Medical-Marijuana Doctor Sues State After Undercover Probe
Dr. Joseph Dorn, who has practiced in Florida for more than three decades, was one of the state's first physicians to begin ordering marijuana for patients after voters passed a 2016 constitutional amendment broadly authorizing medical marijuana use.
April 07, 2023 at 11:44 AM
4 minute read
A medical-marijuana doctor cleared of wrongdoing after an undercover probe is seeking unspecified damages from the Florida Department of Health and two investigators who posed as patients.
A lawsuit is the latest twist in a yearslong legal battle between physician Joseph Dorn and state health officials, who sought to strip him of his medical license, permanently ban him from ordering medical marijuana and impose a $10,000 fine.
Dorn's lawsuit stems from a 2019 complaint alleging that the physician violated state law by failing to conduct physical examinations of "Patient O.G." and "Patient B.D.," two undercover agents who work for the state health department.
The Florida Board of Medicine in December unanimously decided that Dorn, who has practiced in Florida for more than three decades, didn't do anything wrong when he ordered medical marijuana for the agents who told the doctor they had medical conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. An administrative law judge also twice cleared Dorn of wrongdoing.
"Despite substantial testimony in the proceedings before the Florida Board of Medicine, no evidence whatsoever was found which would support a finding of probable cause for an action to revoke Dr. Dorn's medical license," said the eight-page lawsuit filed Tuesday in Leon County circuit court.
The lawsuit accused the state agency and investigators Ben Lanier and Brent Johnson of having "grossly exceeded their authority and violated state and federal law along the way" in the probe.
The lawsuit, which seeks damages in excess of $50,000, alleges that Dorn "suffered millions of dollars of damages due to loss of revenue and the damage to his reputation due to the actions and inactions" of the Department of Health. The legal complaint also said other current and former Department of Health officials and attorneys might be added as named defendants.
Dorn was one of the state's first physicians to begin ordering marijuana for patients after voters passed a 2016 constitutional amendment broadly authorizing medical marijuana use. A 2017 law laid out a framework for patients, doctors and the industry.
The lawsuit alleges that health officials, who personally inspected Dorn's office in Tallahassee, could not explain why they targeted the physician.
"The predicate for why they visited Dr. Dorn's office unannounced was so lacking that calling it a 'hunch' would be gratuitous," Dorn's attorney, Ryan Andrews, wrote. "DOH [the Department of Health] had no basis to visit Dr. Dorn."
Administrative Law Judge W. David Watkins twice found that Dorn had complied with state law and recommended that the health department drop the charges against the 69-year-old doctor.
State health officials instead asked the Florida Board of Medicine to impose sanctions on Dorn, who is affiliated with the Medical Marijuana Treatment Clinics of Florida. Watkins' rulings were recommended orders under administrative law, and health officials approved numerous exceptions to the rulings.
But at a Dec. 2 meeting, the Board of Medicine rejected each of the agency's requests and dismissed the case.
The new lawsuit also took issue with the process health officials used to investigate Dorn. For example, investigator Lanier, posing as O.G. during a 2018 visit with Dorn, gave the physician a handwritten medical record saying that he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder by the military a decade earlier.
"The two undercover employees consulted with Dr. Dorn under their aliases, lied to his face, and were intentionally evasive so that they could obtain a medical marijuana recommendation from Dr. Dorn. Ultimately, Dr. Dorn recommended medical marijuana for both patients, believing that they qualified," the lawsuit says.
A Department of Health spokeswoman said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
In a phone interview, Andrews called the state agency's conduct "indefensible."
"I can't wait to hear their defenses, because I don't think they have any," he said.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250