Jump to content

Judge Tosses Colorado Case Against Marijuana Doctor


Recommended Posts

Judge tosses Colorado case against marijuana doctor

 

By John Ingold The Denver Post

 

Read more: Judge tosses Colorado case against marijuana doctor - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_18061922#ixzz1MJijTEVA

One of the first known doctors in Colorado to be charged with writing a shoddy medical-marijuana recommendation had the case against him thrown out this week.

 

Dr. Toribio Robert Mestas had been facing charges of forgery, attempt to influence a public servant, marijuana distribution and conspiracy to distribute marijuana after writing a recommendation to an undercover police officer early last year in Englewood. But, in an order handed down Wednesday, Arapahoe County District Judge Kurt Horton ruled Mestas had complied with the requirements of Colorado's constitution in making his recommendation.

 

"Colorado's Amendment 20 simply allows for a physician to certify that a patient might benefit from the use of marijuana as a medical treatment," Horton wrote, "and it is then left up to the patient whether to apply for a medical marijuana registry card."

 

The ruling dealt a blow to prosecutors and threw into question another case in the county against a similarly charged doctor. They were the first two cases known to be filed in the state against doctors accused of writing bad medical-marijuana recommendations and came after a series of undercover stings.

 

In an e-mail, Arapahoe County district attorney's spokeswoman Casimir Spencer said prosecutors have yet to decide on their next move.

 

"The District Attorney's Office will be reviewing his ruling to determine whether it is appropriate to appeal this matter," Spencer wrote.

 

In Mestas' case, an officer using the fictitious name "Joseph Butkus" visited Mestas' office, which was linked to a dispensary, and asked for an exam so he could receive a medical-marijuana recommendation. "Butkus" told Mestas that he suffered from daily back pain — the officer said he had "the body of an 80-year-old" — and sometimes had trouble sleeping.

 

Mestas wrote "Butkus" a recommendation to use marijuana to treat "severe pain." Prosecutors contended that the officer never told Mestas he suffered from "severe pain," according to Horton's ruling. But Mestas and another doctor testified in court that such a diagnosis was implied based on what the officer did say.

 

Horton agreed, finding that Mestas had performed the needed exams and given sufficient attention to the officer to make the recommendation.

 

"Dr. Mestas could have done more to support his Physician's Certification" that "Butkus" needed marijuana, Horton wrote. "However, the Court cannot find that Amendment 20 expressly required more."

 

"This is good for physicians in Colorado," said Mestas' attorney, Matt Giacomini. "I think it recognizes . . . the role of a physician."

 

Arapahoe County prosecutors are still pursuing charges against another medical-marijuana doctor, Manuel Aquino, who is accused of writing shoddy recommendations to two undercover officers after brief exams. The case is scheduled for trial in August.

 

Both cases originated before the legislature in 2010 adopted rules mandating that doctors do a thorough physical exam and offer to provide follow-up care to patients before writing a marijuana recommendation. But Mestas' and Aquino's attorneys contend that their clients were in compliance with the stricter rules.

 

Lauren Davis, Aquino's lawyer, said she is preparing motions to make the same arguments Giacomini did, and she called the Mestas ruling promising.

 

"This stuff is protected by the constitution," she said.

 

Spencer, the district attorney's spokeswoman, said the facts in Aquino's case are different and said prosecutors don't expect the Mestas ruling to have any effect on that case.

 

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com

 

Read more: Judge tosses Colorado case against marijuana doctor - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_18061922#ixzz1MJioW0Tb

Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

 

 

 

Michael A. Komorn

 

Attorney and Counselor

 

Law Office of Michael A. Komorn

 

3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800

 

Southfield, MI 48075

 

800-656-3557 (Toll Free)

 

248-351-2200 (Office)

 

248-357-2550 (Phone)

 

248-351-2211 (Fax)

 

Email: michael@komornlaw.com

 

Website: www.komornlaw.com

 

Check out our Radio show:

 

http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees

 

NEW CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626

 

Live Every Wednesday 8-10:00p.m.

 

PLANET GREENTREES

 

w/ Attorney Michael Komorn

 

 

The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

 

 

If you have a medical marihuana question or comment, please email them to me, or leave them on the forum for the MMMA, and I will try to answer them live on the air.

 

 

http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees

 

PLANET GREENTREES Call-in Number: (347) 326-9626

 

Call-in Number: (347) 326-9626

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Kormon knows the case -

In Michigan a Doctor was arrested 'for writing recommendations for MM", actually as the story goes on - the DEA wants to charge the doctor with conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The Doctor went an extra step than most doctors, and counseled a patient how to grow, and in another time, recommended a dispensary to a patient. Both of these were considered 'above and beyond' the doctor's protected privilege to write recommendations. It should also be noted the DEA was investigating the doctor for prescription pills as well.

 

This is perhaps why many doctor's keep away from associating with a club or making statements or suggestions to help patients find medicine.

 

-DN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few small steps... Keep an eye on this case. I'd never expect a dr to discuss growing, or dispensaries, clubs, etc., but to me it shows the dr is knowledgeable about the issues. I don't know how far all that should go, someone might suspect the doc was working for the dispensary or whatever. But what about the ones that have samples of prescription drugs? Aren't they working for those companies? Even if they aren't officially, I'm sure those companies are giving them quite the incentive to distribute their products. This could get complicated, though it doesn't have to be. The problem with laws and lawmakers is, they complicate everything, even if it's unnecessary.

 

At least some people are honoring their constitution and their law. :D

 

Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...