Source: https://www.casewatch.net/board/med/chein/accusation.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-03-21 22:07:16
Document Index: 391656338

Matched Legal Cases: ['art:\n17', '§822', '§ 1301', '§ 1304', '§ 953', '§ 1304', '§ 822', '§ 1304']

Disciplinary Actions against Edmund Chein, M.D.
Since 1994, Edmund Chein, M.D., has operated the Palm Springs Life Extension Institute (PSLEI) in Palm Springs, California, which, according to its Web site, specializes in "optimized total hormone balancing by returning hormone levels to values consistent with a younger person." In 1995, he was placed on three years probation, the terms of which included an ethics course, psychiatric evaluation, practice monitor, and payment of investigation and prosecution costs. In 2002, the Medical Board of California charged him with a total of 13 counts of gross and repeated negligence, incompetence, prescribing without medical indication, inadequate recordkeeping, general professional misconduct, dishonesty, and dispensing controlled substances unlawfully. The accusation document (shown below)states that he prescribed hormones inappropriately for two patients and purchased a controlled drug (micronized testosterone) using his sister's DEA license. The case was settled in 2005 with a stipulation under which Chein agreed to be on probation for five years, during which he would (a) pay $10,000 to the State of California for costs, (b) take courses in ethics, prescribing practices, and recordkeeping, (c) refrain from making unsubstantiated advertising claims, and (d) either have his practice monitored or participate in an intensive professional enhancement program. Despite the probationary requirements, however, PSLEI is making preposterous claims in its mailings to prospective patients. A flyer for his book, for example, states: "Dr. Chein believes that growth hormone can turn back the clock and revitalize every major bodily system."
RICHARD AVILA, State Bar No. 91214
Telephone: (619) 645-2072
2825 Tahquitz Canyon Way, Bldg. A
Physician and Surgeon's Certificate No. A 38678
Case No. 19-2000-107723
2. On or about July 2, 1982, the Medical Board of California issued Physician and Surgeon's Certificate Number A 38678 to EDMUND CHEIN, M.D. (Respondent).
On or about June 30, 1995, in Medical Board Case No. 18-91-8773, respondent's certificate was disciplined pursuant to an order for a revocation stayed, three (3) years of probation, and terms and condition, including an ethics course, psychiatric evaluation, practice monitor and payment of investigation and prosecution costs.
On or about March 29, 2002, in Medical Board Case No. DI-91-8773, respondent's certificate was disciplined pursuant to an order for a revocation stayed, a suspension of 10-1/2 months (with credit for 10 10-1/2 months served), and probation until successful completion of certain terms and conditions, notably the Physician Assessment and Clinical Education Program and the payment of investigative and prosecution costs.
The certificate will expire October 31, 2003, unless renewed.
3. This Accusation is brought before the Division of Medical Quality, Medical Board of California (Division), under the authority of the following sections of the Business and Professions Code (Code) and related laws.
"(c) Repeated negligent acts.
“(e) The commission of any act involving dishonesty or corruption which is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon.
6. Section 2266 of the Code states, in part: "The failure of a physician . . . to maintain adequate and accurate records relating to the provision of services to their patients constitutes unprofessional conduct."
7. Section 2052 of the Code states, in part: "Any person who practices or attempts to practice, or who advertises . . . any system or mode of treating the sick or afflicted in this state, or who diagnosis, treats, ... or prescribes for any . . . physical or mental condition of any person, without having at the time of so doing a valid, unrevoked, or unsuspended certificate . . . or without being authorized to perform such act pursuant to a certificate obtained in accordance with some other provision of law, is guilty of a misdemeanor."
8. Section 2238 of the Code provides that a violation of any federal or state statute or regulation regarding dangerous drugs or controlled substances constitutes unprofessional conduct.
(a). United States Code ("U.S.C."), Title 21, sections 822(a)(1)-(2), 823(d)-(e), 824(a)(3), 829(b), 953(e), 954(2), and 957(a) that it is unlawful to manufacture, distribute or dispense controlled substances unless registered; that it is unlawful to fail to keep or maintain necessary records for controlled substances; that it is unlawful to provide controlled substances without prescriptions; and that it is unlawful to import or export non-narcotic controlled substances unless notice to and registration by the U.S. Attorney General.
(b). Code of Federal Regulations ("C.F .R."), Title 21, sections 1301.11, 1304.03-.04, 1304.11, 1304.21-.22, 1312.11 and 1312.21 specify that a prescriber of controlled substances is required to be registered; is required to keep records, inventories, and file reports of Schedule III substances dispensed; is required to keep certain records if authorized to import or export controlled substances; and may not import or export Schedule III controlled substances unless registered to do so.
9. Section 2242 of the Code, provides, in part, as follows: "Prescribing,
dispensing, or furnishing dangerous drugs as defined in Section 4022 without a good faith examination and medical indication therefor, constitutes unprofessional conduct."
10. Section 4021 of the Code provides that a controlled substance is substance listed in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11053) of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code. II
11. Section 4022 of the Code states: "'Dangerous drug' . . .means any drug . . . unsafe for self-use, except veterinary drugs that are labeled as such, and includes the following:
"(a) Any drug that bears the legend: "Caution: federal law prohibits dispensing without prescription," "Rx only, II or words of similar import.
"(b) Any device that bears the statement: "Caution: federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a _____," "Rx only," or words of similar import, the blank to be filled in with the designation of the practitioner licensed to use or order use of the device.
"(c) Any other drug or device that by federal or state law can be lawfully dispensed only on prescription or furnished pursuant to Section 4006. "
(1) Health and Safety Code section 11056(f)(32) provides that Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG or HGH) is a Schedule III controlled substance. (2) Health and Safety Code section 11056(f)(30) provides that Testosterone is a Schedule III controlled substance.
(3) Cytomel is the brand name for a thyroid hormone supplement and may be lawfully dispensed only by prescription.
(4) Insulin (Ultralente) may be lawfully dispensed only by prescription.
12. Health and Safety Code section 11150 provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o person other than a physician . . å. shall write or issue a prescription."
13. Health and Safety Code section 11155 provides, in pertinent part, that any physician, who by . . . order of any state or governmental agency, . . .surrenders his controlled substance privileges, shall not possess, administer, dispense, or prescribe a controlled substance unless and until such privileges have been restored, and [the physician] has obtained current registration from the appropriate federal agency as provided by law."
14. Health and Safety Code section 11164, subdivision (b), provides in part that prescriptions for Schedule III controlled substances are to contain, in the handwriting of the prescribing physician, the name of the patient, the name of the controlled substance, the quantity of the controlled substance, the directions for its use, the date of the prescription and the physician's signature. Additionally, these prescriptions are to contain the name of the physician, the physician's address, telephone number, category of professional license and DEA registration number.
15. Health and Safety Code section 11173, provides in part, the "[n]o person shall obtain . . .controlled substances, or procure . . . the administration of or prescription for ·controlled substances, (1) by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or subterfuge; or (2) by the concealment of a material fact."
16. Section 14124.12 of the Welfare and Institutions Code states, in pertinent part:
17. Section 125.3 of the Code provides, in pertinent part, that the Division may request the administrative law judge to direct a licentiate found to have committed a violation or violations of the licensing act to pay a sum not to exceed the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of the case.
PATIENT F.E.
18. Respondent is subject to discipline for gross negligence under Code section 2234, subdivision (b), in connection with his care and treatment of patient F.E. The circumstances are as follows:
a. In or about March 1997, respondent either treated patient F .E. or caused patient F.E. to be treated at the Palm Springs Life Extension Institute (PSLEI), in Palm Springs, California.
b. F.E. had been diagnosed with emphysema of the right lung and sought treatment from PSLEI. Respondent either prescribed or caused F.E. to be prescribed a regimen of thyroid supplements, DHEA, testosterone, and Human Growth Hormone or HGH.
c. F.E. underwent a blood test in July 1997, and a computer "age scan" in October 1997, at PSLEI.
d. Respondent either continued to prescribe or caused F.E. to continue to receive prescriptions of HGH through the latter part of 1999.
e. On or about December 7, 1999, respondent either sent or caused to be sent a letter to F.E. informing him that insulin would be added to his regular two-unit dose of HGH. On or about December 17, 1999, respondent either ordered or caused to be ordered four cc's of insulin (Ultralente) added to the vial of HGH provided to F.E.
f. The HGH and HGH-insulin mixtures provided to F.E. were mixed in the back room ofPSLEI by two unlicensed employees of respondent.
g. On or about December 20, 1999, F.E. began taking the new HGH-insulin mixture in the morning as prescribed. F.E. repeated this intake of the HGH-insulin mixture on or about December 21,22,23 and 24, 1999. On or about December 24, 1999, at about 6:00 p.m., F.E. experienced seizures and insulin shock, which resulted in an emergency hospitalization in Tennessee. Patient F. E. remained hospitalized for four days. His blood glucose level was recorded as "26" on admission to the hospital.
h. Sometime following F.E.'s discharge from the Tennessee hospital, he was asked to sign a disclaimer form regarding the insulin-laced HGH prescribed to him. F.E. declined to sign the form.
i. In or about June, 2000, PSLEI denied having any medical records for patient F.E, and subsequently provided a certification to that effect.
j. F.E. was never provided with information about the risks and consequences of using insulin in conjunction with HGH, and therefore never provided informed consent for the mixture.
k. F.E. was neither a diabetic nor hyperglycemic.
l. F.E.'s medical records from his family physician, from PSLEI (contained in the records provided by the family physician), and from other physicians do not indicate that F.E. was ever diabetic or hyperglygemic.
19. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for gross negligence related to the care and treatment of patient F.E., in violation of Code section 2234(b), in that:
a. Prior to providing any treatment to patient F.E., respondent either failed to perform an adequate history and physical examination on patient F.E., or caused such a failure.
b. Prior to providing any treatment to patient F.E., respondent either failed to document a history and physical examination on patient F.E., or caused such a failure.
c. Respondent either prescribed HGH to or caused HGH to be prescribed to patient F.E. without a good faith medical indication therefor.
d. Respondent either failed to document the prescription(s) of HGH to patient F.E., or caused the lack of documentation of the prescription(s).
e. Respondent either prescribed insulin or caused insulin to be prescribed to patient F.E. without a good faith medical indication therefor.
f. Respondent either failed to document the prescription(s) of insulin to patient F.E., or caused the lack of documentation of the prescription(s).
g. Respondent either failed to test patient F.E.'s blood glucose levels before and after prescribing the insulin to him or caused the lack of blood glucose testing.
h. Respondent either failed to document patient F.E.'s blood glucose levels before and after prescribing the insulin to him or caused the lack of blood glucose level documentation.
i. Respondent either failed to properly inform patient F.E. about or caused the failure to properly inform patient F.E. about the risks and benefits of HGH therapy and HGH-insulin therapy, and therefore failed to secure from patient F.E. informed consent for the treatment(s).
j. Respondent either failed to maintain adequate and accurate records of the care and treatment provided to patient F.E., or caused the failure to have adequate and accurate records.
20. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for committing repeated negligent acts in violation of Code section 2234, subdivision (c) of the Code, in connection with lis care and treatment of patient F.E. The circumstances are as follows:
a. Paragraph 16 and all of its subparts are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
b. Prior to providing any treatment to patient F.E., respondent either failed to perform an adequate history and physical examination of patient F.E., or caused such a failure.
c. Prior to providing any treatment to patient F.E., respondent either failed to document a history and physical examination of patient F.E., or caused such a failure. d. Respondent either prescribed HGH to or caused HGH to be prescribed to patient F .E. without a good faith medical indication therefor.
e. Respondent either failed to document the prescription(s) of HGH to patient F.E., or caused the lack of documentation of the prescription( s).
f. Respondent either prescribed insulin or caused insulin to be prescribed to patient F.E. without a good faith medical indication therefor
g. Respondent either failed to document the prescription(s) of insulin to patient F.E., or caused the lack of documentation of the prescription(s).
h. Respondent either failed to test patient F.E.'s blood glucose levels before and after prescribing the insulin to him or caused the lack of blood glucose testing.
i. Respondent either failed to document patient F.E. 's blood glucose levels before and after prescribing the insulin to him or caused the lack of blood glucose level documentation.
j. Respondent either failed to properly inform patient F.E. about or caused the failure to properly inform patient F.E. about the risks and benefits ofHGH therapy and HGH-insulin therapy, and therefore failed to secure from patient F.E. informed consent for the treatment( s).
k. Respondent either failed to maintain adequate and accurate records of the care and treatment provided to patient F.E., or caused the failure to have adequate and accurate records.
21. Respondent is subject to disciplinary for demonstrating incompetence in violation of Code section 2234(d), in connection with his care and treatment of patient F.E. The circumstances are as follows:
b. Prior to providing any treatment to patient F.E., respondent either failed to perform an adequate history and physical examination of patient F .E., or caused such a failure.
c. Prior to providing any treatment to patient F.E., respondent either failed to document a history and physical examination of patient F.E., or caused such a failure. d. Respondent either prescribed HGH to or caused HGH to be prescribed to patient F.E. without a good faith medical indication therefor.
f. Respondent either prescribed insulin or caused insulin to be prescribed to patient F .E. without a good faith medical indication therefor
i. Respondent either failed to document patient F.E.'s blood glucose levels before and after prescribing the insulin to him or caused the lack of blood glucose level documentation.
j. Respondent either failed to properly inform patient F.E. about or caused the failure to properly inform patient F.E. about the risks and benefits of HGH therapy and HGH-insulin therapy, and therefore failed to secure from patient F.E. informed consent for the treatment(s).
(Prescribing Without Medical Indication)
22. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for prescribing, dispensing and furnishing HGH without a good faith examination and medical indication therefor, in violation of Code section 2242, subdivision (a), in connection with his care and treatment of patient F.E. The circumstances are as follows:
d. Respondent either prescribed insulin or caused insulin to be prescribed to patient F.E. without a good faith medical indication therefor.
e. Respondent either failed to test patient F.E. 's blood glucose levels before and after prescribing insulin for him or caused the lack of blood glucose testing.
23. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for failing to maintain adequate and accurate records in Violation of Code section 2266, in connection with his care and treatment of patient F.E. The circumstances are as follows:
b. Prior to providing any treatment to patient F .E., respondent either failed to document a history and physical examination of patient F.E., or caused such a failure. c. Respondent either failed to document the prescription(s) of HGH to patient F.E., or caused the lack of documentation of the prescription(s).
d. Respondent either failed to document the prescription(s) of insulin to patient F.E., or caused the lack of documentation of the prescription(s).
e. Respondent either failed to document patient F.E.'s blood glucose levels before and after prescribing the insulin to him or caused the lack of blood glucose level documentation.
f. Respondent either failed to properly inform patient F.E. about or caused the failure to properly inform patient F.E. about the risks and benefits of HGH therapy and HGH-insulin therapy, and therefore failed to secure from patient F.E. informed consent for the treatment(s).
g. Respondent either failed to maintain adequate and accurate records of the care and treatment provided to patient F.E., or caused the failure to have adequate and accurate records.
PATIENT C.Z.
24. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 2234, subdivision (b), in connection with his care and treatment of patient C.Z. The circumstances are as follows:
a. In or about August 1998, respondent either opened a medical file for or caused a medical file to be opened for patient C.Z., a New Jersey resident. Patient C.Z. had been referred to PSLEI by her mother, who was also a patient at PST .FT
b. On or about August 12, 1998, patient C.Z. presented her New Jersey physician with a laboratory request form from respondent or caused to be sent by respondent for multiple endocrinology tests for "Perimenopausal Sx's." The tests were drawn August 28, 1998, and the results were normal and were forwarded to PSLEI at C.Z.'s request. C.Z.'s New Jersey physician subsequently performed a history and physical exam on C.Z., and found no physical abnormalities.
c. In February 1999 and March 1999, C.Z. had thyroid function studies done by her New Jersey physician, all of which were in the normal range.
d. On or about March 15, 1999, either respondent verbally received the results of the out-of-state laboratory studies from C.Z.'s mother or caused them to be received. Respondent either recorded C.Z.'s free T-3 level, which was 2.9, as low or caused it to be recorded as low. Respondent either prescribed a thyroid supplement, Cytomel, 25 mg, for C.Z., or caused it to be prescribed.
e. In or about April 1999, patient C.Z. began feeling poorly. Her New Jersey physician did a thyroid function study and discovered C.Z.'s free T-3 was abnormally high and her free T-4 was abnormally low. The physician asked C.Z. about the abnormal thyroid values and learned she had been taking Cytomel either prescribed by respondent or caused to be prescribed by him. C.Z.'s physician suggested C.Z. stop taking the Cytomel.
f. During Spring 1999, C.Z. presented her New Jersey physician with a physical examination form either from respondent or caused to be sent by respondent, which she asked her New Jersey physician to complete. C.Z.'s New Jersey physician declined to complete the form.
25. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for gross negligence in violation of Code section 2234(b) in connection with his care and treatment of patient C.Z. The circumstances are as follows:
a. Respondent either prescribed Cytomel, a dangerous drug, or caused it to be prescribed to the patient, without a prior good faith physical examination and medical indication therefor.
b. Respondent either failed to document the prescription of Cytomel for patient C.Z., or caused the lack of documentation.
c. Respondent either failed to make and maintain adequate and accurate records. of the medical services provided to C.Z., or caused the lack of adequate and accurate records.
29. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for repeated negligent acts in violation of Code section 2234, subdivision (c), in connection with his care and treatment of patient C.Z., in that:
a. Paragraph 22 and all of its subparts are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
b. Respondent either prescribed Cytomel, a dangerous drug, or caused it to be prescribed to the patient, without a prior good faith physical examination and medical indication therefor.
c. Respondent either failed to document the prescription of Cytomel for patient C.Z., or caused the lack of documentation.
d. Respondent either failed to make and maintain adequate and accurate records of the medical services provided to C.Z., or caused the lack of adequate and accurate records.
26. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for incompetence in violation of Code section 2234, subdivision (d) of the Code, in connection with his care and treatment of patient C.Z., in that:
27. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for prescribing, dispensing,
and furnishing a dangerous drug without a good faith prior examination and medical indication therefor, in violation of Code section 2242, subdivision (a), in connection with the care and treatment of patient C.Z., in that:
b. Respondent either prescribed Cytomel, a dangerous drug, or caused it to be prescribed to patient C.Z. without a prior good faith physical examination and medical indication therefor.
28. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for failing to maintain adequate and accurate records in violation of Code section 2266, in connection with the care and treatment of patient C.Z., in that:
c. Respondent either failed to make and maintain adequate and accurate records of the medical services provided to C.Z., or caused the lack of adequate and accurate records.
30. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action for general unprofessional conduct in violation of Code section 2234, in connection with his care and treatment of patient C.Z., in that:
a. Paragraphs 18 through 23 and all of their subparts are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
a. Paragraphs 22 through 28 and all of their subparts are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
(Unlicensed Practice of Medicine; Dishonesty;
Obtaining and Dispensing Controlled Substances Unlawfully)
Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code sections 2052, 2234 subdivisions (a) and (e), 2238, and 2266, and Health and Safety Code sections 11150, 11155 and 11173, in that he engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine, committed dishonesty, obtained controlled substances by deceit, misrepresentation and subterfuge, and dispensed controlled substances without proper privileges,
a. From February 18, 2000 to January 4, 2001, respondent's license to practice medicine in California was suspended, which nullified his DEA registration.
b. On or about August 8, 2000, PSLEI purchased micronized testosterone, a Schedule III controlled substance using the DEA registration certificate of Connie Chein, M.D.
c. On or about November 20, 2000, PSLEI purchased testosterone powder, a Schedule III controlled substance, using the DEA registration certificate of Connie Chein, M.D.
32. Respondent's use of Connie Chein M.D.'s DEA registration to purchase controlled substances for use at PSLEI, constitutes the unlicensed practice of medicine, dishonesty, obtaining controlled substances by deceit, misrepresentation and subterfuge, and obtaining and dispensing controlled substances without proper privileges, in violation of Code sections 2052, 2234(a) and (e), 2238, and 2266; Health and Safety Code sections 11150,11155 and 11173; Title 21, U.S.C. §§822(a)(1)-(2), 823( d)-(e),824(a)(3); and Title 21 C.F.R. §§ 1301.11 and 1312.11.
(Failing to Comply with Federal Laws Regarding Controlled Substances;
Failing to Maintain Adequate and Accurate Records)
Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code sections 2238 and 2266, in that he failed to comply with federal laws regarding the inventory, maintenance, inspection, and exportation of controlled substance records, and failed to maintain adequate and accurate records. The circumstances are as follows:
a. Paragraph 26 and its subparts arc; incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
b. From or about July 1, 2000 to or about February 1, 2001, respondent failed to maintain at PSLEI controlled substances records, including an initial inventory, biennial inventory, controlled substances invoices, and controlled substances dispensing records, in violation of federal regulations. (Title 21, C.F.R. § § 1304.04, 1304.11, and 1304.21-.22.)
c. From or about July 1, 2000 to or about February 1, 2001, respondent unlawfully exported controlled substances, without DEA authorized registrations and permits, including Schedule III anabolic steroids and Schedule IV stimulants, to individuals in many different foreign countries.
d. On or about February 5, 2001, respondent was admonished by the DEA to discontinue exporting controlled substances due to his lack of export registrations and permits.
e. From or about February 5, 2001, respondent continued exporting controlled substances from PSLEI, despite his lack of registrations and permits.
f. Respondent failed to obtain a registration to export controlled substances, failed to submit required export permits and/or declarations to DEA, and failed to maintain proper records of these exports, in violation of federal statutes and regulations. (Title 21, U.S.C. §§ 953(e), 954(2), and 957(a); Title 21, C.F.R. §§ 1304.03-.04, 1304.22, and 1312.21.)
g. Respondent refused to produce shipping records for the controlled substances exported between February 5, 2001 and August 23, 2001, in violation of federal statutes and regulations. (Title 21, U.S.C. §§ 822(a)(l)-(2), 823(d)-(e), 842(a)(5); Title 21, C.F.R. §§ 1304.03-.04, 1304.21-.22, 1312.21.)
h. On or about August 23, 2001, during an interview with the DEA, respondent acknowledged the admonishment to cease all exports of controlled substances from PSLEI, but informed DEA he would continue exporting controlled substances anyway.
1. Revoking or suspending Physician and Surgeon's Certificate Number A 38678, issued to EDMUND CHEIN, M.D.;
2. Revoking, suspending or denying approval of EDMUND CHEIN, M.D.'s authority to supervise physician's assistants, pursuant to section 3527 of the Code:
3. Ordering EDMUND CHEIN, M.D. to pay the Division of Medical Quality the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of this case, and, if placed on probation, the costs of probation monitoring;
This page was posted on July 9, 2006.