My work is in various stages of completion. Decisions come periodically. One important decision is from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of US v. Chube (212 KB), 538 F3d 693, decided August 15, 2008. Library Staff has included this case in its listing of twelve "Oral Arguments from notable cases" heard before the Seventh Circuit during the past nine years. See http://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/oralArg.html.
This Seventh Circuit opinion is a big victory for any physician practicing anywhere in the United States defending against Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) inquiries, investigations, or prosecutions because this opinion best illustrates the differences between the civil standard of care and the criminal conviction standard and the harm that will attach to physicians when these two distinctly different legal standards are confused or conflated.
This opinion is also a huge victory for my clients, two Gary, Indiana, physicians, because it vacates their 15- and five-year sentences, and returns their case to the federal trial court for re-sentencing. More importantly, after two and one-half months of intense litigation with the U.S. Attorney's office and a series of thoughtful rulings from the District Court, both physicians were released from federal prison on Monday, December 1, 2008.
Another important victory comes with the November 4, 2008 passage of the Washington Death with Dignity Act (952 KB). The Washington Death with Dignity Act was sponsored by former Washington Governor Booth Gardner (1985-1993), to allow a competent, terminally ill adult patient to hasten his or her death in certain narrow circumstances at the end of life. Washington voters passed this measure into law at the recent General Election by an overwhelming margin of 59-41% and it has since been codified into Washington law at RCW 70.245.010 et seq. The Washington Death With Dignity Act was drafted in my office and is modeled after Oregon's popular, successful, and groundbreaking Death with Dignity Act, of which I was a lead author. It was my pleasure to work with Governor Gardner, the people of Washington, and my longtime friends and colleagues at the Death with Dignity National Center during this successful campaign.
Another victory came from the Oregon Supreme Court in the case of Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team v. Kitzhaber (3.51 MB), decided October 19, 2006. In this decision, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals in favor of my clients, the sponsors of Ballot Measure 3-2000. With this victory fresh in hand, Ballot Measure 3-2000 was the only constitutional amendment from the 2000 election that was still in effect after legal challenges. Ballot Measure 3-2000 was also one of the very few constitutional amendments to survive a separate-vote challenge in recent Oregon history.
Another win is from the United States Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Oregon (406 KB), decided January 17, 2006. In this decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion (263 KB), which had earlier affirmed the federal District Court's opinion (1.78 MB) enjoining former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft from prosecuting Oregon physicians and pharmacists.
In this case, I sued Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (see Complaint (1.24 MB)) in federal District Court on behalf of a physician and a pharmacist who were threatened with federal criminal investigations, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment. The Attorney General lost at all three levels--in the trial court, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and before the United States Supreme Court.
This opinion by the United States Supreme Court is an important victory for physicians, pharmacists, and patients everywhere, because it establishes the precedent that the United States Attorney General may not define the scope of legitimate medical practice, and that the States, not the federal government, regulate the practice of medicine. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority of the Court, concluded his 28 page opinion writing:
The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the CSA show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it.
Gonzales v. Oregon (406 KB)(Kennedy, J.)
Another important win came in the case of Lillian Jane DiAmico v. Robert Ellinwood, III (1.1 MB), decided December 13, 2006. In this 3-0 decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court (trial court), in favor of my client, a seven-year-old girl. This case is an important victory for children throughout Oregon because it preserves the statutory process intended by the Legislative Assembly to establish paternity against the types of defenses raised by Mr. Ellinwood against Lillian in the trial court.
Still another important decision came in the case of O'Donnell-Lamont & Lamont (260 KB), decided June 10, 2004. In this unanimous decision, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals in favor of my clients. This case is an important victory for children throughout Oregon because it establishes the new legal precedent to be applied in future third-party child custody disputes.
As you can see, a common thread connecting an otherwise disparate case load is that my clients' cases often have widespread impact, and their needs often require extraordinary solutions.
I prefer appellate litigation because it affords the opportunity to shape the law at the state and federal levels, occasionally having a real impact on our lives.
While my practice is focused on appellate litigation, in those cases in which the trial courts have become the battleground of social reform, I also practice in state and federal trial courts.
And when litigation is inadequate, I have designed and implemented successful legislative and political solutions.
Please call if you would like to learn more about my practice.
Eli D. Stutsman
