Bernard Rottschaefer v. United States

On March 3rd, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the 3rd District ruled that sex-for-drugs played no part in Dr. Rottschaefer’s convictions and that Dr. Rottschaefer was convicted of “unlawfully distrib­ uting controlled substances outside the course of pro­ fessional practice.” Subsequently, in November 2009, the US District Court for the Western District of Penn­ sylvania ruled that “The fact that the petitioner was exchanging sex-for-drugs was central to the govern­ ment’s case against him . .. In short the jury believed that petitioner traded controlled substances for sexual favors from these patients. Whether these patients may arguably have a medical use for the controlled substances is, therefore, not depositive.” On January 3, 2020 the Court ofAppeals denied Dr. Rottschaefer’s ap­ peal, by citing that he “failed to present a substantial question.” The questions presented are as follows:

1. May the District Court overrule the previous unanimous Corut of Appeals decision in the same case?

2. Does such a reversal constitute a “substantial question”?

3. What crime, if any, has Dr. Rottschaefer com­ mitted?