Gulf Med Pharmacy, Inc. v. Dhillon et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 Motion to dissolve immediate suspension order. The Clerk shall terminate all deadlines and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 6/23/2020. (RKR)

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID 124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GULF MED PHARMACY, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No:

2:20-cv-420-FtM-29NPM

UTTAM
DHILLON,
in
his
official capacity as Acting
Administrator
and
UNITED
STATES
DRUG
ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION,
Respondents.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Petition to
Dissolve Immediate Suspension Order (Doc. #1) filed on April 14,
2020.

The government filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #6) on

June 15, 2020.

For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is

denied.
I.

Introduction

Plaintiff Gulf Med Pharmacy, Inc. (Gulf Med or the pharmacy)
seeks to dissolve the ex parte suspension of its DEA Certification
of

Registration

No.

FG6290061

(COR).

Plaintiff’s

COR

was

suspended by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) through an Immediate
Suspension Order (ISO) based on the administrative finding that
plaintiff’s

continued

registration

to

dispense

controlled

substances constituted an “imminent danger to the public health or

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID 125

safety”

within

the

meaning

of

21

U.S.C.

§§

824(d)

and

882.

Plaintiff requests that the ISO be immediately dissolved while the
ongoing

DEA

administrative

proceeding

to

determine

whether

a

permanent revocation of the COR is appropriate continues.
II.

Factual Summary

Gulf Med is a family-owned business in Cape Coral, Florida
which mostly serves patients and customers within a 10-mile radius
of its pharmacy.
pharmacist

Gulf Med employs Ricard Fertil, R. Ph., a

licensed

technician.

The

since

2003,

immediate

and

one

suspension

part-time
of

the

pharmacy

pharmacy’s

registration has resulted in the loss of all insurance-based
business,

the

cancellation

of

plaintiff’s

primary

wholesale

supplier contract, and the loss of its compounding business.

As

a result, plaintiff now accepts cash-paying customers.
On

February

9,

2018,

an

Application

for

Administrative

Inspection Warrant (Doc. #6-2) was filed in the Fort Myers Division
of the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida “because the pharmacy has dispensed a high percentage of
the two of the most highly abused Schedule 2 controlled substances
and has not previously been subject to inspection by the DEA.”
(Doc. #6-2, p. 4.)

An Affidavit for Administrative Inspection

Warrant (Doc. #6-2, p. 5) (the Affidavit) was submitted by Margorie
C. Milan, a Diversion Investigator of the DEA, assigned to the
DEA, Miami Field Division.

The Affidavit asserts that a review

- 2 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID 126

of the Automated Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS)
records

for

2017

revealed

that

plaintiff

dispensed

percentage of highly abused controlled substances.

a

high

In 2017, 1,385

prescriptions were dispensed at the pharmacy, of which 232 were
for oxycodone and 117 were for hydrocodone.

This represented 29%

and 14% of all prescriptions, respectively.

The Affidavit submits

that

the

43%

of

prescriptions

for

highly

abused

controlled

substances establishes a valid public interest in establishing a
full and complete accountability.

The Affidavit was sworn to

before a United States Magistrate Judge on February 12, 2018, and
the Warrant for Inspection (Doc. #6-2, p. 13) was issued on the
same day.

The Return of Warrant (Doc. #6-3) indicates service of

the warrant on Mr. Fertil on February 14, 2018.

On the same day,

a Subpoena (Doc. #6-4) was issued for the full profiles and
prescription history for 28 specific patients.
Patient profiles are the documents in which a pharmacy would
ordinarily record any “red flags” for a given prescription and how
the pharmacy resolved the “red flags,” as required under Florida
law.

None of the patient profiles contained any record of notes,

comments, or indication of a resolution of a “red flags”.

Another

Subpoena (Doc. #6-5) was issued on May 1, 2019, for the full
profiles of 7 of the 28 and for an additional 7 patients.

No

evidence of an effort to address potential “red flag” prescriptions
was found.

On August 9, 2019, another Subpoena (Doc. #6-6) was

- 3 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID 127

issued for the updated profile of 1 patient, and for 5 additional
patients.

No evidence of an effort to address potential “red

flag” prescriptions was found in the documents produced pursuant
to this third request.
COR was renewed.

In or around September 2019, plaintiff’s

(Doc. #1, p. 19.)

On November 18, 2019, an Order to Show Cause and Immediate
Suspension of Registration (Doc. #6-1) was issued by the DEA.

The

Order sets forth several areas of concern that were identified.
As

to

cocktail

medications

(i.e.,

combinations

of

controlled

substances widely known to be abused or diverted), examples with
unresolved “red flags” included:
a. On at least three occasions between May 22,
2019, and July 17, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled prescriptions written on the same day
by Physician R.D. for Patient A.B. for 120
units of hydromorphone 8 mg, 60 units of
morphine sulfate extended release 15 mg, and
30 units of diazepam 10 mg.
b. On at least four occasions between February
9, 2018, and July 17, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled prescriptions written on the same day
by Physician A.N. for Patient B.Di. for 120
units of hydromorphone 8 mg, 60 units of
morphine sulfate extended release 30 mg, and
60-90 units of alprazolam 1 mg.
c. On at least five occasions between December
28, 2018, and August 8, 2019, Gulf Med
Pharmacy filled prescriptions written on the
same day by Physician A.N. for Patient J.B.
for 120 units of oxycodone 30 mg, 60 units of
morphine sulfate extended release 30 mg, and
90 units of alprazolam 1 mg.
d. On at least four occasions between May 14,
2019, and August 6, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy

- 4 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID 128

filled prescriptions written on the same day
by Physician M.L. for Patient R.R. for 120
units of hydromorphone 8 mg, 60 units of
morphine sulfate extended release 60 mg, and
30 units of alprazolam 2 mg.
e. On at least four occasions between May 8,
2019, and August 5, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled prescriptions written on the same day
by Physician M.L. for Patient B.Da. for 120
units of hydromorphone 8 mg, 30 units of
morphine sulfate extended release 30 mg, and
30 units of alprazolam 2 mg. On February 12,
2018,
Gulf
Med
Pharmacy
also
filled
prescriptions written on the same day by
another physician in the same practice—
Physician D.P.—for Patient B.Da. for 150 units
of hydromorphone 8 mg, 90 units of methadone
10 mg, and 30 units of alprazolam 2 mg.
(Doc. #6-1, ¶ 7.)

The DEA expert opined that the cocktail of an

opioid, a benzodiazepine, and carisoprodol (the “Trinity cocktail)
is a serious red flag because the combination is highly dangerous.
Plaintiff was found to have repeatedly dispensed Trinity cocktails
without any indication that the pharmacists addressed or resolved
the risk.

(Id., ¶ 8.)

Additionally, from at least March 22, 2017, until at least
August 8, 2019, plaintiff repeatedly filled prescriptions for
patients
equivalent
opioids.

receiving
dosage

a
of

much

greater

short-acting

daily
opioids

morphine
than

milligram
long-acting

In the DEA expert's view, because these prescriptions

were illogical from a pharmacological perspective, they therefore
raised a red flag, yet the pharmacist failed to address it.
Examples of such improper prescriptions included:

- 5 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID 129

a. On at least 23 occasions between November
8, 2017, and July 17, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled prescriptions for Patient A.B. for 120
units of immediate release hydromorphone 8 mg
(equal to 128 mg of morphine per day), but
only 60 units of morphine sulfate extended
release 15 mg (equal to 30 mg of morphine per
day).
b. On at least 28 occasions between April 21,
2017, and July 17, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled prescriptions for Patient B.Di. for 120
units of immediate release hydromorphone 8 mg
(equal to 128 mg of morphine per day), but
only 60 units of morphine sulfate extended
release 30 mg (equal to 60 mg of morphine per
day).
c. On at least 18 occasions between January
10, 2018, and May 1, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled prescriptions for Patient S.K. for 110
units of immediate release hydromorphone 8 mg
(equal to 125-128 mg of morphine per day), but
only 60 units of morphine sulfate extended
release 15 mg (equal to 30 mg of morphine per
day).
d. On at least 27 occasions between March 22,
2017, and August 8, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled prescriptions for Patient J.B. for 108120 units of immediate release oxycodone 30 mg
(equal to 162-180 mg of morphine per day), but
only 60 units of morphine sulfate extended
release 30 mg (equal to 60 mg of morphine per
day).
e. On at least eight occasions between October
2, 2018, and August 6, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled prescriptions for Patient R.R. for 120
units of immediate release hydromorphone 8 mg
(equal to 128 mg of morphine per day), but
only 28 units of morphine sulfate extended
release 60 mg (equal to 60 mg of morphine per
day).
f. On at least eight occasions between January
16, 2019, and August 5, 2019, Gulf Med
Pharmacy filled prescriptions for Patient

- 6 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID 130

B.Da. for 120 units of immediate release
hydromorphone 8 mg (equal to 128 mg of
morphine per day), but only 30 units of
morphine sulfate extended release 30 mg (equal
to 30 mg of morphine per day).
(Id., ¶ 10.)
Gulf

Med

also

regularly

filled

controlled

substance

prescriptions for individuals who traveled an unusual distance to
obtain

their

diversion

prescriptions,

and/or

abuse

that

which
should

is

another

have

raised

indication
a

Examples included:
a. On at least 20 occasions between November
8, 2017, and July 17, 2017, Patient A.B.
traveled 45 miles round trip to obtain
prescriptions for hydromorphone 8 mg, morphine
sulfate extended release 15 mg, and diazepam
10 mg, which Gulf Med Pharmacy filled.
b. On at least five occasions between October
25, 2017, and February 12, 2018, Patient B.Da.
traveled over 48 miles round trip to obtain
prescriptions for hydromorphone 8 mg and
methadone 10 mg, which Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled. On two of those trips—January 15,
2018, and February 12, 2018—Patient B.Da. also
obtained prescriptions for alprazolam 2 mg,
which
Gulf
Med
Pharmacy
also
filled.
Subsequently, on at least seven occasions
between February 13, 2019, and August 5, 2019,
Patient B.Da. traveled over 48 miles round
trip to obtain prescriptions for hydromorphone
8 mg, morphine sulfate extended release 30 mg,
and alprazolam 2 mg, which Gulf Med Pharmacy
also filled.
c. On at least 17 occasions between January
17, 2018, and May 8, 2019, Patient R.D.
traveled over 41 miles round trip to obtain
prescriptions for hydromorphone 8 mg and
lorazepam 2 mg, which Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled.

- 7 -

red

of

flag.

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID 131

(Id., ¶ 11.)
Other common red flags are the use of cash payments instead
of insurance payments, or price gouging or charging more than the
market rate for prescriptions for a controlled substance.
¶¶ 12-13.)

(Id.,

From March 22, 2017, until at least August 6, 2019,

Gulf Med Pharmacy repeatedly filled prescriptions for oxycodone 30
mg

and

hydromorphone

8

mg

for

patients

who

paid

for

these

prescriptions in cash at substantially inflated prices that far
exceeded what other area pharmacies charged.

The DEA expert found

that the price of 120 to 140 units of oxycodone 30 mg varied from
about $1.59 to $1.63 per unit, and the sale price of 120 to 140
units of hydromorphone 8 mg varied from about $1.25 to $1.27 per
unit.

Examples

of

sales

that

should

have

raised

included:
a. On at least 15 separate occasions between
March 14, 2018, and April 10, 2019, Gulf Med
Pharmacy filled prescriptions for 120 units of
hydromorphone 8 mg for Patient R.D. On each
occasion,
Patient
R.D.
paid
for
the
prescription in cash, and on all but one
occasion Patient R.D. paid $4 per unit ($480
in total)—over three times the market rate.
b. On at least six separate occasions between
February 26, 2018, and April 22, 2019, Gulf
Med Pharmacy filled prescriptions for 84 to
120 units of oxycodone 30 mg for Patient T.G.
On each occasion, Patient T.G. paid for the
prescription in cash at a price of $4 per unit
($336 to $480 in total)—over three times the
market rate.

- 8 -

red

flags

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID 132

c. On at least 16 separate occasions between
March 7, 2018, and May 1, 2019, Gulf Med
Pharmacy filled prescriptions for 108 to 110
units of hydromorphone 8 mg for Patient S.K.
On each occasion, Patient S.K. paid for the
prescription in cash at a price ranging from
$3.56 per unit to $4 per unit ($392 to $432 in
total)-in each case at least two-and-a-half
times the market rate, and as high as over
three times the market rate.
d. On at least 14 separate occasions between
March 20, 2018, and April 15, 2019, Gulf Med
Pharmacy filled prescriptions for 90 to 120
units of oxycodone 30 mg for Patient L.V. On
each occasion, Patient L.V. paid for the
prescription in cash at a price ranging from
$2.50 per unit to $3.33 per unit ($300 in
total)-in each case at least one-and-a-half
times the market rate, and as high as twice
the market rate. Further, Patient L.V. used
insurance to pay for other prescriptions,
including
prescriptions
for
controlled
substances such as alprazolam and zolpidem.
e. On at least 19 separate occasions between
March 22, 2017, and September 7, 2018, Gulf
Med Pharmacy filled prescriptions for 108 to
120 units of oxycodone 30 mg for Patient J.B.
On each occasion, Patient J.B. paid for the
prescription in cash at a price of $3.40 to $4
per unit ($408 to $480 in total)-in each case
over twice the market rate.
f. On at least 23 occasions between November
8, 2017, and July 17, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled
prescriptions
for
120
units
of
hydromorphone 8 mg for Patient A.B. On each
occasion,
Patient
A.B.
paid
for
the
prescription in cash at a price of $3.73 to $4
per unit ($448 to $480 in total)-in each case
over two-and-a-half times the market rate, and
as high as three times the market rate.
g. On at least five occasions
25, 2017, and February 12,
Pharmacy filled prescriptions
hydromorphone
8
mg
for

- 9 -

between October
2018, Gulf Med
for 150 units of
Patient
B.Da.

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID 133

Subsequently, on at least six occasions
between March 13, 2019, and August 5, 2019,
Gulf Med Pharmacy filled prescriptions for 120
units of hydromorphone 8 mg for Patient B.Da.
On each of these 11 occasions, Patient B.Da.
paid for the prescription in cash at a price
of $4 per unit ($480 to $600 in total)-over
three times the market rate.
h. On at least 28 occasions between April 21,
2017, and July 17, 2019, Gulf Med Pharmacy
filled
prescriptions
for
120
units
of
hydromorphone 8 mg for Patient B.Di. On each
occasion,
Patient
B.Di.
paid
for
the
prescription in cash at a price of $4 per unit
($480 in total) over three times the market
rate.
i. On at least 18 occasions between December
5, 2017, and least August 6, 2019, Gulf Med
Pharmacy filled prescriptions for 120 to 168
units of hydromorphone 8 mg for Patient R.R.
On each occasion, Patient R.R. paid for the
prescription in cash at a price ranging from
$4 per unit to $4.60 per unit ($480 to $672 in
total)-in each case over three times the
market rate.
(Id., ¶ 14.)
Based on these facts, a preliminary finding was made that
plaintiff’s

continued

registration

while

administrative

proceedings were pending constituted “an imminent danger to the
public health or safety.”

Therefore, registration was suspended

immediately until a final determination could be made.

Plaintiff

now seeks to have this suspension dissolved.
III. Statutory Authority
A registration “to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a
controlled substance or a list I chemical may be suspended or

- 10 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID 134

revoked by the Attorney General” if the registrant commits acts
that would make the registration “inconsistent with the public
interest”.

21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(4).

Additionally, the registration

may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding
that the registrant has failed to comply with any standard set
forth in 21 U.S.C. § 823(g)(1).

Id.

Under some circumstances, a registration may be suspended at
the beginning of the administrative proceedings.
General

may,

in

his

discretion,

suspend

any

“The Attorney
registration

simultaneously with the institution of proceedings under this
section, in cases where he finds that there is an imminent danger
to the public health or safety.”

21 U.S.C. § 824(d)(1).

The term

“imminent danger to the public health or safety” means “that, due
to the failure of the registrant to maintain effective controls
against diversion or otherwise comply with the obligations of a
registrant under this subchapter or subchapter II, there is a
substantial likelihood of an immediate threat that death, serious
bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance will occur in the
absence of an immediate suspension of the registration.”
U.S.C. § 824(d)(2).

21

A federal district court has jurisdiction to

dissolve the suspension of a registration.

21 U.S.C. § 824(d)(1).

“The plain language of this section means that one faced with
becoming the victim of the harsh expedient of suspension without
prior notice may resort to the appropriate district court in search

- 11 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID 135

of appropriate relief.”

Norman Bridge Drug Co. v. Banner, 529

F.2d 822, 823–24 (5th Cir. 1976). 1
IV.

Standard of Review

While neither party disputes the jurisdiction of a federal
district court to dissolve an ISO, the parties disagree on the
standard of review to be applied in such a dissolution proceeding.
Plaintiff relies almost entirely on Oak Hill Hometown Pharmacy v.
Dhillon, 418 F. Supp. 3d 124, 129 n.1 (S.D.W. Va. 2019), in which
the district court applied a de novo review of the administrative
record to find that the DEA failed to show a factual basis for
suspension.

Plaintiff argues that the record in this case is

similarly insufficient to support the suspension.
The government, on the other hand, asserts that a request to
dissolve an ISO must be made pursuant to a complaint and motion
for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

“Every

Middle

824(d)

District

[of

Florida]

decision

addressing

a

§

challenge did so on a motion for temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) or preliminary injunction.”

Aarric, Inc. v. Dhillon, No.

2:20-CV-306-FTM-38MRM, 2020 WL 2114600, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 4,
2020) (collecting cases).

The government argues that plaintiff

has failed to comply with both the procedural and substantive

1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc) the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent
all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to
the close of business on September 30, 1981.

- 12 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID 136

requirements necessary to obtain a temporary restraining order or
a preliminary injunction.
The Eleventh Circuit has held that the factual basis for an
IOS is reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard.
Drug

Co.,

529

F.2d

at

828–29.

Additionally,

Norman Bridge
since

such

a

suspension of registration may be invoked only to avoid imminent
danger to the public health and safety, the Court overlooked the
failure to comply with the procedural niceties for a temporary
restraining order.

Norman Bridge Drug Co., 529 F.2d at 828–29.

Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit has held that its review of the
final decision of the DEA revoking a pharmacist’s registration
“may set aside the Acting Administrator’s final decision if it is
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).”

Jones Total

Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d 823, 829
(11th Cir. 2018).

As the Supreme Court has recently stated,

“[u]nder this ‘narrow standard of review, . . . a court is not to
substitute its judgment for that of the agency, but instead to
assess only whether the decision was ‘based on a consideration of
the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of
judgment’”.

Dep't of Homeland Sec. Regents of the Univ. of

California Wolf v. Vidal, 18-587, 2020 WL 3271746, at *7 (U.S.
June 18, 2020)(citations omitted).

- 13 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID 137

V.

Application to Administrative Record

Under the pertinent statute, the DEA must demonstrate a link
between a registrant's alleged transgressions and an impending
death, serious bodily harm, or abuse, and must show the likelihood
of

those

evils,

substantial.

based

on

the

purported

transgressions,

is

The Court finds that the record establishes that the

factual basis for the IOS was not clearly erroneous.
The

DEA

clearly

articulated

several

categories

where

effective controls against diversion were not in place and “red
flags”

were

not

recognized

or

resolved.

Specifically,

for

cocktail medications that were dispensed, improper dosing for pain
management regarding short-acting and long-acting opioids, the
long distances travelled by patients seeking controlled substance
prescriptions, and the cash payments at well above market rates
for controlled substances.

The potential harm to the public, and

the public interest in this case, clearly outweigh any harm to
plaintiff pending a final resolution by the DEA.
Plaintiff argues that no law provides a maximum distance that
a patient may travel to obtain a prescription without being flagged
as suspicious.

Gulf Med argues that it has no way of knowing “how

far, in DEA’s opinion, is too far for a patient to travel, because
there is no published standard.”

(Doc. #1, p. 15.)

Gulf Med also

argues that the Google Maps estimates do not prove that the
patients actually travelled between 41 and 48 miles roundtrip.

- 14 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID 138

(Id.)

The government rejects this argument as driving far is a

“major red flag to any pharmacist.”
Main

Street,

75

Fed.

Reg.

(Doc. #6, p. 19) (citing East

66149,

66164

(DEA

2010).

“All

prescriptions for controlled substances shall be dated as of, and
signed on, the day when issued and shall bear the full name and
address of the patient, the drug name, strength, dosage form,
quantity prescribed, directions for use, and the name, address and
registration number of the practitioner.”

21 C.F.R. § 1306.05(a).

Whether the patient travelled or not, an address located closer to
other pharmacies should have been an obvious red flag.

The Court

rejects Gulf Med’s position on this issue.
Plaintiff argues that the DEA is asking it to essentially
overrule the clinical determinations of physicians by refusing to
fill

prescriptions

calling

for

more

short-acting

opioids.

Plaintiff also argues that the cash paying customers were only a
small portion of the controlled substance prescriptions, and that
the

allegations

information.

of

price

gouging

are

not

based

These arguments are also rejected.

on

complete

“A prescription

for a controlled substance to be effective must be issued for a
legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in
the usual course of his professional practice. The responsibility
for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances
is

upon

the

responsibility

prescribing
rests

with

practitioner,
the

- 15 -

but

pharmacist

a
who

corresponding
fills

the

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID 139

prescription.”

21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a) (emphasis added).

As to

the argument of the portion of cash paying customers, there is
nothing clearly erroneous with the finding that it poses a red
flag requiring further review.
Plaintiff argues that no specific patients were identified as
having suffered harm or injury from the cocktail medications.
“Plaintiff is misguided. Whether or not anyone was actually harmed
is not the standard for finding imminent harm.

Courts have found

when infractions “demonstrate a pattern and practice of conduct
which [the] DEA could reasonably conclude was inconsistent with
public health and safety,” an ISO is not arbitrary and capricious.”
George Pharmacy Inc. v. Barr, No. 6:19-CV-1480-ORL-41GJK, 2019 WL
7423550, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2019).
Even under the other suggested standards, plaintiff cannot
justify dissolution of the ISO.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated

that

satisfied

the

temporary

suspension

the

standards

for

obtaining a temporary restraining order against its enforcement.
Additionally, even if the Court were to apply a de novo review,
the Court finds that the DEA has satisfied its burden for the
issuance of the ISO.

The Petition will be denied.

Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:

- 16 -

Case 2:20-cv-00420-JES-NPM Document 10 Filed 06/23/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID 140

Plaintiff's Petition to Dissolve Immediate Suspension Order
(Doc. #1) is DENIED.

The Clerk shall terminate all deadlines and

close the file.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of June, 2020.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 17 -

23rd

day