Will the DEA Investigate the Use of Controlled Substances by UAMS Physician-Professors to Unlawfully Restrain a Man
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigates federal crimes involving licensed physicians who force or administer controlled substances to a person without their consent. The primary federal criminal authority is found in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 841, which prohibits the unauthorized distribution or dispensing of controlled substances and includes a specific provision targeting drug-facilitated crimes committed without a victim’s knowledge. A licensed physician’s DEA registration does not shield them from criminal prosecution when they act outside the usual course of professional practice.
DEA Authority and Jurisdiction Over Licensed Physicians
The DEA derives its enforcement authority over physicians from the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. Physicians who wish to prescribe, dispense, or administer controlled substances must obtain DEA registration under 21 U.S.C. § 823. However, that registration does not confer unlimited authority. Under 21 U.S.C. § 824, the DEA may suspend or revoke a physician’s registration upon a finding that they have been convicted of a felony under the CSA or that their continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest 21 U.S.C.A. § 824. The DEA has exercised this authority broadly. In MacKay v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 664 F.3d 808 (10th Cir. 2011), the Tenth Circuit upheld the DEA’s revocation of a physician’s registration where the physician’s conduct — including prescribing controlled substances without determining medical necessity — was found inconsistent with the public interest under 21 U.S.C. § 823(f). Similarly, in Akhtar-Zaidi v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 841 F.3d 707 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit upheld an immediate suspension order against a physician whose prescriptions were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose, confirming the DEA’s authority to act swiftly when public safety is at risk.
Criminal Liability Under 21 U.S.C. § 841
The foundational criminal prohibition is 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), which makes it “unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally . . . to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance,” except as authorized 21 U.S.C.A. § 841. A licensed physician is not exempt from this provision when acting outside the scope of legitimate medical practice. As the court in United States v. Nasher-Alneam, 399 F. Supp. 3d 561 (S.D.W. Va. 2019) explained, “even a physician licensed under the Controlled Substances Act can be prosecuted under the Act if, for example, he illegally distributes controlled substances.” To convict a DEA-registered physician under § 841(a)(1), the government must prove that the physician: (1) knowingly or intentionally distributed a controlled substance; (2) with knowledge that it was a controlled substance; and (3) acted outside the usual course of professional practice. Nasher-Alneam, 399 F. Supp. 3d 561 .
The Drug-Facilitated Crime Provision: § 841(b)(7)
Most directly applicable to forced or non-consensual administration of a controlled substance is 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(7)(A), which provides that whoever, “with intent to commit a crime of violence, as defined in section 16 of Title 18 (including rape), against an individual, violates subsection (a) by distributing a controlled substance or controlled substance analogue to that individual without that individual’s knowledge, shall be imprisoned not more than 20 years” 21 U.S.C.A. § 841. The statute defines “without that individual’s knowledge” to mean “that the individual is unaware that a substance with the ability to alter that individual’s ability to appraise conduct or to decline participation in or communicate unwillingness to participate in conduct is administered to the individual.” 21 U.S.C.A. § 841. This provision — enacted as part of the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act — applies to any person, including a licensed physician, who uses a controlled substance as a tool to facilitate a violent crime against a non-consenting victim. Penalties escalate significantly if death or serious bodily injury results from use of the substance, reaching not less than 20 years or more than life imprisonment for Schedule I or II controlled substances. 21 U.S.C.A. § 841.
Registration Consequences
Beyond criminal prosecution, a physician convicted of any felony under the CSA is subject to mandatory registration revocation under 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(2). The DEA may also issue an immediate suspension order under § 824(d) where continued registration poses an imminent danger to public health or safety, allowing the agency to act even before a criminal conviction is secured. 21 U.S.C.A. § 824, Akhtar-Zaidi, 841 F.3d 707.
Commentary on This Question
Federal law, under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), makes it a crime for a licensed physician to unlawfully prescribe or dispense controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. Such conduct can trigger investigations by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and criminal prosecution under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). Liability attaches when a physician knowingly and intentionally dispenses controlled substances without legitimate medical need or in a manner inconsistent with accepted professional standards, even if the physician holds DEA registration. Courts have upheld convictions where evidence showed prescriptions were written without proper medical examination or outside standard medical practice, including instances where prescriptions were issued based on unreliable telemedicine consultations or for non-medical reasons. Suspension or revocation of state medical licenses often accompanies criminal sanctions, especially where the prescribing patterns involve high-volume or dangerous drug combinations, reflecting a risk of patient harm or death. The CSA and associated case law provide that unlawfully forcing a person to ingest a controlled substance by a licensed physician without valid medical justification potentially constitutes criminal conduct subject to DEA investigation and federal prosecution. 33 A.L.R. Fed. 220 (Originally published in 1977), 8 Am. Jur. Trials 573 (Originally published in 1965).
Additionally, federal prosecutions have included charges related to conspiracy, unlawful distribution, and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances by practitioners or their aides. DEA investigations may examine large-scale prescription practices, telemedicine-related prescribing, and record falsifications. Cases emphasize the importance of medical records and scrutiny of prescribing patterns deviating from accepted norms or involving patient harm or overdose deaths. Physicians may face administrative as well as criminal consequences for such misconduct. O’Malley, Grenig, & Lee, Fed. Jury. Prac. & Instr. Crim Comp HB § 20:5, 8 Am. Jur. Trials 573 (Originally published in 1965), 183 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 353 (Originally published in 2020).
Current Awareness
Criminal Practice Report highlights ongoing federal prosecutions of physicians for unlawfully distributing controlled substances, emphasizing that conviction turns on the practitioner’s subjective intent rather than an objective reasonableness standard. In United States v. Parasmo, 176 F.4th 220 (2d Cir. 2026), the court found it erroneous to instruct the jury using an objective standard but deemed the error harmless based on evidence of improper prescribing practices, underscoring that physician liability can arise when prescriptions are issued outside the usual course of professional practice and without a good-faith medical purpose. 40 No. 13 Crim. Prac. Rep. NL 3.
Application to UAMS physician-professors and nurses.
From January 13, 2024 to January 27, 2024, numerous UAMS doctors and nurses conspired and proceeded to force a man named Sean Lynn to ingest controlled substances, including fentanyl, lorazepam, diazepam, Haldol, and Precedex with the intent to incapacitate Sean. The “team” wanted to stop Sean’s escape from the SICU. No psychiatrist examined or diagnosed Sean prior to the drugging. No petition was filed with any court to obtain authorization. Some of the orders were made by telephone, without the supervising physician present.
The record was drastically altered to exclude the administration of fentanyl, until 18 months after the incident, and then only after a civil action was filed against the university hospital where the alleged crime took place.
Some of the doctors who were complicit, supervised, ordered or administered the drugs include Karrar Aljiboori, MD; Natalie J. Applebaum, MD; Jennings R. Boyette, MD; Elizabeth Brown, MD; Nolan R. Bruce, MD; Benjamin L. Davis, MD; Prashanth Reddy Damalcheruvu, MD; Jordan W. Greer, MD; Mary Katherine “Katie” Kimbrough, M.D.; Payton D. Lea, M.D; Joseph F. Margolick, MD; Sarah E. Martin, MD; Zachary A. McConnell, MD; Anna G. Morris, MD; Sriram Navuluri, M.D.; Erika A. Petersen, MD; Nathan Redding, MD; Arthur Rezayev, MD; Tyler K. Rose, MD; Christian Spallino, MD; Krista J. Stephenson, MD; Jordan M. Takasugi, MD; Marisa D. Tran, MD; Adam S. Watkins, MD; Kesley M. Winn, MD.
The UAMS police department refused to investigate the state criminal laws that were violated by these same people. Their crimes include false imprisonment and battery. There are probably obstruction of justice charges that would be appropriate to file to protect the community from repeated violation of medical norms – such as respecting a patient’s right to refuse treatment.
General Counsel and hospital administration assisted these doctors in dodging service of process in the civil suit filed by Sean Lynn. Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Cara Connors failed to grant timely relief, such as a court order for the production of the civil defendants’ addresses.
Injustice for All: Judge Cara Connors Cure for Racism
UAMS Professor Prashanth Reddy Damalcheruvu, M.D., with the help of more than 80 of his colleagues, supervisee residents, and students, falsely imprisoned and battered Sean Lynn for two weeks.
Sean did not give consent for treatment. He begged to be released from the Arkansas State teaching hospital. He made escape attempts each time the drugs forced into him, including fentanyl, benzos, Haldol, and Precedex, wore off.
Doctor Damalcheruvu, nor any other UAMS staff, petitioned a court for authority to treat Sean without consent. Nor was Sean’s next of kin, this writer, appointed as a surrogate decision-maker for the two weeks of unlawful confinement.
The gang at UAMS, each contributing and complicit, bound Sean’s hands and feet to the hospital bed railings. His genitals were exposed with no medical purpose. He was forced to defecate in a bedpan. Urinary catheters were inserted three times, though Sean purposefully pulled them out all three times.
During escape attempts, UAMS staff members disrupted the chain of tiny bones in Sean’s left ear. Sean left UAMS with hospital-acquired permanent deafness in his left ear.
The UAMS Gang threw off Sean’s electrolytes by starving, dehydrating, and medicating him. Sean left UAMS Medical Center with a hospital-acquired condition called hyponatremia, a low sodium level. Hyponatremia can cause death or lesser symptoms such as confusion.
After releasing Sean against the medical advice of Dr. Damalcheruvu and the unanimous UAMS opinion, the University of Arkansas billed Sean what it called a discounted rate: $46,000+. If Sean had stayed at UAMS until they killed him, the state would have taken all his assets.
UAMS refused to compensate Sean, pay for services to help him adjust to his hospital-acquired disabilities, or apologize. Sean asked for a settlement conference with ADA accommodations, and the risk manager for Dr. Damalcheruvu and the other doctors’ insurer wrote that the doctors would only participate in settlement discussions if Sean came alone.
Sean and I filed a lawsuit, pro se, concerning the two-week-long occurrence. Judge Cara Connors was assigned as the judge.
At first, I was hopeful. Judge Connors advertises that she is a champion of Blacks and the poor.
Judge Connors couldn’t possibly be happy about the fatal shooting of Tyrone Washington by a UAMS police officer after Mr. Washington was turned away from receiving mental health treatment. Apparently, Mr. Washington did not own six houses, like Sean. Payment for his treatment would be limited.
There are differences between Tyrone Washington and Sean Lynn. The former was Black. Sean is white. Mr. Washington had few assets. Sean had bought six small houses that should have been bulldozed and refurbished them with his own hands. Mr. Washington was shot in the UAMS parking lot after being turned away for treatment. He was alone. Sean’s then-girlfriend found him about 14 hours after UAMS imprisoned him, and I immediately joined Sean when his now-ex-girlfriend notified me. (She ended their 11-year cohabitation exactly one year after he was released from UAMS. She never vowed “for better or worse, in sickness and in health.”)
Judge Connors had the opportunity to tell UAMS it is required to afford non-consenting patients due process before confining them and violating their bodily autonomy. Instead, Judge Conners, and the Arkansas State Claims Commissioners before her, have forgiven the medical defendants’ procedural shenanigans and put up roadblocks to Sean’s pursuit of justice.
[To Be Continued.]
Court Corruption at its Worst – No Redress – No Change
I am fighting a state teaching hospital for falsely imprisoning Sean Lynn for two weeks, then destroying evidence and refusing to compensate him. This type of corruption by government employees who manipulate and abuse “justice” is nothing new.
State Employees Allowed to Violate Patients’ Constitutional Rights – Attorney Wanted!
Sean Lynn was falsely imprisoned at UAMS Medical Center for two weeks. The 100+ medical staff, administrators and security personnel involved refuse to compensate Sean for the damage they caused him. Surveillance videos taken by UAMS staff were destroyed. The UAMS PD refused to investigate. The Arkansas Attorney General’s Office said it was not their job to help citizens who are forced to use fentanyl and other dangerous drugs. (But the AG is spending tax dollars on a PR campaign called “One Pill Can Kill.”)
UAMS staff, including Nurse Shannon Cobb and Nurse Christian Rosenbaum, threatened to have me, Sean’s mom, removed from the hospital if I video recorded the felonious conduct. The video linked above was made accidentally when I hit the wrong button while putting my phone in my pocket.
Sean wants justice. The courts, law enforcement, and highly paid personnel at the University of Arkansas are throwing up obstacles. Please help.
Contact us at bohemian_books@yahoo.com if you can represent Sean in Federal Court in Arkansas. We are happy to collaborate on a film or video project. I will continue to post from the video I was able to take during the imprisonment at UAMS.
Podcast Episode: Dr. Prashanth Damalcheruvu: Don’t you know who he is?
Pip: There's a phrase that shows up in legal filings and hospital corridors alike — "I was just reviewing the images." A Higher Law has some thoughts on what that actually means.
Mara: This episode covers reporting by LauraLynnHammett on a civil case involving a patient held at UAMS Medical Center, the doctors named in the record, and what supervisory responsibility actually looks like on paper.
Pip: Let's start with the doctor whose name is on the scans.
Dr. Damalcheruvu and the Limits of "Just Reading Images"
Mara: The core question here is whether a supervising physician can sign orders, bill for services, and oversee a treatment team — then later claim zero responsibility for what that team did to a patient.
Pip: The post lays out what happened first: dozens of doctors and nurses at UAMS held a man against his will for two weeks, performed tests without consent, sedated him, and used four-point restraints — often leaving him naked and exposed.
Mara: Dr. Damalcheruvu's court filing draws a narrow circle around his role. His position, as stated in the document, is that he "is a neuroradiologist, and his alleged involvement was limited to reviewing and interpreting diagnostic imaging within that specialty. He did not order, direct, or control the patient's confinement, the use of force, or any aspect of his custodial care."
Pip: The medical record tells a different story. His name is the only physician name attached to over fifteen hundred dollars in CT scans billed in the first twenty-four hours, and he signed a note directing that the patient be admitted to the STICU for continued neuro exams — without asking the patient's consent.
Mara: The sedation piece matters here too. The patient was given Fentanyl and Lorazepam without consent, which Nurse Lyree Williams described as intended to subdue him. No consent form appears in the record prior to the scans Dr. Damalcheruvu approved.
Pip: Half a million dollars a year to supervise residents, and when the residents are the ones named on the treatment team, suddenly the supervision evaporates. That's a tidy arrangement.
Mara: Arkansas regulation is direct on this point. Seventeen CAR Section 140-3104(c) states that "a graduate registered physician shall be considered the agent of his or her supervising physician in the performance of all practice-related activities, including but not limited to, the ordering of diagnostic, therapeutic, and other medical services."
Pip: So the legal framework already answers the question he's asking the court to leave open.
Mara: The post links the full court filing — Damalcheruvu's reply motion — so readers can check the document directly against what the medical record shows.
Pip: A signature on an admission note, a billing record with one name, and a regulation that says supervisors own their residents' actions. The paper trail tends to be less forgetful than the people who created it.
Mara: More on where that trail leads next time.
Resident M.D. Speaks Out After Termination from Arkansas Children’s Hospital
My dad, Dr. Norman H. Kramer, told me a story repeatedly about something that happened when he was a medical resident in Cincinnati.
He had picked up a patient’s chart after the patient underwent surgery and looked at an X-ray. According to my dad, he immediately blurted out, “This man didn’t need surgery!”
The next thing he knew, he was called into the office of the lead physician who had performed the surgery.
My dad said the doctor warned him that if he ever said anything like that again, he would never practice medicine again.
I have heard that story so many times over the years that I have to wonder whether it has influenced the way I view what happened to Dr. Khammad. Maybe it has given me a bias.
But I have also spoken with Dr. Khammad at length. He comes across to me as competent, sincere, and honest. Importantly, he did not know my father’s story before we spoke. When he described what he experienced and his concerns about disagreeing with hospital policies, his account felt authentic to me.
That is what makes this case so personal for me.
My father’s story has stayed with me because it raised a question that goes far beyond medicine: What happens when someone inside an institution believes that something is wrong and speaks up?
Ideally, the answer should be that the concern is investigated. The person raising it should not have to fear that questioning a decision will cost them their career.
That is not what happens at Arkansas Children’s where Dr. Khammad was a resident or at its affiliated UAMS, apparently.
It is a shame that a resident with a grievance against a hospital could not find an attorney willing to take on the Arkansas medical and legal establishment. Dr. Khammad has decided to take them on himself.
I am rooting for him.
Dr. Prashanth Damalcheruvu: Don’t you know who he is?
Dozens of doctors and nurses at UAMS Medical Center held a man against his will for two weeks, performed whatever tests they wanted, used drugs to sedate him, and bound him to a hospital bed, often naked and exposed.
One of the doctors who was involved from the start is Assistant Professor Prashanth Reddy Damalcheruvu, M.D.
Dr. Damalcheruvu refuses to pay any restitution to the unwilling patient. The highly paid supervisor of the residents at UAMS claimed in court documents that he did not cause the patient to be confined for approximately two weeks and
subject him to force more excessive than allowed in a maximum security prison. Dr. Damalcheruvu claims that he “is a neuroradiologist, and his alleged involvement was limited to reviewing and interpreting diagnostic imaging within that specialty. He did not order, direct, or control [the patient]’s confinement, the use of force, or any aspect of his custodial care.”
The medical record and rudimentary knowledge of the supervisory role of professors in a university hospital contradict the certified document filed on Dr. Damalcheruvu’s behalf. The charges documented over $1,500 for CT Scans and imaging taken in the initial 24 hours with only one doctor’s name, Davalcheruvu.
The medical record calls the people who forced treatment on the patient the trauma team, SICU team and treatment team.
Dr. Damalcheruvu signed a note that says, “Patient will be admitted to STICU for continued neuro exams.” Dr. Damalcheruvu did not ask the patient’s consent to keep him for observation and further testing. The patient was sedated with Fentanyl and Lorazepam without consent which was, according to Nurse Lyree Williams meant to subdue the patient.
The team used four-point restraints to confine the patient. Dr. Damalcheruvu did not mention any of these restraints in his notes.
There was no consent form in the medical record prior to the CT Scans that Dr. D approved.
The patient did not consent to be treated by the residents and students who were under Dr. Damalcheruvu’s supervision.
“A graduate registered physician shall be considered the agent of his or her supervising physician in the performance of all practice-related activities, including but not limited to, the ordering of diagnostic, therapeutic, and other medical services.” 17 CAR Sec. 140-3104(c).
Dr. Damalcheruvu collects over half a million dollars per year as a professor at UAMS. Then, when his team screws up, he claims no responsibility at all. Don’t believe me? Read it here:
UAMS Doctors and Nurses Lie on Medical Records
More than a dozen doctors and nurses lied on a patient’s medical record. The UAMS “team” agreed to use a narrative that would fit the criteria for a level two trauma, despite the patient repeatedly saying he fell about 10-feet.
What could possibly motivate these medical professionals to lie about the mechanism of injury? MONEY.
The rack rate for room and board in the SICU at UAMS Medical Center is about $10,000 per night. I will repeat that, so you know it is not a typo. The published rate for “bed service” in the SICU is about ten thousand dollars per midnight spent there.
Even if the patient refuses treatment and tries to escape.
To be fair, UAMS typically gives a “discount.” In the case of the exaggerated fall, UAMS tried to collect only $4,300 per night from the patient.
When Medicaid offered to pay, even though the patient told Medicaid that UAMS caused most of his medical conditions and held him against his will for two weeks, UAMS dropped the bill down to less than half the patient-payor price. Nice.
For years, I and the patient, my son, said the doctors at UAMS were merely negligent when writing that the fall was 34 or 35 feet repeatedly. But, representatives of The Doctors Insurance and UAMS have written in letters and court docs that there was no negligence.
OK. Then writing that something that did not happen, a fall from over 20 feet, was an intentional lie. Or it was true.
The only witness to the fall was the patient. He said it was from about 10-feet.
A fall from 34 or 35 feet, barring a miracle, would leave the person with some lacerations. This man had none.
His vitals were well within normal, healthy range. His Glascow Coma Scale was 13 or 14, indicative of a mild TBI.
The doctor who diagnosed the patient’s facial fractures wrote “No need to keep admitted from facial fracture standpoint.”
On the triage report, that can be downloaded below, the only indication for calling this a level one, two, or three trauma activation was that someone who was not a witness to the fall said it was 34 or 35 feet. (Hint: The ladder was 35 feet tall.) There was not a check mark for the doctors’ independent judgment that the injuries were consistent with a level one, two or three trauma.
The doctors and nurses did not ask for the surveillance video taken in the UAMS emergency room be preserved. The doctors and nurses involved knew the patient did not consent to treatment. The UAMS medical personnel and their counsel failed to file a petition that is required before holding a patient without consent. Probably they knew that the judge would not force the patient to stay. They thought, it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
But no one is asking forgiveness. Dr. Damalcheruvu’s attorney said Damalcheruvu was not responsible for the alleged starvation, dehydration and unlawful imprisonment because he is merely the medical professor whose specialty is neuro radiology – the one who was involved with taking and interpreting the CT Scans.
The lawyer for Dr. Joseph Margolick, Dr. Benjamin Davis, and Nurse Britney Beumeler said that he was going to defend his clients by attacking my “character and credibility.”
These defendants should be charged with criminal false imprisonment and battery. The UAMS Police Department refuses to even look at the evidence against the doctors and nurses. Every one involved should lose their licenses, and frankly, UAMS should be shut down.
We are happy to share our evidence with anyone who wants to see it. You can contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com or go to the clerk’s office at Pulaski county Courthouse and ask for a copy of the thumb drive filed in the case of Sean Lynn and Laura Hammett v. Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas, et al.
Here is the triage activation survey.
A Higher Law 