home

Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation?

New details on Rush and ViagraGate:

The Florida Sun-Sentinel reports:

Florida civil rules governing doctors and pharmacists require that the true patient's name and address are on the label, according to two attorneys and a Florida Medical Association spokeswoman.

Doing otherwise "is technically a violation of dispensing and prescribing by the doctor," said Allen R. Grossman, a Tallahassee attorney who defends physicians in disciplinary cases. Grossman formerly was general counsel to the Florida Board of Medicine, which licenses and oversees doctors.

Other Florida experts, including those involved with professional and medical boards weigh in:

"The department is aware of it and we'll have more information on that later," board spokeswoman Thometta Cozart said. However, the three professionals said state civil rules forbid doctors from prescribing drugs without a name or under a third person's name, as a way to prevent people from passing medicine to others.

"That would be considered a fraudulent prescription," said Lisette Gonzalez Mariner, a spokeswoman for the Florida Medical Association, the trade group for doctors. "You cannot do that. It's not commonly done and that's illegal." Likewise, pharmacists cannot dispense drugs to someone other than the name on the prescription label or their representative, said attorney Edwin Bayo, a former general counsel of the Florida Board of Pharmacy licensing board.

In other Rush news:

The Miami Herald reports:

  • He had 29 viagra pills
  • The patient name on the bottle was that of his doctor
  • Possession of drugs prescribed to someone else is a second-degree misdemeanor.

USA Today Reports:

  • [Rush's actions] violated customs rules, says Jennifer Connors, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman. Names on prescription drug bottles must "match the name on the travel document," she says.
  • A no-label bottle might have been safer:

Passengers flying domestically don't have to carry a prescription or have a labeled bottle, although the Transportation Security Administration website encourages labeled medications. Spokesman Darrin Kayser says, "Our focus is security; we're not as enforcement-focused as (customs), looking at 'whose drugs are those?' But it's good to have a prescription label , so it's clear."

  • Rush was not targeted. He was flying in from the Dominican Republic on his own plane.

Connors says: "We go through most people's bags" on private aircraft coming in from overseas.

Yet this AP news article says

Prosecutors say under Florida law, it's generally OK for a doctor to prescribe medicine in a third party's name if everyone knows and it's clearly documented.

Ok, legal eagles and investigative journalists out there: I've tried and failed to come up with a state of Florida statute or agency regulation or a FDA reglulation or federal statute that says a doctor can prescribe a medication, even a non-controlled substance, to a patient in the name of a third party. Can anyone else find one?

Physicians can't prescribe to themselves. So a second doctor had to write the prescription in the name of Rush's doctor knowing that it would be Rush and not Rush's doctor who would fill the prescription and use the medication. How is that not a misrepresentation?

< Late Night Music : For Rush | Sticking Up for the New York Times >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:26:21 PM EST
    My hubby is a pharmacist, so I put a couple of questions to him about the situation. First, he told me that doctors can write prescriptions for themselves. However, he did indicate that laws differ between states and that as crazy as Florida is (we are in Maryland), that he wouldn't be surprised at anything that they may do. He also told me that there is no way that a doctor can provide a prescription to a patient, and have it be in his own name. He cannot imagine that it would be any different in various states, as this is something quite clear. Obviously, it would have been better for the bottle to be unlabeled than to be one written for a different person. I know in our house I frequently have difficulty knowing what is in various bottles as there are many that have no labels. My hubby is going away on a vacation to the Dominican Republic in a few weeks, so I told him to be sure and have labels on all the bottles lol. I do agree with John Aravosis, though, that there may be more to this. Many pills do resemble one another, and it seems like such a slight infraction with respect to his plea agreement if all we are talking about is Viagra.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#2)
    by aw on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:55:41 PM EST
    I have gotten medicine in the form of samples instead of a prescription. I wonder how they deal with that?

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:24:04 PM EST
    There are special rules clearly stated for samples. They are supposed to have the patients name on them, but the news reports few doctors comply and it's a very overlooked requirement. From the Sun Sentinel article:
    ...physicians who give patients free samples of medicine are supposed to put the patient's name on the label, Bayo said, but "99.9 percent of doctors in Florida do not do that."
    I'm going to go back and try and find the regulation that says physicians can't prescribe for themselves...maybe it was for controlled substances rather than other medications, my brain is a little fried from reading so many statutes and regs tonight, I hope I can find it. Re: Aravosis wondering if they were indeed viagra tablets vs. other blue controlled substance tablets, good question, but that would mean Rush lied to his lawyer, Roy Black, and let him put out a press release that could be refuted...I would think Roy would drop him like a hot potato if that were the case, so I'll be keeping an eye out on that one.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#4)
    by zAmboni on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:23:17 PM EST
    Re: Aravosis wondering if they were indeed viagra tablets vs. other blue controlled substance tablets, good question, but that would mean Rush lied to his lawyer, Roy Black, and let him put out a press release that could be refuted...I would think Roy would drop him like a hot potato if that were the case, so I'll be keeping an eye out on that one.
    For someone who is supposedly subject to random drug testing per his "agreement," carrying other controlled substances would have been extremely stupid to begin with. I would assume that the Fla. authorities still have the offending bottle plus contents as evidence (if they are going to file charges), so it would be relatively easy to see if the pills were in the distinctive diamond shape embedded with the pfizer label.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#5)
    by clio on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 01:22:47 AM EST
    As far as I know, and my knowledge goes quite a distance, it is illegal in every state to prescribe any prescription drug in a false name. It's fraud even if no insurance is involved, and believe me, if Medicaid, Medicare or a controlled substance is involved, the feds will come knocking with fraud as a starting point. License suspension, practice supervision, limited licensure, and permanent loss of license are real possiblities. If narcotics are involved kiss DEA licensure good-bye permanently. It is not illegal for physicians to prescribe for themselves or family members and many, probably most, do for short term things like antibiotics. Long term meds, such as anti-hypertensives, are less common since few docs want to be responsible for the ongoing care required to supervise the conditions such medications treat. Narcotics are a whole different thing. A few Tylenol with codeine for a child or spouse with a sprained ankle is one thing. Schedule II (Percocet, OxyContin, etc) is something else. Chronic pain, if the doc has any sense, will be handled and written by someone not related. As for the doctor himself/herself it is not illegal in most states for physicians to self-prescribe even heavy duty narcotics. The (small) number of physicians and dentists who get addicted to Demerol (the fav) is witness to that. Both of these professions can order and keep Schedule II narcotics in their offices for acute dispensing and patient use. Logs must be kept, but unless use patterns raise flags no one much will bother to check them. All such meds are ordered and tracked, however, so if office X begins to escalate orders of certain drugs the DEA will probably drop around. It is both unethical and unwise to self-prescribe narcotics. No ethical doc does so...even the mild stuff. There are always collegues to ask in emergencies. And no self-respecting pharmacist would fill a Schedule II scrip more than once in a lifetime for a self-prescribing doc. Samples? Keep them in their sample packs. Those are labeled and, usually, sealed. No one samples Schedule II narcotics. Record keeping for the detail people would be nightmarish. Schedule V narcotics are occasionally sampled, especially when new, in 1 to 2 dose packages to tide the patient over until the scrip can be filled. As for Rush's docs. They are either young, dumb, paid off, or victimized. If they did this as a "favor" they're crazy.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 02:35:52 AM EST
    i've never had my name put on a sample, ever. i don't know of anyone that has. the record keeping for this would be an undue burden. i pick up prescriptions, at the pharmacy, for my wife and children, and my wife does the same. according to TL, that would, by law, make us both criminals. i dare say, it would make the bulk of the prescription drug using populace, and adult members of their families, the same. somehow, this just doesn't pass the "common sense" smell test. if the drug he was carrying was, indeed, viagra, this whole thing strikes me as the proverbial tempest in a teapot. stupid? yes. going to take down the civilized world? no, not hardly. sorry, much as i dislike mr. limbaugh, i get the feeling this is more a case of customs getting free publicity, for "nailing" a high profile individual. again, this is predicated on the drugs actually being viagra. don't worry if you can't find a florida statute TL, i'm sure gov. bush, and the state legislature, will be more than happy to pass one for you, and make it retroactive.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 04:56:05 AM EST
    Minor editing needed. It is the Orlando Sentinel, not the Florida Sun Sentinel you have linked to. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 05:16:32 AM EST
    If Rush had purchased his performance enhancement drugs in the DR instead of taking the bottle of 30 with him, then there would not be a problem now. According to a WSG posting by "adventurers" to the DR, Viagra, Cialiis and their generics are available there without prescription.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 05:38:49 AM EST
    "Rush was not targeted. He was flying in from the Dominican Republic on his own plane." Rush Limbaugh, man of the people.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#10)
    by dutchfox on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 06:15:29 AM EST
    Physicians can't prescribe to themselves. So a second doctor had to write the prescription in the name of Rush's doctor knowing that it would be Rush and not Rush's doctor who would fill the prescription and use the medication. How is that not a misrepresentation? Okay, a misrepresentation, but why is it done/allowed in the first place?

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 08:00:48 AM EST
    i pick up prescriptions, at the pharmacy, for my wife and children, and my wife does the same. according to TL, that would, by law, make us both criminals. How so? The scripts are written in the name of your wife or kids, aren't they? It's legal to pick up a prescription for a family member, what's illegal is to write a script with a different name than the paitent. Unless you are having the doctor write the prescription in your name instead of your wife or kids you are not doing anything illegal by picking them up at the pharmacy.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 08:07:52 AM EST
    Technically if I wanted to I could write an RX for myself for an antibiotic if I had an infection. However, if I start writing for my own long term meds like Insulin or prednisone (no I don't need either) then that will send up red flags. Eventually I would get my license suspended (in CA) for writing RX's for myself. It's amazing how many friends and family have approched me over the years to write them a script. I only did it for infections. Never for even non controlled pain relievers. In the US, all narcotics and other schedule II meds need a special triplicate RX form provided by the DEA. We also have to apply for a DEA number in order to write for controlled substances. I deliberately shun the DEA number because I write few RX's anymore, much less for narcs. I know one surgeon who owned a boat in Cabo and he would get RX's filled all the time to supply the boat with emergency meds, such as epinephrine, antibiotics and probably a few morphine or demerol doses for injuries. Never enough to abuse. I neve asked him who the RX's were written out for. But one of our office workers left in cuffs one day after being busted for forging vicodin RX's in our names. It's no big deal to me that Rush uses Viagra. But didn't he violate any of the terms of his plea agreement? Do we let our narc criminals travel out of the country? If it were one of us the hammer would probably fall with much more energy. The best legal defense money can buy. I love justice for some. It's so...fair. (dripping sarcasm intended)

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:55:14 AM EST
    How so? The scripts are written in the name of your wife or kids, aren't they? It's legal to pick up a prescription for a family member, what's illegal is to write a script with a different name than the paitent. Unless you are having the doctor write the prescription in your name instead of your wife or kids you are not doing anything illegal by picking them up at the pharmacy.
    according to TL's previous post on this thread, possession of prescription medications, not in your name, is a misdemeanor. if i pick up those scrips, i am in possession of them, therefore, i am committing a misdemeanor. that's why i said the purported law doesn't pass the "common sense" smell test. it would, by definition, make criminals out of probably 90% of the adult population of the country.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    it would, by definition, make criminals out of probably 90% of the adult population of the country.
    That's the goal...to make us all criminals one way or the other. Innocent men are difficult to control, and ask too many questions.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:06:18 AM EST
    Well said Kdog. If we are not too dumb to understand the laws, then create laws that the majority of the population simply will not obey and you will achieve compliance and complacency.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:09:17 AM EST
    why is it ok to sell a pill OTC that makes your johnson longer, and require a scrip for one that makes it useful? Because the one that makes it longer and wider doesn't work? If it doesn't work why is it available? I find it odd that it is completely legal to purchase drugs that will allegedly make me more attractive to women because of size and girth (allegedly on all counts) yet in order to get it to function I have to get a scrip. Kind of like having a lamborghini (sp) without an engine.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:23:03 AM EST
    JL, I have to say that analogy made me think of some pretty funny comebacks, but out of good taste, I shall refrain from posting them here.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:26:16 AM EST
    Hell it was hard typing that without getting crude, I admire your restraint.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    Rush Limbaugh is someone who Is to opinonated to have a Radio Show. If he wants to use Viagra or Ectasy even Smoke Crack let him do it at his leisure. As long as Rush is off the Air that would be great.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 12:23:47 PM EST
    If he has been smoking crack...that would explain a lot.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    according to TL's previous post on this thread, possession of prescription medications, not in your name, is a misdemeanor. Ok, I had to go back and look at what you were referencing. I assume it's this quote from the Miami Herald: "Possession of drugs prescribed to someone else is a second-degree misdemeanor." IANAL, let alone a Florida lawyer, but I'm sure that there are exceptions for family members. Granted, The Miami Herald is a bit sloppy here, but there is a general prohibition on possessing prescriptions belonging to someone else, and no, you are not violating it by pickingup a prescription for your kid.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 06:01:37 PM EST
    So, why isn't the press asking what Rush was doing in the Dominican Republic that he needed Viagra? Hmmm. Isn't the Dominican Republic home to some very wild sex resorts? Hope Rush was doing it without his Fez on!

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Liberal Heart on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:00:17 PM EST
    When my doc gives me samples, she also gives me what looks like an Rx, even though it isn't meant to be taken to the pharmacy. It has my name, the date, how the med should be taken, and her signature -- along with some other info. This was not always the case. I think this accompanying paper started about a year ago.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 07:25:51 AM EST
    beowulf888 writes:
    So, why isn't the press asking what Rush was doing in the Dominican Republic that he needed Viagra?
    Because it isn't anyone's business? Because no one knows if he used the Viagra?

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 07:29:23 AM EST
    Et al - My end comment on this... Anyone like to set down and see if we can develop a rational drug policy?

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 08:48:13 AM EST
    Love to Jim...guys like Rush won't listen.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sailor on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 05:58:54 PM EST
    Because it isn't anyone's business
    Uhh, sorry, he reports on other's sex & drugs, he's a pubic [sic] figure, he's fair game ... tho it would take awhile for that pig to drain enough to dress him.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:50:56 PM EST
    Sailor - He is fair game the same way any celeb is fair game. That doesn't make it right.. But enjoy. kdog - Maybe it is my social liberal lens, but almost everyone I know believes two things. 1. We need a different drug policy. 2. We need national health care. As for elRushbo, I'll say what I have said in the past. He is an entertainer. When he ceases to entertain, he's gone. Just as they do Rove, the Left gives him too much power. It is the country that is responding to his message. Not the brillance of his thoughts. This is why the Left should be worried.

    Re: Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:43:17 PM EST
    I am a physician with some celebrity patients. The confounding this are. Fictitious names are permitted under HIPA regulations to protect anonymity. We do it all the time. The first hand people who provided information to the press are subject to a 100k fine by HIPA regulations. The dissemination of this information is prohibited by this law. This include law officers etc. So the "public figure" excuse does not fly. All this discussion of whether its illegal or not to possess drugs in another persons name is overblown and distorted. Once in a while I will get a call from an officer to confirm a prescription. That usually settles any confusion. By the way HIPA was signed by President Clinton.