throbber
Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 24 PagelD1
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 24 PageID 1
`
`po es
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: > |
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OFFLORIDA = e
`3
`.
`v4
`mG
`TAMPA DIVISION
`:
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`<
`
`
`
`v. Case No.¥:29-@V-OJ725-TPB- JSS
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`chsSdAon
`
`NATHANIEL ESALOMI,
`
`Defendant.
`
`/
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT FOR
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`The United States ofAmerica sues for injunctive reliefand civil
`
`monetary penalties based on the defendant’s violations of the Controlled Substances
`
`Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. (the “CSA”) and its implementingregulations, 21
`
`C.F.R. § 1301, et seq.
`
`2.
`
`Opioid abuseis a national public health emergency. The dispensing and
`
`distributing of controlled substances, including prescription opioid painkillers,
`
`without a legitimate medical purpose and outside the usual course of professional
`
`practice, exacerbatesthis crisis and harmsthe public health.
`
`3.
`
`The defendant, Nathaniel Esalomi, has both fueled andprofited from
`
`the opioid epidemic by repeatedly dispensing powerful opioids prone to abuse in
`
`violation of the CSA through the guise of Apexx Pharmacy, which he ownsandruns
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 24 PagelD 2
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 24 PageID 2
`
`as the sole pharmacist. In transactions with undercover law enforcement, Esalomi
`
`repeatedly filled prescriptions for controlled substances that he knew were not
`
`legitimate in exchange for cash. Esalomi also repeatedly filled prescriptions in the
`
`namesof dead patients and falsely recorded that these patients were present in the
`
`pharmacy whenthe drugs were dispensed. In so doing, Esalomi violated the CSA.
`
`4,
`
`Accordingly, the United States seeks to enjoin defendant’s unlawful
`
`conduct to protect the public health and imposecivil monetary penalties for past
`
`violations of the CSA.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties to this
`
`action pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 842(c)(1)(A) and 882(a), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345,
`
`1355, and 1367(a).
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personaljurisdiction over the defendant, and venueis
`
`properin this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1391(c) because the
`
`defendanteither resides in this district or transacts businessin this district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`The plaintiff is the United States of America.
`
`The defendant, Nathaniel Esalomi, is licensed by the State of Florida as
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`a pharmacist. Atall times relevant to this Complaint, Esalomi owned and operated
`
`Apexx Pharmacy, LLC (“Apexx”’), which does businessas a retail pharmacy,
`
`located at 10343 State Road 52, Hudson,Florida 34669. Esalomiis the sole
`
`pharmacist and the pharmacist-in-charge of Apexx.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 3 of 24 PagelD 3
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 3 of 24 PageID 3
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Applicable statutes, regulations, and guidelines
`
`9.
`
`The CSA andits implementing regulations govern the manufacturing,
`
`distributing, and dispensing of controlled substances in the United States. Congress
`
`recognized the importanceofpreventing the diversion ofdrugs from legitimate
`
`medical or scientific uses to any other illegitimate uses. The CSA establishes a closed
`
`regulatory system under whichit is unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or
`
`possess any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA. 21
`
`U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 842(a).
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`The CSA categorizes controlled substancesin five schedules.
`
`Schedule I consists of substances that have “a high potential for abuse,”
`
`“no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” and “a lack of
`
`accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1); 21 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1308.11.
`
`12.
`
`Schedule II contains drugs with “a high potential for abuse” that “may
`
`lead to severe psychological or physical dependence” but nonetheless have “a
`
`currently accepted medical use in treatment.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(2).
`
`13.
`
`Schedule III contains drugs in which, although the abuse potential is
`
`less than a Schedule II drug, such abuse maylead to moderate “physical dependence
`
`or high psychological dependence.” Schedule III drugs also have “a currently
`
`accepted medical use.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(3).
`
`14.
`
`Schedule IV contains drugs that, although having a lower abuse
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 4 of 24 PagelD 4
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 4 of 24 PageID 4
`
`potential than Schedule III drugs, still may lead to a physical or psychological
`
`dependence when abused. 21 U.S.C.§ 812(b)(4).
`
`15.
`
`Schedule V contains drugs that, although having a lower abuse
`
`potential than Schedule IV drugs, still may lead to a physical or psychological
`
`dependence when abused. 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(5).
`
`16.
`
`As relevant here, the following substances are controlled substances
`
`regulated under the CSA:
`
`fo. Promethazine-Codeine (Schedule V);
`. Oxycodone (Schedule I);
`Hydromorphone (Schedule I]);
`. Suboxone (ScheduleIII).
`
`Qaso
`
`17.
`
`The term “distribute” meansto deliver (other than by administering or
`
`dispensing) a controlled substance ora listed chemical. The term “distributor” means
`
`a person whoso delivers a controlled substance or a listed chemical. 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 802(11).
`
`18.
`
`The term “dispense” meansto deliver a controlled substance to an
`
`ultimate user or research subject by, or pursuant to the lawful orderof, a practitioner,
`
`including the prescribing and administering of a controlled substance and the
`
`packaging, labeling or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for such |
`
`delivery. The term “dispenser” meansa practitioner whoso delivers a controlled
`
`substance to an ultimate user or research subject. 21 U.S.C. § 802(10).
`
`19.
`
`The terms “deliver” or “delivery” mean the actual, constructive, or
`
`attempted transfer of a controlled substance or a listed chemical, whether or not there
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 5 of 24 PagelD 5
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 5 of 24 PageID 5
`
`exists an agencyrelationship. 21 U.S.C. § 802(8).
`
`20.
`
`The CSA requires those who manufacture, distribute, or dispense
`
`controlled substances to obtain a registration from the DEA. 21 U.S.C. § 822(a). A
`
`registrant is permitted to dispense or distribute controlled substances only “to the
`
`extent authorized by their registration and in conformity with the [CSA].” 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 822(b). A pharmacist need not be registered with DEA if the pharmacy which
`
`employs the pharmacist is registered with DEA. 21 U.S.C. § 822(c)(1); see also 21
`
`C.F.R. § 1306.06.
`
`
`
`21. Atall times relevant to this Complaint, Apexx wasregistered asaretail
`
`pharmacy with DEAin Schedule IJV controlled substances underregistration
`
`number FA54933363. This DEAregistration authorizes Apexx to “dispense”
`
`controlled substances.
`
`22.
`
`Agents and employeesof a registered manufacturer, distributor, or
`
`dispenser of controlled substances, such as a pharmacist employed bya registered
`
`pharmacy,are not required to register with DEA,“if such agent or employeeis
`
`acting in the usual course of his business or employment.” 21 U.S.C. § 822(c)(1).
`
`23.
`
`Under the CSA,the lawful dispensing of controlled substances is
`
`governed by 28 U.S.C. § 829 and more specifically in Part 1306 ofthe CSA’s
`
`implementing regulations. See generally 21 C.F.R. § 1306.
`
`24.
`
`Unless dispenseddirectly by a practitioner (other than a pharmacist) to
`
`an ultimate user, no Schedule IT controlled substance may be dispensed without the
`
`written prescription of a practitioner, such as a physician. 21 U.S.C. § 829(a). Unless
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 6 of 24 PagelD 6
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 6 of 24 PageID 6
`
`dispensed directly by a practitioner (other than a pharmacist) to an ultimate user, no
`
`Schedule III or IV controlled substance may be dispensed without a written or oral
`
`prescription from a practitioner. 21 U.S.C. § 829(b). No controlled substance in
`
`schedule V .. . may be distributed or dispensed other than for a medical purpose. 21
`
`U.S.C. § 829(c).
`
`
`
`25. Suchaprescription for a controlled substance may only be issued by an
`
`individual who is (a) “authorized to prescribe controlled substances by the
`
`jurisdiction in whichheis licensed to practice his profession” and (b) registered with
`
`the DEA. 21 U.S.C. § 822; 21 C.F.R. § 1306.03.
`
`26. A prescription for a controlled substanceis valid only if issued “for a
`
`legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of
`
`his professional practice.” 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a); United States v. Moore, 423 U.S.
`
`122, 140-42 (1975); Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370, 2382 (2022) (explaining
`
`that this is an objective standard).
`
`27.
`
`“An order purporting to be a prescription issued notin the usual course
`
`of professional treatment. .
`
`. is not a prescription within the meaning andintent”of
`
`21 U.S.C. § 829 and “the person knowingly filling such a purported prescription, as
`
`well as the personissuingit, shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations
`
`of the provisions of law relating to controlled substances.” Jd.
`
`28.
`
`“The responsibility for the proper prescribing and dispensing of
`
`controlled substances is upon the prescribing practitioner, but a corresponding
`
`responsibility rests with the pharmacist whofills the prescription.” 21 C.F.R
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 7 of 24 PagelD 7
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 7 of 24 PageID 7
`
`§ 1306.04(a). Thus, a pharmacist may notfill a controlled substance prescription
`
`unless it has been issued for a legitimate medical purpose.
`
`29. Moreover, “[a] prescription for a controlled substance may only be
`
`filled by a pharmacist, acting in the usual course of his professional practice and
`
`either registered individually, or employed in a registered pharmacy ...” 21 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1306.06.
`
`30.
`
`Under the CSA “Tt shall be unlawful for any person .
`
`.
`
`. who is subject
`
`to the requirements ofpart C to distribute or dispense a controlled substance in
`
`violation of section 829 ofthis title.” 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1). Civil penalties may be
`
`imposed for the violation of this provision.
`
`31.
`
`Additionally, the CSA prohibits maintaining a drug-involved premises.
`
`This means (1) knowingly opening,leasing, renting, using, or maintaining any place
`
`for the purposeofdistributing a controlled substance or (2) managing or controlling
`
`any place and knowingly making that place available for use for the purpose of
`
`unlawfully distributing a controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. § 856.
`
`32.
`
`Florida law defines the “Practice of the profession of pharmacy” to
`
`include “compounding, dispensing, and consulting concerning contents, therapeutic
`
`values, and uses of any medicinal drug; consulting concerning therapeutic values and
`
`interactions of patent or proprietary preparations, whether pursuant to prescriptions
`
`or in the absence andentirely independentof such prescriptions or orders; and
`
`conducting other pharmaceutical services.” Section 465.003(1), Florida Statutes.
`
`33.
`
`Federal law authorizes only a pharmacist acting in the usual course of
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 8 of 24 PagelD 8
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 8 of 24 PageID 8
`
`professional pharmacypracticeto fill a controlled substance prescription. See 21
`
`C.F.R § 1306.06. Under Florida Law,only a “pharmacist, in good faith and in the
`
`course of professional practice only, may dispense controlled substances ... .”
`
`893.04(1)(a). A pharmacy must keep recordsofthe individual pharmacist
`
`responsible for dispensing of each prescription. See Fla. Admin. Code 64B16-
`
`28.140(3)(b)(7).
`
`34.
`
`Florida law requires, as a condition of obtaining a pharmacy permit,
`
`that the pharmacy designate a licensed pharmacist as a “prescription department
`
`manager.” See Section 465.018(2), Florida Statutes. A Prescription Department
`
`Manager, whichis also commonly referred to as a pharmacist in charge, must be
`
`identified to the Florida Board of Pharmacy, and no pharmacist may serve as a
`
`prescription department manager at more than one pharmacy. Section
`
`465.022(11)(c), Florida Statutes. The prescription department manageris
`
`“responsible for ensuring [.
`
`.
`
`.] compliance with all statutes and rules governing the
`
`practice of the profession of pharmacy,including maintenanceofall drug records
`
`and ensuring the security of the prescription department, and shall competently and
`
`diligently exercise their responsibilities as a prescription department manager.” Fla.
`
`Admin. Code. 64B16-27-450(2).
`
`35.
`
`Florida pharmacy law requires that a pharmacist maintain a patient
`
`record system forall patients which “shall provide for the immediate retrieval of
`
`information necessary for the dispensing pharmacist to identify previously dispensed
`
`drugs at the time a new orrefill prescription is presented for dispensing.” Fla.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 9 of 24 PagelD 9
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 9 of 24 PageID 9
`
`Admin. Code 64B16-27.800. Moreover, the pharmacist must “ensure that a
`
`reasonable effort is made to obtain, record and maintain”patient information
`
`relevant to pharmacypractice including, “Pharmacist comments relevant to the
`
`individual’s drug therapy, including any other information peculiar to the specific
`
`patient or drug.” Jd.
`
`36.
`
`Under Florida law,the practice of pharmacy requires that a licensed
`
`pharmacist conduct a prospective drug utilization review prior to dispensing each
`
`new andrefill prescription. Fla Admin. Code 64B16-27.810. A pharmacist must
`
`review the patient pharmacy record to promote therapeutic appropriateness and
`
`identify: (a) Over-utilization or under-utilization; (b) Therapeutic duplication;(c)
`
`Drug-disease contraindications; (d) Drug-druginteractions; (e) Incorrect drug dosage
`
`or duration of drug treatment; (f) Drug-allergy interactions; (g) Clinical
`
`abuse/misuse. A licensed pharmacist must, upon recognizing any of these
`
`indications, take appropriate steps to avoid or resolve the potential problems,
`
`including consulting with the prescriber,if necessary. Id.
`
`37.
`
`The knowing dispensing of controlled substances when deliberately
`
`ignoring warning signals that a prescription was not issued for a legitimate purpose
`
`by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice violates the
`
`prescription requirement contained in 21 U.S.C. § 829, because doing so violates the
`
`pharmacist’s corresponding responsibility to ensure that a prescription was issued by
`
`a practitioner acting in the usual course of medical practice and for a legitimate
`
`medical purpose (21 C.F.R. § 1306.04) and becausethe a controlled substance
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 10 of 24 PagelD 10
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 10 of 24 PageID 10
`
`prescription may only be filled in the usual course of professional pharmacy practice
`
`(21 C.F.R. § 1306.06).
`
`38.
`
`Florida law also states that a pharmacist may not dispense a controlled
`
`substance listed in Schedule IT, Schedule III, or Schedule IV to any patient without
`
`first determining, in the exercise of her or his professional judgment, that the
`
`prescription is valid. See Section 893.04(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The pharmacist may
`
`dispense the controlled substance when the pharmacist or pharmacist’s agent has
`
`obtained satisfactory patient information from the patient or the patient’s agent. Id.
`
`Florida law requires that pharmacists interpret and act on clinical data, and perform
`
`therapeutic interventions when necessary. Section 465.016(t), Florida Statutes.
`
`39.
`
`Pharmacists are therefore permitted to dispense a controlled substance
`
`only in accordance with a generally accepted, objective standard of practice(i.e.,
`
`“the usual course of his professional practice” of pharmacy) and only when a
`
`prescription is issued for a legitimate medical purpose.Jd.
`
`40.
`
`Consequently, a pharmacist violates the CSA byfilling a prescription if
`
`he or she knowsor was willfully blind to the fact that the prescription was not written
`
`for a legitimate medical purpose. See 21 C.F.R. §§ 1306.04, 1306.06.
`
`41.
`
`A pharmacist must exercise sound professional judgment in
`
`determining the legitimacy of a controlled substance prescription. Fla. Admin. Code
`
`§ 64B16-27.831. “[W]hen a pharmacist is presented with a prescription for a
`
`controlled substance, the pharmacist shall attempt to determinethe validity of the
`
`prescription and shall attempt to resolve any concerns aboutthe validity of the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 11 of 24 PagelD 11
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 11 of 24 PageID 11
`
`prescription by exercising his or her independent professional judgment.” Fla
`
`Admin. Code § 64B16-27.831(2). Florida law requires all pharmacists to complete
`
`continuing education on detecting illegitimate prescriptions. Fla. Admin. Code
`
`§ 64B16-27.831(6).
`
`42.
`
`Under 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1) it is “unlawful for any person whois
`
`subject to the requirements of Part C” of the CSA “to distribute or dispense a
`
`controlled substance in violation of {21 U.S.C. § 829].” Thus, a pharmacist whofills
`
`a prescription in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 829 and 21 C.F.R. § 1306 subjects the
`
`pharmacy who employs him orherto civil penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1).
`
`B.
`
`Penalties and other remedies
`
`43.
`
`The penalty for a person who violates 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1) is as much
`
`as $67,627 for each violation. See 21 U.S.C. § 842(c)(1)(A); 28 C.F.R. § 85.5, Federal
`
`Register Vol. 86, No. 236.
`
`44.
`
`Under 21 U.S.C. § 856(d), the civil penalty for a person whoviolates 21
`
`U.S.C. § 856(a) is no more than the greater of (1) $379,193 or (2) two times the gross
`
`receipts, either known or estimated, that were derived from each violation thatis
`
`attributable to the person. 28 C.F.R. § 85.5, Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 236.
`
`45.
`
`The CSA authorizes federal courts to enjoin violations of the CSA,
`
`including violations of Sections 842(a)(1) and 856. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 843(f) and
`
`882(a).
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`46.
`
`On May11, 2022, law enforcementreceived a report of potentially
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 12 of 24 PagelD 12
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 12 of 24 PageID 12
`
`fraudulent prescriptions for promethazine with codeine cough syrup (“‘promethazine-
`
`codeine”) being filled at pharmacies in Pinellas, Pasco, and Hillsborough Counties.
`
`The individual filling the prescriptions was a known drugtrafficker and the
`
`purported prescriptions were issued by a Tampa area physician, “Doctor 1.”
`
`47.
`
`Oxycodoneis a potent opioid in Schedule II and the 30 mg formulation
`
`is the highest strength formulation of immediate-release oxycodone,is often diverted,
`
`and hasa significant street value.
`
`48.
`
`Promethazine-codeine is a Schedule V controlled substance. When
`
`prescribed legitimately, the drug is used as an acute cough suppressant. Codeine is an
`
`opioid. However, promethazine-codeine is commonly diverted and abused, andis
`
`often an item stolen in pharmacy robberies. Whenused recreationally,it is often
`
`mixed with beverages or other drugs. Onebottle of promethazine-codeine, which
`
`costs relatively little to purchase through a pharmacy,! commandsseveral thousand
`
`dollars when sold illicitly on thestreet.
`
`49.
`
`Suboxoneis an opioid and a controlled substance in schedule III andis
`
`approved to treat the symptomsof opioid withdrawal. Suboxoneis, however, prone
`
`to abuse andhasa retail street value.
`
`50.
`
`In June, 2022, law enforcement was alerted that Doctor 1 writes
`
`prescriptions in exchange for cash, charging $450 for an oxycodoneprescription and
`
`1 See https://www.goodrx.com/promethazine-codeine?form=syrup&dosage=6.25mg-10mg-
`Sml&quantity=470&label_override=promethazine-codeine.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 13 of 24 PagelD 13
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 13 of 24 PageID 13
`
`$650 for a promethazine-codeine prescription. Doctor 1 issues purported
`
`prescriptions based on the information provided on a driver’s license but without
`
`seeing or having a doctor-patient relationship with the person depictedin thelicense.
`
`51.
`
`Subsequently, in two transactions conducted by law enforcement,
`
`Doctor 1 wrote more than a dozen prescriptions for controlled substancesto
`
`individuals Doctor 1 had never met or examined, based on nothing more than text
`
`message containing imagesof the purported patients’ driver’s licenses. Doctor 1
`
`provided these prescriptions in exchange for thousandsofdollars in cash.
`
`52.
`
`On July 7, 2022, two undercoverlaw enforcementofficers took six of
`
`these prescriptions to Apexx to be filled by Esalomi.
`
`53.
`
`The six prescriptions were for identical quantities of oxycodone 30 mg
`
`tablets, promethazine-codeine, and suboxonefor each of the two undercover law
`
`enforcementofficers presenting the prescriptions.
`
`54.
`
` Esalomifilled these six prescriptions despite having actual knowledge
`
`or being willfully blind to the fact that they were not legitimate. Esalomi attempted
`
`to concealthe illegitimate nature of the prescriptions by creating four non-controlled
`
`substance prescriptions, which no doctor had issued, for each undercover law
`
`enforcementofficer.
`
`55.
`
`Toconceal the illegitimate prescriptions amongprescriptions for
`
`medications subject to less law enforcement scrutiny, Esalomi fraudulently created
`
`four additional prescriptions for the non-controlled substances azithromycin,
`
`docusate sodium (stool softener), cyclobenzaprine (muscle relaxant) and ibuprofen
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 14 of 24 PagelD 14
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 14 of 24 PageID 14
`
`for each undercover law enforcementofficer. No doctor issued these prescriptions,
`
`nor did the undercover law enforcementofficers request them. However, Esalomi
`
`added these to each orderas if they were prescriptions issued by Doctor1.
`
`56.
`
`The exceedingly high price that Esalomi charged for the prescriptions
`
`also demonstrates his knowledge that they were not legitimate. Esalomi charged
`
`$650 for each of the two 473 ml bottles of promethazine-codeine, whichis far above
`
`the marketprice for this medication when dispensed pursuantto a legitimate medical
`
`purpose. A person would only be willing to pay these prices because the
`
`promethazine-codeine wasnot intendedfor legitimate medical use, such as having
`
`an expectation to ultimately sell the controlled substances on the street for a much
`
`higherprice.
`
`57,
`
`Two different undercover law enforcementofficers conducted a second
`
`visit to Apexx later in the day on July 7, 2022, seekingto fill other prescriptions
`
`written by Doctor1.
`
`58.
`
`These prescriptions were for two of the same drugsas the prescriptions
`
`filled duringthefirst visit: oxycodone 30 mg tablets and promethazine-codeine.
`
`59.
`
`Esalomifilled these prescriptions despite having actual knowledge or
`
`being willfully blind to the fact that they were not legitimate. When oneofthe
`
`undercoverofficers, Special Agent Joseph Pelz (“SA Pelz”), provided a driver’s
`
`license from Massachusetts, Esalomi requested a Florida address. In the presence of
`
`Esalomi, SA Pelz turned to the other undercover officer, Task Force Officer Jason
`
`Gates (“TFO Gates”), and asked if he could use the same address shown on TFO
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 15 of 24 PagelD 15
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 15 of 24 PageID 15
`
`Gates’s undercoverdriver’s license. Then, while at the pharmacy counterin front of
`
`Esalomi, SA Pelz filled out a patient form using TFO Gates’s undercoverdriver’s
`
`license address. Esalomi knew that this was a ruse, and stated “because of out-of-
`
`state I will have problems.”
`
`60.
`
`Esalomi’s request for SA Pelzto alter his address was designed to evade
`
`law enforcementdetection. Controlled substance prescriptionsfilled in Florida are
`
`required to be reported to the Florida Electronic Online Reporting of Controlled
`
`Substances Evaluation, E-FORCSE, a prescription drug monitoring program
`
`(“PDMP”). Out of state addresses or customers whotravel long distances to obtain
`
`controlled substance prescriptions are well-knownredflags that a prescription may
`
`not be legitimate. PDMP records can be reviewed by law enforcement and Esalomi
`
`knew that a PDMPreport showingthat he hadfilled commonly diverted, high-
`
`potency opioid prescriptions to an out-of-state customer mightattract law
`
`enforcementscrutiny if discovered.
`
`61. Onthe secondvisit to Apexx conducted by law enforcement, Esalomi
`
`again fraudulently created additional prescriptions for the non-controlled substances
`
`azithromycin, docusate sodium (stool softener), cyclobenzaprine (muscle relaxant)
`
`and ibuprofen for each undercover law enforcementofficer. No doctor issued these
`
`prescriptions, nor did the undercover law enforcementofficers request them.
`
`However, Esalomi added these prescriptions to each orderas if they were issued by
`Doctor 1.
`|
`
`62.
`
`Esalomi again charged the excessive price of $650 for each of the two
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 16 of 24 PagelD 16
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 16 of 24 PageID 16
`
`473 ml bottles of promethazine-codeine. Esalomi charged this amount because he
`
`knewthe controlled substance prescriptions wereillegitimate and that a person
`
`paying these higher prices was willing to do so because the promethazine-codeine
`
`wasnot intendedfor legitimate medical use, such as having an expectation to
`
`ultimately sell the controlled substances on the street for a much higherprice.
`
`63. Moreover, when TFO Gates removed a stack of cash from his pocket
`
`and informed Esalomi he only had $1,650 rather than the total charge of $1,816 for
`
`the four prescriptions and the four non-controlled medications, Esalomi accepted the
`
`$1,650, stating “when you come back next time you pay me...can J trust you.”
`
`64. A week later on July 14, 2022, SA Pelz and TFO Gates returned to
`
`Apexx, and paid Esalomi$180 for the prior transaction, which Esalomiaccepted.
`
`SA Pelz and TFO Gates then gave Esalomi eight prescriptions written by Doctor 1 -
`
`four for promethazine-codeine and four for oxycodone — issued to patients who were
`
`not present in the pharmacy. Noneofthese prescriptions were for SA Pelz’s or TFO
`
`Gates’s undercoveridentities. Esalomi agreedto fill the prescriptions, so SA Pelz
`
`then gave Esalomifour driver’s licenses corresponding with the identities of the
`
`prescriptions. Esalomi instructed SA Pelz to fill out patient forms for the
`
`prescriptions. Esalomi instructed SA Pelz to forge the signature for each of the four
`
`purported patients on the forms.
`
`65.
`
`SA Pelz and TFO Gates left Apexx and returnedlater that day to pick
`
`up the prescriptions. Esalomi informed them that because the patients did not have a
`
`history offilling prescriptions for controlled substances in the Florida prescription
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 17 of 24 PagelD 17
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 17 of 24 PageID 17
`
`data monitoring program (PDMP), Esalomi would needto see the patients in the
`
`pharmacy. SA Pelz and TFO Gatesstated that they would return the next day with
`
`the patients.
`
`66.
`
`On July 15, SA Pelz and TFO Gates returned to Apexx with additional
`
`undercoverofficers associated with the undercoverdrivers’ licenses that had been
`
`provided to Esalomi the previous day. Each undercoverofficer filled out a new
`
`patient form. Addressing the group, Esalomi stated that the undercoverofficer with a
`
`Miamiaddress needed use a local address, because “Miamiis just too far for me.” In
`
`the presence of Esalomi, TFO Gatestold the undercoverofficer with the Miami
`
`address to just use the address on TFO Gates’s undercoverlicense. Esalomi
`
`approvedthis change.
`
`67.
`
`Esalomi also stated that he needed telephone numbers from everyone
`
`and indicated that it would be acceptable for everyone in the group to use TFO
`
`Gates’s phone number.
`
`68.
`
`The group of undercoverofficers left the pharmacy, and SA Pelz and
`
`TFO Gates returned approximately one hourlater, without the other undercover
`
`officers. Esalomi told SA Pelz that the prescriptions would cost $3,632. SA Pelz paid
`
`Esalomi $3,640, and Esalomi then provided two bags to TFO Gates.
`
`69.
`
`The bags contained four bottles of oxycodonepills, four 473 ml bottles
`
`of promethazine-codeine, and four bottles of each of the non-controlled substance
`
`medications. Again, Esalomi had fraudulently created prescriptions for these
`
`medications as though they had been prescribed by Doctor 1, even though they were
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 18 of 24 PagelD 18
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 18 of 24 PageID 18
`
`not, and had not been requested.
`
`70.
`
`As with the other transactions, Esalomi knew that the prescriptions
`
`filled on July 15, 2022 were not legitimate. Esalomi requested the alteration of the
`
`Miami address to avoid detection by law enforcement through the PDMPbecause a
`
`person traveling a long distancetofill a prescription is a well-known redflag that a
`
`prescription may notbe legitimate. Esalomi knew that a PDMP report showing he
`
`hadfilled commonly diverted, high-potency opioid prescriptions to a south Florida
`
`customer would attract law enforcementscrutiny if discovered.
`
`71.
`
`Likewise, Esalomi added the non-controlled substance prescriptions to
`
`conceal the illegitimate controlled substance prescriptions amongprescriptions for
`
`medications subject to less law enforcementscrutiny.
`
`72.
`
`Falsely adding non-controlled medications for customers who wish to
`
`fill only controlled substance prescriptions also allowed Esalomi to maintain a false
`
`ratio of controlled to non-controlled substances, which is a metric that is often
`
`examined by pharmacydistributors.
`
`73.|Esalomi charged the excessive price of $650 for each of the four 473 ml
`
`bottles of promethazine-codeine, which is far above the marketprice for this
`
`medication when dispensed pursuantto a legitimate medical purpose. Esalomi
`
`charged this amount because he knew the controlled substance prescriptions were
`
`illegitimate and that a person paying these higher prices was willing to do so because
`
`the promethazine-codeine was not intended for legitimate medical use, such as
`
`having an expectation to ultimately sell the controlled substances on thestreet for a
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 19 of 24 PagelD 19
`Case 8:22-cv-01725-TPB-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 19 of 24 PageID 19
`
`muchhigherprice.
`
`74.
`
`The exchangesofillegitimate prescriptions for cash described in the
`
`preceding paragraphswere essentially drug deals, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 842(a)(1).
`
`75.
`
`In addition to the drug deals described above, Esalomi has separately
`
`filled prescriptions for controlled substancesfor at least three patients (Patient 1,
`
`Patient 2, and Patient 3) who were deceased at the time that the prescriptions were
`
`filled, in violationof 21 U.S.C.§ 842(a)(1).
`
`76.
`
`Patient 1 died on June 21, 2019, but between July 19, 2021 and July 21,
`
`2022, Esalomifilled at least twenty-three prescriptions for hydromorphone, twenty
`
`prescriptions for oxycodone, two prescriptions for alprazolam, and oneprescription
`
`for promethazine with codeine syrup for Patient 1. Each timehefilled the
`
`prescriptions, Esalomifalsely indicated that Patient 1 came to the pharmacy in
`
`person.
`
`77.
`
`Patient 2 died on June 16, 2021, but Esalomifilled prescriptions for
`
`hydromorphonefor Patient 2 on July 29, 2021 and October 8, 2021. Each time he
`
`filled the prescriptions, Esalomi falsely indicated that Patient 2 came to the
`
`pharmacy in person.
`
`78.
`
`Patient 3 died on October 19, 2018, but Esalomifilled at least twenty
`
`prescriptions for hydromorphone, thirteen prescriptions for oxycodone, and one
`
`prescription for promethazine-codeine for Patient 3 between July 1,

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket