throbber
Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`McELROY PHARMACY, INC. and
`JEFFREY ESHELMAN,
` Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`COMPLAINT
`The United States brings this suit to hold McElroy Pharmacy and owner-pharmacist
`
`Jeffrey Eshelman accountable for illegally dispensing controlled substances and healthcare fraud.
`
`McElroy, a small community pharmacy in Lititz, Pennsylvania, was owned and operated in part
`
`by Eshleman. Until the Drug Enforcement Administration arrived at the pharmacy, McElroy
`
`was an outlier in its geographic area as the top purchaser of high-risk Schedule II opioid
`
`hydrocodone. An investigation revealed that the pharmacy, through its lead pharmacist and co-
`
`owner Eshelman, engaged in a years-long practice of dispensing countless pills of high-risk
`
`hydrocodone to individuals in the Lititz area, knowing that the individuals had a substance use
`
`disorder, without requiring a prescription. Eshelman engaged in this practice despite the
`
`licensing board disciplining him for the same misconduct years prior. In addition to
`
`hydrocodone, the investigation showed that the pharmacy illegally dispensed other controlled
`
`substances, engaged in healthcare fraud by billing Medicare for drugs that were not actually
`
`dispensed to beneficiaries, and failed to account for tens of thousands of controlled substance
`
`pills due to inaccurate inventory. The egregious misconduct, particularly providing opioids to
`
`individuals with opioid use disorder, caused serious public harm in the community. The United
`
`States files this suit to impose civil penalties, damages, and prevent defendants from dispensing
`
`controlled substances and falsely billing for other prescription medications in the future.
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff is the United States of America.
`
`Defendant McElroy Pharmacy Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporate entity. McElroy is
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`owned by Jeffrey and Brenda Eshelman. McElroy was registered with the Pennsylvania
`
`pharmacy licensing board. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) granted McElroy a
`
`registration on April 16, 1991, as a retail pharmacy authorized to purchase and dispense
`
`Schedule II-V controlled substances at 100 East Main Street, Lititz, Pennsylvania. McElroy
`
`Pharmacy Inc. surrendered its DEA registration in November 2019 after the Drug Enforcement
`
`Administration executed an administrative inspection warrant at the pharmacy.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Jeffrey Eshelman is an individual residing in Lititz, Pennsylvania.
`
`Jeffrey Eshleman owned and managed McElroy Pharmacy at all times relevant to this
`
`Complaint. He was registered with the Pennsylvania pharmacy licensing board as McElroy
`
`Pharmacy’s pharmacist-in-charge at all times relevant to this Complaint.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants McElroy Pharmacy and Jeffrey Eshelman are collectively referred to
`
`as the “defendants.”
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This action is brought by the United States for civil penalties and injunctive relief
`
`under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-971, as well as civil damages and
`
`penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Controlled Substances Act
`
`civil penalties, 21 U.S.C. § 842, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 842(c)(1)(A), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1345, 1355.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`7.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Controlled Substances Act
`
`injunctive relief, 21 U.S.C. §§ 843(f), 882, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 843(f), 882, and 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331, 1345.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the False Claims Act count for
`
`civil damages and penalties pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and
`
`1355.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over McElroy Pharmacy, Inc. because, inter
`
`alia, the entity is found in, was incorporated in, transacted business in, is licensed in, and
`
`engaged in the illegal conduct alleged below in this District, all of which harmed the public and
`
`the United States in this District.
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Jeffrey Eshelman because, inter alia, he
`
`resides in, is domiciled in, transacted business in, was licensed in, and engaged in the illegal
`
`conduct alleged below in this District, all of which harmed the public and the United States in
`
`this District.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because the defendants
`
`reside in this District, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
`
`occurred in this District, 28 U.S.C. § 1391; the claims accrued in this District, and the defendants
`
`are found in this District, 28 U.S.C. § 1395; and because the defendants are located, reside, did
`
`business, and engaged in the illegal conduct in this District, 21 U.S.C. § 843(f); 31 U.S.C.
`
`§ 3732(a).
`
`THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT
`
`12.
`
`The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and its regulations
`
`govern the distribution and dispensing of controlled substances. The CSA establishes strict
`
`guidelines “to ensure a sufficient supply for legitimate medical . . . purposes and to deter
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`diversion of controlled substances to illegal purposes. The substances are regulated because of
`
`their potential for abuse and likelihood to cause dependence when abused and because of their
`
`serious and potentially unsafe nature if not used under proper circumstances.” 75 Fed. Reg.
`
`61613 (Oct. 6, 2010).
`
`I.
`
`Controlled substances are strictly regulated and scheduled based on their potential
`for abuse and medical uses.
`
`13.
`
`Federal legislation dictates how prescription drugs are categorized. Drugs can be
`
`placed in Schedules I through V based on, inter alia, their “potential for abuse” and whether they
`
`have “a currently accepted medical use in treatment.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b). For example,
`
`Schedule II controlled substances are those that have a “high potential for abuse” that “may lead
`
`to severe psychological or physical dependence,” but have “a currently accepted medical use in
`
`treatment.” Id.
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to legislation and administrative action by the Drug Enforcement
`
`Administration:
`
`a)
`
`oxycodone (including drugs that contain it such as oxycodone-
`
`acetaminophen), hydrocodone, and methadone are opioids categorized as
`
`Schedule II controlled substances, see 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12; and
`
`b)
`
`buprenorphine (including drugs that contain it, and with brand names
`
`including Suboxone) is a drug categorized as a Schedule III controlled
`
`substance, see 21 C.F.R. § 1308.13.
`
`II.
`
`Entities that purchase and dispense controlled substances directly to patients, such
`as retail pharmacies, are required to register with the DEA and subject to strict
`controls.
`
`15.
`
`The CSA requires those who distribute or dispense controlled substances,
`
`including pharmacies that dispense controlled substances pursuant to a prescription, to obtain a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`registration from the Drug Enforcement Administration. 21 U.S.C. § 822(a). Individuals or
`
`entities who have a registration are commonly referred to as “registrants.”
`
`16.
`
`The registration requirements for those who dispense are based on the statute’s
`
`definition of a “dispenser,” which is defined as “a practitioner who [] delivers a controlled
`
`substance to an ultimate user” “pursuant to the lawful order of, a practitioner, including the
`
`prescribing and administering of a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 802(10) (emphasis added).
`
`That definition includes retail pharmacies that dispense controlled substances directly to patients.
`
`See id. § 802(21) (defining “practitioner” to include a “pharmacy”).
`
`17.
`
`Even when a registrant such as a retail pharmacy falls within the definition of
`
`“dispenser” and receives authorization through a DEA registration to dispense controlled
`
`substances, it may only dispense a controlled substance as “authorized by their registration and
`
`in conformity with the other provisions of” the CSA. Id. § 822(b).
`
`III. Retail pharmacies registered with the DEA are generally permitted to deliver
`controlled substances only to patients with a valid prescription for a legitimate
`medical purpose.
`
`18.
`
`For those entities such as retail pharmacies registered to dispense, the CSA
`
`establishes strict limitations on when a controlled substance can be dispensed to the patient and
`
`ultimate user. It generally provides that, unless a non-pharmacy practitioner dispenses directly
`
`or there is an emergency, Schedule II, III, and IV controlled substances can only be dispensed
`
`upon a “prescription.” 21 U.S.C. § 829(a), (b).
`
`19.
`
`Even with an emergency, the “prescribing individual practitioner shall cause a
`
`written prescription for the emergency quantity prescribed to be delivered to the dispensing
`
`pharmacist” “[w]ithin 7 days after authorizing [the] emergency oral prescription.” 21 C.F.R.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`§ 1306.11(d)(4). The prescription must also satisfy various other written requirements outlined
`
`in § 1306.11 and § 1306.05.1
`
`20.
`
`Regardless, a prescription is effective 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).
`
`21.
`
`In addition, the CSA’s implementing regulations provide direction specifically for
`
`pharmacists by providing that “[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 . . . .” Id. § 1306.06.
`
`22.
`
`The CSA’s implementing regulations explicitly warn pharmacists of the
`
`consequences of dispensing a controlled substance without satisfying these requirements. “[A]
`
`corresponding responsibility [for proper dispensing of controlled substances] rests with the
`
`pharmacist who fills the prescription. An order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the
`
`usual course of professional treatment . . . is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of
`
`section 309 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 829) and the person knowingly filling such a purported
`
`prescription . . . shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations of the provisions of law
`
`relating to controlled substances.” § 1306.04(a); see also United States v. Rottschaefer, 178 F.
`
`App’x 145, 147 (3d Cir. 2006) (“The CSA’s implementing regulations provide that, to be
`
`1 With respect to the form of the prescription, the CSA’s implementing regulations require that
`a prescription for a controlled substance “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.” Id. § 1306.05(a).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`effective, a prescription ‘must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual
`
`practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice’ . . . .”).
`
`23. With respect to a pharmacist’s “corresponding responsibility” to ensure proper
`
`dispensing of controlled substances, pharmacists have a legal duty to ensure that prescriptions for
`
`controlled substances are legitimate before dispensing the controlled substance. In other words,
`
`the fact that a licensed physician actually or ostensibly prescribed a controlled substance does not
`
`obligate a pharmacist to fill that prescription. A reasonably prudent pharmacist must be familiar
`
`with suspicious activity or “red flags” indicating that the controlled substances prescribed are at
`
`risk for abuse or diversion.
`
`24.
`
`Generally, a “red flag” is anything about a controlled substance prescription that
`
`would cause the pharmacist to be concerned that the prescription was not issued for a legitimate
`
`medical purpose by a registered prescriber in the usual course of professional practice.
`
`25. When confronted with one or multiple red flags concerning a prescription for
`
`controlled substances, a pharmacist must intervene and resolve the red flags to determine
`
`whether the prescription is for a legitimate purpose before filling the prescription. The
`
`pharmacist must also document his or her findings for future use and reference.
`
`26.
`
`As a general matter, when red flags remain unresolved, a reasonable pharmacist
`
`exercising his or her corresponding responsibility should not dispense the controlled substance
`
`prescription.
`
`IV.
`
`The CSA imposes strict obligations on dispensers to comply with record-keeping
`requirements to ensure accountability and protect against diversion of controlled
`substances.
`
`27.
`
`Entities registered with the DEA to dispense controlled substances are also
`
`obligated to comply with important record-keeping and accountability measures to protect
`
`against the loss and diversion of controlled substances.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`28.
`
`For example, every entity registered to dispense controlled substances is obligated
`
`to conduct a biennial inventory that includes “a complete and accurate record of all stocks
`
`thereof on hand,” 21 U.S.C. § 827(a)(1); 21 C.F.R. § 1304.11(a), (c), (e)(6); “maintain, on a
`
`current basis, a complete and accurate record of each such substance . . . received, sold,
`
`delivered, or otherwise disposed of by him,” including a record of dispensing, 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 827(a)(3); 21 C.F.R. § 1304.21(a); § 1304.22(c); and maintain the prescriptions underlying the
`
`dispensing, § 1304.04(h).
`
`29.
`
`To the extent a dispenser has a theft or loss of a controlled substance, which
`
`would impact these inventory and accountability counts of the controlled substances, the
`
`dispenser is required to file a theft/loss report with the DEA. 21 C.F.R. § 1301.76(b).
`
`V.
`
`Pharmacies and pharmacists that dispense illegitimate prescriptions expose
`themselves to substantial civil penalties.
`
`30.
`
`The CSA imposes substantial civil penalties on pharmacies and pharmacists who
`
`dispense controlled substances in violation of their corresponding responsibility.
`
`31.
`
`Any person “who is subject to the requirements of [the CSA who] distribute[s] or
`
`dispense[s] a controlled substance in violation of [the valid prescription requirement in] section
`
`829 of this title” is subject to a significant civil penalty per violation. 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1); see,
`
`e.g., United States v. City Pharmacy, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-24, 2017 WL 1405164, at *4 (N.D.W.
`
`Va. Apr. 19, 2017), aff’d sub nom. United States v. Wasanyi, 801 F. App’x 904 (4th Cir. 2020).
`
`32.
`
`Each violation exposes the pharmacy and pharmacist to “a civil penalty of not
`
`more than $25,000” for each violation on or before November 2, 2015, and not more than
`
`$67,627 for each violation after November 2, 2015. 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1), (c)(1)(A); 28 C.F.R.
`
`§ 85.5.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`MEDICARE PART D
`
`33. Medicare is a federal program administered by the Centers for Medicare &
`
`Medicaid Services (CMS), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human
`
`Services, to pay for the costs of certain health care services provided to eligible individuals.
`
`Individual entitlement to Medicare is largely based on age, disability, or affliction with end-stage
`
`renal disease. 42 U.S.C. §§ 426, 426-1.
`
`34.
`
`One piece of the Medicare program is Medicare Part D, which covers the costs of
`
`certain prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-101(a)(3)(A); 42
`
`C.F.R. § 423.30(a).
`
`35. Medicare provides Part D coverage through plan “sponsors,” which are private
`
`entities that administer the prescription drug plans on behalf of the federal government.
`
`36.
`
`Generally, pharmacies submit claims to Medicare Part D for covered outpatient
`
`drugs. Part D plan sponsors provide reimbursement to pharmacies for these drugs, such as
`
`Nexium, Advair Diskus, Crestor, Abilify, and Cymbalta, dispensed to Medicare beneficiaries
`
`enrolled in Part D.
`
`37.
`
`The pharmacy’s claims for these drugs are documented in a prescription drug
`
`event (PDE) record, which contains information about the drug dispensed, the beneficiary, the
`
`practitioner who prescribed the drug, and the drug’s cost. Medicare relies on the accuracy of the
`
`information in the claim when making payments.
`
`38.
`
`CMS makes payments to reimburse the sponsors through (a) monthly estimated
`
`payments based upon the beneficiaries enrolled; (b) cost-sharing subsidies for low-income
`
`individuals; and (c) payments made annually that reconcile the estimated monthly payments with
`
`the allowable costs the sponsor actually incurred. The PDE records are a significant factor
`
`determining the reimbursement amounts.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`39.
`
`Part D plan sponsors repeatedly certify their compliance with applicable federal
`
`laws, regulations, and CMS guidance and certify to the accuracy and truthfulness of the data in
`
`the PDE records as a condition of payment.
`
`40. Medicare only covers drugs that are for a medically accepted indication, which is
`
`approved under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or as supported in one of the listed
`
`compendia. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395w-102(e), 1396r-8(g)(1)(B) & (k)(6); 42 C.F.R. § 423.100. Any
`
`drugs that do not comply with this requirement render the PDE inaccurate, incomplete, and/or
`
`untruthful.
`
`41.
`
`If prescriptions are issued for something other than a medically accepted
`
`indication, they are not covered by Part D. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395w-102(e), 1396r-8(k)(6).
`
`42.
`
`In addition, Part D plan sponsors are only permitted to provide benefits for Part D
`
`drugs “that require a prescription if those drugs are dispensed upon a valid prescription.” 42
`
`C.F.R. § 423.104(h). A prescription is only valid if it “complies with all applicable State law
`
`requirements constituting a valid prescription.” 42 C.F.R. § 423.100.
`
`FACTS
`
`I.
`
`McElroy Pharmacy registered with the DEA in 1991 to start operating as a retail
`pharmacy.
`
`43.
`
`As outlined above, defendant McElroy Pharmacy Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporate
`
`entity co-owned and operated by Jeffrey Eshelman. The Drug Enforcement Administration
`
`(DEA) granted McElroy a registration on April 16, 1991, as a retail pharmacy authorized to
`
`purchase and dispense Schedule II-V controlled substances at 100 East Main Street, Lititz,
`
`Pennsylvania.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant Jeffrey Eshelman is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
`
`and resides in Lititz, Pennsylvania. Eshelman is a pharmacist who was licensed in Pennsylvania.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`Eshelman worked as a pharmacist at McElroy Pharmacy since 1977, and he became the owner
`
`and pharmacist-in-charge at all times relevant to this complaint.
`
`II.
`
`The licensing board previously disciplined Jeffrey Eshelman for illegally dispensing
`drugs.
`
`45.
`
`In 2006, the Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy issued a consent agreement
`
`and order against Jeffrey Eshelman.
`
`
`
`46.
`
`The order focused on controlled substances improperly dispensed without a
`
`prescription by Jeffrey Eshelman or someone “in his employ” at McElroy Pharmacy.
`
`47.
`
`Eshelman admitted that from January 2, 2001 through December 30, 2002, he or
`
`another pharmacist “in his employ” at McElroy Pharmacy improperly dispensed Schedule IV
`
`controlled substances to an individual on 115 occasions, but only had 19 supporting
`
`prescriptions.
`
`48.
`
`Eshelman admitted that, “[o]n all but approximately 19 occasions, [Eshelman]
`
`permitted Patient R.S. to telephone the pharmacy to advise them that [the physician] had written
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`a new prescription for [the controlled substance] and that he would bring in the written
`
`prescription to the pharmacy when he would pick up the medication.”
`
`49.
`
`However, McElroy Pharmacy lacked the prescriptions for the almost-100
`
`instances of dispensing.
`
`50.
`
`The licensing board issued a public reprimand to Jeffrey Eshelman for the
`
`misconduct, issued a substantial civil penalty, required continuing education, and placed his
`
`license on probationary status.
`
`51.
`
`Eshelman admitted to the facts and accepted the discipline.
`
`III. After standing as an outlier in hydrocodone purchasing, the Drug Enforcement
`Administration executed an administrative inspection warrant in November 2019.
`
`52.
`
`On November 15, 2019, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) applied for
`
`an administrative inspection warrant (AIW) for McElroy Pharmacy.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 13 of 26
`
`53.
`
`The application for an AIW recognized that McElroy’s purchasing of the
`
`Schedule II opioid hydrocodone was excessive and an outlier in its geographic area.
`
`54.
`
`The diversion investigator noted in the application that, on August 15, 2019, a
`
`query was submitted for McElroy’s controlled substance purchasing through the DEA’s
`
`Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS). ARCOS is designed to track
`
`the delivery of certain controlled substances from the manufacturer all the way through its
`
`purchase by a pharmacy or other dispenser. ARCOS allows the DEA to track the quantity and
`
`types of purchases that pharmacies are making and compare those purchases to other pharmacies.
`
`However, the ARCOS system does not track full purchase history for all schedules of controlled
`
`substances.
`
`55.
`
`A comparison was made of the ARCOS ordering patterns for McElroy with
`
`pharmacies located in zip codes with the same first three digits from January 1, 2018 through
`
`August 1, 2019. During this time frame, there were at least 50 additional DEA registered
`
`pharmacies located in the 175__ zip code set. The comparison indicated that McElroy ranked as
`
`the top pharmacy in the purchasing of Hydrocodone product compared to other local pharmacies
`
`in the 175__ zip code set. While in 2018 McElroy was ranked as the fourth highest purchaser of
`
`Hydrocodone product, McElroy was the top purchaser for 2019 at the time of the query,
`
`purchasing 53,710 tablets of combined hydrocodone product. The second top pharmacy only
`
`purchased 50,600 tablets of combined hydrocodone product.
`
`56.
`
`On November 15, 2019, a magistrate judge granted the AIW. The DEA executed
`
`the warrant at McElroy, and federal investigators served McElroy with an administrative
`
`subpoena.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 14 of 26
`
`IV. DEA and HHS/OIG’s investigation revealed that McElroy Pharmacy, through
`Jeffrey Eshelman, had dispensed countless controlled substances for years without a
`prescription, engaged in healthcare fraud, and failed to properly inventory its pills.
`
`57.
`
`The DEA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
`
`Inspector General (HHS/OIG) conducted a joint investigation, in parallel with a state criminal
`
`investigation.
`
`58.
`
` The investigators determined that McElroy Pharmacy, through Jeffrey
`
`Eshelman, had: (a) dispensed hydrocodone and other controlled substances for years to
`
`individuals with opioid use disorder without requiring any prescription; (b) engaged in healthcare
`
`fraud by billing for and being reimbursed for more-expensive brand name drugs, while actually
`
`dispensing lower-cost generic drugs; and (c) failing to properly inventory and track the
`
`pharmacy’s controlled substances.
`
`A. McElroy Pharmacy dispensed countless controlled substances, including
`hydrocodone, to individuals with substance use disorder without requiring a
`prescription.
`
`59.
`
`Despite being disciplined by the pharmacy licensing board for the same issue
`
`years before, McElroy Pharmacy, through Jeffrey Eshelman, had dispensed hydrocodone and
`
`other controlled substances for years to individuals with substance use disorder without requiring
`
`any prescription.
`
`60.
`
`For example, with respect to Patient A, Eshelman knew that Patient A had a
`
`substance use disorder. Nonetheless, for years he dispensed hydrocodone pills without any
`
`prescription.
`
`61.
`
`As part of their practice, Patient A would drive up to the rear parking lot at
`
`McElroy Pharmacy. Eshelman would then walk out the back door of the pharmacy and bring the
`
`hydrocodone pills to Patient A in his/her vehicle.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 15 of 26
`
`62.
`
`Eshelman did not require a prescription and had engaged in this blatantly illegal
`
`dispensing of the dangerous controlled substance for years.
`
`63.
`
`This is only one example of Eshelman illegally dispensing controlled substances
`
`at least over a hundred times, if not more, without a valid prescription. Eshelman repeatedly did
`
`so without any prescription, with fake prescriptions, and with fake patient names.
`
`64.
`
`Eshelman was charged by state authorities for some of his conduct in this scheme.
`
`On August 25, 2020, defendant Jeffrey Eshelman pled guilty in the Pennsylvania Court of
`
`Common Pleas in Lancaster County to four ungraded felony counts of possession of a controlled
`
`substance with the intent to deliver under 35 Pa. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30); two ungraded
`
`misdemeanor counts of refusal to keep records for a controlled substance as required by law
`
`under § 780-113(a)(21); two ungraded misdemeanor counts of selling controlled substances
`
`without labels under § 780-113(a)(18); and two ungraded misdemeanor counts of the sale or gift
`
`of a controlled substance to a drug-dependent person under § 780-113(a)(13).
`
`65. While difficult to precisely calculate due to the blatantly illegal method by which
`
`Eshelman would dispense the controlled substances without any record of the dispensing,
`
`investigators determined that McElroy Pharmacy, through Eshelman, dispensed controlled
`
`substances without a prescription on at least 199 different occasions.
`
`B. McElroy Pharmacy also engaged in extensive healthcare fraud by submitting
`false claims to Medicare Part D for brand drugs while dispensing generic
`drugs.
`
`66.
`
`In addition to dispensing controlled substances without a valid prescription,
`
`federal investigators also learned that defendants created duplicate prescriptions for non-
`
`controlled substances within the pharmacy’s computer system. Defendants would then submit
`
`these false prescriptions to insurance companies, such as Medicare, for reimbursement.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 16 of 26
`
`Additionally, defendants would bill for the more expensive, brand-name medications, but
`
`dispense the less expensive generic versions to the beneficiaries.
`
`67.
`
`An analysis of McElroy’s claim billings and medication purchase history made
`
`the scheme clear. McElroy had a significant gap between what it billed to Medicare Part D and
`
`what it purchased. Defendants engaged in this scheme to bill for drugs not purchased or
`
`dispensed to patients from at least January 2016 until August 2020. By participating in this
`
`scheme, defendants increased their profits at the expense of the United States.
`
`C. McElroy also failed to properly account for tens of thousands of missing
`controlled substances in their inventory.
`
`68.
`
`Finally, when the DEA conducted its inspection, it conducted an accountability
`
`audit of ten different controlled substances to determine whether McElroy had properly
`
`accounted for the drugs.
`
`69.
`
`The audit revealed that McElroy was missing, in some cases, tens of thousands of
`
`controlled substance units that it had failed to properly account for in its inventory and
`
`dispensing data for nine out of the ten controlled substances audited, including various dosages
`
`of hydrocodone-acetaminophen, hydrocodone-ibuprofen, methadone, oxycodone, and Suboxone.
`
`70. When the DEA raised the discrepancies, McElroy was unable to account for the
`
`discrepancies.
`
`COUNT I:
`Unlawful Dispensing of Controlled Substances:
`21 U.S.C. §§ 842(a)(1), 829
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`The United States realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendants McElroy Pharmacy and Jeffrey Eshelman are subject to the
`
`requirements of Part C of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 822.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 17 of 26
`
`73.
`
`As outlined above, between October 3, 2017 and November 18, 2019, McElroy
`
`Pharmacy and Jeffrey Eshelman illegally dispensed controlled substances, including
`
`hydrocodone, without a valid and effective prescription, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 829.
`
`74.
`
`By dispensing controlled substances at least 199 times between October 3, 2017
`
`and November 18, 2019 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 829, defendants McElroy Pharmacy and
`
`Jeffrey Eshelman violated 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1) on at least 199 occasions.
`
`75.
`
`As a result of the violations set forth above, defendants McElroy Pharmacy and
`
`Jeffrey Eshelman are subject to the relief set forth in the CSA.
`
`COUNT II:
`Negligent Refusal to Comply with Controlled Substances Act Record-Keeping
`Requirements:
`21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5)
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`The United States realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendants McElroy Pharmacy and Jeffrey Eshelman repeatedly refused or
`
`negligently failed to make, keep, or furnish records, reports, notifications, orders and order
`
`forms, statements, invoices, and information required by the CSA between October 3, 2017 and
`
`November 18, 2019.
`
`78.
`
`First, between October 3, 2017 and November 18, 2019, defendants McElroy
`
`Pharmacy and Jeffrey Eshelman refused or negligently failed to make, keep, and furnish an
`
`accurate biennial inventory of the firm’s Schedule II controlled substances as required by 21
`
`U.S.C. § 827(a)(1); 21 C.F.R. § 1304.11, for controlled substances including: hydrocodone-
`
`acetaminophen 10-325mg; hydrocodone-acetaminophen 7.5-325mg; hydrocodone-
`
`acetaminophen 5-325mg; hydrocodone-ibuprofen 7.5-200mg; hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-
`
`300mg; hydrocodone-acetaminophen 10-300mg; methadone 10mg; oxycodone 15mg; and
`
`oxycodone 30mg.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-00859-JFL Document 1 Filed 02/25/21 Page 18 of 26
`
`79.
`
`Second, between October 3, 2017 and November 18, 2019, defendants McElroy
`
`Pharmacy and Jeffrey Eshelman refused or negligently failed to make, keep, and furnish accurate
`
`records, reports, notifications, orders and order forms, statements, invoices, and information to
`
`properly document its inventory for the Schedule III controlled substance Suboxone 8mg-2mg
`
`S.L. Film, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 827(a)(1); 21 C.F.R. § 1304.11, when it failed to pass the
`
`accountability audit.
`
`80.
`
`As a result of the violations set forth above, defendants McElroy Pharmacy and
`
`Jeffrey Eshelman are subject to the relief set forth in the CSA.
`
`COUNT III:
`Knowingly Presenting and Causing the Presentation of False Claims:
`31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`The United States realleges the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendants McElroy Pharmacy and Jeffrey Eshelman, between January 1, 2016
`
`and August 28, 2020, by dispensing the less expensive generic version of drugs, but falsely
`
`claiming to dispense the more expensive brand version through its billings to Medicare Part D
`
`and thereby receiving higher reimbursement than if they had truthfully represented the drug
`
`dispensed, knowingly presented and caused the presentation of false and fraudulent claims for
`
`payment or approval to Medicare, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A).
`
`83. McElroy Pharmacy’s inventory and purchase history show that McElroy never
`
`had or purchased inadequate amounts of prescription drugs than the quantities for which it was
`
`reimbursed. They did not have sufficient medication inventory to have dispensed all the drugs
`
`for which it billed. Defendants therefore knowi

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