THE FRAUDULENT WORK OF DONALD SULLIVAN PHD, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY CLINICAL PROFESSOR

BY

NORMAN J. CLEMENT RPH., DDS., MALACHI F. MACKANDAL PHARMD, JOSEPH SOLVO ESQ., NORMAN L.CLEMENT PHARM-TECH, JELANI ZIMBABWE CLEMENT, BS., MBA., REV. C.T. VIVIAN, PATRICIE LAMUMBAWILLIE GUINYARD BS., BRAHM FISHER ESQ., JOSEPH WEBSTER MD.ESTHER HYATT PHD., MICHELE ALEXANDER MD.BERES E. MUSCHETT, STRATEGIC ADVISOR

THE CONGRESS MUST INVESTIGATE AND DEFUND THE UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (DEA)

DONALD SULLIVAN’S LONG HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL, ACADEMIC FRAUD AND JUDICIAL PERJURY

Donnie Sullivan is a Professor of Clinical Pharmacy at The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy. He received his bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees from The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy. He has been at The Ohio State University for 3 years. He also taught at Ohio Northern University for 17 years. He has taught in multiple courses in their module curriculum. His research interests include drug diversion analysis and education, future pharmacy practice initiatives, pharmacoeconomics, educational development of pharmacy students and pharmacists, and medication error prevention. (2)

DONALD SULLIVAN PHD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION OF PRONTO PHARMACY LLC AUGUST 23, 2020

FROM THE COURT RECORD

Dr. Sullivan will testify that he reviewed dispensing and prescription logs and patient information maintained by Respondent and provided to him by DI Albert. He will testify that he also reviewed the Florida PDMP report of Respondent’s dispensing behavior. He will testify that he concluded that Respondent repeatedly filled prescriptions for controlled substances without resolving obvious red flags of abuse and/or diversion and in violation of the pharmacist’s “corresponding responsibility” under federal law. Dr. Sullivan will testify that the Respondent violated the minimum standard of care for a Florida pharmacy and operated outside of the usual course of professional practice.

DONALD SULLIVAN’S TROUBLING ANALYSIS AND TESTIMONY

DEA’S expert Dr. Sullivan’s analysis and courtroom testimony has been troubling, fraudulent, and appears to rely solely upon the abuse of his white privilege and probity as the foundation for his credibility. Don Sullivan has failed basic standards of care as a Pharmacist. Instead, Dr. Sullivan has engaged and has been engaging in a self-serving crusade of fraud, deceptions, billing the taxpayers of the United States of America for services he did not perform, and received payments for his ill-gotten gains.

Let it further be clear,  patients being treated for chronic pain who travel to a Black-owned pharmacy are identified as “RED FLAGS” by Don Sullivan, and these pharmacies  are  classified as imminent dangers to the “Public Health.” While the same patients traveling to non-black owned pharmacies, with the same prescriptions, using the exact same payment methodology, the fictitious label of “red flags” does not truly exist.  Donald Sullivan’s testimony is fraudulent because he never establishes any elements demonstrating diversion and he has done this in previous DEA cases for years.

Charles Ogletree Esq; Harvard Law Professor; 

…..from The Presumption of Guilt, the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., …” I examine the race and class dimensions of the Gates arrest by looking at how other successful, prosperous, and noteworthy African American men (who are by no means alone in experiencing problems of racial profiling) have grappled with a wide range of encounters not only with police but with countless everyday citizens and found themselves being judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.…..

HOW DOES DR SULLIVAN GET AWAY WITH THESE QUESTIONABLE METHODOLOGIES???

Dr. Sullivan’s analysis and methodologies are wrong, in that it doesn’t capture sufficient information to conclusively establish the illegitimacy of a prescribing practitioner’s reasoning for issuing a specific prescription to a patient for a specific disease state. Dr. Donald Sullivan must be brought up before The Ohio State University Committee on Ethics and Academic Fraud terminated and his pharmacist licenses revoked. (1)

  1. He freely admitted in his testimony he had not reviewed any prescriptions. Yet, he opined repeatedly in the Pronto Pharmacy Order To Show Cause; “The DEA’s expert (Dr. Donald Sullivan) reviewed the above-referenced prescriptions and concluded that they presented numerous red flags that were highly indicative of abuse and diversion.” 
  2. If Dr. Sullivan, reviewed no prescriptions, then how could he have drawn any conclusion indicative of abuse and diversion?
  3. Dr. Sullivan presents with a long history of fraudulent testimony. Dr. Sullivan false testimony in 2010 against Pharmacist Harold Eugene Fletcher Columbus, Ohio sent Fletcher to prison for nearly 2 years.

DEA vs. HAROLD EUGENE FLETCHER

The year is 2010, the case docket 09-48, Columbus, Ohio The United States Drug Enforcement Agency vs East Main Street Pharmacy (‘‘Respondent’’), of Columbus, Ohio Harold Eugene Fletcher PharmD from the record it reads, 

The Government called Donald Sullivan, R.Ph. and Ph.D., as its expert witness. Dr. Sullivan, who holds active pharmacist licenses in both Ohio and Florida. Sullivan obtained a B.S. in Pharmacy from The Ohio State University, as well as both an M.S. and Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Administration, also from The Ohio State University. 

Before this Court Professor Dr. Sullivan testified that under both Ohio and Federal law,

there ‘‘is corresponding responsibility between the physician and the pharmacist.’’ He further explained that ‘‘a lot of pharmacists think that just because the physician wrote it, I have to fill it.’’ However, Dr. Sullivan stated that there is nothing in Ohio law that says you have to fill any prescription.’’ He then explained that ‘‘one of the first things we try to get the students and pharmacist to understand is that under Ohio law, and federal law 50 percent of the responsibility falls on the pharmacy, the pharmacist, 50 percent falls on the physician. Don’t just fill it because the doctor wrote it.’’

Similarly, in his report, Dr. Sullivan, after discussing the CSA’s prescription requirement (21 CFR 1306.04(a)), explained that: 

The State of Ohio has similar language in its laws and regulations. Ohio Law states that: The pharmacist who fills any prescription has a corresponding responsibility with the physician to make sure that the prescription has been issued for a Legitimate Medical Purpose. The responsibility to ensure that a prescription is for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of a prescriber’s professional practice is equal for both the physician and pharmacist. (Fifty percent of this responsibility is on the pharmacist and 50% is on the physician). The argument that ‘‘Just because a physician wrote the prescription, 

However the DEA Judge wrote in her observations of Dr. Donald Sullivan in 2010:

While the Ohio courts may have interpreted State law as described above, as explained below, Dr. Sullivan’s testimony that Federal law allocates fifty percent of the responsibility to the physician and fifty percent to the pharmacist is not a correct statement of the law, which has been amply explained in numerous decisions of the Federal courts and this Agency. To make clear, Federal law does not apportion the responsibility for dispensing unlawful prescriptions between a prescribing practitioner and a pharmacist. Rather, Federal law imposes separate and independent duties on the prescriber and the pharmacist. 

More specifically, the prescriber must act within the usual course of professional practice and have
a legitimate medical purpose to lawfully issue a controlled-substance prescription. 21 CFR 1306.04(a). As the Supreme Court and numerous federal courts have made plain, to lawfully prescribe a controlled substance the physician must act ‘‘in accordance with a standard of medical practice generally recognized and accepted in the United States.’’ 

The DEA Judge further notes:

” By contrast, a ‘‘pharmacist is not required to practice medicine.’’ United States v. Hayes, 595 F.2d 258, 261 (5th. Cir 1979). ‘‘What is required of [a pharmacist] is the responsibility not to fill an order that purports to be a prescription but is not a prescription within the meaning of the statute because he knows [or has reason to know] that the issuing practitioner issued it outside the scope of medical practice.’’ 

However, Dr. Sullivan’s statements that: (1) A pharmacist is not required to fill any prescription, and (2) it is not an excuse that because a doctor wrote the prescription, it can be legally filled, are consistent with Federal law. According to Dr. Sullivan, as part of the prospective drug utilization review, a pharmacist is required to check a patient’s profile for the following: ‘‘(a) over-utilization or under- utilization[;] (b) therapeutic duplication[;] (c) drug-disease state contraindications[;] (d) drug-drug interactions[;] (e) incorrect drug dose or duration of treatment[;] (f) drug-allergy interaction[;] (g) abuse/ misuse[;] (h) inappropriate duration of treatment[; and] (i) documented good/nutritional supplements- drug interactions.’’ 

THE PROBITY

DONALD SULLIVAN’S LONG HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL, ACADEMIC FRAUD AND JUDICIAL PERJURY

DR. DON SULLIVAN

DONALD SULLIVAN’S LONG HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL, ACADEMIC FRAUD AND JUDICIAL PERJURY CONTINUES

The year is 2020, the case docket 09-42, Tampa, Florida the United States Drug Enforcement Agency vs Pronto Pharmacy LLC., Norman J Clement RPh, DDS from the record it reads,

 DEA Judge Mark D. Dowd writes:

“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.”  

“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.”

THE ARROGANCE OF HUBRIS

DEA Judge Mark D. Dowd writes:

Dr. Sullivan demonstrated a commanding grasp of pharmacy practice and of the distinctions between pharmacy compounding and manufacturing. However, there were several matters for which he had diminished credibility. For one, he was unaware that Florida had codified the standard of care for medical personnel. 

Although I later determined the statute in question did not apply to pharmacists, it was somewhat surprising he was unaware of it, as he teaches Florida pharmacy law, More problematically, he quickly agreed that it was consistent with his understanding of the standard of care for pharmacists in Florida, which was somewhat surprising, as the standard of care for medical personnel is a highly generalized standard, a prudent healthcare provider standard. 

While the standard of care for pharmacists in Florida, as set out in the relevant Florida regulations, is highly specific in listing particular responsibilities and duties. 

He arguably conceded an alternate generalized standard of care for pharmacists in Florida, which is not consistent with Florida law or regulation.

DEA Judge Mark D. Dowd writes:

Secondly, he gave inconsistent testimony regarding unresolvable red flags. He described several red flags as unresolvable, that no explanation could warrant the filing of the subject prescription. Later, he conceded that those same red flags could be resolved. At one point he suggested no single red flag was unresolvable, rather it was the combination of red flags which made them unresolvable. Accordingly, because of these inconsistencies, in the absence of a reliable principle or method employed by Dr. Sullivan, I reject his conclusions regarding his claim that certain red flags were unresolvable. For each of the red flags, he testified were “unresolvable,” I accept his alternate opinion that each of those red flags went unresolved in this matter, a finding clearly supported by the evidence.

DEA Judge Mark D. Dowd writes:

“An expert, however, must base his knowledge on more than “subjective belief or unsupported speculation.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 (discussing Federal Rule of Evidence 702). Without additional supporting evidence I am unable to rely on Dr. Sullivan’s opinion regarding this red flag.  The same will be true with respect to the other patients as to whom he raised a similar red flag to this one. I will, however, accept his opinion that prescriptions for opioids and low-dose non-controlled drugs raise a red flag to the extent that a low-dose non-controlled medication “doesn’t make sense” alongside a high-dose opioid. In other words, I accept his testimony that low doses of non-controlled drugs are suspicious because they do not make medical sense when prescribed with high doses of opioids, but I do not accept his testimony that any doctor prescribed those non-controlled drugs with the intent to cover illegitimate treatment”

In contrast The American Medical Association wrote on June 16, 2020:

While the AMA understands that the apparent goal of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Guideline was to reduce opioid prescribing, we believe the proper role of the CDC is to improve pain care. It follows that a dedicated effort must be made to undo the damage from the misapplication of the CDC Guideline.

LOW HANGING FRUIT

LOW HANGING FRUIT

“We are concerned that such a careful approach to identifying the precise combination of pharmacologic options could be flagged on a prescription drug monitoring program as indications wrongly interpreted as so-called “doctor shopping” and cause the patient to be inappropriately questioned by a pharmacist. The AMA strongly supports a pharmacist carrying out his or her corresponding responsibility under state and federal law, but the past few years are rife with examples of patients facing what amounts to interrogations at the pharmacy counter as well as denials of legitimate medication. The AMA urges CDC to provide strong guidance and support for physicians and pharmacists to work together rather than jumping to conclusions about a patient’s PDMP report.” 

DEFUND AND REINVEST

For too long the DEA has abused its powers, misspent taxpayer funds, fueled mass incarceration, and ignored civil rights. It’s time to DISMANTLE AND ABOLISH THE DEA. We need to pivot to a health-based approach to address addiction and improve social conditions that contribute to problematic drug use. 

AS THE LORD INSTRUCTED PAUL DO NOT BE AFRAID

FOR NOW YOU’RE WITHIN THE NORMS

END NOTES

  1. The truth of the injustice will never reach the administration at OSU, email transmission has been blocked by OSU buckeyemail@osu.edu. The rejection of basic facts and the concepts medical science will not remain hidden from the public or the world.
**A custom mail flow rule created by an admin at buckeyemail.osu.edu has blocked your message.
The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to. (NLA13)
ywtnOffice 365osu.eduSenderAction RequiredBlocked by mail flow rule
THE TRUTH WILL COME TO THE LIGHT

Leave a Reply