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.