I. Case: Name of the case, (and year of the decision).
United States vs. Rosenberg (2009)
II. Facts: Who are the parties to the lawsuit, what is their dispute? In your own words, only include the few important
facts necessary to understand the case. If procedural matters are important (was it a motion to dismiss, etc. for example),
be sure to include that as well.
- United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Candace Rosenberg, Defendant-Appellant. For Appellees:
- Paul W. Connell, Attorney (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Richard
H. Parsons, Attorney, Peoria, IL, Paul F.X. Schwartz, Attorney, Madison, WI, A. Brian Threlkeld, Attorney (argued), Office of the Federal Public Defender, Urbana, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
The dispute is noncompliance with the Controlled Substance Act. Apparently the Defendant wrote prescriptions to nine patients unethically, i.e. outside the realm of professional practices. One patient out of the nine patients overdosed on the prescriptions the Defendant prescribed. The Defendant is a nurse practitioner who has the ability to write prescriptions, abused her privileges of writing prescriptions and conducted a private practice outside of a professional working environment. The defendant prescribed medications without performing a physical examination or checking the status of their medical history. The Defendant overcharged patients for narcotic prescriptions and was basically functioning as a drug dealer.
Judgment was Affirmed Relevant Conduct under federal sentencing guidelines. The Defendant was awarded a 3-level reduction to her guideline range for acceptance of responsibility.
III. Issue: What is the basic legal question regarding what specific provision of law that is to be decided in the case? In order for a prescription to be unlawful it must not have a legitimate medical purpose and must be dispensed outside the usual course of medical practice. United States v. Chube, 538 F.3d 693, 702 (7th Cir.2008).
IV. Holding: What is the court's answer to the basic legal question in the case, and why? [w]hen the district court revisits relevant conduct on remand, it must explain its findings with respect to each patient and make a reasoned determination whether or not the Government has carried its burden of establishing that each prescription was dispensed outside the scope of medical practice and without a legitimate medical purpose." Chube, 538 F.3d at 705-06