United States v. Herbert R. Slavin, MD

S.D. Florida

United States v. Herbert R. Slavin, MD

DecidedMay 30, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-21375

StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. Herbert R. Slavin, MD (United States v. Herbert R. Slavin, MD) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Herbert R. Slavin, MD, (S.D. Fla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case Number: 22-21375-CIV-MARTINEZ-BECERRA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, vs. HERBERT R. SLAVIN, MD and AGELESS MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED MEDICINE, Respondents. eee

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Jacqueline Becerra, United States Magistrate Judge, for a ruling on all pretrial matters and for a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. Judge Becerra issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) on the Government’s Motion to Compel Responses! to the re-issued (1) Petition for Summary Enforcement of Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) and DEA Administrative Subpoena (the “Petition for Enforcement”) (ECF No. 1), and (2) Motion for Order Directing Compliance with CID 2021-HS-DMR/INT-01 and DEA Administrative Subpoena G1-22-110658 Or To Show Cause Why Respondents Cannot Comply (the “Motion for Compliance”) (ECF No. 4). After a hearing, Judge Becerra filed the R&R recommending that the Motion to Compel be granted as to

! Judge Becerra denied the Petition for Enforcement and Motion for Compliance without prejudice and instructed the Government to reissue the CID and DEA Subpoena. (ECF Nos. 24, 25). The Government did so, and after Respondents responded, the Government moved to overrule Respondents’ objections and to compel better responses, which Judge Becerra construed as a Motion to Compel. The Court will construe the Government’s pending requests in the same way.

the CID and Subpoena Request No. 1. (ECF No. 37 at 2). Respondents filed objections to the R&R (the “Objections”) (ECF No. 39), to which the Government responded, (ECF No. 46). This Court has a duty to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). It also may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Jd. The Court, having conducted a de novo review of the record and issues presented in the Objections, agrees with Judge Becerra that the Government’s Motion to Compel as to the CID and DEA Subpoena Request No. 1 should be granted and that Respondent Ageless Medicine be ordered to produce responsive documents. Respondents’ Objections, which largely regurgitate arguments already addressed by Judge Becerra, are OVERRULED. This discovery dispute, arising out of a False Claims Act investigation, is governed by federal law, not state law. Given that this case implicates a federal claim, this Court finds that when there is a conflict between federal law and state law, the state law must give way. See OPIS Management Resources, LLC v. Sec’y Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin., 713 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he Constitution designates the laws of the United States as the supreme law of the land, requiring that ‘all conflicting state provisions be without effect.’ (quoting Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981)); see also Memorial Hospital for McHenry County v. Shadur, 664 F.2d 1058, 1063-1064 (7th Cir. 1981) (“To the extent Illinois’ Medical Studies Act could be construed to exclude evidence relevant to a claim based on federal law in an action brought in federal court, it is rendered void and of no effect by that provision, and any state prosecution of the Hospital based on that law would be barred.”). This Court is not persuaded by the U.S. District Court of Columbia case, United States v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, No. 99-cv-3298, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21830 (D.D.C. May 17, 2004)—cited by the Respondents for the first time

in the Objections—and notes that other courts in the District Court of Columbia have come out contrary to it, as this Court does now. See Kalinoski v. Evans, 377 F. Supp. 2d 136, 140-41 (D.D.C. 2005) (“The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (as well as Federal Rule of Evidence 501) prevent a State from directing a federal court with regard to the evidence it may order produced in the adjudication of a federal claim.”). At bottom, the Supremacy Clause prohibits this Court’s imposition of section 456.057, Florida Statutes, in a manner that conflicts with HIPPA, which would occur if this Court sided with Respondents. Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is hereby ADJUDGED that i. United States Magistrate Judge Becerra’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 37), is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. The Government’s Motion to Compel the CID and DEA Subpoena Request No. 1 is GRANTED. Respondent Ageless Medicine shall expeditiously and in good faith produce responsive documents. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30 day of May, 2023. ( Ct JOSE IE. MARTINEZ UNITFED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copied provided to: Magistrate Judge Becerra All counsel of record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case Number: 22-21375-CIV-MARTINEZ-BECERRA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, vs. HERBERT R. SLAVIN, MD and AGELESS MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED MEDICINE, Respondents. eee

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS MATTER was referred to the Honorable Jacqueline Becerra, United States Magistrate Judge, for a ruling on all pretrial matters and for a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. Judge Becerra issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) on the Government’s Motion to Compel Responses! to the re-issued (1) Petition for Summary Enforcement of Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) and DEA Administrative Subpoena (the “Petition for Enforcement”) (ECF No. 1), and (2) Motion for Order Directing Compliance with CID 2021-HS-DMR/INT-01 and DEA Administrative Subpoena G1-22-110658 Or To Show Cause Why Respondents Cannot Comply (the “Motion for Compliance”) (ECF No. 4). After a hearing, Judge Becerra filed the R&R recommending that the Motion to Compel be granted as to

! Judge Becerra denied the Petition for Enforcement and Motion for Compliance without prejudice and instructed the Government to reissue the CID and DEA Subpoena. (ECF Nos. 24, 25). The Government did so, and after Respondents responded, the Government moved to overrule Respondents’ objections and to compel better responses, which Judge Becerra construed as a Motion to Compel. The Court will construe the Government’s pending requests in the same way.

the CID and Subpoena Request No. 1. (ECF No. 37 at 2). Respondents filed objections to the R&R (the “Objections”) (ECF No. 39), to which the Government responded, (ECF No. 46). This Court has a duty to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). It also may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Jd. The Court, having conducted a de novo review of the record and issues presented in the Objections, agrees with Judge Becerra that the Government’s Motion to Compel as to the CID and DEA Subpoena Request No. 1 should be granted and that Respondent Ageless Medicine be ordered to produce responsive documents. Respondents’ Objections, which largely regurgitate arguments already addressed by Judge Becerra, are OVERRULED. This discovery dispute, arising out of a False Claims Act investigation, is governed by federal law, not state law. Given that this case implicates a federal claim, this Court finds that when there is a conflict between federal law and state law, the state law must give way. See OPIS Management Resources, LLC v. Sec’y Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin., 713 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he Constitution designates the laws of the United States as the supreme law of the land, requiring that ‘all conflicting state provisions be without effect.’ (quoting Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746 (1981)); see also Memorial Hospital for McHenry County v. Shadur, 664 F.2d 1058, 1063-1064 (7th Cir. 1981) (“To the extent Illinois’ Medical Studies Act could be construed to exclude evidence relevant to a claim based on federal law in an action brought in federal court, it is rendered void and of no effect by that provision, and any state prosecution of the Hospital based on that law would be barred.”). This Court is not persuaded by the U.S. District Court of Columbia case, United States v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, No. 99-cv-3298, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21830 (D.D.C. May 17, 2004)—cited by the Respondents for the first time

in the Objections—and notes that other courts in the District Court of Columbia have come out contrary to it, as this Court does now. See Kalinoski v. Evans, 377 F. Supp. 2d 136, 140-41 (D.D.C. 2005) (“The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (as well as Federal Rule of Evidence 501) prevent a State from directing a federal court with regard to the evidence it may order produced in the adjudication of a federal claim.”). At bottom, the Supremacy Clause prohibits this Court’s imposition of section 456.057, Florida Statutes, in a manner that conflicts with HIPPA, which would occur if this Court sided with Respondents. Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is hereby ADJUDGED that i. United States Magistrate Judge Becerra’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 37), is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. The Government’s Motion to Compel the CID and DEA Subpoena Request No. 1 is GRANTED. Respondent Ageless Medicine shall expeditiously and in good faith produce responsive documents. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30 day of May, 2023. ( Ct JOSE IE. MARTINEZ UNITFED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copied provided to: Magistrate Judge Becerra All counsel of record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

United States v. Herbert R. Slavin, MD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-herbert-r-slavin-md-flsd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack