Opinion
No. 18-1263
01-09-2019
United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. United Pain Care, LTD., doing business as United Pharmacy Defendant - Appellant Mahmood Ahmad, M.D. Defendant
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [Unpublished] Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
In this civil action brought by the United States under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., against Mahmood Ahmad, and United Pain Care, Ltd. (UPC), for failure to maintain accurate records, UPC appeals the district court's (1) adverse grant of summary judgment; (2) judgment entered upon a jury's verdict finding that UPC violated the CSA; and (3) calculation of civil penalties.
Dr. Ahmad is not a party to this appeal.
The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. --------
Upon de novo review, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986) (explaining the standard of review for grants of summary judgment), we conclude that the district court correctly determined that UPC could be liable for civil penalties for negligent record-keeping, see 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(5) (making it unlawful for any person to refuse or negligently fail to adhere to CSA's record-keeping requirements); 21 C.F.R. § 1300.01(b) (defining "person"). We further conclude that the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of negligent record-keeping under the CSA, see LeSueur Creamer, Inc. v. Haskon, Inc., 660 F.2d 342, 347 (8th Cir. 1981) (holding that a jury's finding of negligence will be overturned for insufficient evidence only where the verdict is clearly contrary to the evidence), and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the civil monetary penalties, see McDowell v. Price, 731 F.3d 775, 783 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing a district court's decision to impose penalties for an abuse of discretion); Advance Pharm., Inc. v. United States, 391 F.3d 377, 399-400 (2d Cir. 2004) (listing various factors that a court could consider when assessing civil penalties). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.