Court Prohibits Two Texas Physicians from Prescribing Opioids and Imposes $1.2M in Civil Penalties for Alleged Unlawful Opioid Distribution

A federal court has prohibited two Dallas-area physicians from prescribing opioids and other controlled substances and imposed a total of $1.2 million in judgments against them in a case alleging the physicians violated the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Justice Department announced today.

In a civil complaint filed in 2019 in the Northern District of Texas, the United States alleged that Cesar B. Pena Rodriguez M.D. and Leovares A. Mendez M.D. violated the CSA by issuing prescriptions for opioids and other powerful drugs outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. The complaint alleged that the defendants issued thousands of prescriptions without apparent regard for patient harm, including prescriptions for a combination of an opioid, a short-acting benzodiazepine, and a muscle relaxer — a dangerous and frequently-abused drug cocktail known as the “trinity.” In an order filed Oct. 8, the court imposed a $291,451 civil penalty judgment against Mendez in addition to a $914,021 civil penalty judgment against Pena Rodriguez entered earlier this year.

“Prescribing opioids for no legitimate purpose betrays the trust placed in our medical professionals and significantly threatens the communities they serve,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Justice Department will continue to use every available tool to stop doctors who fail to uphold their obligation to prescribe controlled substances lawfully.”

“Doctors are charged with protecting and healing us when we are sick and vulnerable. Instead of healing vulnerable members of our community, these doctors sought to profit off of their addictions,” said U.S. Attorney Leigha Simonton for the Northern District of Texas. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Civil Division, in conjunction with our partners in the Consumer Protection Branch, sought immediate injunctive relief to prevent these doctors from prescribing to addicts and have now terminated their ability to ever put their patients at risk in this way again.”

“Peña-Rodríguez and Mendez were distributing deadly controlled substances mix known as the ‘trinity’ outside the course of a legitimate medical need, simply to get rich,” said Special Agent in Charge Eduardo A. Chávez of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Dallas. “Following our successful criminal prosecution, we issued a trinity of ourselves through not just criminal penalties, but now civil and administrative ones as well. Standards for our medical professionals must stay high because patients deserve a doctor they can trust. We will continue to partner with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to seek all avenues of justice and accountability against all medical providers who violate their code of conduct.”

The defendants agreed to consent judgments to settle the allegations in the complaint. The orders entered by the court permanently prohibit Pena Rodriguez and Mendez from ever again prescribing, dispensing, administering or distributing controlled substances. The orders also bar them from holding DEA registrations or working at, supervising or owning a medical practice where controlled substances are present.

In a separate criminal action, Pena Rodriguez previously pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances. Mendez was found guilty at a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substances and six counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances. Mendez was sentenced to seven years in prison. Dr. Pena Rodriquez was sentenced to two years in prison.

The DEA investigated the case.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Delaney for the Northern District of Texas and Trial Attorney Scott B. Dahlquist of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch prosecuted the case.

The claims made in the complaint are allegations that the United States would need to prove by a preponderance of the evidence if the case proceeded to trial.