DONALD SULLIVAN RPH., PHD., PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC FRAUD COMPLAINT FILED AT OSU FOR FAILING BASIC PHARMACY STANDARDS OF CARE

BY 

NORMAN J. CLEMENT RPH., DDS.,

WITH CONTRIBUTION FROM

RICARDO FERTIL PHARMD, NORMAN L.CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., WILLIE GUINYARD BS., BERES E. MUSCHETT, BS., STRATEGIC ADVISOR

It is clear to me that he has a basic flaw in his thinking regarding the Doctor – Pharmacist relationship. 

Joe Webster, MD

THIS PRESENTATION CONTAINS MUST SEE WHICH SUPPORTS THE NARRATIVE OF THIS ARTICLE: CONGRESS MUST DEFUND DEA

INTRODUCTION 

On May 5, 2020, Mark D. Dowd, U.S. Administrative Law Judge, in the matter of Pronto Pharmacy, LLC Docket No. 19-42 issues RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE in a rambling decision of 148 pages, to be found so ridicules it overturned nearly 200 years of medical and pharmacy law(s) and protocols.

A group has filed Professional and Academic Fraud charges against the Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, DEA Expert, Clinical Professor Donald Sullivan. Who, in sworn testimony, admitted to not having interviewed any of the patients, nor their prescribing physicians, neither saw nor reviewed any of the patient’s prescriptions. Professor Sullivan opined every prescription to be illegitimate.(1)

A.NON-ACUTE PAIN B.UNINSURED

It is further clear, on this day U.S. Administrative Law Judge Mark D. Dowd, was so busy trying to be a bigot, so busy trying to be a racist, so busy trying to be the toughest man on the Federal bench he forgot how to be fair. 

Judge Dowd’s decision in which the respondent, Pronto Pharmacy LLC., and the owner Norman J Clement,( a pharmacist and dentist) who had written in his blog, youarewithinthenorms.com, that he is not authorized or qualified to challenge a “physician’s diagnosis and treatment.” Judge Dowd, ruled against Clement basing his opinion in part, on the testimony of Donald Sullivan. Judge Mark D. Dowd wrote in his endnotes on page 44, of the Recommended Ruling:

22 Mr. Clement, Jr.’s, testimony that the Respondent verified the medical legitimacy of the prescriptions it filled runs counter to Mr. Clement, Sr.’s, view, as written in his blog, that he is “not authorized or qualified to challenge a physician’s diagnosis and treatment.”. If that is the case, it seems inconsistent that the Respondent would call a doctor’s office at all, let alone to confirm a diagnosis. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how the Respondent ensured that prescriptions were medically legitimate if the Respondent believed it could not question a doctor’s decision to prescribe a certain medication. The Respondent’s vetting process, as described by Mr. Clement, Jr., seems superfluous if the Respondent’s pharmacists are unable to question a diagnosis and treatment.


JOSEPH L.WEBSTER, SR., MD, MBA, FACP, BS. PHARMACY

I have reviewed the pertinent materials that were provided regarding the testimony of Dr. Sullivan. It is clear to me that he has a basic flaw in his thinking regarding the Doctor – Pharmacist relationship.  The respective regulatory bodies, including the various “Boards”  of Pharmacy, Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing, etc. clearly outline the ‘scope of practice’ for each of those disciplines. 

The orderly flow of a prescription “from” the doctor to the patient – via the Pharmacist – clearly outlines where the ‘diagnosis’ has to come from. It is statutorily the purview of the pharmacist to ‘inspect and assure’ that the drug that is being given is safe and has no known incompatibilities with the patient and its holistic environment. 

DX; MSI.26 M48.0, NONACUTE PAIN

It is not the purview nor is the pharmacist trained to ‘challenge the diagnosis’ of the physician and to do so verbally or otherwise with the patient. It erodes the ‘doctor-patient’ relationship and destroys the ‘confidence’ of the patient in his/her physician. At the very least it is ‘unethical’ and may very well be a HIPPA violation and beneath the standard of care as a pharmacist. 


Any healthcare provider that is licensed to ‘prescribe’ is governed by the set of conditions and circumstances under which a prescription can be written. Thus it is illegal to write a prescription for a person that the prescriber has not conducted the ‘chain of authority’ that would qualify him/her to write a prescription:  history and physical examination, formulation of a diagnosis and discussing such with the patient as well as the proposed manner of treatment in a culturally sensitive and ethically appropriate manner; and provision of an opportunity for the patient to ‘question and discuss alternative forms of treatment; etc. 

DEA EXPERT DONALD SULLIVAN TESTIFIED HE NEVER LOOKED AT ANY PATIENT PRESCRIPTION OR SPOKE WITH THE TREATING PHYSICIAN

Once the provider has met all of the aforementioned and other ‘requirements to write a prescription, then and then ONLY  should a healthcare practitioner write a prescription.  I do not see where Dr. Sullivan obtained his evidence that the pharmacist in question attempted to do any of these steps in the ‘chain of authority’ in the cases in question. Furthermore, as stated above, a pharmacist IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO WRITE A CONTROL PRESCRIPTIONS by any of the regulatory boards of health.

WE ARE TO BE UNSEEN

It is my professional opinion that the pharmacist in question had ‘no reason’ and more importantly the pharmacist had ‘no power’ to question or interrogate each provider on ‘each prescription’ that is received as long as the ‘safety, efficacy and convenience’ of the medications being prescribed meet the standards of Medication Dispensing. Any given medication can be and certainly will be given for multiple different diagnoses and it is not even feasible for the pharmacist to ‘contact and question’  each and every diagnosis.


WHEN WHITE PRIVILEGE AND BIAS TAKES THE STAND

DEA expert Don Sullivan must be brought before the Academic and Standard Review Committee at The Ohio State University for academic fraud. Donald Sullivan, never interviews the patients nor their prescribing physicians in his narrative of irrevocable flags. Clearly his opinion was base on a tacit bias. 

In preparation for his testimony in this proceeding, and as the basis for his analyses and opinions in this case, Dr. Sullivan reviewed the Respondent’s Pre-Hearing Statement, a portion of the Government’s Pre-Hearing Statement, the PDMP data, and three (3) months of dispensing data from Respondent’s computer system. 

Furthermore, while we have been extremely critical of  Mark D. Dowd, U.S. Administrative Law Judge, his opinion of May 5, 2020, in the matter of Pronto Pharmacy, LLC Docket No. 19-42 issues RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, he states;(2) (page 40-41)

” I find Dr.Sullivan’s subject conclusion more in the nature of speculation. I don’t believe the record provides sufficient factual foundation to support this expert opinion. I also find it inconsistent with the facts of the case. Accordingly, on the basis of the instant record, I find Dr. Sullivan’s subject conclusion unjustified.

Dr. Sullivan made a similar conclusion regarding the prescribing of non- controlled substances and of controlled substances not subject to abuse or diversion. Again, he deemed such prescriptions as an apparent subterfuge on the part of the prescriber, designed to mask the improper prescribing of controlled substances highly subject to abuse and diversion, and creating a red flag, which went unaddressed by the Respondent. I question the sufficiency of the factual foundation for Dr. Sullivan’s expert opinion that the above prescriptions were an apparent attempt to mask scores of improper opioid prescriptions. The relevant medical records were not reviewed, the prescriber’s justification for the prescriptions were not considered by Dr. Sullivan, nor was the patient’s input as to the subject prescriptions considered. I find Dr. Sullivan’s subject opinion, on the basis of this record, to be improperly speculative and unjustified as an expert opinion.”  

Yet, Judge Mark D. Dowd appears to freely admit he accepted Dr. Sullivan’s testimony solely on his “White Privilege” stating,

” This finding does not affect the probity of Dr. Sullivan’s opinions as to the therapeutic effect of the subject medications, their contraindication with other prescribed medications, or the justification of their prescription.”

CONCLUSION: CONGRESS MUST DEFUND THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (DEA)

We find Judge Mark D. Dowds, analysis troubling. One can never prevail in any court system or environment, even when supported with science and facts, against bias and prejudice, or when privilege is permitted to take the stand. 

Yet, it is not Judge Mark D. Dowd’s bias/racism that is troublesome. It is his stupidity in his recommended ruling, findings of facts and his conclusion of law which eviscerates nearly two hundred years of medical and pharmacy law and protocols.

FOR NOW

YOU’RE WITHIN THE NORMS

(1). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-10-27/pdf/2010-27096.pdf, pg. 6157 Judges foot notes; Donald Sullivan background, testimony history of mis-representation, case#09-48, East Main Street Pharmacy, Columbus, Ohio,

Colleagues: 

For everyone’s benefit, please see attached the correspondence we sent to Mr. Clement.  We consider this matter closed. 

Thank you, 

NOTES AND UPDATES

THIS MATTER WAS CLOSED BY THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 7/2/2020

Colleagues: 

For everyone’s benefit, please see attached the correspondence we sent to Mr. Clement.  We consider this matter closed. 

Thank you, 

Chris 

Mr. Clement, 7/2/2020

Thank you again for reporting your concern, and for taking the time to speak with me about it recently.  Our review determined that the concerns you raised about the accuracy of Dr. Sullivan’s expert testimony do not implicate any Ohio State University policy, and therefore they are not able to be investigated as a potential policy violation.  However, we have sent your concerns and all of the information you provided to the College of Pharmacy for their awareness.  

Thank you again,

Katelyn

2 thoughts on “DONALD SULLIVAN RPH., PHD., PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC FRAUD COMPLAINT FILED AT OSU FOR FAILING BASIC PHARMACY STANDARDS OF CARE

  1. There were many issues in this case. It is hoped that the College of Pharmacy at the Ohio State University would look at the transcript of this case and share with future graduates the level of Ivory Tower bias and pro-DEA bias in cases like these. Armed with the Immediate Suspension Order the DEA forces business out of business by using unconstitutional tactics. Please note that the DEA Administrative Law Judges do not have to adhere to the Federal Rules of Evidence nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because they force defense attorneys to adhere to their standard which puts the defense at a disadvantage. Furthermore, as cases are “won” in their positions stated and non-stated, Stare Decisis, occurs which continues to taint future rulings.

    But, what bothers me the most is the selective prosecution, lack of transparency of investigation and the fact that if a healthcare provider asks for guidance they are met with no clear understanding of exact procedures that fall into grey areas until they attack a provider and prevail in their court. If an administrative law judge makes a suggested ruling (the ultimate ruling comes from the director of the DEA) in favor of the registrant, I have heard that they are fired. So, instead of the federal standard of proof that the prosecution must meet the standard of preponderance of evidence, the quasi-judicial standard in the DEA court system is prove your innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    The rules are so subjective now, that any healthcare practitioner can find themselves on the wrong side of the DEA for doing what they are supposed to do — treat patients. Currently, algorithms, averages, “norms” and traditions are more important than the individual patient, prescriber, or dispenser.

Leave a Reply