midpage
I. BACKGROUND
A. Heaton's Practice
B. The Patient Pain Contracts
C. Michael Gowder
D. Patient-Witness T.G.
E. Patient-Witness H.J.W.
F. Patient-Witness H.B.W.
G. Federal Investigation
II. INDICTMENT & TRIAL
A. Dr. Gary Kaufman
C. Dr. Kaufman as to Prescriptions for T.G.
D. Dr. Kaufman as to Prescriptions for H.J.W.
E. Rule 29 Motion, Defense, and Verdict
III. JURY INSTRUCTIONS
A. The District Court's Jury Instructions
B. Instructions as to the Elements of a § 841(a) Offense
C. Instructions as to § 841(a)'s Mens Rea Requirement
1. Ruan Error
2. Harmless Error
3. Ruan II
IV. VAGUENESS
V. CONCLUSION
Notes

United States v. Dr. James HeatonUnited States v. Dr. James Heaton

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Feb 14, 2023
20-12568
Versions:59 F.4th 1226

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 2:18-cr-00009-RWS-JCF-3

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

HULL, Circuit Judge:

After a jury trial, Dr. James Heaton appeals his convictions for 27 counts of aiding and abetting the acquisition of controlled substances by deception and 102 counts of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances. On appeal, Heaton argues that the jury instructions were improper and his statute of conviction, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), was unconstitutionally vague. After review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm Heaton‘s convictions.

I. BACKGROUND

Heaton was a family practice physician in the small town of Blairsville, Georgia. Heaton primarily treated geriatric patients, but over time the number of his patients declined. Heaton‘s practice then saw an increasing number of chronic pain patients.

This case involves the large volume of prescriptions for controlled substances that Heaton wrote for three pain patients: (1) Michael Gowder and (2) two women patients referred to here as T.G. and H.J.W. From 2013 through 2015, Heaton prescribed these three patients thousands of pain pills, including hydrocodone, oxycodone, and methadone.

Gowder, who was a health care administrator, was not only Heaton‘s so-called “pain patient,” but also was charged as a codefendant for his role in aiding and abetting Heaton‘s unlawful dispensing of controlled substances and for Gowder‘s acquiring controlled substances by deception. The jury found Gowder guilty, and he did not appeal. This appeal involves only Heaton and his convictions.

Below, we describe Heaton‘s practice, his prior interactions with the Georgia Medical Board (“Medical Board“), his relationships with the three pain patients, and the federal investigation into his prescriptions for controlled substances.

A. Heaton‘s Practice

In the late 1990s, Heaton operated a general family practice and rented space to other doctors. In 2011 or 2012, Heaton moved his practice into a smaller office, where he saw an increasing number of younger patients and patients with chronic pain issues.

As part of his practice, Heaton operated a sleep study business. Heaton rented the building for his practice from the Union General Hospital (the “Hospital“). Heaton also served as the medical director of the Hospital‘s nursing home.

B. The Patient Pain Contracts

In 2010, Heaton had a matter before the Medical Board.1 In connection with that matter, Heaton provided the Medical Board with two forms that he reportedly gave to patients who were prescribed controlled substances for pain. Heaton informed the Medical Board that all of the pain patients at his clinic were required to fill out both forms.

Heaton‘s form contracts provided that patients agreed: (1) not to ask for prescriptions to be filled early, (2) not to ask for the dosage or frequency of medications to be increased, and (3) that any breach of the contract could result in the patient‘s dismissal from Heaton‘s practice.2 Heaton‘s records for Gowder, T.G., and H.J.W. did not contain these contracts.

C. Michael Gowder

Gowder, Heaton‘s codefendant, had been Heaton‘s patient since the 1990s. While Gowder testified in his defense case, the government‘s evidence about Heaton‘s controlled substance prescriptions for Gowder, recounted below, came from other witnesses, patients’ files, medical records, and the database records of the prescription drug monitoring program (“PDMP“).

Starting in January 2012, Heaton prescribed Gowder 40 pills of hydrocodone 10 milligrams (mg) to treat Gowder‘s back and leg pain.

As outlined in detail later, the dosage, quantity, and potency of Gowder‘s pain prescriptions increased over time. By June 2012, Heaton had increased Gowder‘s monthly prescription to 120 pills of oxycodone 30 mg. From July 2012 to November 2012, Heaton prescribed Gowder two prescriptions per month, each for 120 or 150 pills of hydrocodone 10 mg or oxycodone 30 mg. By 2013, Heaton was writing Gowder two or three prescriptions, each for 150 pills of oxycodone, nearly every month.

Gowder filled these prescriptions at pharmacies in Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina.3

On January 1, 2013, Gowder, who was a health care administrator, became the Hospital‘s chief executive officer (“CEO“). That same day, Gowder increased Heaton‘s salary as medical director of the Hospital‘s nursing home by $1,000 a month. A Hospital employee testified that he saw Heaton at the nursing home “very infrequently.”

Nearly every month between May 2013 and June 2015, Heaton wrote Gowder two prescriptions, each for oxycodone 30 mg. During that time period, Heaton also wrote Gowder a prescription for Percocet 10 mg most months.4 For example, in January 2014, Heaton issued Gowder: (1) a prescription for 150 pills of oxycodone 30 mg on January 14th; and (2) prescriptions for 150 pills of oxycodone 30 mg and 150 pills of Percocet 10 mg on January 24th. In total, Heaton prescribed more than 15,000 pain pills to Gowder between January 2012 and June 2015.

Lisa Kelley worked at Heaton‘s office from the late 1990s to 2015. Kelley testified that, to her knowledge, Gowder never paid for an office visit with Heaton. Kelley never collected a co-pay from Gowder, who did not make an appointment when he visited Heaton‘s office.

Instead, at least once a month, Gowder came through the back door of Heaton‘s clinic at closing time and met with Heaton in his private office to pick up a prescription. On some of these visits, Gowder brought a check from the Hospital payable to Heaton, who deposited these checks in his personal account. From April 2013 to December 2015, while Gowder was the CEO, the Hospital issued checks totaling $342,500 to Heaton, some of which Gowder delivered personally.

In January 2014, Gowder, in his capacity as the Hospital‘s CEO, purchased Heaton‘s sleep clinic for $155,000. After this deal, Gowder instructed Hospital employees to reduce Heaton‘s $3,200 monthly rent for his office space by $1,000 because the sleep study was being housed there.

D. Patient-Witness T.G.

Patient T.G. testified that she had struggled with drug addiction. T.G. expressly told Heaton that she was a former heroin abuser before she became his patient. T.G. had track marks on her arms where she injected heroin. At trial, T.G. showed these track marks to the jury.

Prior to becoming Heaton‘s patient, T.G. was prescribed pain medication after she broke her back in a car accident when she was 11 years old. When T.G. asked her original treating physician for a higher dose of pain pills, that physician refused to prescribe a stronger dose.

In September 2010, T.G. became Heaton‘s patient. During T.G.‘s first visit, Heaton prescribed her 120 pills of Lortab 10 mg.5 Heaton never told T.G. that the drugs could be habit-forming or dangerous, and he never conducted a urine screen. Although Heaton checked a bulging disk in T.G.‘s neck, he never conducted a full physical examination of T.G.

T.G. sometimes asked Heaton for refills on her pain medication before her prescriptions ran out. When T.G. asked Heaton for a refill, she would pick it up from his house or his office.

In July 2011, Heaton began to prescribe T.G. 90 pills of methadone 10 mg. By October 2012, Heaton had increased T.G.‘s prescription to 150 pills of methadone 10 mg.

T.G. was using methamphetamine and drinking heavily while being prescribed pain medications by Heaton. Over a five-month period, T.G. was arrested for driving under the influence (“DUI“) three times. She served a four-month sentence for her third DUI.

T.G. testified that: (1) she told Heaton that she had been to jail and that she was arrested for multiple DUIs, but (2) Heaton never warned her that she was at risk of an overdose after going without opiates for so long or that it was dangerous to consume alcohol while taking her pain medication.

In June 2014, after T.G. was released from jail, Heaton even prescribed her the same amount of pain medication that he had prescribed before she was incarcerated (150 pills of methadone 10 mg).

To make matters even worse, Heaton and T.G. had a sexual relationship that began before T.G. became Heaton‘s patient and continued during the time Heaton was prescribing her controlled substances. Heaton and T.G. often would have sex when T.G. asked for an early refill before her prescriptions ran out. T.G. testified that she had sex with Heaton at his house or his office after hours. At trial, T.G. identified Heaton‘s bedroom from pictures introduced by the government.

After T.G. was arrested for violating her probation, she began to cooperate with law enforcement. At the request of law enforcement, T.G. texted Heaton in January 2016 and asked for a prescription for controlled substances. Heaton responded: “Can only write controlled substances at office visit, rules have changed, has to be documented, it‘s crazy now.” T.G. explained that, when she had texted Heaton in the past, he would write her a prescription.

E. Patient-Witness H.J.W.

Patient H.J.W. became Heaton‘s patient starting in May 2014. At H.J.W.‘s first appointment, H.J.W. asked Heaton to prescribe hydrocodone and Heaton wrote a monthly prescription for 60 pills of Lortab 7.5 mg6 to H.J.W. to treat her lower abdominal pain (eventually diagnosed as Crohn‘s disease and fibromyalgia). In August 2014, H.J.W. visited Heaton again, complaining of knee and back pain. At H.J.W.‘s request, Heaton doubled her monthly dose to 120 pills of Lortab 7.5 mg.

In October 2014, Heaton prescribed H.J.W. cough syrup after she presented with a sore throat. Heaton also issued H.J.W. a prescription for 120 pills of Lortab 7.5 mg, but he did not inform H.J.W. about any risks associated with taking Lortab (which contains hydrocodone) and cough syrup at the same time. In December 2014, at H.J.W.‘s request, Heaton later increased her monthly dosage to 120 pills of Lortab 10 mg.

H.J.W. began to buy hydrocodone pills off the street a year after she started seeing Heaton. In March 2015, H.J.W. told Heaton that she had begun buying pills from other people. Heaton responded that H.J.W. “could not do that” because (1) buying pills off the street was illegal and (2) Heaton could not regulate H.J.W.‘s medications if he did not know the dosage she was taking. Heaton said that H.J.W. could continue with her pain medication or switch to Suboxone7 if she wanted to stop taking her pain medication.

At Heaton‘s urging, H.J.W. signed a document, which stated “I will get my meds from only Dr. Heaton.” The document also stated, “will titrate down” and was initialed by Heaton.

In March 2015, Heaton noted in H.J.W.‘s patient file that she was receiving seven Lortab 10 mg a day and that he would “work her down one a day every two weeks” until H.J.W. was no longer taking Lortab. In April 2015, Heaton noted that he had reduced H.J.W.‘s prescription to five Lortab 10 mg a day.

Starting in May 2015, however, Heaton switched H.J.W.‘s medication from Lortab 10 mg to the more potent oxycodone 15 mg, prescribing her 120 pills of oxycodone 15 mg. Heaton never referred H.J.W. to a specialist or insisted that she seek drug treatment.

F. Patient-Witness H.B.W.

Patient H.B.W. testified as a government witness.8 H.B.W.‘s testimony was admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show Heaton‘s intent to commit the charged crimes.

H.B.W. was Heaton‘s pain patient from March 2011 to January 2012. At her first appointment, H.B.W. told Heaton that she was struggling with parenthood and owning a business. Heaton prescribed Xanax to H.B.W. to treat her anxiety. H.B.W. eventually became addicted to Xanax and began to buy it off the street. While H.B.W. was Heaton‘s patient, she and Heaton had a sexual relationship that lasted from mid-2011 until January 2012.

H.B.W.‘s husband filed a complaint against Heaton with the Medical Board, which investigated Heaton‘s prescribing practices and his sexual affair with H.B.W. In May 2014, Heaton told a Medical Board investigator that he had prescribed controlled substances to H.B.W. but claimed that his sexual relationship with her began after he “terminated her” as a patient.

At some point H.B.W. and her husband stopped communicating with the Medical Board‘s investigator. In July 2014, the Medical Board closed Heaton‘s case with no disciplinary action. The Medical Board, however, issued a letter of concern to Heaton regarding its “boundary with patients” rule, which prohibits physicians from having sexual relationships with their patients.

G. Federal Investigation

In July 2015, Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA“) Agent Jason Allen began to investigate suspected drug diversion in Blairsville, Georgia after Dr. George David Gowder was arrested trying to fill fraudulent prescriptions. George David Gowder is the brother of Heaton‘s codefendant Michael Gowder, the Hospital‘s CEO.9 Agent Allen began to investigate Heaton after learning that Heaton issued Michael Gowder numerous prescriptions for oxycodone 30 mg.

In September 2015, Agent Allen and a Medical Board investigator met with Heaton. At this meeting, the Medical Board investigator subpoenaed Heaton‘s patient file for Michael Gowder. Agent Allen, who reviewed this patient file, stated that it was “very light” compared to a typical patient file.

A few weeks later, Agent Allen served a DEA subpoena on Heaton for this same Michael Gowder file, which now contained two MRI reports from 2011 and 2015 and a radiology report from 2006. Agent Allen did not see any of these reports in this file when Heaton provided it to the Medical Board.

During his investigation, Agent Allen interviewed T.G., who was wearing a short sleeve shirt and “had very obvious track marks” on both arms.

In March 2016, Heaton was arrested. During the arrest, Agent Allen accompanied Heaton to his bedroom so that Heaton could change his clothes. Agent Allen told Heaton that his bedroom matched a description given by one of his patients. Heaton responded that patients came over to his house from time to time.

II. INDICTMENT & TRIAL

In March 2019, a second superseding indictment charged Heaton with 1 count of conspiracy to unlawfully distribute and dispense controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 843, & 846 (Count 1); 102 substantive counts of unlawful dispensing of controlled substances to Gowder (Counts 2-76) and to T.G. and H.J.W. (Counts 104-130), all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and 27 counts of aiding and abetting Gowder‘s acquisition of controlled substances by deception, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts 77-103).10

As to the 102 substantive § 841(a) counts, the indictment alleged that Heaton unlawfully prescribed controlled substances to: (1) Michael Gowder from May 1, 2013, to June 16, 2015 (Counts 2-76); (2) T.G. from September 16, 2014, to August 18, 2015 (Counts 104-115); and (3) H.J.W. from October 15, 2014, to September 11, 2015 (Counts 116-130).

During Heaton and Michael Gowder‘s eight-day jury trial, the government presented thirteen witnesses and overwhelming evidence of Heaton‘s unlawful dispensation of controlled substances. The government‘s witnesses included former employees of Heaton‘s practice and the Hospital, Agent Allen, two Medical Board investigators, three of Heaton‘s patients (T.G., H.J.W., and H.B.W.), and an expert witness on pain management. The evidence also included hundreds of pages of patient files, medical records, prescription documents, charts from the PDMP databases, and photographs.

While the above evidence covers Heaton‘s interactions with the Medical Board and his patients, we now outline the expert testimony about how Heaton prescribed pain pills for no legitimate medical purpose and outside the scope of professional practice.

A. Dr. Gary Kaufman

The government called Dr. Gary Kaufman as an expert witness. Dr. Kaufman, a board-certified physician in pain medicine and neurosurgery, ran a pain management clinic in Brunswick, Georgia for thirteen years. He reviewed the patient files and PDMP records for eleven of Heaton‘s patients, including Michael Gowder, T.G., and H.J.W. Dr. Kaufman described the Medical Board‘s rules governing the prescription of controlled substances and explained how Heaton did not follow them.

Dr. Kaufman testified that the Medical Board has adopted “commonsense” rules of professional conduct that all physicians must follow. Under these rules, “unprofessional conduct” includes: (1) failing to maintain appropriate records for patients being prescribed controlled substances; (2) having personal or sexual relationships with patients; and (3) prescribing controlled substances to known or suspected drug abusers in the absence of a substantial justification.

Additionally, the Medical Board requires that physicians: (1) obtain a patient‘s medical history, conduct a physical examination, and receive informed consent before prescribing pain medications; (2) obtain or make a diligent effort to obtain a patient‘s prior medical records; (3) create a treatment plan; (4) determine whether conservative treatment, including non-controlled medicines, is appropriate before prescribing opioids; (5) have a treatment agreement with the patient if the patient is prescribed hydrocodone, oxycodone, or similar substances for longer than ninety days; (6) monitor a patient‘s use of the controlled substances by randomly checking bodily fluids (i.e., urine screens) at least four times a year; and (7) create a record showing evaluation and monitoring of the patient and the rationale for continuing or modifying the therapy.

Dr. Kaufman explained that the treatment of pain can constitute a legitimate medical purpose for prescribing controlled substances. But if a doctor determines that a patient is abusing the medication, the issuance of pain medications is no longer legitimate, and the doctor must make an appropriate referral for treatment of substance abuse.

The Medical Board requires doctors who prescribe controlled substances to “document everything.” Dr. Kaufman observed: “If it‘s not written, it didn‘t happen.”

Based on his review of Heaton‘s patient files for Michael Gowder, T.G., and H.J.W., Dr. Kaufman testified that Heaton regularly: (1) failed to conduct credible physical examinations; (2) did not monitor patient compliance with prescribed medications; (3) did not review PDMP records; (4) did not obtain prior medical records relating to pain complaints; and (5) did not properly document the prescriptions that he issued to these patients.

Notes

1
The details of that matter were not presented in the trial evidence. The Medical Board has since changed its name to the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners.
2
One of the forms was a patient pain contract, containing these terms:

I, ________, understand, agree with, and will comply with the following rules pertaining to my medications. I will not ask for my medications to be filled early. I will not ask for the dosage or frequency of my medications to be increased. . . . Any breech [sic] of this contract could result in my being dismissed as a patient from Blairsville [F]amily Practice.

Patient Physician

3
At this time, the PDMPs in Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee did not share information, so the pharmacists checking their state‘s PDMP records would not have learned that Michael Gowder was filling multiple prescriptions for the same or similar drugs each month in different states.
4
The Percocet contained oxycodone 10 mg mixed with Tylenol.
5
The Lortab 10 mg contained hydrocodone 10 mg mixed with Tylenol.
6
The Lortab 7.5 mg contained hydrocodone 7.5 mg mixed with Tylenol.
7
Suboxone is a medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction.
8
Two of Heaton‘s former patients have the initials “H.W.,” so we refer to these patients using their middle initials.
9
Before Heaton and Michael Gowder‘s trial, George David Gowder pled guilty to unlawfully dispensing controlled substances and was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. After trial, Michael Gowder was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year and one day.
10
During Heaton‘s criminal proceedings, the trial court dismissed more than seventy counts from the second superseding indictment. At the trial court‘s direction, the government prepared a “dummy” indictment, which omitted the dismissed charges. This dummy indictment was submitted to the jury during deliberations. The counts referenced in this opinion are as numbered in the dummy indictment.
11
Gowder also obtained “extra” prescriptions for 120 pills of hydrocodone 10 mg in August 2012 and 150 pills of Percocet 10 mg throughout 2013, 2014, and 2015.
12
Dr. Kaufman testified that hydrocodone has the same potency as morphine, oxycodone is one and a half times as strong as morphine, and methadone is eight times as strong as morphine.
13
We review de novo whether a challenged jury instruction misstated the law. United States v. Melgen, 967 F.3d 1250, 1259 (11th Cir. 2020).
14
Oxycodone and methadone are Schedule II controlled substances. 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12(b)(1)(xi), (c)(15). Hydrocodone was reclassified from a Schedule III controlled substance to a Schedule II controlled substance, effective October 6, 2014. Id. § 1308.12(b)(1)(vi); Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Hydrocodone Combination Products from Schedule III to Schedule II, 79 FR 49661-01 (Aug. 22, 2014).
15
We reject the government‘s contention that we should not consider Heaton‘s Ruan argument in his direct appeal because he failed to file a timely motion under United States v. Durham, 795 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that an appellant may raise a new issue based on an intervening Supreme Court decision that overrules binding precedent). This contention ignores that: (1) oral argument in Heaton‘s direct appeal was set for December 2021, (2) Heaton timely suggested Ruan would affect his direct appeal by filing a motion to continue oral argument after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ruan, and (3) this Court continued Heaton‘s case to await the Supreme Court‘s decision in Ruan. After Ruan was decided in 2022, this Court ordered supplemental briefing. Under these particular circumstances, we are not persuaded by the government‘s claim.
16
To the extent Heaton challenges the jury instruction as to the mens rea for dispensing controlled substances for a legitimate medical purpose, that argument lacks merit. The jury was properly instructed that whether Heaton prescribed controlled substances for a legitimate medical purpose “depend[ed] on his subjective belief.” There was no Ruan error as to the legitimate medical purpose part of the charge.
17
In Abovyan, there was no mens rea challenge to the jury instructions and thus no Ruan error. Abovyan‘s holding—that a doctor violates § 841(a) if the “legitimate medical purpose” or “outside the scope of professional practice” requirement is met—remains binding precedent, which is why we follow Abovyan earlier. See United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “a prior panel‘s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting en banc,” but “the Supreme Court decision must be clearly on point” (quotation marks omitted)). Further, even without Abovyan, we explained earlier why the § 1306.04(a) regulation has two requirements.
18
Here, the district court suggested that a special verdict form be submitted to the jury on the two requirements, but Heaton declined. We note, as a general matter, that the use of a special verdict form is often a good practice. In a special verdict form, the jury can specify whether the defendant‘s prescriptions were issued for no legitimate medical purpose, outside the usual course of professional practice, or both. Therefore, we can more readily determine the basis for the jury verdict.
19
The government contends that Heaton‘s challenge to the mens rea used in the district court‘s jury instructions is, at most, reviewable for plain error because at trial he did not raise a timely objection to this jury instruction about “outside the usual course of professional practice.” We assume—without deciding—that Heaton properly preserved this Ruan issue for appeal given that any error in the jury instruction was harmless.
20
Although Heaton purportedly issued this pain medication to treat Gowder‘s back pain, Gowder reported only moderate back pain and numbness to other providers. Dr. Kaufman explained that this amount of pain would not have warranted the pain medications that Heaton prescribed to Gowder.
21
Heaton also argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to show that the prescriptions he issued to Michael Gowder, T.G., and H.J.W. had no legitimate medical purpose. We review de novo whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, taking all evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the government. Abovyan, 988 F.3d at 1302. Based on the evidence discussed throughout this opinion, we conclude that the trial evidence amply showed Heaton‘s prescriptions in Counts 2-76 and 104-130 were issued for no legitimate medical purpose.
22
Gowder did testify in his own defense about his interactions with Heaton. After Heaton‘s defense rested, Gowder (1) testified that he “didn‘t have a clue” what Heaton put in his charts, and (2) gave no testimony about the usual course of professional practices for doctors or Heaton‘s subjective belief.
23
We review de novo whether a criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342, 1347 (11th Cir. 2010).
24
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this Court adopted as precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
25
Heaton does not appeal his 72-month sentence.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Dr. James Heaton
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Date Published: Feb 14, 2023
Citations: 59 F.4th 1226; 20-12568
Docket Number: 20-12568
Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.
Read the detailed case summary
Log In