 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Jackson5/30/2002
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
. Defendant-appellant Patricia Jackson appeals from her conviction for ten counts of deception to obtain dangerous drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.22. The appellant was placed on community control sanctions for two years. The appellant chose a trial to the bench.
. Cleveland Police Detective Thomas Shoulders and Cleveland Police Detective Greg Whitney received a Drug Utilization Report (hereinafter D.U.R.) from Agent Lynn Mudra of the State Pharmacy Board concerning the appellant. The D.U.R. is a report which reflects an individual's physician, the prescriptions obtained, and the pharmacy at which the prescription was filled. The appellant's D.U.R. indicated that the appellant visited different doctors, obtained a prescription for the same drug, and had the prescriptions filled at different pharmacies. Both police officers testified that this is an indication of a pattern of abuse of acetaminophen with codeine (hereinafter Tylenol #3), a schedule III drug.
. In the course of his investigation, the detectives contacted Dr. William Bohl, Dr. Edwin Thompson, and Dr. Victorio Rodriguez. Various drug stores which had filled the appellant s prescriptions were also contacted. The prescriptions obtained from the pharmacies corresponded to those listed on the D.U.R.
. Detective Greg Whitney testified that the appellant was arrested at the office of Dr. William Bohl. The doctor s office staff contacted the police department and notified them that the appellant had made an appointment. Detective Whitney proceeded to Dr. Bohl s office at that scheduled time and arrested the appellant.
. Agent Mudra testified that he is an Agent with the State of Ohio assigned to the Board of Pharmacy. When an individual visits different doctors on the same day, or days in close succession, and obtains the same prescription, the information is easily reviewable on the D.U.R. Agent Mudra stated that the D.U.R. indicates a National Drug Code for the specific drug, the name of the pharmacy that filled the prescription, the drug name, the unit doses that were dispensed, the date the drug was dispensed, the cost of the specific prescription, the dispensing physician, and the name of the recipient of the drug. After reviewing the appellant's dates of obtaining the prescriptions for Tylenol #3, the number of unit doses, and the places the prescriptions were dispensed, Agent Mudra testified that the appellant's method of obtaining Tylenol #3 was unusual.
. The trial court received the testimony of Dr. William Bohl, Dr. Edwin Thompson, and Dr. Victorio Rodriguez, the three physicians who had prescribed Tylenol #3 for the appellant. Each doctor testified that a routine patient history is taken from each patient and then follow up questions are asked of the patient by the doctor. Each physician testified that he did not know that the appellant was receiving the drug from another physician, and that he would not have prescribed the medication if he had such knowledge. Each of the doctors testified as to the prescriptions for Tylenol #3 he had written for the appellant, the dates of the prescriptions, and the unit dosage prescribed. The details outlined in the following chart were testified to by the individual doctors.
. Date Doctor unit doses of Tylenol #3
. 11/16/98 Thompson 28
. 11/16/98 Bohl 30
. 12/10/98 Thompson 28
. 12/11/98 Bohl 40
. 12/28/98 Thompson 28
. 12/29/98 Rodriguez 10
. 01/16/99 Rodriguez 10
. 01/18/99 Thompson 28
. 03/01/99 Thompson 28
. 03/01/99 Rodrig
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|