Doctor's opioid prescription conviction tossed after U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Adds comment from defense lawyer in paragraph 4
By Nate Raymond
Feb 3 (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Friday overturned the conviction of a doctor accused of unlawfully prescribing addictive opioids in Arizona and Wyoming after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in his favor that made it harder to prosecute such cases.
The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that under last year's Supreme Court's decision, jurors were wrongly instructed on how to determine whether Shakeel Kahn knowingly prescribed powerful drugs in an illegal manner.
He was at the center of a Supreme Court ruling in January 2022 that raised the bar for what prosecutors must prove to secure convictions of doctors accused of fueling the U.S. opioid crisis by turning their medical practices into "pill mills."
Kahn's lawyer, Beau Brindley, said in a statement Friday's decision "should pave the way to finally ending the practice of unfairly scapegoating doctors for an opiate crisis for which they were never responsible."
Kahn, 56, has been serving a 25-year prison sentence after a jury in Wyoming in 2019 found him guilty of unlawfully distributing prescription medications, operating a continuing criminal enterprise and other charges.
Prosecutors said Kahn from 2011 to 2016 prescribed powerful pain drugs to people in Arizona and Wyoming in exchange for money after performing perfunctory or no examinations. They included one woman who died of an oxycodone overdose.
At trial, Kahn did not contest that patients abused their medications but disputed what his intent was in prescribing them drugs, asserting he had a "good faith" reason to believe his prescriptions were valid.
He took his case to the Supreme Court, which held that prosecutors have to prove that doctors knew they illegally prescribed drugs in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act.
The justices left to the three-judge 10th Circuit panel to decide whether jurors were properly instructed in Kahn's case under that standard.
U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Beck Briscoe wrote that they were not, saying the instructions "effectively lowered the government’s burden to showing only that Dr. Kahn’s behavior was objectively unauthorized - not that Dr. Kahn intended to act without authorization."
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Bill Berkrot
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.