Jury instructions; Denial of a proposed “good faith” instruction on defendant’s unlawful distribution charge (21 USC § 841(a)); United States v Godofsky; Whether the requested instruction comported with Ruan v United States; Admission of expert testimony; Sufficiency of the evidence; Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances & unlawfully distributing controlled substances; Healthcare fraud

The court rejected defendant-Anderson’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to give a "good faith" instruction where the instructions given comported with Ruan. It also rejected his challenges to the admission of expert testimony and to the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions. A jury convicted Anderson, a medical doctor, of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, unlawful distribution of controlled substances, and healthcare fraud. He argued that the district court abused its discretion by not giving the jury a proposed good faith instruction relevant to his unlawful distribution charge. At the charge conference, the government requested that the district court remove the good faith instruction per Godofsky, which held that a doctor’s subjective good faith “was irrelevant to the ‘except as authorized’ clause for physicians tried under § 841(a).” The district court removed the good faith paragraphs from the instructions. After briefing was completed in this case, the Supreme Court held in Ruan that “the mens rea standard of ‘knowingly or intentionally’ applies to the entirety of § 841(a)—including the ‘except as authorized’ clause.” This meant that “‘once a defendant meets the burden of producing evidence that his or her conduct was “authorized,” the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.’” The court first noted that Anderson’s proposed instruction did not mention knowledge or intent. It then considered “whether a good faith instruction can comport with Ruan.” The court held that “the instruction given to the jury specifically covers the holding of Ruan, by referring continuously to the ‘knowledge of the defendant,’ his ‘deliberate ignorance,’ and if he ‘knew’ that the prescriptions were dispensed illegitimately.” The instruction focused attention to his “subjective mindset in issuing the prescriptions.” The court also rejected Anderson’s challenge to the admission of testimony by a government expert, finding no merit to his contention about the scientific inadequacy of the expert’s reports and agreeing with the district court’s observation “that courts frequently admit expert testimony on the question of whether medications were prescribed with a legitimate medical purpose.” Further, Anderson had the opportunity to challenge the expert during cross-examination. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions. Affirmed.