Alexander DeLuca, M.D.
Addiction, Pain, & Public Health website

[Home] [Library]  [Slides]  [Search]  [Medline]  [Links]
 
[Statements of Purpose, Ownership, Sponsorship. Privacy,  Email Confidentiality, and Advertising Policies]

 
Defense Attorney Eli Stutsman Explains the Basis of Dr. Rottschaefer’s Second Motion for a New Trial
 

 
Eli Stutsman; The Project for Pain and Chemical Dependency (TPPCD) listServ;
National Foundation for the Treatment of Pain (NFTP); 2006-09-06. Posted: 2006-09-18;Modified: 2006-09-25.
[Identifier: http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/RottschaeferMotionNewTrial-Eli06.htm]
 
Related resources:
The 'Sex for Drugs' Trials of Dr. Rottschaefer  -  WAR ON PAIN SUFFERERS series; #14; 2006  
 
War on Docs Academic and Legal archives  ;  Drug War Journalism and Advocacy archives
 
WAR ON PAIN SUFFERERS Special Collections - Introduction and Table of Contents
 
See also:
Drugs-for-Sex-Case Doc Claims Reversal of Misfortune - Charlie Deitch; Pittsburgh City Paper; 2006-09-21
 
Brief in Support of Dr. Rottschaefer's 2nd Motion for a New Trial (PDF)  - Ceraso, Green, and Stutsman; 2006-09-13
Sex-for-Drugs Case Tries Top Court - Charlie Deitch; Pittsburgh City Paper; 2006-08-17
 
Convicted Physician Seeking New Trial in Sex-for-Pills Case - Torsten Ove; Pittsburg Post Gazette; 2005
 
 War on Doctors and Pain Crisis Weekly - RSS feed:   HTML view:
 

 

[In response to questions from members of the TPPCD], yes, we can talk a little more now that [Dr. Rottschaefer’s] motion is filed and of public record. [See: Memorandum in Support of Second Motion for New Trial; Ceraso, Green and Stutsman; 2006-09-13]

Here is what happened - after testifying against him to convict him of a crime, the women then sued Dr. Rottschaefer for civil damages, but, as you have noticed, the testimony they gave under oath in the civil depositions was inconsistent with what they said at trial. Based upon that testimony, we filed a motion for new trial.

Here are the three points that are most striking: 

1. Medical Need:
   Each of the five complaining witnesses truly had medical conditions for which the medications prescribed by Dr. Rottschaefer were appropriate medical treatment. However, during the prosecution, each testified that she had no medical need for the prescriptions. This goes to the heart of the question that determines whether a crime occurred: were the prescriptions medical treatments or drug dealing?
    

2. Perjury:
   The testimony shows that each and every one of the five complaining witnesses lied under oath in Dr. Rottschaefer's prosecution, to conform her story to the uniform account the government wished to present. The deposition testimony and other evidence disclosed during civil discovery shows that each woman testified falsely to convict Dr. Rottschaefer.
    

3. Misrepresentation of benefits of testimony:
   The government affirmatively misrepresented its leniency offers with two of the complaining witnesses, to cover up the witnesses' bias and self-interest in testifying.  Although the written plea agreements were disclosed during testimony, the testimony was that no promises were made, when in fact promises were made that were dependent upon the testimony. For Riggle, no more jail time when she was facing three years; for Vivio, she knew she had to testify well in favor of conviction to get a lesser sentence.

Like everyone else [in the pain management advocacy movement], we are doing the best we can to expose the nature of these prosecutions, and would certainly appreciate having anyone's thoughts if they see something we have missed.

-- Eli Stutsman, Esq.

Eli D. Stutsman, Attorneys at Law - A Professional Corporation
The American Bank Building, Thirteenth Floor
621 SW Morrison, Portland, Oregon  97205
telephone: (503) 274-4048
facsimile: (503) 274-4059
email: elistutsman@elistutsman.com
website: http://www.elistutsman.com

 [END]