DOCTOR Anthony “Tony” Stearns, through his attorney, Sean Frink, has denied the allegations in the civil complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Districts of Guam and the NMI, which accused him of dispensing opioid painkillers without Drug Enforcement Agency exemption in violation of the Controlled Substances Act.
According to Frink, “Dr. Stearns accepted patients for care who were already addicted to prescription medicines and largely otherwise abandoned by other care providers.”
Dr. Stearns treated these patients in a manner consistent with a good faith clinical care process aimed at addressing their primary pathologies, while maintaining awareness of their addiction circumstances, Frink added.
As opposed to the United States mainland, and Hawaii and Alaska, Saipan has limited clinical resources for patients who have been “fired” or were unacceptable to other medical practices and providers but who still suffered from serious clinical malady, the lawyer said.
He added that the allegations in the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and the doctrine of laches, Frink said.
According to an online legal dictionary, “Laches is an equitable doctrine, typically raised as an affirmative defense by a defendant in a civil dispute, whereby a party may be barred from raising a claim due to an unreasonable delay in pursuing the claim.”
Frink said Dr. Stearns “had a legitimate doctor-patient relationship with each of these patients and believes that there was a legitimate medical purpose for the prescriptions that were issued, and all five patients are currently leading much more productive and safer lives as a result of his treatment of them.”
Without the treatment provided by Dr. Stearns, Frink said, most, if not all of these patients would have likely landed in dire if not mortal circumstances.
“Physicians, particularly in isolated jurisdictions like Saipan, should not be discouraged from making the good faith decision to take on ‘outcast’ patients in an effort to treat them, even if they are addicted to narcotics,” Frink said.
Dr. Stearns’ assistance to these five patients was provided in good faith, without profit to him or his clinic, and only in an effort to help them with their medical problems, Frink added.
The civil complaint alleged that Dr. Stearns knowingly issued to patients approximately 357 prescriptions for controlled substances that were either not issued in the usual course of professional treatment or not for a legitimate medical purpose.
The complaint also alleged that Dr. Stearns prescribed 62 prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances for maintenance or detoxification purposes and provided maintenance or detoxification services without the appropriate training or Drug Enforcement Agency exemption.
The federal government is asking the District Court for the NMI for an order penalizing Stearns $67,627 for each violation, totaling $24,142,839.
According to the complaint, the DEA reviewed select patient files of Dr. Steams from 2015 to 2020, and conducted an investigation of his controlled substances prescribing activities from October 2016 to January 2020.
The DEA also reviewed patient files and prescription records for five particular patients.
