Score:   1
Docket Number:   ND-AL  4:18-cr-00376
Case Name:   USA v. Dunn et al
  Press Releases:
BIRMINGHAM – A Springville couple involved in a St. Clair County pill mill scheme entered dual guilty pleas today in federal court, announced U.S. Attorney Jay E. Town, Drug Enforcement Administration-Birmingham Acting Assistant Special Agent in Charge Andy Langan and Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge Thomas J. Holloman.

             CINDY LOUISE HYCHE DUNN, 53, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose and to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering for purposes of promoting the pill mill scheme. Her husband, THOMAS MASON DUNN, 56, pleaded guilty to the same money laundering conspiracy.  The couple entered their guilty pleas before U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor.  A sentencing date has not been set.

            From January 2012 through December 2015, Cindy Dunn ran a pain management clinic in Moody, Alabama operating under the name Cindy Dunn & Dr. Buckingham, M.D., Weight Loss Clinic and Pain Management (CDPM). CDPM was not a legitimate pain clinic. It was a pill mill churning out thousands of prescriptions for opioid painkillers. Thomas Dunn performed financial transactions on behalf of CDPM to further the pill mill scheme. He also received prescriptions for opioid painkillers from CDPM.    

“This couple operated a pain management clinic with reckless disregard for patient safety,” U.S. Attorney Town said.  “To those who continue to poison our communities by this illegal practice and enable the growth of the opioid crisis in our state, you will be caught, you will be prosecuted, and you will have a bed in federal prison.”

            “This investigation demonstrates the fact that if you are a doctor in the state of Alabama and you are illegally prescribing controlled substances we will find you and you will pay a heavy price,” Acting Assistant Special Agent in Charge Langan said.  “This is another example of the great teamwork between federal, state, and local law enforcement partners to positively impact the lives of the good people living in our communities.”   

 

            “Pill Mills continue to plague our communities as the illegal distribution of prescription drugs remains a profitable criminal enterprise,” Special Agent in Charge Holloman said.  “IRS-CI pledges to follow the money to the profiteers and work with our partners to shut down these illegal operations. Today’s guilty pleas are a step forward in law enforcement’s efforts to address the prescription drug problem in our community”.  

As part of their plea agreements, the couple will forfeit their Springville home to the United States. The agreement with Cindy Dunn stipulates a 10-year prison sentence. The agreement with Thomas Dunn stipulates a 30-month prison sentence. Judge Proctor accepted the couples’ guilty pleas today, but reserved decision on whether to accept the stipulated prison sentences until the couples’ sentencing hearings. The plea agreements entered by Cindy Dunn and Thomas Dunn with the United States are binding, meaning any party may withdraw if the court does not accept the stipulated prison sentences.

According to her plea agreement, as the owner and president of CDPM, Cindy Dunn ran its day-to-day operations, and hired and directed physicians and staff.  Two doctors issued the majority of CDPM’s controlled substance prescriptions, neither were pain management specialists.  John Ladd Buckingham was CDPM’s primary physician while Steven Bruce Hefter also issued prescriptions for CDPM at various times.  CDPM attracted patients from all over Alabama and outside the state.  Patients came from Huntsville, Muscle Shoals, Florence, and Mobile, Alabama.  Patients also flocked to CDPM from Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. CDPM received anywhere from forty to eighty patients in a single day.

CDPM typically did not treat patients with anything other than high doses of opioid painkillers, according to Cindy Dunn’s plea agreement. Prescribed opioids included fentanyl, hydrocodone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and oxymorphone. CDPM rarely, if ever, ordered diagnostic tests, such as x-rays or MRIs, to identify and potentially treat the source(s) of pain. Patients often received opioid prescriptions or dosage increases upon request. CDPM also issued prescriptions for a combination of drugs known as “the holy trinity,” which consists of an opioid painkiller, a muscle relaxer, and a benzodiazepine.  The plea agreement states that this “cocktail” has a high potential for abuse and carries a significant risk of overdose.

According to her plea agreement, Cindy Dunn had no formal medical education, qualifications, or licensing, yet she directed, oversaw, and guided prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances at CDPM.  For example, Cindy Dunn allowed patients to continue receiving opioid prescriptions after failing multiple drug tests. She also permitted patients who admitted buying pills on the street and/or who had a history of drug abuse to receive opioid prescriptions.  It further states that Cindy Dunn devised a system for pre-signing prescriptions in order to maximize revenue. CDPM staff wrote prescriptions, which the doctors signed far in advance of patient visits. The pre-signed prescriptions were then handed to patients in exchange for cash without the doctor seeing the patient.  Cindy Dunn, Thomas Dunn, and others used the money generated through CDPM’s pill mill scheme to continue CDPM’s operations, according to both plea agreements.

“The Dunns had no business running a pain management clinic,” said Assistant United States Attorney Mohammad Khatib. “They harnessed the prescribing power of their physician co-conspirators for the sole purpose of making fast money. Their greed spread the opioid epidemic in Alabama and inflicted real damage on the legitimate medical community. For that, they must pay a very dear price.”

Doctor Hefter pleaded guilty for his involvement with CDPM in December 2017.

            DEA and IRS-Criminal Investigation investigated the case, which Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mohammad Khatib and Robin Beardsley Mark are prosecuting.

BIRMINGHAM – A federal grand jury on Wednesday indicted a Springville couple and a Moody physician on charges they operated a pill mill in St. Clair County for four years, announced U.S. Attorney Jay E. Town, Drug Enforcement Administration Assistant Special Agent in Charge Bret Hamilton and Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, Special Agent in Charge Thomas J. Holloman.

A 20-count indictment filed in U.S. District Court charges CINDY LOUISE HYCHE DUNN, 53, her husband, THOMAS MASON DUNN, 56, and Dr. JOHN LADD BUCKINGHAM, 85, in a conspiracy to operate a clinic in Moody for the main purpose of illegally distributing or dispensing controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. The object of the conspiracy was for the participants to enrich themselves, according to the indictment. The group ran Cindy Dunn & Dr. Buckingham, M.D., Weight Loss Clinic and Pain Management (CDPM) from January 2012 through December 2015.

“Personal greed motivates the people who operate illegal pain clinics, mass-prescribing opioids without medical justification and with no regard to the larger pain they bring to individuals, families and communities,” Town said. “The Department of Justice is determined to stamp out the operation of illegal pain clinics by all legal means as part of the fight against opioid abuse, and the Northern District of Alabama is fully committed to the fight. As one of 12 districts across the county participating in the department’s pilot Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit, we are taking advantage of data collection and analysis and joining together federal, state and local law enforcement to investigate and shut down illegal pill mills for good.”

“The abuse of prescription drugs is a serious problem in our communities – leading to addiction, shattered lives, and even death,” Hamilton said. “For the health and safety of our citizens, DEA and our law enforcement partners will continue to target those who illegally obtain and distribute these potentially dangerous drugs. We hope that these indictments serve as a reminder to anyone who might illegally divert pharmaceuticals that they will be held accountable for the harm they cause.”

 “This was a classic example of a pill mill and these individuals will be held accountable,” Holloman said. “We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners in tackling the opioid epidemic head on in the state of Alabama. In following the money, you can trace the drug proceeds to the beneficiaries and bring the entire conspiracy ring to justice.”

The indictment includes 16 counts charging Cindy Dunn and Buckingham with unlawfully dispensing a controlled substance, all containing opioids. As part of the conspiracy and in disregard for usual standards of professional medical practice, Cindy Dunn, Buckingham and other co-conspirators prescribed more than 13,500 methadone-based pills to one patient and more than 8,200 oxycodone-based pills to another patient, according to the indictment. They also prescribed more than 7,900 oxycodone-based and methadone-based pills, collectively, to a single patient, and 7,700 oxycodone-based and methadone-based pills, collectively, to a different patient, the indictment says.

Cindy Dunn, owner and president of CDPM, operated the clinic, including hiring and directing physicians and staff and making financial decisions. She mainly hired relatives as clerical staff and, for the vast majority of the clinic’s operation, did not employ formally trained nurses or medical assistants, according to the indictment. Cindy Dunn had no known medical education of her own.

Thomas Dunn performed various administrative and financial duties for CDPM and received prescriptions for opioids from the clinic, according to the indictment. Buckingham was a licensed physician in Alabama, but was not a certified pain management specialist.

CDPM typically charged a $25 patient application fee, a $200-$300 clinic visit fee for new patients, then a $90-$125 monthly fee for follow-up visits, according to the indictment. The clinic did not accept insurance, requiring cash or credit payments. Patient examinations were “infrequent, and were typically minimal and cursory,” and Cindy Dunn and CDPM staff often issued controlled substance prescriptions that were pre-signed by Buckingham or other physician co-conspirators, according to the indictment.

The indictment charges Cindy Dunn and Buckingham with maintaining a drug-involved premises, and charges all three defendants with participating in a money-laundering conspiracy by opening bank accounts for the clinic and conducting financial transactions with illegally obtained funds in order to keep the illicit business operating.

The final count of the indictment charges Cindy Dunn with engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property valued at more than $10,000. The charge cites a $25,000 deposit into a CDPM account at Regions Bank with money from a clinic account at Metro Bank.

Both the conspiracy to distribute controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice charge and each substantive count of illegally distributing controlled substances carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The charge of maintaining a drug-involved premises carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. Money-laundering conspiracy carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Engaging in monetary transactions involving criminal proceeds carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

DEA and IRS-CI investigated the case, which Assistant U.S. Attorney Mohammad Khatib is prosecuting.

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