Case Study in Judicial Overreach: The Prosecution of Dr. Barbara D. Marino
The case of Dr. Barbara D. Marino is a landmark data point illustrating the existential risks to modern clinicians. Dr. Marino, an MD Anderson-trained OB-GYN Oncology Surgeon, represents the highest tier of medical expertise. Her prosecution is not merely a legal case; it is a strategic warning to the entire medical profession.
The Anatomy of a Judicial “Witch Hunt”
Dr. Marino was unjustly convicted and currently faces a staggering 60-year federal prison sentence. Most alarming was the trial judge’s explicit directive to “STOP THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE.”
This judicial intervention into clinical practice sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the separation of powers between medical boards and the court system. From a policy standpoint, preventing a physician from practicing before or during a trial can be framed as an unconstitutional “taking” of a professional license without due process—a direct violation of the Takings Clause and a blow to medical autonomy.
Case Study in Judicial Overreach: The Prosecution of Dr. Felix Brizuela, DO
August 29, 2022
In October 2015, my office was raided by the DEA, who claimed, based on a false premise and assertion, that I was unlawfully prescribing prescription Benzodiazepines and Opiate medications that are FDA approved. I had no clue what they were talking about.
They even went so far as to identify me as a pain specialist, improperly. However, I am a board-certified neurologist authorized by law to treat, prescribe, and dispense these classes of medications more further who have been boarded three times, since 1997 (see §841(a)(1) and § 1306.04(a)),(1).
Instead, they instituted a criminal investigation without fact-checking. During their raids, the DEA agent did not want to discuss. Just due everything, it is their power to prosecute the doctor without no due process
______________________________________
As a result of this unjust investigation initiated by the defendants, I lost my medical license, DEA registration, and my ability to make a living and support my family. We know that the HFPP, the Health, Fraud, and Prevention ordered by Donald Trump and spearheaded by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, uses illegal spying on doctors and the public by Qlarant. A violation of the 4th amendment.
Qlarant uses non-medical data analysis tools, which are not approved or condoned by the FDA, to single out doctors who are guilty of fraud and abuse, including prescribing prescription opiates for no legitimate medical purpose. They send this data to the health insurance industry, who instead send it to medical boards, the DEA, FBI, and DOJ for criminal investigation.
Once incarcerated, the health insurance industry, especially Blue Cross and Blue Shield, has one less doctor to pay. Thus, the health insurance industry makes more profits. The health insurance industry profited $500 billion in 2020. Health insurance company lobbyists paid congress $300 million that year.
Not only does Congress know how to explicitly delegate the authority to regulate controlled substance prescribing to a federal agency, it has done so in one— and only one—narrow category: opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. Id. at 271 (holding that 42 U.S.C. § 290bb-2a is the only arena in which Congress has set federal medical standards and “indicates that when Congress wants to regulate medical practice in the given scheme, it does so by explicit language in the statute”); see also Anderson et al. at 98 (“Despite the longstanding norm of federal noninterference in medicine, . .
Failure to Track Patient Harms
A major criticism from the NCP3 is that federal agencies have implemented these restrictive prescribing agendas without tracking or acknowledging the resulting patient harm metrics,. Specifically, the NCP3 points out that there is no official federal count for:
- Suicides directly linked to the 2016 CDC Guidelines or subsequent restrictive regulations.
- The number of patients who have lost physical functionality or the ability to perform daily activities.
- Deaths caused by medical complications—such as heart attacks or strokes—resulting from forced tapers or the sudden discontinuation of therapeutic doses.
Misinterpretation of Clinical Tools
The sources highlight that while CDC guidelines define tools like urine drug screens (UDS) as “monitoring tools only,” these tools are frequently misused. The NCP3-aligned perspective argues that using these screens as the sole reason to discharge a patient or to label them an “addict” is a betrayal of ethical duties and a misinterpretation of the guidelines’ intended purpose.
Advocacy for Alternative Standards
Rather than following the CDC and VA frameworks, the NCP3 advocates adopting the ASIPP 2023 Consensus Guidelines on Opioids. They view these as a more balanced alternative that focuses on scientific integrity, individualized care, and regulatory harmony to prevent the wrongful criminalization of legitimate medical practice
