Score:   1
Docket Number:   ED-MO  4:20-cr-00098
Case Name:   USA v. Ali et al
  Press Releases:
St. Louis, Missouri – Eleven individuals were indicted today by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to distribute controlled medications, such as oxycodone, without a legitimate medical purpose; obtaining controlled medication by deceit and subterfuge; paying and receiving illegal kickbacks for referrals to lab for urine tests of the patients; and submitting false claims to Medicare and other health insurers.

ASIM MUHAMMAD ALI, M.D., 49, of Creve Coeur;

ALEXIS DORJAY BUTLER, 32, of Bellefontaine Neighbors;

SHAUNTA C. CROSBY, 33, of Ferguson;

ERIN MELISSA HERMAN, 35, of Oakville;

VLADIMIR KOGAN, 39, of Afton;

JERRY DALE LEECH, D.C., 47, of Creve Coeur;

STANLEY L. LIBRACH, M.D., 58, of Chesterfield;

DENIS J. MIKHLIN, 40, of Chesterfield;

EBONY R. PRICE, 37, of St. Louis;

ERICA T. SPATES, 32, of Berkley; and

TIJUANA A. SPATES, 36, of Jennings.

According to the indictment, Dr. Asim Muhammad Ali and Dr. Stanley Librach, medical doctors, and Dr. Jerry Dale Leech, a chiropractor, and Denis J. Mikhlin illegally wrote and distributed hundreds of prescriptions for oxycodone, oxycontin, hydromorphone, and fentanyl for patients whom Dr. Ali and Dr. Librach did not see, examine, or evaluate. One day a week for about two hours, Dr. Ali or Dr. Librach came into the American Pain Institute (API) and later Institute for Pain Management (IPM) and pre-sign stacks of prescriptions, which were given to API and IPM patients during the next week or two. Dr. Ali and Dr. Librach continued to write prescriptions for controlled substance drugs although many patients repeatedly tested negative for the prescribed drugs and positive for illegal street drugs.

According to the indictment, Dr. Leech, an owner of API and chief of staff for IPM, Denis Mikhlin, the owner of Doctors on the Go, and the other defendants bought and sold prescriptions for controlled substances written in the name of Dr. Librach and other doctors. Dr. Leech received between $200 and $500 for each script he sold, receiving on some occasions as much as $5000.  Dr. Leech and Mikhlin also identified or had other co-defendants identify persons whose names could be used on fraudulent scripts.  The patients were paid in cash or with some of the pills. Dr. Ali, one of the co-owners of Central Diagnostic Laboratory (CDL) paid illegal kickbacks to Dr. Leech, Dr. Librach, and Mikhlin for the referral of drug tests that they sent to CDL.

“Doctors and trained practitioners know better than anyone the twin dangers of addiction and overdose that come with powerful narcotics,” said DEA St. Louis Division Special Agent in Charge William Callahan. "DEA will investigate doctors, like these ones, who prescribe a controlled substance outside the normal course of professional practice and for no legitimate medical purpose to stop their illegal practices."

“As Attorney General, it’s my duty to protect all six million Missourians. To that point, our Medicaid Fraud Control Unit works diligently with both state and federal partners to root out and prosecute fraud. When doctors are abusing the healthcare system and irresponsibly doling out potentially addictive medications for personal gain, we need to hold them responsible. I’m grateful for the chance to work with our federal partners on this case.”

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the majority of overdose deaths in this country involved prescription or illicit opioid," said Special Agent in Charge Richard Quinn of the FBI St. Louis Division. "It is appalling that any health care professional would knowingly fuel this epidemic rather than help stop it."

“Doctors who prescribe medically unnecessary and potentially addictive drugs are a threat to their patients, and their actions will not be tolerated,” said Curt L. Muller, Special Agent in Charge for the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  “We will continue working closely with our State and Federal law enforcement partners to protect patients and the government healthcare programs on which they depend.”

If convicted, each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.  In determining the actual sentences, a judge is required to consider the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide recommended sentencing ranges.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and the Department of Health and Human Services – OIG are investigating this case. Assistant United States Attorney Dorothy McMurtry is handling this case.

Charges set forth in the Indictment are merely accusations and do not constitute proof of guilt.  Every defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty. 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sTR6yXWlfqdN5CELfUiPj_y0w1ODlFKVoKWxc86s4Ys
  Last Updated: 2024-03-18 19:48:03 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E