Home Page — The Patient Safety League4patientsafety.org/documents/Copeland, John W 1994-09-21.pdf · 19 period, raspondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including Anavar 20 and

--~~~---=:co~----·-=--·---~-,--=--

BEFORE THE DIVISION OF MEDICAL QUALITY MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Accusation Against:

) ) ) ) ) )

JOHN W. COPELAND, M.D. Certificate No. C-26299

No. D-5257

Respondent. ) ________________________________ )

DECISION

The attached stipulation, Decision and Order is hereby adopted

by the Division of Medical Quality as its Decision in the above-

entitled matter.

This Decision shall become effective .on _ __,O"""c""'t'""o""'b"""er....___.2..._1._,,..___.1...;;,:9-"'9 .... 4 __

IT IS OR ORDERED __ S_e~p_t_e_m~b~er~2~1~~1~9~94~-----

By: bZ.~ ALAN SHUMACHER, M.D. Secretary

,Division of Medical Quality

" ·: • I l ~ (! I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2.2

23

24

DANIBL ~. LUNGREN, Attorney General of the sta.te -Of California ·

JAHA L. TUTOR, Supervising oeputy Attorney General

GAIL H., HBPPBLL Depu~y Attorney Generol

1515 X Street, su~~e 511 P.O. :aox 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 324-5336

Attorneya for Ca.:plainant

BEFORE 'l'HE MEDICAL BOARD OP CALIFORNIA DIVISIOH OF MEDICAL QUALITY

DEPARTMBNT OF CONSUMEll Al'l'AIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I~ the Matter of the Accusation Aq&instt

JOHN W. COPXLAND, M.D. 1111 11 A'1 Bt:-eat Antioch, CA 94509 Physician and sur;ecn

Cert~f1cate ~o. C-026299

Respondent,

) No. D-5257 ) ) ST~:tOJI 1 DECISIOll, ) Alm ORDER ) ) r ) } ) )

I1 IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties to the above

entitled matter that the following is true:

1. Respondent John w. Copeland, M.D. (hereinafter

"reepondent") was issued physician and surg-eon certificate

number c-026299 on July 28, 1964, by the Medical Board of

Califo:r:nia. At all times pertinent herein, eai.d certificate was

and QU~rently ls in full force and effect.

25 2 •. On June 23, 1993~ an accus~tion baa~ing numb8r

26 C-5257 waa filed by Dixon Arnett, Executive Di~ector of the

27 Medical Board of california (het:einafter "Board") solely in his

1.

-----.,_=,.co.-_ .. -.-o>-,,-" .. --· ..... ---····

1 official capacity. Said accusation listed causes for

2 disciplinary action aqainst respond9nt, and said accusation is

3 inco~ratad by reference as though fully set forth at this

4 po~nt. Respondent was du1y and p~oper~y S@rvad by certified mnil

5 with accusation number D-5257, and respondent filed a timely

6 notice of defense requesting a hearinq on the charqes contained

7 in the accusation.

8 3. Respondent has retained as counsel, James Jay

9 Seltzer, Law Offices a£ James Jay Seltzer. Respondent has fully

10 diBcuBaed·with his counsel the charoes and a.llegations of

ll vi.olation of the California BueinGUJii · and Professiona CodA alleqed

12 in accusation n~er D-5257 and has fully been advised of his

13 ri9hts under the Administrative Procedure Aet of the State of

14 Califo~ia, in~luding his right to a formal hearing and

. 15 Qppg~tunity to defend aqairtst the charges contained therein, ~nd

16 reconaideration and appeal of any adverse decision that miqht be

17 rendered followinq said hearing. Respondent knowingly and

18 intelliqe:rttly waives his rights to a heari.ng~ reconsideration and

19 appeal, and to any and all other rlqhts which may be accorded him

20 pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act reqarding the

21 charqee contained in the accusation, subject to the provisions of

22 pcre.qx-a.ph 7.

23

24

4. Respond4:1nt a.dmJ.ts the :£ollowinqt

A. an Decembe~ 12, 1990, on a felony complaint

25 entitled "The People a£ the State cf. ~Alifornia v. John

26 Copeland"• Case No. 070~25-8, before thQ Municipal Court of

27 Calitornia, Delta Judicial District, was filed against

• r-;..._t ~~'

1 respondent. Said co~laint contained twanty-fiva counts alleginq

2 that respondent had violated Health and Safety Code section 11153

3 by issuing prescriptions for- controlled substances in 19871 1988

4 ~n4 ~989 to 1ndividua1a not Ln the course of professional

5 treatment or aa part of an autho:r:ized methadone p:a:-oqram.

6 B. On May 301 1991, respondent entered a plea of nolo

21 s. Without admitting or denying the allegations, and

22 fo~ the purpo•Q• of resolving this case, respondent agrees that

23 the Board may consider the followin~ to ba true:

24 I

25 ~

26 A. Between April 1984 and Auquat 1989, D.B. aouqht

27 care and treatment from respondont. curinq this tree:tment

3.

~ , ..

i.i

1 period, responda~t prescribed a~abolic steroids, including

2 ~rabolin and Anavar.

3 B. Respondent's prescribing of the ~nabolic steroids

4 to D.B. was w~thout med~Qa1 Lndication Ln violat~on of Cod&

!5 section 2242.

6 II

7 lL.J2J.

8 A. . ~etween l9S3 and August i989, w.o. sought care

9 and t:reatment from respondent. DUring thie treatment period.,

10 respondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including Anll.var and

11 daca-Durabolin.

12 B. Re$pondent•a prescribing of anaholic steroids to

13 W.D. was without medical indica~ion in violation of Code

14 section 2242.

15 III

16 ~

17 A. E,gtw,n:an Apri1, 1986, and-March, 1989, J6E. souc;rht

18 care and t~eatmant from respondent. Durinq this treatment

19 period, raspondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including Anavar

20 and Teatoaterone.

21 B . Respondent's prescribi~g of anabolic steroids to

. ~2 J.E. waa without medical indication irt ~iolation of Code section

23 2242.

24 c. 25 c.s., w.o., and J.B, oonatitutes •epeatad n~liqedt acts in

26 violation of COde •&ction 2234(c).

27 ///

4.

- -C:~..-1 ?.'~~t±- ··------···"'·,..............-~·.

l.

2

3

IV

.L.lh ·A. On or about February 24, 1989, S.D. sought

4 ~~•a~nt from raapondent. S.D. reported that sho had begn ua~ng

5 harQin fo~ 23 years. Respondent preso:ibed Valium, Bestroil,

6 Clonidine and oarvonpN.

7 D. · Reopondent' a prescribing of the aforementioned

e drugs was ~ithout medic~l indication in violation of Code section

9 2:l42 •.

10 c. Respondent's prescribinq of the aforementioned

11 druqs conetitutee unprofGssional conduct in violation of Code

12 aeation 2241 in that s.n. was an addict or habitue.

13 D. Respondent waB negligent in his treatment of S.D.

14 in that there was no medical indication for the drugs preserLbed.

15 ltaapondent was further neqliqent in his treatment of S.D. in that

16 he failed to provide pmychosocial support and monitoring while

17 attempting to detoxify the patient. He failed to refer her to a

18 methadone maintenance program for detoxification o~ to an

19 inpatient chemdcal dependency unit for detoxification an4

20 rehabilitation. Said conduct Qonstitutea violations of Code

21 1ecticm 2234(c).

22 v

23 ~

24 A. On or about April 21, Hay 19, 3une 16, and July 22,

25 1988, P.lt. sought care and treatment frOlD re•pondent foJ;

26 11 anxiety". on each occasion, respondent prescribed Ritalin.

27 a. Respondent's preacribinq of Ritalin was without

s.

-~

' ' i i I {

l ~l

.";_1

1 med!cal indication in violation of Code section 2242.

C, Respond.ent~s treatment of K.s. was negliqent in

3 that rQapondent failed to cortduct an appropriate ·examination and

• p~e60~i~~~ D dru9 wh~oh was not medically indicated. Said

5 CQnduot constitutes a violation of Code section 2234(c) .

6

' 8

VI

A. On or about March 21 1 1999, and April 25, 19S9,

9 P.X. sought treatment from respondent for heroin withdrawal.

10 Respondent pr•scribed Re~toril, Clonidine, and Darvon-H.

ll B. Reeponden~·s preecrihins of the aforementioned

12 cb:ugs wae without medical indication in vio·lation of Code section

13 2242.

14 c. Respondent's prascribinq of the afor~entioned

15 dru~e constitutes unprofessional conduct in violation of code

16 se~tlon 2~41 in that P.X. was an addict or habitue.

17 o. Respondel\t was negligent ·1n hie. treatJnent of P.K.

l8 in that there was no medical indication for the drugs prescribed.

19 He was further negliqent in that he failed to provide a

20 eomprehGneivs plan for rehabilitation, i.e., to seek

21 c~prehensive phycosocial care. Said conduct constitutes a

22 violation of Code sections 2234(c).

23 6. It is stipulated by and between the paxties thAt

24 the admi••ions herain ara deemed true only for the purpose of

25 this prooeedinq and any other proceeding before tha Medical

215 Board.

27 ///

c.

---------·---·-

1 7. In the event that this Stipulation, Decision, and

2 Order is not accepted and adopted by the Medical Board, the

3 stipulation and characterizations of law and fact mada by all

4 pQrt~ea herein eha~~ be null and void and inadm~ssable in any

5 proceeding involving the parties to it.

6 WBBRBFOR.B, it is stip~latGd that the Medical Board may

7 isaue the followinq Decision and Order:

B Physician and surgnon certificate number C-026299 ie

9 revoked. HOwever, revocation is stayed and raBpondent is placea

lO on probation for five (5) years with the following terms and

11 cond.itionst

12 l. Rgspondent shall not pre~cribe, administer,

13 dispense, ordar or possess ~ny controlled substances as defined

14 by thw california Unifcr.m Controlled SubstancGs Act, except for

15 those druqs listed in Schedule~ III (with the ex~eption of ·

16 ~ne.boli.c steroids) , rv and v ot the Act, However f respondent is

17 per.mitted to prescribe, administer, dispense, or order controlled

18 substances listed in Schedule Il of the Uniformed Controlled

19 Substances Act for in-patient& in a hospital setting, and not

20 otharwi.ae 1

21 2 1 Respondent •hall maintain a record of all

22 controlled eubstaneaa proscribed, dispensed or administered by

23 reaponden~ during probation, showing all the following; 1) the

24 name and address of the patient, 2) the date, 3) the character

25 and quantity of controlled substances involved, and 4) the

26 ind~cationa and diavnosia for which the controlled substances

27 were furnished 1

7 .

• ,-...,,! --::::!-

•·'

/

•'

~·:

1 Respondent shall keep these records in a separate file

2 o~ ledqQr, in chronological order, and shall make them available

for inapection .and copying by the Division or its dssiqnee, -.upon 3

... ~st. 5

6

7

3. Within ninety {90) days of the effective date of

thig dGcision, and for the !1rst three (3) years of probation

thereafter, respondent shall submit to the Division for its prior

8 approval an educational program or course-to be designated by the

9 Division, which shall not_be lesa than forty (40) hours per year~

10 This proqxam ahal~ be in addition to the Continuing Medical

11 Education ~equiremente for re-licensura. Following completion of

12 said courset the Divie!on or its designee may administer an

12 examination to test rQspondent's ~~owledge of the course.

14 Respondent shall provide proof of attendAnCQ for 65 hours of

15 continuing medical education of which 40 hours were in

16 satiafacticn .of this condition and were approved in advance by

17 the Division.

18 4. · Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of

19 this decision, respondent shall submit to the Division for its

20 prior approval a course in Ethice,. which respondent ahall

21 successfully complete during the first year Qf probeticn.

22 5. Respond.ent ahall pay to the :&card its costs for

23 1nvestiqation and prosecution ln the amount of $3,GOO. Pa~ant

24 eha11 be mace during tha first year of probation.

25 6. aespondent shall obey all federal, state, and local

26 laws, and all rules and requlatione gov•rninq the p~actice of

27 medicine in California.

8.

•r-f....t ....,":]'

l 7. Respondent shall submit quarte4ly declarations under

2 penalty of perjury on for.ms provided hy the Division, s~ating

3 whotbor or not there has been complianee with all the conditions

4 of prohat.ion.

5 B. Respondent shall comply ~th the Division's

6 probations surveillance pro~am.

7 9. Respondent shall appear in person for interviewa

B with the Division o~ its designee upon request at various

9 intervals and with reasonable notice.

10 10. The pe•iod of probation shall net run during the

11 t~e respondent is residing or practicinq outside the

12 jurisdiction of California. If dul:'ing probation, reBpondent

13 ~~~ea outside the j~riadiction of California to residQ ~r

14 practice elsewhe~e 1 respondent is •$quired to immediately notify

15 the Division in writi~g of the date of his departure and the date

16 of ~8tur.n, if any.

17 11. Upon successful oo~lation of probation,

18 raapond&nt's license will b9 fully restored.

19 12. Xf respondent violates probation in any respect,

20 the Division, after qivlng respondent notice and the opportunity

21 to ~ helil.:r:d., may revoke proba;tlon and carry out the disciplinary

22 order that was stayed.. If an accusation or petition to revoke-,

23 probation is filed against respondent during p~obation, the

24 Division shall have continuing j~risdiction until the matter is

25 t1na1.

26 Ill

27 Ill

9 .

r.'ll'i,.../ ~~.-:-,!-+"'"'"""'"'""'-·--·· . . ... ...... -;. --~

· rt-1 ::::J'

+···'··-· .;. .:, .

l

2

3

4

s 6

1

8

9

10

ll I

12

lJ

14

lS

16

17

. 18

lS

20

21

22

23

24

25

2f;

27

13. Reapond$nt acknowledqes that he shall not be

allowed to withdraw

by tne Divia!on.

DATED r 'J/ "JL/t, V 1 7

PATEl)' ~!Joj~l{ I I

from this stipulation unless it is rejected

DANIEI. :S. LWGRBN, Attorney C.eneral of the State of Califo~n~a

BY. Mm~l~ GAIL M· HBPP Deputy Attorngy General Atto~neys for Complainant

·, !.

10.

2 l: u:D<fenUftd -i:Mt l tla'l"'l tl* ~!.fht t.a a lulll2:'iD!I OA tltG ~··

3 G04tah•c Ul the aoot.a.a~. the z!.pt to =oo•...-.ina t w.-.... .. , ud tM :z:of.vht. to ille.rD4uae 69iclllfta• itt attJ.v-d.o&\.. f

S lmawt.DfJ.J' IUld. .tnt:•Ui.pntly wa1va all oi ~.. rig)ib, aml

f uadent:ud !Mt by aip.t.n;- this •tiplaUQI\ I 4111 pexai.ttiDq tlMI

7 •cU. cal ~ of caU£ornia to cl!.Boiplli• .,. l.S.C81!88. l

I 11Ad8numl th• a.ma ancl a=adiUQae of tlaa Sdpal.lti¢1\r Dee:idOft,

.... Drlllar:~e tD ~ l:louDd·by ~~· -· J.G !lldDa,..p.,..,.U!J_-.,_.....,.~...,. 11

12

13

lt

15

u 11

18

11

20

n :a~

23 24

IS

21

17 . _,:-,

u. \.

** TOTAL PAGE. 02 **:' ·---·-

•

1 DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General of the State of California

2 JANA L. TUTON, Supervising Deputy Attorney General

3 GAIL M. HEPPELL Deputy Attorney General

4 1515 K Street, Suite 511 P.O. Box 944255

5 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550. Telephone: (916) 324-5336

6 Attorneys for Complainant

BEFORE THE

7

8

9

10

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA .DIVISION OF MEDICAL QUALITY

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11 In the Matter of the ·Accusation

12 Against:

13 JOHN W. COPELAND, M.D. 1111 "A" Street

14 Antioch, CA 9A509 Physician and Surgeon

15 Certificate No. C-026299

16 Respondent.

17

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

D--5257 No.

ACCUSATION

18

19

Complainant, Dixon Arnett, alleges as follows:

1. He is the Executive Director of the Medical Board

20 of California (hereinafter "Board") and makes and files this

21 accusation solely in his official capacity.

22 2. On or about July 28, 1964, respondent John·N.

23 Copeland, M.D. (hereinafter "respondent") was served Physician's.

24 and Surgeon's Certificate Number C-026299 by the Board. At all

25 times pertinent herein, said certificate was and currently is in

26 full force and effect.

• 27 ///

--

•

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

3. Sections 3220 and 2234 of the Business and

Professions Code (hereinafter "Code") provide, in pertinent part,

that the Division of Medical Quality may take action against the

holder of a physician and surgeon certificate who is guilty of

unprofessional conduct.

4. Section 2238 of the Code provides that violation

of any federal statute or federal regulation or any of the

statutes or regulations of this state regulating dangerous drugs

or controlled substances constitutes unprofessional conduct.

5. Section 2242 of the Code provides that

prescribing, dispensing or furnishing dangerous drugs as defined

in section 4211 without a good faith prior examination and

13 medical indication therefor constitutes unprofessional conduct.

14

15

16

6. Section 2234, subdivision (c) of the Code provides

that repeated negligent acts constitute unprofessional conduct.

7. Section 2234, subdivision (d) of the Code provides

17 that incompetence constitutes unprofessional conduct.

18

19

20

21

22

23

B. Section 2241 of the Code provides, in pertinent

part that the prescribing, selling, furnishing, giving away, or

administering or offering to prescribe sell, furnish, give away

or administer any drugs or compounds mentioned in section 2237 to /

an addict or habitue constitutes unprofessional conduct.

9 • Section 725 of the Code provides, in part, that

24 repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing or administering

25 of drugs or treatment is determined by the standard of the

26 community of licensees is unprofessional conduct.

10. Section 2236(a) of the Code provides, in part,

2.

-; __

1 that the conviction of any offense substantially related to the

_. . 2 qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon

3 constitutes unprofessional conduct. The record of conviction

4 shall be conclusive evidence only of the fact that the conviction

5 occurred.

6 Section 2236(b) provides, in pertinent part, the

7 Division may inquire into the circumstances surrounding the

8 commission of the crime in order to fix the degree of discipline

9 or to determine if such conviction is of an offense substantially

10 related to the qualification, functions and duties of a physician

11 and surgeon. A plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction

12 following a plea of nolo contendere is deemed to be a conviction

13 within the meaning of this section.

14 11. Sec~ion 11153 of the Health and Safety Code

15 provides, in-pertinent part, that a presc~iption for a controlled

16 substance shall only be issued for a legitimate medical purpose

17 by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his

18 professional practice.

·19 12. At all times mentioned herein, anabolic steroids

20 which include Anavar, Dianabol and Durabolin, were dangerous

21 drugs within the meaning of section 4211 of the Code and were

22 Schedule III controlled substances-within the meaning of aealth

23 and Safety Code section 11056.

24 13. Respondent ii]S subject to disciplinary- action

25 pursuant to sections 2220 and 2234 of the Code in that respondent

26 is guilty of unprofessional conduct within the meaning of

• 27 section 2236 of the Code in·that he has been convicted of a crime

3.

=

•

•

•

1

2

3

4.

as follows:

A.

entitled "The People

CoQeland". Case No.

On December 12, 1990, in a felony complaint

of the State of California v. John

070225-S, before the Municipal Court of

5 California, Delta Judicial District, was filed against

6 respondent. Said complaint contained twenty-five counts alleging

7 that respondent had violated Health and Safety Code section 11153

8 by issuing prescriptions for controlled substances in 1987, 1988

9 and 19-89 to individuals not in the course of professional

10 treatment or as part of an authorized methadone program, but for

11 the purpose of providing the user with controlled substances,

12 sufficient to keep him/her comfortable by m-aintaining customary

13 use.

14

15

B. In May 30, 1991, respondent entered a plea of nolo

contendere to violating Health and Safety Code section 11153 as

16 set forth in Counts One, Two, Three, _Four, Five and Six of the

17 complaint. On or about July 11, 1991, respondent was sentenced

18 to three years probation, thirty (30) days in jail, pay a fine

19 and assessments totalling $10,000 and return 1,000 hours of

20 community volunteer service. On August 22, 1991, the sentence

21 was modified and respondent was permitted to serve his 30 days

22 county jail time under the auspices of the Sheriff's Alternative

- 23 Work Program by providing medical services to the Contra Costa

24 County jail inmate population.

25 14. Respondent is further subject to disciplinary

26 action pursuant to sections 2220 and 2234 of the Code in that

27 respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct within the meaning

4.

~.

•

•

••

-·-

1 of sections 2242, 2234(c), 2234(d) and 725 as follows:

2

3

4

I

D. B • .!./

A.· Between April 1984 and August 1989, D.B. sought

5 care and treatment from respondent. During his treatment period,

6 respondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including Durabolin and

7 Anavar.

8

9

10

B. During the course of treatment:

(1) Respondent ordered liver tests sporadically;

(2) Respondent failed to discontinue steroids

11 when liver function tests were abnormal;

12 (3) Respondent failed to take remedial action in

13· the face of abnormal· liver function tests.

14 c . Eac~ of the acts set forth hereinabove constitutes

15 repeated negligent acts in violation of Cope section 2234(c).

16 D.· Respondent's prescribing of the anabolic steroids

17 to D.B. was without medical indication in violation of Code

18 section 2242.

19 E. Respondent's prescribing of the anabolic steroids

20 to D.B. constitutes repeated acts of clearly excessive prescrib-

21 ing in violation of Code section 725.

22 II

23 fu.Q..:.

24 A. Between 1983.and August 1989, W.O. sought care

25 and treatment from respondent. During this treatment period,

26

27 1. Initials are used in lieu of patient names. The complete names of the patients will be provided in discovexy.

5.

•

•

•

1 respondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including Anavar and

2 deca-Durabolin.

3 B. During the course of treatment:

4 (1) Respondent prescribed anabolic steroids

5 without documenting and/or informing w.o. of their side effects;

6 (2) Respondent ordered liver tests sporadically;

7 (3) Respondent failed to discontinue ~hmg

8 steroids even when liver function tests were abnormal; ..

9 (4) Respondent failed to take remedial action in

10 the face of abnormal liver function tests.

11 c. Each of the acts set forth hereinabove constitutes

12

13

14

15

16

repeated negligent acts in violation of Code section 2234(c).

o. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids to

W.O. was without medical indication in violation of Code

section 2242.

E. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids

17 constitutes repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing in

18 violation of Code section 725.

19 III

20 J.E.

21 A. Between April, 1986, and March, 1989, J.E. sought

22 care and treatment from respondent. During this treatment

23 period, respondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including Anavar

24 and Testosterone.

25 Ill

26 Ill

27 Ill

6.


4lt 2 (1) Respondent prescribed anabolic steroids to

4lt

3 J.E. who was 21 years old without documenting and/or informing

4 him of their risks and side effects;

5 (2) Respondent prescribed multiple oral and

6 steroids, sometimes in combination (which is known as

7 11 stacking 11 ) ;

8 (3) Respondent failed to order liver function

9 tests;_

10 (4) Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids

11 was not medically indicated.


13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

repeated negligent acts in violation of Code section 2234 (c).

0. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids to

J.E. was without medical indication in vio~ation of Code section

2242.

E. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids to

J.E. constitutes repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing

in violation of Code section 725.

-IV

A. F.

A. Between June 27, 1987, and November 11, 1988, A.F.

sought care and treatment from respondent. During this treatment

24 period respondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including Anavar

25 and deca-Durabolin .-

26 Ill

• 27 ///

7.

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

_15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


(1) Respondent prescribed anabolic steroids

without documenting and/or informing A.F. of their risks and side

effects;

(2) Respondent failed to order liver function

tests;

( 3) Respondent's ·prescribing of anabolic steroids

was not medically indicated.

C. Each of the acts set forth hereinabove constitutes

repeated negligent acts in violation of code section 2234 (c).

D. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids to

A.F. was without medical indication in violation code section

2242.

E. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids to

A.F. constitutes repeated act~ of clearly pxcessive prescribing

in violation of code section 725.

sought

period,

Anavar.

-V

L.F.

A. Between June, 1988, and November 25, 1988, L.F.

care and treatment from respondent. During this treatment

respondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including

B. During the course of treatment:.


25 without documenting-and/or informing L.F. of the risks and side

26· effects;

• 27 ///

8.

•

•

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

( 2) Respondent prescribed anabolic steroids

without a pertinent history and physical examination;

( 3) Respondent failed to order liver function

tests;

(4) Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids

was not medically indicated.

c. Each of the acts set forth hereinabove constitutes

repeated negligent acts in violation of Code section 2234 (c).

D. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids to

L.F. was without medical indication in violation of Code section

2242.


constitutes repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing in

violation.of Code ~action 725.

VI

D.H.

A. During January, 1986, and July,- 1988, D.H. sought

care and treatment from respondent. During this treatment

period, respondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including

Dianabol and Anavar.

B.- During the course of treatment:


23 without a pertinent history and physical examination;


25 without documenting and/or informing D.H. of the risks and side

26 effects;

• 27 ///

9.

1 (3) Respondent failed to order liver function

4lt 2 tests;

•

3

4

5

6·

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

(4) Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids

was without medical indication.

c. Each of the acts set forth hereinabove constitutes

repeated negligent acts in violation of code section 2234 (c).

D. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids was

without medical indication in violation of code section 2242.


constitutes repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing in

violation Code section 725.

VII

M.H.

A. On o~ about October 18, 1988, and November 3, ·

1988, M.H. sought care and treatment from fespondent. Respondent·

prescribed anabolic steroids on each visit, including Anavar and

deca-Durabolin.



without a pertinent history and physical examination;


without documenting and/or informing M.H. of the risks and side

effects;

(3) Respondent failed to order liver function

25. tests;

26 (4) Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids

• 27 was without medical indication.

10.


• 2 repeated negligent acts in violation of Code section 2234 (c).

•

•

3 D. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids to

4 M.H. was without medical indication in violation of Code section

5 2242.

6 E. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids



9 VIII

10 S.P.

11 A. On or about June 18,· 1988, s·.P. sought care and

12 treatment.from respondent. Respondent prescribed an anabolic

13 steroid, Anavar.

14 B. Respondent's prescribing of Anavar to S.P. was

15 without medical indication in violation o~ Code section 2242.

16

17

18

19

20

21

'22

23

24

25

26

27

c. Respondent's treatment of S.P. constitutes a

negligent act in violation of Code section 2234 (c).

IX

D.VH.

A. Between October, 1985, and September, 1'988, D. VH.

sought care and treatment from re·spondent. During this treatment

period, respondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including deca

Durabolin and Anavar.


(1) Respondent prescribed anabolic steroids without

documenting and/or informing D.VH. of the risks and side effects;

(2) Respondent failed to follow-up liver function

._

•

•

1 tests;

2 (3) Respondent failed to appropriately work up and

3 treatment the patient's complaints of upper GI bleeding and

4 abdominal pain.

5 (4) Respondent's prescribing of steroids was not

6 medically indicated.


8 repeated negligent acts in violation of Code section 2234 (c).

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

E. The acts set .forth hereinabove constitute

incompetence in violation of Code section 2234 (d).

F. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids to

D.VH. wa~ without medical indication in violation of Code section

2242.

G. Respqndent's prescribing of anabolic steroids

constitutes repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing in f

violation of Code section 725.

X

P.V.

A. Between December, 1988, and May, 1989, P.V. sought

care and treatment from respondent. · During this treatment

period, respondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including

Anavar, Testosterone, and deca-Durabolin.


(1) Respondent p1;escribed anabolic steroids without a

25 pertinent history and physical examination;

26 (2) Respondent prescribed anabolic steroids without

• 27 documenting and/or informing P.V. of the risks and side effects;

12.

•

•

1

2

(3) Respondent failed to obtain liver function tests;

(4) Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids was

3 without medical indication.

4 c. -Each of the acts set forth hereinabove constitutes


6 D. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids was

7 without medical indication in violation of Code section 2242.

8 E. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic- steroids


10 violation of Code section 725;

11 XI

12 s.w.

13 A. Between May, 1986, and December, 1988, s.w. sought

14 care and treatment.from respondent. During this treatment

15 period, respondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including - 1

16 Dianabol and Anavar.


18 (1) Respondent prescribed anabolic steroids on the

19 first visit without conducting and/or documenting a physical

20 examination;

21 (2) Respondent prescribed anabolic steroids without

22 docUmenting and/or informing s.w. of the risks and side effects;

23

24

(3) Respondent failed to order liver function tests;

(4) Respondent's.prescribing of anabolic steroids was

25 not medically indicated;


• 27 repeated negligent acts in violation of Code section 2234 (c).

13.

-----~---~~~~~~---·---·--------- ·--- ··-

1 D. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids to

~ 2 S.W. was without medical indication in violation of Code section

3 2242.

~

•

4 E. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic steroids to

5 S.~. constitutes repeated acts of clearly excessive prescribing

6 in violation of Code section 725.

7 XII

8 .J..&

9 A. On or about January 9, 1989, J.W. sought care and

10 treatment from respondent. Respondent prescribed anabolic

11 steroids, deca-Durabolin and Anavar.

12

13

B. During this visit:

(1) Respondent prescribed anabolic steroids without

14 documenting and/or#informing J.W. of the risks and side effects;

15 (2) Respondent's prescribing o~ anabolic steroids was

16 without medical indication.



19 D. Respondent's prescribing of anabolic· steroids to

20 J.W. was without medical indication in violation of Code section

21 2242.

22 E. Respondent' prescribing of anabolic steroids



25 XIII

26 ~

27 A. On or about February 24, 1989, S.D. sought

14.

1 treatment from respondent. S.D. reported that she had been using

4lt 2 heroin for 23 years. Respondent prescribed Valium, Restroil,

3 Clonidine and Darvon-N.

•

4 B. Respondent's prescribing of the aforementioned

5 drugs was without medical indication in violation of Code section

6 2242.

7 c. Responden.t' s prescribing of the aforementioned

8 drugs constitutes unprofessional conduct in violation of Code

9 section 2241 in that S.D. was an addict or habitue.

10 D. Respondent was negligent in his treatment of S.D.

11 in that there was no medical indication for the drugs prescribed.

12 Respondent was further negligent in his treatment of S.D. in that

13 he failed to provide psychosocial support and monitoring while

14 attempting to detoxify the patient. He failed to refer her to a

15 methadone maintenance program for detoxifipation or to an

16 inpatient chemical dependency unit for detoxification and

17 rehabilitation. Said conduct constitutes violations of Code

18 sections 2234 (c) and 2234 (d).

19 XIV

20 K.S.

21 A. On or about April 21, May 19, June 16, and July 22,

22 1988, P.K. sought care and treatment from respondent for ·

23 "anxiety". On each occasion, respondent prescribed Ritalin.

24 B. Respondent's prescribing of Ritalin was without

25 medical indication in violation of Code section 2242.

26 C. Respondent's treatment of K.S. was negligent in

• 27 that respondent failed to conduct an appropriate examina~ion and

15.

•

•

•

1 prescribed a drug which was not medically indicated. Said

2 conduct constitutes a violation of Code sectio~ 2234 (c) 2234

3 (d) •

4 ~

5 .f..:..K:_

6 A. On or about March 2i, and April 25, 1989, P.K.

7 sought treatment from respondent for heroin withdrawal.

8 Respondent prescribed Restoril, Clonidine, and Darvon-N.

9 B. Respondent's prescribing of the aforementioned

10 drugs was without medical indication in violation of Code section

11 2242.

12 c. Respondent's prescribing of the aforementioned

13 drugs constitutes unprofessional conduct in violation of Code

14 section 2241 in th~t P.K .. was an addict or habitue .

15 D. Respondent was negligent in pis treatment of P.K.

16 in that there was no medical indication for the drugs prescribed.

17 He was further negligent in that he failed to provide a

18 comprehensive plan for rehabilitation, i.e., to seek

19 comprehensive psychosocial care. Said conduct constitutes a

20 violation of Code sections. 2234 (c) and 2234 (d).

21 XVI

22 E.W.

23 · A. On or about.M~y 31, 1989, E.W. sought care and

24 treatment from respondent~ .E.W. informed respondent that he had

25 a history of heroin abuse. Respondent prescribed Restoril and

26 gave E.W. a bottle of Fastin/Phentermine HCL .

27 B. Respondent's conduct in prescribing and providing

16.

•

.. II

1 the aforementioned drugs without medical indication in violation

2 of Code section 2242.

3 c. Respondent's conduct in prescribing and providing

4 the af.orementioned drugs was negligent. in that he failed to take "

5 an appropriate history. He was further negligent in his

6 treatment in that he prescribed and provided the aforementioned

7 drugs without medical indication therefor. Said .conduct

8 constitutes a violation of Code section 2234 (c) and 2234 (d).

9 15. The conduct set forth hereinabove in paragraphs

10 14. I B, II B, III B, IV B, V B, VI B, VII B, VIII C, IX B, X B,

11 XI B, XII B, X III D, XIV C, XV D, and XVI C, or any combination

12 thereof, constitutes repeated negligent acts in violation of Code

13 section 2234 (c).

14 WHEREFORE, complainant prays that a hearing be held on

15 the matters alleged herein, and following said hearing, issue a

16 decision:

17 1. Revoking or suspending Physician's and Surgeon's

18 certificate number C-026299 heretofore issued to respondent

19 John w. Copeland;,·:M·~o.;

20 2~ Prohibiting respondent from supervising physician's

21 assistants;

22 3. Taking such other and further action as the

23

24

25

26

27

Division deems necessary and

DATED: June 23, 1993

proper.

Drr. .. Ru:r DIXON ARNETT, Executive Director Medical Board of California Department of Consumer Affairs State. of California Complainant

17.

Documents

Home Page — The Patient Safety League4patientsafety.org/documents/Copeland, John W 1994-09-21.pdf · 19 period, raspondent prescribed anabolic steroids, including Anavar 20 and