Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
scdunbar

Class action D.E.A.

Recommended Posts

      I need to know how to start a class action suit against the Drug Enforcement Agency. Here in Florida, it is impossible for thousands of people to get their pain medications. Due to harassment from the DEA, pharmacies are afraid to increase the number of opiates they order. The only people who can get their meds., are those that have been established with a pharmacy, before all this scrutiny  began. Those of us that had our pharmacies closed, are just out of luck. Please help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government agencies are generally exempt from being sued from the consequences of their lawful policy actions.  As class action suits are extremely expensive for law firms to develop, if you are not harmed by the gross negligence of the DEA (which your statements don't seem to support) as opposed to you being personally inconvenienced, , I can't imagine any law firm would burn any of their resources on your request.

 

A much better option would be trying to lobby the government about your concerns through some group such as the AARP.  If there were ever any such class action suit (which is extremely unlikely), it would originate through one of those groups.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A class action is not something you choose.  If an action exists and their are sufficient plaintiffs, the court may certify it as a class action.  But like the previous post, legislation would seem to be the proper avenue for this.  I have no idea why Florida would be subjected to a more draconian enforcement effort than other states, but effectively enforcing the law is not actionable against the DEA, barring some proof of abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you can sue the DEA in a class action or otherwise, you’d need to find some wrong that the DEA has committed for which federal law says you may sue. Federal agencies cannot be sued for taking actions that are within their authority to take. Those actions may have an adverse impact on you and you may not like them, but if the acts don’t violate federal law and are within the agency’s authority then a lawsuit won’t help you. What you have in this instance is not a problem the courts can solve for you. It is a policy issue, and for that you need a political solution. That means either convincing the Obama adminstration to change the DEA policy on enforcement regarding prescriptions of narcotic pain killers for chronic pain patients or lobbying Congress to enact a law that changes the policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Many people I know, and heard of, have ended up in emergency rooms numerous times due to detoxification side affects, due to pharmacies afraid to increase the number of opiates they order. Denying people of a better quality of life through unjust laws, and intimidation. I know this problem is experienced by thousands of Floridians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A class action is not something you choose.  If an action exists and their are sufficient plaintiffs, the court may certify it as a class action.  But like the previous post, legislation would seem to be the proper avenue for this.  I have no idea why Florida would be subjected to a more draconian enforcement effort than other states, but effectively enforcing the law is not actionable against the DEA, barring some proof of abuse.

    Florida is where people come from all over the country to score meds at pill mills, that seem to be all over this state. So we are more scrutinized than any other state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government agencies are generally exempt from being sued from the consequences of their lawful policy actions.  As class action suits are extremely expensive for law firms to develop, if you are not harmed by the gross negligence of the DEA (which your statements don't seem to support) as opposed to you being personally inconvenienced, , I can't imagine any law firm would burn any of their resources on your request.

 

A much better option would be trying to lobby the government about your concerns through some group such as the AARP.  If there were ever any such class action suit (which is extremely unlikely), it would originate through one of those groups.

 

 

A class action is not something you choose.  If an action exists and their are sufficient plaintiffs, the court may certify it as a class action.  But like the previous post, legislation would seem to be the proper avenue for this.  I have no idea why Florida would be subjected to a more draconian enforcement effort than other states, but effectively enforcing the law is not actionable against the DEA, barring some proof of abuse.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense  promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Emphasis on promote general welfare. What about pursuit of happiness. Forcing people to become extremely ill, then let them suffer without any relief from their existing condition is down right criminal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Emphasis on promote general welfare. What about pursuit of happiness. Forcing people to become extremely ill, then let them suffer without any relief from their existing condition is down right criminal!

 

The Preamble is not law, it's simply aspirational, i.e. a statement of what the founders hoped the government they were forming would do. As for “pursuit of happiness,” that phrase is not found in the Constitution at all, but rather in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is also not law. It was a letter to the King of England explaining why the colonists were choosing to split from England.

 

The DEA’s policies are meant to carry out its mission to enforce the controlled substances act and other laws that  prohibit illegal trafficking in drugs, including narcotic pain killers. Abuse and illegal sales of these drugs is a well known and persistent problem in the U.S. The DEA's enforcement policies are meant to tackle that problem. You are free to disagree with those enforcement policies, but that's a political issue, not an issue for the courts. So if you want change, you’ll need to lobby the President and Congress to get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Help with what?

 

There's not going to be any class action against the DEA for enforcing the laws on controlled substances.

 It is against the law for the government to limit legal goods produced, and sold by a private company. Who says they are "enforcing the laws"? If so, then why aren't the pills that "were" going to the "mills",  going to the ones who truly need them? Not to mention the FDA, also needs a kick in the ass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Preamble is not law, it's simply aspirational, i.e. a statement of what the founders hoped the government they were forming would do. As for “pursuit of happiness,” that phrase is not found in the Constitution at all, but rather in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is also not law. It was a letter to the King of England explaining why the colonists were choosing to split from England.

 

The DEA’s policies are meant to carry out its mission to enforce the controlled substances act and other laws that  prohibit illegal trafficking in drugs, including narcotic pain killers. Abuse and illegal sales of these drugs is a well known and persistent problem in the U.S. The DEA's enforcement policies are meant to tackle that problem. You are free to disagree with those enforcement policies, but that's a political issue, not an issue for the courts. So if you want change, you’ll need to lobby the President and Congress to get it.

 

 

The Preamble is not law, it's simply aspirational, i.e. a statement of what the founders hoped the government they were forming would do. As for “pursuit of happiness,” that phrase is not found in the Constitution at all, but rather in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is also not law. It was a letter to the King of England explaining why the colonists were choosing to split from England.

 

The DEA’s policies are meant to carry out its mission to enforce the controlled substances act and other laws that  prohibit illegal trafficking in drugs, including narcotic pain killers. Abuse and illegal sales of these drugs is a well known and persistent problem in the U.S. The DEA's enforcement policies are meant to tackle that problem. You are free to disagree with those enforcement policies, but that's a political issue, not an issue for the courts. So if you want change, you’ll need to lobby the President and Congress to get it.

 I see, so CVS, Walgreens, and all the other pharmacies are breaking the law dispensing legitimate prescriptions from well established,legal, doctors to their patients who require these to partake in life in a quality manner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I see, so CVS, Walgreens, and all the other pharmacies are breaking the law dispensing legitimate prescriptions from well established,legal, doctors to their patients who require these to partake in life in a quality manner?

 

No. But the DEA's enforcement policy is meant to make sure that these drugs are truly going to legitimate patients who truly have a medical need for the drugs and are using them for that purpose and not selling them. It's true that the DEA's enforcement policies have had an effect of making some doctors and pharmacies reluctant to prescribe and dispense these these medications to new patients they don't know well on any long term basis out of a concern the DEA will pull their right to prescribe and dispense drugs if abuse is found. That's a business decision that the doctors and pharmacies are entitled to make. 

 

Look, I get that you really oppose how the DEA is enforcing these laws and the side effects it has on doctors and pharmacies. But what the DEA is doing is not illegal and thus not something for which you (or any other patient) may successfuly sue. Though I recognize you don't like the answer, it is nevertheless true that this is a political problem, not a legal one. Take your compliants to the head of the DEA, the President, and you representatives and senators in Congress to persuade them to change the enforcement policy to one that makes it easier for chronic pain patients to get pain relief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. But the DEA's enforcement policy is meant to make sure that these drugs are truly going to legitimate patients who truly have a medical need for the drugs and are using them for that purpose and not selling them. It's true that the DEA's enforcement policies have had an effect of making some doctors and pharmacies reluctant to prescribe and dispense these these medications to new patients they don't know well on any long term basis out of a concern the DEA will pull their right to prescribe and dispense drugs if abuse is found. That's a business decision that the doctors and pharmacies are entitled to make. 

 

Look, I get that you really oppose how the DEA is enforcing these laws and the side effects it has on doctors and pharmacies. But what the DEA is doing is not illegal and thus not something for which you (or any other patient) may successfuly sue. Though I recognize you don't like the answer, it is nevertheless true that this is a political problem, not a legal one. Take your compliants to the head of the DEA, the President, and you representatives and senators in Congress to persuade them to change the enforcement policy to one that makes it easier for chronic pain patients to get pain relief.

 

 in its effort to reduce the number of pills sold in Florida, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration is intimidating people at every step of the drug supply chain. Last year, DEA agents raided two CVS stores in Sanford and suspended the license of their Lakeland-based distributor, because of the size of their oxycodone order.  

“There isn’t a doctor, a pharmacist or a wholesaler that is in Florida that is not terrified of the Drug Enforcement Administration," he says.

 This is part of an article I read. You mean to tell me, that these sorts of actions, are legal in this country? Sounds more like Mafioso tactics!

   Pertaining to your comment referring to the reluctance of Drs., and pharmacies to fill, or write scripts, I was far from being a "new" patient! I had been with SweetBay Pharmacy, for years. They transferred my scripts to CVS, where I have been established with for over seven years. I went to CVS after calling them to ensure they could take care of me. After being assured all would be fine, I showed up with my regular monthly prescriptions and was told, " We don't even carry these medications. Sorry.". They wouldn't even order them for me! I was told at Winn-Dixie pharm. They told me that they were at their limit of medication that they could dispense. Which of course is a lie. They just did not want to draw the attention of the DEA! By the way I have dealt with them off and on, over the past ten years. Walgreens told me that their current stock of my medication was just enough to cover the current number of customers who have been getting it, and would not order more. I finally thought I caught a break when through my insurance company, I found a mail order company. They took care of me for three months, then on the third month, they mailed my prescriptions back to me, and told me they can no longer send them to Florida!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 in its effort to reduce the number of pills sold in Florida, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration is intimidating people at every step of the drug supply chain. Last year, DEA agents raided two CVS stores in Sanford and suspended the license of their Lakeland-based distributor, because of the size of their oxycodone order.  

 

 

These pharmacies, both owned and operated by the same company, apparently ordered and sold an enormous quantity of controlled substances, far more than comparable pharmacies in other places. Evidently, the amount it ordered every month surpassed what the typical Florida pharmacy orders in an entire year.  Given that central Florida was known as a particularly troublesome area of the country for illegal sales and misuse of these drugs, it is not surprising that this activity drew the DEA's attention. But it wasn't just the size of the orders that prompted the DEA action.  The DEA conducted an investigation prior to its enforcement actions that included issuing subpoenas of records and interviews of pharmacy personnel and reviewed all the data it had regarding the manner in which these pharmacies operated.

 

Under the Controlled Substances Act and related DEA regulations, pharmacies have a responsbility to put in place effective measures to prevent theft and diversion of controlled substances. Under these regulations, the pharmacy has a responsbility to ensure that the controlled substance prescriptions it fills were issued “for a legitimate medical purpose.” 21 CFR § 1301.04(a). It was these rules that the DEA alleged the pharmacies had broken. And it seems that at least initially there was some merit to the DEA's allegations, as the pharmacies evidently responded to the DEA's concerns by strengthening their procedures to screen for improper sales. The result was apparently that sales of controlled substances then dropped significantly. Evidently, though, the pharmacies did not do enough to meet the DEA concerns. Thus, the DEA took the enforcement actions against the pharmacies and suspended their DEA license. 

 

 

The pharmacies’ owner had the right to protest the DEA action in federal court, which it did. It filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stay the DEA enforcement action as part fo that protest. In the court's decision on that action, it determined that the DEA’s actions were not arbitrary and capricious and that there was merit to the DEA’s claims that the pharmacies were indeed posing a risk of imminent harm to the public. Specifically, the court stated:

 

 

Applying these principles here, the DEA’s issuance of the ISOs easily passes the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. When viewed collectively, the factors considered by Administrator Leonhart—including (1) the rampant pharmaceutical drug abuse problem in Florida, (2) the large and increasing amounts of oxycodone dispensed at the pharmacies from January 2008 to December 2011, (3) the DEA’s earlier specific guidance to CVS that apparently was not heeded, (4) the evidence of illegitimate prescriptions being dispensed at the CVS pharmacies, and (5) the pharmacists’ admitted failure to detect warning signs as recently as October 2011—provided a reasonable basis for her conclusion that the CVS pharmacies’ continued registrations posed an “imminent danger to the public health or safety” under § 824(d). The Administrator “provided a satisfactory explanation for [the DEA’s] action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,” and her decision does not reflect a “clear error of judgment.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. Furthermore, her consideration and rejection of the CVS pharmacies’ remedial efforts shows that she adequately considered all of the available information before rendering her decision. See id.

 

Holiday CVS, LLC v. Holder, Civil Action No. 12-191, Memorandum Opinion 3/16/2012, U.S. District Court, D.C. Dist.

 

As a result, the court denied the request for the injunction to stay the DEA's order. If you read the enitre opinion (I included the link to it above), you will see the DEA investigation took place over a period of several months prior to the enforcement action being taken and included efforts to get the pharmacies into compliance with the law. It was not a sudden action taken out of the blue. You will also see that the DEA did have reasons for the action it took. Whether you agree with the action taken or not, I think it's pretty clear it wasn't anything near “mafioso tactics.” The DEA conducted an extensive investigation and followed the process it had for taking the enforcement action, and the pharmacy owner has the right to appeal the action, which it did. And, at least at the point of the preliminary injunction request, the court decided that the DEA had shown it was sufficiently justified in its actions for the court to deny the injunction request.

 

 

 

 

This is part of an article I read. You mean to tell me, that these sorts of actions, are legal in this country? Sounds more like Mafioso tactics!

 

 

News media often don't tell the full story on legal proceedings, and this is one example. Most articles I saw on this case barely mentioned all the investigation that was done, didn't mention just how huge the drug orders for these pharmacies were, nor mentioned that the pharmacies’ drug orders started to drop significantly once they started to put into place procedures that started to ensure that the prescriptions they were filling were legitimate, indicating that at least initially there was indeed a problem with these pharmacies. So, jumping to the conclusion that the DEA acted improperly on the basis of a few lines in a media report isn't a good thing to do, because that may in fact be the wrong conclusion. In this particular case, I would say it appears that, at the very least, the DEA actions were not the mafia style actions as you assert them to be and may have indeed been legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add two more thoughts here. First, I do not mean to suggest that the DEA is never wrong in the actions it takes or that the DEA’s enforcement policy is ideal. I recognize that the DEA’s actions have lead some pharmacies and doctors to unduly restrict the prescribing and filling of narcotic pain killers. Whether or not the fears of those doctors and pharmacies is justified is open to some debate, but clearly there is some fear there and the DEA hasn’t done as much as it can to assure doctors and pharmacies that legitimate prescriptions won't result in their DEA licenses being pulled. Second, while that fear is there for honest doctors and pharmacists, it's important to recognize that there are doctors and pharmacies who do knowingly break the law and sell these drugs to persons other than patients with a legitimate need for them. These bad actors need to be put out of business, and for them I have little sympathy when their licenses are pulled. Thus, when you read about a DEA enforcement action against a pharmacy or doctor, you’ll want to consider the possibility that indeed the person or company that the DEA is going after was making illegal sales of drugs. Your need for pain meds may lead you to a bias that the DEA is always overreaching, and that's not the case. Again, they aren't always right, but they aren't always wrong either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add two more thoughts here. First, I do not mean to suggest that the DEA is never wrong in the actions it takes or that the DEA’s enforcement policy is ideal. I recognize that the DEA’s actions have lead some pharmacies and doctors to unduly restrict the prescribing and filling of narcotic pain killers. Whether or not the fears of those doctors and pharmacies is justified is open to some debate, but clearly there is some fear there and the DEA hasn’t done as much as it can to assure doctors and pharmacies that legitimate prescriptions won't result in their DEA licenses being pulled. Second, while that fear is there for honest doctors and pharmacists, it's important to recognize that there are doctors and pharmacies who do knowingly break the law and sell these drugs to persons other than patients with a legitimate need for them. These bad actors need to be put out of business, and for them I have little sympathy when their licenses are pulled. Thus, when you read about a DEA enforcement action against a pharmacy or doctor, you’ll want to consider the possibility that indeed the person or company that the DEA is going after was making illegal sales of drugs. Your need for pain meds may lead you to a bias that the DEA is always overreaching, and that's not the case. Again, they aren't always right, but they aren't always wrong either. 

   Well, thank you for the heads up on that particular case. You're right, pain and frustration, has lead to my clouded vision of the DEA. I know they make many legitimate arrests, and are trying to take these bastards out of action. I just don't understand why my , and many other honest peoples, quality of life was just snatched from under us. Alright, so what are they doing for us? Apparently, they don'y give a rats ass about honest people, with legitimate chronic ailments, that rely on these meds! Now I have to pay $255.00 a month,which I can ill afford, for medication just to keep me from going through withdrawals! Oh boy! Now I can sit in my recliner, instead of in the hospital, puking my guts out! Where do we go for help!? If all these meds are being taken off the street, where are they for us!? How are we supposed to live? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading some of the comments here, well I need 2 put my 2 cents in.First off the DF who is backing the Dumb Entity Ahoes has never dealt with any type of chronic pain if u did u would not make the ignorant statements.Must b nice 2 live in a fn bubble...What the DEA has done is create discrimination against chronic pain patients.With the alleged abuse which has been going on 4 decades....The Drs. r now discriminating against people who try 2 better there life with some relief.Becuz they r afraid of repercussions from said Big Brother.............Also freedom of speech I bleive is still one of my rights so go have sex with urself.My life was destroyed by a drunk driver do I see the ATF in the bars attempting 2 regulate alcohol consumption F no....They closed the PM clinic I was going 2 well there was reason the Dr. evidently bcame greedy.Is it their right NO. How about pill counts and urine tests????These r all ways 2 monitor a patient. Do they do it F no.Its not rocket science.I was gainfully employed priar 2 my situation making 60 grand a year that's gone so is the house I owned..After the meds were all I had 2 keep me going been a year now as of 10/12 and my life is over.....Also came off 120 mgs morphine and 10 mgs. oxycodone 4 break thru pain  a day which isn't bad after taking 4 9 years(the amount u build a tolerance) by going thru withdrawal.without any outside help...I tired going 2 read another night no sleep due 2 exteme pain 407 am.2 the person looking 4 class action u need 2 talk 2 a attorney about a discrimination suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the DEA has done is create discrimination against chronic pain patients.With the alleged abuse which has been going on 4 decades....The Drs. r now discriminating against people who try 2 better there life with some relief.Becuz they r afraid of repercussions from said Big Brother

 

I’m sorry that you suffer from chronic pain. But evidently your chronic pain has made you at least as biased as the OP was. The DEA does, in fact, shut down illegal prescribers and providers of narcotic pain meds. It is a fact that some doctors and pharmacies break the law. As I said, however, the DEA's enforcement policy has also had the effect of scaring some legitimate doctors and pharmacies from providing pain meds to chronic pain patients. It has not done enough, in my view, to assure the legitimate doctors and pharmacies that they will not lose their licenses or get criminally charged for providing meds to patients with chronic pain. There are still doctors and pharmacies out there, however, who do provide pain meds to patients who truly need them, though it can take a real effort to find them, particularly if you live in a rural area. As much as you may hate what the DEA has done, what it has done is not illegal. Congress and the President passed the laws that give the DEA the power to regulate and enforce the sales of these drugs. If you want to change how this works, you need to lobby your federal representatives and senators. Suing the DEA over it won’t get you anywhere.

 

 

My life was destroyed by a drunk driver do I see the ATF in the bars attempting 2 regulate alcohol consumption F no

 

And the reason you never see the ATF doing that is because federal law does not give the ATF the power to do that. Ater the repeal of prohibition (the 18th Amendment to the Constitution) the law on sale and possession of alcohol is mostly state law. Federal law does two things. It imposes taxes on the production of alcohol (which once were collected by ATF but are now collected by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). It also sets minimum requirements for how alcohol is manufactured. ATF regulates that. The federal government does not in any way regulate the sale of alcohol in bars. That is done by the state. 

 

 

After reading some of the comments here, well I need 2 put my 2 cents in.First off the DF who is backing the Dumb Entity Ahoes has never dealt with any type of chronic pain if u did u would not make the ignorant statements.Must b nice 2 live in a fn bubble.Also freedom of speech I bleive is still one of my rights so go have sex with urself.

 

You have freedom of speech, but to resort to this kind of name calling when you disagree with a position taking by someone else is simply narrow minded and immature. You don’t know anything about me, but you assume that I’ve never had chronic pain. Well, you’re wrong there. I have experienced that. I understand the difficulties involved. But I also know the law and have studied the problem and I know that this is not simply a case of the DEA going out to make lives miserable for chronic pain patients. It’s  more complex than that. You evidently only see the effect on you and assume that everything the DEA does is wrong. And for you, apparently, anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who ought to go screw themselves. It seems that while you have freedom of speech you don’t respect the right of others to express their views that are contrary to yours. Some disagrees with you and your reaction is to insult them. That’s most unfortunate. That’s behavior I expect from kids, not adults. You’d learn a lot more if you were willing to be more open minded in listening to what others have to say.

 

If you truly want to understand the issue, try stepping back from your particular situation and take a wider view of what goes on out there. Do some reasearch. There is indeed a problem in this country with people getting addicted to prescription pain meds who have no legitimate need to take them. There is a problem with doctors and pharmacies supplying those people. And it is those people who abuse it that are messing it up for the legitimate patients who need these drugs for pain management. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...