidence)
- United States v. Chube, 538 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2008) (consideration of whether civil standard of care muddles legality; jury may consider surrounding circumstances)
- United States v. Armstrong, 550 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2008) (expert testimony not required when lay and circumstantial evidence show illegitimate practice)
- United States v. Word, 806 F.2d 658 (6th Cir. 1986) (expert testimony not required to prove physician's illegitimate conduct)
- United States v. Smurthwaite, 590 F.2d 889 (10th Cir. 1979) (no expert testimony required to sustain physician conviction)