Federal Lawsuit Seeks Forfeiture Of Doctor’s Property

By Andrew Gorosko

In a pending civil lawsuit, the federal government is seeking to have Donald T. Evans, MD, forfeit his real estate at 115 Mt Pleasant Road (Route 6), as a penalty for the doctor’s alleged prescription of narcotic drugs, with insufficient medical review, to confidential informants and undercover law enforcement agents, who were conducting a long-term investigation into his drug prescription practices.

In the lawsuit filed on March 9 in US District Court, David X. Sullivan, an assistant US attorney, states that that the legal action is underway because the medical office property “was used or intended to be used in any manner or part to commit or to facilitate the commission of a violation of the [US] Controlled Substances Act.” The property is appraised at more than $500,000, according to the legal papers.

The case has been assigned to Judge Stefan R. Underhill at the US Courthouse in Bridgeport. A court date has not yet been set.  

Town police participated in the undercover investigation of the doctor’s drug prescription practices, which also involved the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the state’s Division of Drug Control, and the state Department of Public Health, officials said.

Dr Evans, 71, retired on March 17, after 40 years of practicing medicine locally. He has worked as a general practitioner and an assistant state medical examiner.

The doctor has treated many patients afflicted with AIDS and HIV, becoming one of the first doctors in the area to do so after AIDS surfaced almost 30 years ago. In 1987, Dr Evans and others founded the AIDS Project Greater Danbury. The group is a nonprofit organization focused on helping people living with HIV/AIDS and the impact of AIDS in the Danbury area.  

On March 20, Dr Evans rejected the allegations made in the federal lawsuit, saying that he has done nothing wrong. The allegations amount to malicious attacks, he said.    

“In the summer of 2005, law enforcement [officials] began investigating allegations that Dr Donald T. Evans, who is licensed by the State of Connecticut Department of Health to practice medicine, and is further licensed to prescribe controlled and/or narcotic substances to his patients, was engaged through his medical practice located at 115 Mt Pleasant Road, Route 6, Newtown, Connecticut, in numerous acts of illegally prescribing controlled and/or narcotic substances during the course of his practice,” the suit alleges.

“Dr Evans has been the focus of complaints to the [state] Drug Control Division… [and] from a Newtown area physician, local pharmacists, patients, the families of patients, and local law enforcement,” it adds.

Law enforcement officials received complaints about, or information from, certain patients to whom Dr Evans prescribed those substances, it states. Also, law enforcement officials conducted recent investigations linked to drugs prescribed by Dr Evans, according to the civil suit.

“As a response to these complaints, law enforcement began an investigation upon Dr Evans and his medical practice, which involved infiltrating Dr Evans’ practice with reliable and confidential informants and law enforcement [agents] posing as patients,” the lawsuit states.

“He was prescribing drugs too often, too fast, without proper medical examinations,” Police Chief Michael Kehoe said this week. Consequently, the several government agencies decided to conduct a collaborative investigation, he said. Town police had received complaints about the doctor, according to the police chief.

During the course of the investigation, six town police detectives participated in the probe, Chief Kehoe said.

Assistant US Attorney Sullivan met with Chief Kehoe and town police detectives on March 19 to discuss the case.

Thomas Carson, spokesman for the US Justice Department, declined comment on whether the federal government would pursue any criminal charges against Dr Evans.

William Gerrish, spokesman for the state Department of Public Health (DPH), would neither confirm nor deny that DPH is conducting an investigation into Dr Evans’ activities.

 

Allegations

The legal action alleges numerous instances of unnamed confidential informants and undercover law enforcement agents seeking and obtaining from the doctor prescriptions for potent drugs without first receiving sufficient medical review.

On September 26, 2005, an informant, who was equipped with a hidden radio transmitter that allowed conversations to be monitored and recorded, visited the doctor’s office posing as a patient and asked to see the doctor, the legal papers state.

The person paid $120 and filled out a patient information form. After a male nurse took the person’s blood pressure and measured the person’s weight, the doctor met with the person. Following the person’s complaint of stress, the doctor asked whether the person wanted Xanax, which is an antianxiety drug, to which the person replied Valium, which is a sedative was preferred. The doctor asked whether the person wanted a 5 or 10 milligram dose, to which the person replied 10 milligrams. The person then received a prescription for 60 Valium tablets, 10 milligrams each, to be taken every 12 hours for “nerves,” according to the legal papers.

“During this office visit, Dr Evans failed to personally examine [the informant] and did not inquire about any possible allergies or medical conditions that could conflict with the prescribed medication, and failed to explore or discuss treatment alternatives to the medication prescribed,” the lawsuit states. The office visit with the doctor lasted approximately two minutes, it adds.

On October 26, 2005, another confidential informant visited the doctor posing as a patient. After observing that the person looked unhappy, the informant responded that he was depressed, angry, and not sleeping well. The doctor then issued a prescription to the patient for a 20-day supply of Norco, which is a narcotic pain medication, and a 30-day supply of Prozac, which is an antidepressant, according to the lawsuit.

During the eight-minute visit, which cost $75, the doctor did not personally examine the informant, did not inquire about possible allergies or underlying medical conditions that could conflict with the medications, and failed to explore or discuss treatment alternatives, according to the lawsuit.

On November 2, 2005, that informant returned to the doctor and complained that the Norco was ineffective, after which the doctor prescribed a 30-day supply of 30-milligram Oxycodone, the legal papers state. Oxycodone is a potent and potentially addictive opioid analgesic medication. The cursory three-minute visit cost $75, it adds.

In three successive cursory visits, the informant received prescriptions from the doctor for Oxycontin, which is similar to Oxycodone, it adds. Some of the prescriptions were issued before the previous prescriptions would have been depleted, according to the suit.

Undercover

On December 21, 2005, an undercover law enforcement officer visited the doctor, posing as a patient and mentioning back pain. The doctor prescribed Percocet, which is a powerful pain reliever, following a two-minute visit at a cost of $75, the legal papers state.

During successive cursory visits, the undercover agent received a prescription for a stronger dose of Percocet, and also received a Percocet prescription sooner than a previous prescription would have been depleted, according to the court papers.

That agent later received prescriptions for Oxycodone and for Dalmane, which is a sleep medication. In successive visits, the agent received more prescriptions for Oxycodone after brief office visits, the lawsuit adds.

Additionally, that undercover agent later had the doctor meet the agent’s “relative,” who was actually another undercover law enforcement agent. The court papers allege that the doctor then prescribed the “relative” Oxycodone for pain due to physical labor without first having examined the patient or obtaining clinical information. It adds that the doctor did not inquire about possible allergies or medical conditions that could conflict with the prescribed medication and failed to explore or discuss treatment alternatives.

On March 8, 2006, an on-duty police officer who was responding to a complaint, visited the doctor’s office and complained to the doctor of a sore neck due to a minor motor vehicle accident earlier that week, after which the doctor provided the officer with a free sample of a noncontrolled muscle relaxant. The doctor did not personally examine the officer, did not inquire about allergies or medical conditions that could conflict with the medication, and failed to explore or discuss treatment alternatives, the documents state.

When the officer returned a week later, during a two-minute visit, the officer told the doctor that the previous prescription had been ineffective, after which the doctor prescribed Norco, according to the lawsuit.            

The lawsuit lists several other similar examples of investigators receiving prescriptions from the doctor in which drugs were approved for their use.

‘A Case Of Entrapment’

In an interview on March 20, Dr Evans rejected the allegations made in the federal lawsuit.

“I have done nothing wrong…This is a case of entrapment…These allegations are made up by people who are malicious…I am innocent. I have done nothing wrong,” Dr Evans said.

The doctor continued, “It’s malicious, demeaning and embarrassing…It’s  a malicious attack on me, unwarranted after years and years of work,” he said.

Later on March 20, attorney Hugh Keefe, who represents Dr Evans, said that he will file appropriate paperwork to represent Dr Evans in the legal action, adding that he would defend Dr Evans’ interests in the lawsuit.

“The matter will be resolved,” Mr Keefe said.

“Dr Evans is a highly reputed physician,” he said.

Mr Keefe declined to discuss the specifics of the case, saying that the matter will be resolved in court.