Ron Chapman

Top rated Criminal Defense attorney in Detroit, Michigan

Chapman, Dowling & Mallek
Ron Chapman
Chapman, Dowling & Mallek

Practice areas: Criminal Defense, Health Care

Licensed in Michigan since: 2009

Education: Loyola University Chicago School of Law

Selected to Super Lawyers: 2024 - 2026 Selected to Rising Stars: 2015 - 2023
Free Consultation

Chapman, Dowling & Mallek

456 E Milwaukee St
Detroit, MI 48202 Phone: 346-242-7626 Email: Ron Chapman Visit website

188 Acquitted Federal Counts \ $550 Million Saved for Clients

“One of the most talented attorneys I have seen in my 20 years on the bench”

Federal Judge 

"The largest acquittal in Detroit in the last 10 years" 

Detroit Free Press

From the United States Supreme Court to Federal Districts, Ron Has Achieved Acquittal Despite Overwhelming Odds

Ron’s track record of federal trial acquittals is simply unmatched. Ron formed SHG to help health care providers avoid federal criminal scrutiny. As a result of the tireless dedication of the best health care experts in the country, Ron has prevented over $550 million in government overpayments, fines, and forfeitures.

From the War on Terror to the War on Opioids

Ron cut his teeth in Federal Investigations during the Global War on Terror for the United States Marine Corps. As a Marine Corps Officer and Lawyer, he conducted high-level federal gun, drug, and terrorism investigations. He returned home and applied his skills to the defense of healthcare providers facing federal investigations, prosecutions, and False Claims Act cases. For the last decade, Ron has racked up a list of trial acquittals, dismissals, and non-prosecutions that lead the nation.

Through the diligent presentation of his client’s case and exacting attention to detail he has earned the respect of fellow defense counsel and federal judges, one of whom commented he was the best he’s seen “in 20 years on the bench”.

Unmatched Trial Results and Acquittals in High-Profile Cases

He achieved an acquittal in a $550 million healthcare fraud and 56 count drug trafficking and healthcare fraud indictment against five physicians who were accused of distributing 13 Million doses of Oxycodone. That same year he acquitted Dr. Lesly Pompy a former Cleveland Clinic Physician accused of over $12 million in healthcare fraud and unlawful prescribing. Shortly after he achieved the dismissal of Dr. Thomas Sachy who was accused in a Federal Indictment in Georgia of killing two patients by prescribing Oxycodone. In addition, he acquitted two Kentucky physicians in separate trials against the Department of Justice’s Appalachian Regional Prescription Opioid Task Force (ARPO). Both physicians were separately charged with unlawful prescribing and healthcare fraud. Both were fully acquitted and will return to practice.

Ron is a frequent guest on national news networks including the BBC, Fox News, Newsnation and Newsmax as well as podcasts.

First Admitted: 2009, Michigan

Professional Webpage: https://www.chapman.law/firm/attorneys/ronald/

Bar / Professional Activity

  • Michigan State Bar Administrative Law Section
  • The Marine Corps League 
  • Michigan State Bar Criminal Law Section 

Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)

  • United States v. Dr. D: $100 Million Dollar Wound Care Fraud Investigation DismissedDr. D was accused of providing unnecessary amniotic skin grafts which were billed to Medicare patients. The case was being prosecuted by the Department of Justice Health Care Fraud Strike Force. When Dr. D approached Ron Chapman he was offered a plea of guilty that would substantially limit his exposure to federal prison.  Ron Chapman began an internal investigation by reviewing patient files, Medicare guidelines and health care fraud case law. Ron Chapman determined that Medicare regulations in the area of wound grafts was underdeveloped and that Dr. D had not violated any standards.  Dr. D was also accused of receiving kickbacks from wound care graft distributors due to discounts that were routinely applied in this setting. Ron Chapman determined that this was not in fact a kickback if the discount was uniformity applied.  The Government repeatedly threatened to indict the case. Believing that Dr. D would ultimately be successful at trial and having secured favorable evidence, a plea agreement was not reached.  The Government then declined to pursue prosecution which resulted in the dismissal of the investigation against Dr. D.  The lesson here is that sometimes the Federal Government and especially the Health Care Fraud  Strike Force bluffs the strength of their case making the Defendant believe that a plea is required to limit a lifetime in jail. A diligent defense counsel who conducts a thorough investigation can see through this strategy providing the client the ability to make an informed decision., 2026
  • United States v. Kontos — Victory for Joel Max Kupetz in the District of ArizonaFederal Court Orders Government to Return More Than $324,000 in Improperly Seized Assets Federal criminal defense attorney Ron Chapman secured the return of more than $324,000 in cash and cryptocurrency that the government had seized from his client, Joel Max Kupetz, before trial. The decision rejected the government’s attempt to treat legitimate assets as forfeitable merely because they were held in accounts that later received allegedly tainted funds. The Government Seized $6.6 Million Before Trial During a pre-indictment investigation, federal agents obtained warrants authorizing the seizure of approximately $6.6 million from three accounts associated with Kupetz: a U.S. Bank account, a Charles Schwab investment account, and a Coinbase cryptocurrency account. Kupetz was later indicted in the District of Arizona on charges arising from an alleged healthcare-fraud and wound-care scheme, including conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, healthcare fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, receipt of healthcare kickbacks, and transactional money laundering. The charges remain allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The government sought to preserve the seized assets for possible forfeiture. Its position extended beyond money allegedly connected to the charged conduct: the government also seized funds and cryptocurrency that existed in Kupetz’s accounts before the disputed transactions occurred. The Defense Challenges the Government’s Forfeiture Theory Chapman filed a motion to vacate or modify the seizure warrants, challenging the government’s attempt to restrain every asset in the accounts. The defense argued that the supporting affidavit did not establish probable cause to believe that all seized property was connected to a crime. The motion emphasized that the government had swept legitimate assets into the seizure merely because those assets shared an account with funds the government claimed were proceeds of illegal activity. The government conceded that portions of the Charles Schwab and Coinbase accounts were untainted. It nevertheless argued that depositing allegedly unlawful proceeds into an account containing legitimate assets made the entire account subject to forfeiture. United States District Judge Susan M. Brnovich rejected that position. Commingling Alone Does Not Make Legitimate Property Forfeitable In her June 1, 2026 order, Judge Brnovich distinguished between property purchased through a transaction involving both legitimate and allegedly illegitimate funds and separate assets that merely coexist in the same financial account. The court concluded that the government had not established a sufficient connection between Kupetz’s preexisting assets and the alleged money laundering. The mere presence of legitimate and allegedly tainted funds in the same account did not automatically transform every asset in that account into forfeitable property. That distinction was decisive because the financial records made it possible to identify the assets that predated the allegedly unlawful deposits. The court ordered the government to return: $277,210.34 seized from Kupetz’s Charles Schwab account; and Cryptocurrency assets valued at $47,605.11 seized from his Coinbase account. The total value ordered returned was $324,815.45. Fighting Federal Asset Seizure  Federal asset seizures can impose immediate and severe consequences before a defendant has been convicted of anything. When the government freezes bank, investment, and cryptocurrency accounts, a defendant may lose access to legitimate savings, operating capital, and resources needed to defend the case. The Kupetz decision confirms that the government must establish a legally sufficient connection between the property it seizes and the alleged criminal conduct. It cannot convert identifiable, untainted assets into forfeitable property simply by invoking the concept of commingling. The result also illustrates why financial tracing and an early challenge to overbroad seizure warrants can be critical in a federal criminal case. Although the court permitted the continued restraint of assets allegedly connected to the charged conduct, it required the government to relinquish the legitimate property that its warrants had improperly swept into the seizure.Read the court’s complete decision in United States v. Kontos.  , 2026
  • United States v. Kendall Hansen: Six Acquittals and the Dismissal of the Remaining Charges  A federal jury acquitted Dr. Kendall Hansen on six counts in February 2024 and did not reach a verdict on two others. Prosecutors later dismissed the two unresolved charges. When federal agents search a medical practice, the accusation can quickly become larger than the medicine. Years of treatment may be compressed into prescription totals, selected patient files, and the most painful events in a practice’s history. In *United States v. Hansen*, the defense had to reverse that compression. Ron Chapman’s task was to show jurors not an ominous collection of numbers, but a physician making difficult decisions for real patients over a long career. The federal case arose after a 2019 search of Interventional Pain Specialists in Northern Kentucky. A superseding indictment charged Dr. Hansen and Dr. Michael Fletcher with conspiring to distribute controlled substances and with substantive distribution offenses. The charging document also sought forfeiture of professional licenses, registrations, and property. Those were allegations, not evidence, but they conveyed the stakes: liberty, livelihood, reputation, and the future of a medical practice were all in jeopardy. The official superseding indictment identifies the eight counts brought against Dr. Hansen. The government’s presentation reportedly reached beyond the prescriptions identified in the counts. It used patient deaths to give the prescribing evidence emotional force. That created a central defense problem: a death after treatment can be deeply affecting without proving that a physician knowingly issued an unauthorized prescription. Several deaths lacked an autopsy or complete scene investigation. Cross-examination therefore focused on the limits of causation evidence and on other facts that could explain what happened. That approach illustrates an important defense principle. The answer to a powerful accusation is not always a competing speech. It is often a disciplined audit of its foundation. Was there an autopsy? Was the scene investigated? What substances were present? What did family members or investigators know? Did the expert apply a medical standard found in an authoritative source, or a personal standard created for litigation? By moving one step at a time, the defense could separate suspicion from proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Ron Chapman also challenged the government expert’s conception of pain practice. The defense account says cross-examination compared the expert’s expectations with published interventional-pain guidance and exposed demands that did not reflect ordinary clinical reality. That matters because a criminal trial is not a referendum on whether another doctor would have practiced differently. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Ruan v. United States, the decisive question for an authorized prescriber is whether the government proved knowing or intentional unauthorized conduct. The defense did more than criticize. Long-serving employees described how the practice actually operated. Patients and community witnesses gave the jury context for Dr. Hansen’s work. Most important, the defense called pain specialist Dr. James Patrick Murphy, who reviewed 27 patient cases and concluded that the care did not amount to illegal prescribing and exceeded applicable standards. That broader review countered the risk of judging an entire practice from a few selected records. After a trial lasting nearly a month and roughly two and a half days of deliberations, jurors acquitted Dr. Hansen on six counts and were unable to agree on two. The government later dismissed those remaining counts. Independent horse-racing publication BloodHorse reported both the acquittals and Hansen’s effort to rebuild his racing and professional life after the case in “After Winning Court Case, Hansen Eyes Racing Return”. A later report concerning Dr. Fletcher likewise states that Hansen was acquitted and that prosecutors dismissed the unresolved charges; the report appears in this Cincinnati Enquirer reproduction "Judge finds NKY doctor guilty of improper opioid prescriptions" . The practical lesson is not that every prescribing case is defensible in the same way. It is that scale and tragedy cannot substitute for element-by-element proof. A strong defense reconstructs the medicine, tests the government expert’s standard, investigates causation, and gives jurors enough context to decide whether the evidence proves a crime rather than a disagreement about care. For a physician facing a federal prescribing investigation, that work needs to begin before trial. Records must be preserved and organized; patient histories must be understood; experts must be chosen for relevant clinical experience; and every claimed “red flag” must be tested against what the physician actually knew at the time. *Hansen* shows how a defense can turn a frightening federal narrative back into the precise question the jury must answer: did the government prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt?, 2024
  • United States v. Thomas Sachy: Rule 29 Trial Dismissals of Death Counts and a Time-Served Resolution Dr. Thomas H. Sachy was charged with the death of two patients and approached Ron Chapman after pleading guilty. Ron’s first task was to withdraw the guilty plea which was an arduous task and prepare the case for trial. He was successful and secured Dr. Sachy’s release from pre-trial confinement. During trial, the most serious death-resulting distribution counts and other original charges were dismissed. Sachy then pleaded guilty to a conspiracy count in a superseding information and received time served with no supervised release. The most frightening counts in Dr. Thomas Sachy’s federal indictment carried mandatory 20-year minimum sentences because prosecutors alleged that controlled-substance prescriptions resulted in patient deaths. When the case reached trial in May 2023, the defense’s first objective was evidentiary: could the government actually establish the toxicology and causation proof needed to place those counts before the jury? Sachy, a Georgia psychiatrist, and members of his clinic staff were indicted in 2018. The government alleged unlawful prescribing, maintaining a drug-involved premises, and money laundering. The U.S. Attorney’s Office described those allegations in its [indictment announcement “Middle Georgia Doctor And Clinic Staff Charged With Unlawful Prescribing Of Opioids”. As always, the indictment represented accusations, not findings of guilt. Ron Chapman and the defense team challenged the foundation for the death-resulting charges. A toxicologist reportedly confused facts concerning medication bottles, while the prosecution faced difficulty introducing toxicology reports without the necessary laboratory witnesses. Those problems implicated both evidentiary foundation and the constitutional right to confront the witnesses responsible for testimonial evidence. A toxicology report may look authoritative, but a criminal trial requires more than a document with laboratory numbers. The prosecution must authenticate the evidence, connect it to the correct patient, and satisfy confrontation requirements. The defense must investigate the chain from sample collection through testing, reporting, and expert interpretation. If a link is missing, a mandatory-minimum count should not survive simply because the allegation is serious. The court dismissed the death-resulting counts. The defense then began presenting its case, calling patients, family members, and an addiction-medicine expert. This was an affirmative effort to show what the clinic looked like from inside the treatment relationship rather than through selected records and enforcement witnesses. The case ended in a negotiated resolution before the jury returned a verdict. The government dismissed the original opioid-distribution, premises, and money-laundering counts. Sachy pleaded guilty to one conspiracy count in a superseding information. The judgment imposed time served, no supervised release, and a mandatory assessment. That disposition is reflected in the federal judgment summary. A separate forfeiture order confirms the guilty plea and the agreed forfeiture of six firearms. Local station 13WMAZ interviewed Sachy after his release and described the five-year course of the prosecution in “Former Jones County Doctor Free After 5-Year Drug Case”. The report captures the human importance of a time-served outcome after exposure to decades in prison. Why is this an important defense case study if it was not an acquittal? Because successful representation is measured against the case the client actually faced. The defense removed the counts carrying the gravest mandatory punishment, forced dismissal of the original charges, and obtained a resolution that did not add prison or supervision. Those are substantial results, even though a conviction remained. The strategic lessons: Test the admissibility of scientific evidence before accepting its conclusion. Trace every toxicology result to the witness, method, sample, and patient. Use the Confrontation Clause where the government attempts to prove a critical fact through an absent analyst. Prepare an affirmative medical case even while seeking dismissal. Reassess resolution options when trial developments materially change the client’s exposure. Prospective clients deserve both confidence and candor. Sachy shows that a defense can change the entire risk profile of a case at trial. It should be presented as a dramatic dismissal and time-served resolution—not as a full acquittal.  , 2023
  • United States v. Loey Kousa: How Ordinary Rural Medicine Defeated Nine Federal CountsOn July 19, 2023, a federal jury acquitted Dr. Loey Kousa on all nine counts, including controlled-substance distribution, health-care fraud, and false-statement charges. Dr. Loey Kousa practiced primary care in Paintsville, Kentucky, a community where access to specialists can be limited and one physician may have to address many kinds of illness. The federal case against him began not with a complaining patient, but with an undercover operation. That origin gave Ron Chapman and a clear strategic question: would the undercover visits prove drug dealing, or would they show a cautious physician gathering information before making a modest treatment decision? The government charged five controlled-substance distribution counts, two health-care fraud counts, and two false-statement counts in the Eastern District of Kentucky. The official indictment describes the government’s accusations. As with every indictment, those assertions were charges to be proved, not findings of fact. An undercover agent first visited during the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2021 and reported fabricated complaints. Dr. Kousa did not immediately issue the opioid prescription the operation was designed to investigate. He ordered diagnostic imaging, urine testing, and blood work; prescribed tramadol during the course of the visits; and only after multiple appointments prescribed a low dose of hydrocodone. Those details became the defense’s organizing story. Undercover cases often arrive in court edited into a prosecution sequence: agent asks, doctor prescribes, claim is submitted. A defense can change the meaning of that sequence by restoring everything between those points—the examination, testing, follow-up, escalating treatment, and information available to the physician. The issue is not whether an agent successfully obtained a prescription. It is whether the prescription, viewed in its full clinical setting, was knowingly or intentionally unauthorized. Cross-examination exposed a useful contradiction. The undercover investigator acknowledged that Dr. Kousa had performed more steps than the agent’s own operational standards required. That allowed the defense to use the government’s investigation as evidence of caution. What may have been presented as a successful “buy” could instead be understood as a series of visits in which a doctor did not rush to prescribe. The defense also confronted the danger of applying metropolitan or academic expectations to an underserved community. The firm reports that local emergency physicians, a pharmacist, and patients helped explain the realities of medical practice in the region. Their testimony supplied facts an outside expert might miss: the availability of specialists, the range of problems handled by a primary-care office, and the ways local health professionals observed Dr. Kousa’s work. Expert testimony then gave the jury a framework for evaluating those facts. Pain specialist Dr. James Murphy addressed the medical care; coding expert Sean Weiss addressed the billing allegations; and a defense investigator from Safe Harbor Group addressed the operation and the evidence. This division of labor is vital in a multi-theory case. A medical expert should not be expected to resolve billing rules, and a billing expert should not be used as a substitute for clinical judgment. Matching the right witness to the right allegation makes a complicated defense easier to understand. The government presented evidence for four days. The defense presentation lasted about two days. On July 19, 2023, the jury returned not-guilty verdicts on all nine counts. The Big Sandy News independently reported the complete acquittal and the entry of a judgment in Dr. Kousa’s favor in “Paintsville Doctor Acquitted of Nine Charges”. What can a prospective client learn from this result?  First, the facts created during an undercover operation can support the defense if they are examined visit by visit. Second, criminal intent must not be inferred merely because an investigator obtained the outcome the investigation sought. Third, local medical context can be essential. A jury cannot fairly evaluate rural primary care through an abstract standard disconnected from the community in which the doctor practiced. The most reassuring feature of Kousa is also the most practical: the defense did not ask the jury to ignore the records. It made the records the center of the case. Testing, follow-up, conservative progression, community practice, and distinct expert disciplines combined to give jurors a reasoned basis for acquittal on every charge., 2023
  • John Patrick Couch and Ruan v. United States: United States Supreme Court Case Vacatur Ron Chapman represented Dr. John Patrick Couch in a separate Supreme Court petition. The Supreme Court GVR’d Couch’s case in light of Ruan. The Eleventh Circuit then vacated Couch’s substantive controlled-substance distribution convictions, but left other convictions intact. Couch was not acquitted on all charges and later remained subject to a 20-year sentence. Major appellate cases often have more than one name behind them. Ruan v. United States became the Supreme Court decision that changed the intent standard for physicians charged under the Controlled Substances Act. Dr. John Patrick Couch, tried alongside Dr. Xiulu Ruan, pursued the same core legal issue through his own petition. Ron Chapman served as Couch’s counsel of record at the Supreme Court. The prosecution arose from the doctors’ Mobile, Alabama pain practices and included controlled-substance, conspiracy, fraud, kickback, and racketeering allegations. At trial, the jury instructions allowed the government to obtain substantive prescribing convictions without requiring the focused subjective-intent finding later demanded by the Supreme Court. The appellate strategy was to keep Couch’s case aligned with the constitutional and statutory problem presented in Ruan: what must the government prove about an authorized physician’s state of mind? That distinction is critical. A medical expert can testify that a prescription was outside accepted practice. But after Ruan, that objective opinion alone does not resolve whether the doctor knowingly or intentionally issued an unauthorized prescription. The Supreme Court held that when a defendant meets the initial burden of producing evidence that the prescribing conduct was authorized, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner. The decision rejected a negligence-like route to conviction for this class of defendants. The full rule and its reasoning appear in the Supreme Court’s *Ruan* opinion. Two days after deciding Ruan, the Supreme Court granted Couch’s petition, vacated the judgment, and remanded his case for reconsideration. Ron Chapman’s role as counsel of record and the June 30, 2022 order appear on the Supreme Court docket in *Couch v. United States*., 2022
  • United States v. Lesly Pompy: Converting “Red Flags” and Billing Analytics Into Reasonable Doubt  On January 4, 2023, a federal jury acquitted Dr. Lesly Pompy on every count that reached the jury. Several other counts were dismissed during the trial. Dr. Lesly Pompy’s federal case combined three prosecution theories that can overwhelm a physician when presented together: unlawful prescribing, health-care fraud, and maintaining a drug-involved premises. The government relied on undercover evidence, selected patients, prescribing “red flags,” and billing analytics. Ron Chapman answered by separating those theories and testing the factual premise of each. The investigation began with an undercover operation at Pompy’s Monroe, Michigan practice. According to the firm’s detailed trial account, the undercover investigator arrived with a fabricated referral and complaints of back pain. Dr. Pompy eventually prescribed a low dose of Norco after multiple visits. Agents later raided the office, and a federal indictment followed. The government’s original announcement alleged that Pompy had prescribed more than 6.1 million units of controlled substances and that his practice had submitted approximately $16.9 million in claims. It also alleged unlawful prescriptions and fraud involving office-visit coding. The Department of Justice announcement now includes an update recording his acquittal, "DR. POMPY WAS ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES ALLEDGED IN THE INDICTMENT DESCRIBED IN THE PRESS RELEASE" The size of the prescribing data made context essential. The defense account says the charged patients had objectively documented pain conditions, supported by imaging, laboratory work, urine testing, and other records. That evidence allowed counsel to challenge the government’s use of “red flags.” A red flag can prompt further inquiry, but it is not itself proof that the doctor knowingly wrote an unauthorized prescription. After *Ruan*, prosecutors had to prove subjective knowledge or intent, not simply that a government expert believed the physician should have reacted differently. Cross-examination and defense witnesses therefore returned repeatedly to what Dr. Pompy knew. Were injuries documented? Did he order testing? Did records corroborate pain? Did a patient’s conduct have an innocent or medically manageable explanation? A prosecution expert could identify a fact in hindsight, but the jury still had to decide whether it proved criminal intent at the time of treatment. The billing allegations required a different response. Prosecutors used an “impossible day” theory, arguing that the volume of evaluation-and-management codes represented more work than one doctor could perform. Coding expert Sean Weiss explained that the relevant codes were not necessarily calculated by adding fixed blocks of time. Complexity and the coding rules in effect also mattered. By confronting the analytic assumption beneath the chart, the defense turned what looked like mathematical certainty into a contestable billing opinion. The government’s proof weakened in view of the jury. According to the defense account, prosecutors dismissed one count while their expert was being redirected and additional fraud and drug-premises counts before deliberations. That is a useful reminder that trial strategy is not limited to the final verdict. Effective cross-examination can cause charges to fall before the jury ever receives them. The defense presentation was concise. Patients and physicians described Pompy’s care and reputation. Dr. James Murphy addressed pain medicine, and Weiss addressed coding. A particularly important witness was Diana Knight, a longtime patient and practice biller called by the government. The firm reports that her testimony was favorable to Pompy and undercut the prosecution’s characterization of treatment that formed part of its own case. After roughly a month of trial, with deliberations interrupted by the holidays, the jury returned on January 4, 2023 and found Pompy not guilty on all remaining counts. The Monroe News reported on the complete defense verdict and the emotional scene in the courtroom; a syndicated copy is available through Health Watch Minute. Prescribing, billing, and premises counts have different elements and different bodies of expert knowledge. A red flag is not intent. A large total is not an unlawful prescription. A billing model is only as reliable as its assumptions. And a government witness may know facts that help the defense. Data can be explained away. It is that data can be audited. When the defense reconstructs the records, prepares witnesses, chooses the right experts, and insists on the post-*Ruan* intent standard, a jury can distinguish a physician practicing difficult medicine from a defendant committing a federal crime., 2022
  • United States v. Bothra: How Dr. David Lewis Was Acquitted in a $464 Million Health-Care Fraud TrialOn June 29, 2022, a federal jury acquitted Dr. David Lewis and three co-defendant physicians on all counts. Ron Chapman and Jeffrey Collins represented Dr. Lewis. Few accusations are more intimidating than a federal health-care case built around a nine-figure number. In United States v. Bothra, prosecutors alleged that physicians at The Pain Center participated in a $464 million scheme involving medically unnecessary services and opioid prescriptions. The number made headlines. Ron Chapman’s defense of Dr. David Lewis focused on a more useful question: what did the patient records and the actual care prove? The federal indictment named Drs. Rajendra Bothra, Ganiu Edu, David Lewis, Christopher Russo, and others. Prosecutors alleged that the clinic used controlled-substance prescriptions to induce patients to accept unnecessary injections and other procedures billed to Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. The Department of Justice summarized those allegations—and later updated the same page to record the acquittals—in its official case announcement "Six Area Doctors Charged in Connection with $464 Million Health Care Fraud Scheme Involving Unnecessary Injections and Unlawfully Prescribed Opioids". At trial in the Eastern District of Michigan, the government’s task was not simply to show high prescribing, high billing, or disagreement over treatment. Health-care fraud required proof of a knowing and intentional scheme, while the prescribing counts required proof that the doctors knowingly or intentionally acted without authorization. The Supreme Court issued *Ruan* while the jury was deliberating, clarifying the latter standard. During the seven week trial, Ron Chapman attacked the representativeness of the government’s medical proof. The government expert had reviewed six patient charts, yet prosecutors asked the jury to infer a pervasive scheme involving an enormous practice and hundreds of millions of dollars in claims. The defense emphasized the gap between a small, selected group of records and a conclusion about an entire patient population. This was more than a complaint about sample size. In a complex fraud case, selection can control the story. If investigators choose the records that look most questionable and omit the rest, jurors may see only the prosecution’s constructed version of the practice. The defense can respond by asking how the files were selected, whether the method was statistically valid, whether contrary files existed, and whether an adverse medical opinion is being transformed into evidence of intentional fraud. The defense also separated medical necessity from criminal deceit. Patients testified about the care they received. Medical experts addressed the treatment itself, while a coding and billing expert addressed reimbursement rules. This helped prevent a common collapse in health-care prosecutions: treating any contested procedure, documentation issue, or coding disagreement as proof of a single criminal plan. Dr. Lewis chose to testify. That decision is never automatic. It exposes a defendant to cross-examination and must follow careful preparation and a realistic assessment of the record. Here, according to the defense account, Lewis explained his clinical decisions directly and his testimony was not materially impeached. His appearance allowed the jury to evaluate intent through the physician who actually made the decisions rather than only through agents, selected patients, and outside reviewers. After approximately seven weeks of trial and about ten hours of deliberations, the jury acquitted all four physicians on all counts. ClickOnDetroit independently reported the verdict in “4 Michigan Doctors Acquitted of Charges in Prescription Drug Scheme”. The Statesman also reported the complete defense verdict and the government’s allegations in its coverage of Dr. Bothra’s acquittal. The result offers a clear strategy lesson. Large loss figures create atmosphere, but they do not prove what happened in a particular patient encounter or what a particular doctor intended. A defense can reduce an overwhelming case to testable components: Was the patient sample representative? Did qualified experts use the correct clinical and billing standards? Were services actually provided? Was the dispute about medical judgment, or was there proof of knowing deceit? What evidence connected this physician—not merely the clinic—to the alleged plan? For professionals looking for Health Care Fraud Defense counsel, Bothra shows the value of a defense team that can work simultaneously in medicine, billing, data, and trial advocacy. The acquittal did not come from ignoring the $464 million accusation. It came from refusing to let the accusation substitute for proof., 2022
  • Hansen v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00092Ron Chapman Wins Federal Injunction Against CVS for Kentucky Pain Physician Court Orders CVS to Resume Filling Dr. Kendall Hansen’s Prescriptions When CVS Pharmacy imposed a categorical block on prescriptions written by Kentucky interventional pain physician Dr. Kendall Hansen, Ron Chapman took the pharmacy chain to federal court—and won emergency relief protecting Hansen’s practice and his patients’ access to medication. The case, Hansen v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00092, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of Hansen and his practice, Interventional Pain Specialists, PLC. CVS Blocks Every Prescription Written by Dr. Hansen Hansen operated an interventional pain-management practice serving patients throughout Northern Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana. Some of his patients were prescribed controlled substances as part of their treatment, but his practice also issued prescriptions for non-controlled medications. In June 2021, CVS contacted Hansen with questions about his prescribing activity. According to the subsequent litigation, CVS did not identify evidence that his prescriptions lacked a medical purpose or violated the law. Nevertheless, CVS informed Hansen in late July that its Northern Kentucky pharmacies would no longer fill prescriptions written by him. The restriction was not limited to opioids or other controlled substances. It reportedly applied to all prescriptions bearing Hansen’s name and affected approximately 250 to 300 patients who depended on CVS pharmacies for access to their medication. CVS explained that Hansen had been identified through its prescriber-monitoring system based largely on the volume of controlled-substance prescriptions associated with his practice. The defense challenged the use of that data as a substitute for an individualized assessment of whether Hansen’s prescriptions were legitimate and medically appropriate. Chapman Files Suit and Seeks Immediate Relief On August 4, 2021, Chapman filed suit against CVS on behalf of Hansen and Interventional Pain Specialists. The complaint alleged that CVS had interfered with Hansen’s patient and business relationships and had damaged his professional reputation by creating the impression that his prescriptions were illegitimate. The claims included tortious interference and defamation per se. The lawsuit also sought immediate injunctive relief. Waiting months for conventional civil litigation to unfold would offer little protection to patients suddenly unable to obtain medication or to a physician whose professional relationships were being disrupted in real time. Chapman argued that CVS should not be permitted to impose a systemwide prescriber block based on prescription volume and the existence of regulatory scrutiny without evidence that Hansen had violated the law. Federal Judge Orders CVS to Resume Filling Prescriptions On August 11, 2021, United States District Judge William O. Bertelsman granted emergency relief in Hansen’s favor and required CVS to resume filling his prescriptions. The court concluded that Hansen had demonstrated a likelihood of success on his claim that CVS improperly interfered with his patient relationships. The judge was also concerned about the consequences of abruptly denying medication access to hundreds of patients and questioned the breadth of a policy that rejected controlled and non-controlled prescriptions alike. The ruling did not prevent individual pharmacists from exercising the professional judgment required by law when evaluating a particular prescription. It stopped CVS from enforcing a categorical corporate prohibition against every prescription written by Hansen without sufficient evidence that he had prescribed unlawfully. The court’s order drew attention throughout the healthcare industry. Becker’s ASC Review reported that the judge sided with Hansen and ordered CVS to resume filling his prescriptions. Healthcare law firm Bass, Berry & Sims later published a detailed analysis titled “Kentucky Federal Court Temporarily Bars CVS from Imposing Block on Interventional Pain Doctor’s Prescriptions”. The federal docket is available through PACER Monitor’s public case page for Hansen v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.. Why the CVS Decision Matters Pharmacies have an independent legal responsibility to determine whether a controlled-substance prescription was issued for a legitimate medical purpose. That responsibility is essential to patient safety. It does not, however, give a national pharmacy chain unlimited authority to destroy physician-patient relationships through an unexplained or overbroad corporate blacklist. The Hansen case demonstrated the dangers of relying on prescription volume and algorithmic monitoring without adequately considering the nature of a physician’s specialty, the medical needs of the patients, or the legitimacy of individual prescriptions. For physicians, removal from a major pharmacy network can cause immediate reputational and financial damage. For patients—particularly those suffering from chronic pain—the same decision can abruptly interrupt established treatment and force them to search for another pharmacy while managing serious medical conditions. Chapman’s rapid filing and successful request for injunctive relief prevented CVS’s internal decision from becoming an irreversible professional and patient-care crisis. The CVS litigation was one part of Chapman’s broader defense of Hansen. Chapman subsequently represented him at a month-long federal criminal trial and obtained acquittals on the controlled-substance charges. Read about Dr. Hansen’s federal trial acquittal., 2021
  • United States v. Liberty Jaramillo Compassionate Release Secured After Client Served Only Three Months of a 36-Month Federal Sentence Ron Chapman helped secure the immediate release of a 70-year-old federal defendant after he had served approximately three months of a 36-month sentence for conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. Liberty Jaramillo had pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy involving Medicare claims for services that were not provided or were not medically necessary. He was sentenced to 36 months in federal prison but, because of his age and medical condition, the court permitted several extensions of his voluntary-surrender date. Jaramillo ultimately reported to USP Lewisburg in November 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Jaramillo suffered from multiple conditions that increased the danger of serious complications from COVID-19, including type 2 diabetes, tachycardia, heart palpitations, high cholesterol, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and hyperthyroidism. Chapman and co-counsel filed a renewed emergency motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that Jaramillo’s age, combined medical vulnerabilities, and the conditions of federal confinement constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. The government acknowledged that Jaramillo’s age and diabetes placed him at heightened risk, but opposed release because he had served only a small portion of his sentence. Prosecutors argued that reducing the sentence to time served would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, or deter future criminal conduct. On February 16, 2021, United States District Judge Gershwin A. Drain granted the defense motion. The court found that Jaramillo’s age and combined medical conditions established extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Judge Drain also concluded that the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) favored release. Although the underlying offense was serious, it was nonviolent, Jaramillo was a first-time offender, he had strong family and community ties, and the record indicated a low risk of recidivism. He had also consistently complied with his release conditions and had no reported disciplinary violations. Importantly, the court rejected the government’s position that the limited portion of the sentence already served effectively foreclosed relief. The court weighed the additional deterrent value of continued imprisonment against the potentially grave danger that incarceration presented to an elderly and medically vulnerable defendant. Jaramillo’s sentence was reduced to time served, and the court ordered his immediate release from federal custody. His original term of supervised release remained in effect, with GPS monitoring imposed for the first six months. The result demonstrates the importance of presenting a compassionate-release request as more than a list of medical diagnoses. Effective advocacy requires a complete record addressing the defendant’s health, institutional conduct, release plan, risk of recidivism, and every applicable sentencing consideration.Read the court’s decision in United States v. Liberty Jaramillo⁠.  , 2021
  • United States v. George Naum: A Supreme Court Victory That Reopened the Mens Rea QuestionThe Supreme Court of the United States granted Dr. George Naum’s petition, vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded the case in light of Ruan in 2022. Some defense victories end a case. Others restore a legal question that the lower courts refused to recognize. Ron Chapman’s work for Dr. George Naum belongs in the second category. Dr. Naum was convicted of participating in a conspiracy and aiding and abetting unlawful Suboxone distribution through Advance Healthcare in West Virginia. At the time, courts often evaluated a prescriber’s conduct through an objective lens: whether prescriptions fell outside professional practice, sometimes with little room for a physician’s honest belief or subjective intent. That approach risked turning a medical-standard dispute into a felony without requiring the jury to find that the physician knew or intended to act without authorization. The central appellate strategy was therefore larger than any one chart. The defense preserved a mens rea argument: when a registered physician is authorized to prescribe controlled substances, the government should have to prove that the physician knowingly or intentionally crossed the line into unauthorized conduct. Negligence, regulatory error, or even objectively bad medicine is not automatically drug trafficking. While Dr. Naum’s case was being pursued, the same issue reached the Supreme Court in Ruan v. United States. The Court held that once a defendant produces 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 Supreme Court’s opinion in *Ruan* transformed the legal landscape for registered prescribers. Ron Chapman, as counsel of record, petitioned the Supreme Court in Dr. Naum’s case. On June 30, 2022, the Court granted the petition, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further consideration in light of Ruan. The order and filing history appear on the Supreme Court docket for *Naum v. United States*. That three-part order—grant, vacate, remand, commonly called a GVR—was vital for Dr. Naum’s case and others. The Supreme Court erased the appellate judgment then in place and directed the lower court to reconsider the case under the newly clarified law. Obtaining that relief requires issue preservation, a certiorari petition that connects the record to the developing Supreme Court question, and persistence after ordinary appellate avenues have narrowed. On remand, the defense argued that the jury had not been properly instructed on subjective knowledge. The Fourth Circuit eventually agreed that the instructions misstated the post-Ruan law.  The lasting lesson of Naum is that the correct legal theory must be developed early and preserved precisely. A favorable Supreme Court decision may not help if the trial record triggers a more restrictive standard of appellate review. For physicians under investigation, the strategic point is immediate. The defense should separate professional disagreement from criminal intent from the start. Jury instructions should focus on what the physician actually knew and intended. Good-faith evidence should be tied to the statutory authorization issue. Objections should be made clearly enough to preserve full appellate review. Naum demonstrates the value of appellate counsel who can see a case not only as a closed record, but as part of a changing national legal question. It also offers a candid reminder: a GVR is a real Supreme Court victory, but it is an opportunity for reconsideration—not a promise of reversal., 2021
  • People v. Joseph Oesterling: A Michigan Jury Rejects the “Pill Mill” NarrativeAccurate result: In October 2017, a Tuscola County jury acquitted Dr. Joseph Oesterling on all criminal charges, including a criminal-enterprise count, five delivery counts involving Norco, and a drug-house count. Dr. Joseph Oesterling stepped into an existing Michigan urology practice after the prior physician died. He also stepped, unknowingly, into an existing drug investigation. The government treated undercover visits and prescribing decisions as evidence that the practice was operating as a pill mill. Ron Chapman’s defense reframed the case around a crucial fact: inheriting a practice under investigation is not the same as joining a criminal enterprise. The charges were severe. Michigan prosecutors accused Oesterling of conducting a criminal enterprise, delivering controlled substances, and maintaining a drug house. A conviction could have meant imprisonment, professional ruin, and the permanent loss of property already seized by the government. The investigation had begun before Oesterling acquired the practice. Undercover patients then sought Norco prescriptions. At trial, Ron Chapman cross-examined DEA agents, former employees, cooperating witnesses, and prosecution expert Dr. Carl Christensen. The timing supported a straightforward but powerful theme. A criminal-enterprise theory requires proof that the defendant knowingly participated in criminal activity; it cannot rest on the bad history of a business or predecessor. The defense could therefore force the prosecution to identify evidence specific to Oesterling: What did he know about the earlier investigation? What agreement did he supposedly join? What patient interaction showed criminal intent rather than medical judgment? The undercover evidence also had to be evaluated as medicine. Obtaining a prescription is not enough to establish unlawful delivery by a licensed physician. The jury needed to consider the complaints presented, the examination and records, the dosage, the follow-up, and the physician’s purpose. Cross-examining the government’s medical expert allowed the defense to expose where another doctor’s retrospective preference was being offered as proof of a crime. Cooperating witnesses and former employees present another recurring challenge. They may have personal exposure, employment disputes, immunity expectations, or limited knowledge of a physician’s reasoning. Effective cross-examination does not merely accuse them of bias. It compares their claims with records, timelines, prior statements, and the scope of what they could actually observe. After a trial lasting nearly a month, jurors deliberated for approximately two and a half hours before finding Oesterling not guilty on every count. The later Michigan Court of Appeals forfeiture decision independently recites that Oesterling was charged in December 2016 and “acquitted of all criminal charges” in October 2017, *In re Forfeiture of Bank, Credit Union, and Investment Accounts. The acquittal did not immediately return everything the investigation had taken. The State continued a civil forfeiture action involving millions of dollars, creating a second battle discussed in the next case study. Associated Press coverage later summarized both outcomes in "Doctor Acquitted of Pill Mill Charges Will Get Assets Back” The criminal case offers several lessons for a professional facing charges tied to an existing organization. First, the defense should build a precise acquisition and knowledge timeline. Second, it should separate the client from the history, conduct, and motives of others. Third, it should treat undercover encounters as complete clinical episodes rather than isolated prescription events. Finally, it should examine what every witness personally knew about the defendant—not merely about the workplace. In People v. Oesterling the accusation sounded larger than the individual. “Criminal enterprise” and “drug house” are labels designed to make a medical practice look illicit from the start. The defense’s work was to make the prosecution prove those labels against Oesterling himself. The rapid, complete acquittal shows the power of returning a sprawling narrative to individual knowledge, individual conduct, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt., 2019
  • United States v. Aggarwal: Full Acquittal in a West Virginian Suboxone Prescribing Conspiracy Case  In June 2019, a federal jury acquitted Dr. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal and Dr. Cherian John after an eight-day trial involving Redirections Treatment Advocates, a Suboxone practice in West Virginia. Dr. Aggarwal was represented by Ron Chapman. The jury found both physicians not guilty of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances outside professional practice. The government’s own post-verdict announcement “Two Pennsylvania physicians acquitted of drug charges” records the acquittals. During trial Ron Chapman explained the “West Virginia Model,” used an addiction-medicine expert, presented federal treatment guidance and patient-monitoring charts, challenged a government expert who had not practiced addiction medicine, and used a handwriting expert to identify forged prescriptions. Dr. Aggarwal received a complete acquittal of health care fraud and opioid prescribing counts., 2019
  • United States v. Meghnot: How William McCutchen Was Acquitted of the Clinic-Wide Conspiracy The jury acquitted Dr. William McCutchen III of the controlled-substance conspiracy charge but convicted him on four substantive oxycodone-distribution counts. This was a meaningful partial acquittal which significantly limited Dr. McCutchen’s exposure to federal prison. Federal conspiracy law can make an employee or contractor responsible for a criminal plan far larger than his or her individual conduct. In the prosecution arising from the Meghnot Comprehensive Center for Hope, Ron Chapman’s defense of Dr. William McCutchen III succeeded in separating the physician from the clinic-wide conspiracy. The jury nevertheless convicted McCutchen on four individual prescription counts, so the result must be presented with precision.   The government alleged that the Ann Arbor–Ypsilanti clinic operated as a cash-only pill mill. Its 17-count indictment charged the owner, office manager, and several physicians and claimed that the clinic charged $250 per visit while issuing controlled-substance prescriptions without a legitimate medical purpose. The DEA described the initial allegations in its March 2015 announcement “Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Doctors And Owner Of Pain Management Clinic Charged With Illegally Distributing Controlled Substance Prescription Drugs”.   By the time McCutchen and Dr. Anthony Conrardy went to trial, other defendants had pleaded guilty. That created a difficult setting for the remaining physicians. Prosecutors could present the clinic as an established criminal operation and ask jurors to treat every prescriber within it as a participant.   The defense challenge was to separate association from agreement. Working at a clinic later described as a pill mill does not by itself prove that a physician knew of and intentionally joined a plan to distribute drugs unlawfully. A conspiracy conviction requires proof of an agreement and knowing participation. The jury must evaluate the defendant’s own tenure, communications, decisions, relationships, and knowledge rather than simply absorbing the misconduct attributed to the organization.   A physician may be responsible for an individual prescribing decision without sharing the business operators’ purpose. Conversely, a doctor can join a conspiracy without personally writing every prescription. The defense must therefore chart who did what, when they did it, and what evidence shows a shared criminal objective.   The four-week trial ended only after eight days of jury deliberations—an indication that the jurors took the distinctions seriously. The verdict acquitting McCutchen of conspiracy prevented the government from holding him criminally responsible for the entire clinic-wide agreement. But the jury convicted him on four substantive counts involving individual oxycodone prescriptions.   The Department of Justice’s verdict release “Two Physicians Found Guilty For Distributing Oxycodone” emphasizes those convictions and reports the length of the trial and deliberations. The release does not foreground the conspiracy acquittal, which is why the verdict form or certified docket should be reviewed before final publication of this article. The original indictment and the reported count structure are consistent with a separate conspiracy charge, but the firm should add a direct public link to the verdict form if one is available in its file.   In a multi-defendant case, “winning” may mean preventing the government from converting limited alleged conduct into responsibility for every act of an enterprise. The defense should consider: a defendant-specific timeline showing when the client entered and left the organization; communications that prove—or fail to prove—knowledge of others’ conduct; separate charts for management decisions and clinical decisions; instructions requiring the jury to decide each defendant and each count separately; and a closing argument that explains why presence, employment, or association is not agreement.   Ron Chapman obtained a not-guilty verdict on the charge that would have tied McCutchen to the clinic-wide controlled-substance conspiracy. That result shows how focused trial work can limit criminal exposure even when the jury does not accept every part of the defense, 2017
  • Defended a Michigan Dentist accused of sexually assaulting an employee and criminal contempt charges.
  • Defended North Carolina physician accused of over-prescribing and violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 in a Federal conspiracy indictment with multiple co-defendants arising out of the operation of a pain management clinic.
  • Defended a Northern Michigan physician related to the operation of a small clinic which resulted in multiple State charges for drug trafficking.
  • Represented the manager of a large California healthcare corporation related to violations of the False Claims act, Health Care Fraud, and Conspiracy.
  • Physician Charged with 7 Felony Counts of Drug Trafficking has Charges Dropped and Pleads to One Count of False Entry in Medical Record, 2015
  • Defended a Michigan Psychologist accused of sexual assault of a patient and having an inappropriate physician patient relationship.
  • Class Action Against HPRP – Health Professionals Recovery Program, 2015
  • Defended a Michigan owner of three physician practices during a multi-year DEA, IRS, and FBI investigation and a Federal drug conspiracy indictment related to the prescription of oxycodone under 21 U.S.C. 841.
  • Defended a Kentucky pharmacist charged in a Federal indictment with illegal drug distribution, conspiracy, and misbranding related to the operation of two pharmacies.
  • Defended a Texas medical clinic facing a DEA audit due to misappropriation of controlled substances. , 2016
  • Nurse Charged With Obtaining Drugs by Fraud, Health Care Fraud, Drug Possession and Unlawful Prescribing Has Charges Resolved and May Continue to Practice Nursing, 2015
  • Defended a Michigan Pharmacist facing State drug trafficking charges and accused of drug diversion from his pharmacy in State.
  • Suspension Overturned for RN Accused of Drug Diversion, Refused Employment Drug Screen, and Declined HPRP Agreement, 2015
  • Defended the owners of a large Michigan home health care corporation during FBI investigation and Federal Indictment related to Anti-Kickback and False Claims Act. 
  • Defended a Detroit physician accused of over-prescribing under 21 U.S.C. 841, Health Care Fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1347 related to the operation of a Detroit area clinic.

Videos

  • The primary theme of this discussion focuses on the legal and regulatory challenges facing physicians who prescribe controlled substances, particularly pain management providers. Throughout the conversation, recurring topics include DEA investigations, healthcare compliance, physician legal defense, opioid prescribing regulations, chronic pain treatment, medical record documentation, and risk management for healthcare providers., How the DOJ Affects Doctors AND Patients, with Claudia Merandi: Health Care Hot Topics, Health Care, Criminal Law, 2020
  • A US jury just awarded $6 million against Meta and Google for deliberately designing addictive platforms. Federal criminal defense attorney Ron Chapman joined GB News to break down what that verdict actually unlocks — and why Section 230 couldn't protect Big Tech this time. The judgment succeeded by using a products liability theory. With that framework now established, plaintiffs' lawyers have a roadmap and hundreds of similar lawsuits are likely to follow. Ron also weighs in on the UK government's proposed restrictions on social media for under-16s and why the real question is whether governments can hold companies accountable for how their algorithms were built., Social Media Addiction Just Became a Legal Liability | GB News, Product Liability, 2026
  • Black built one of the largest private equity firms on earth and became a billionaire doing it. He also wired nine figures to a convicted sex offender for what his lawyers call tax and estate advice. The House Oversight Committee wants to know why, and it has subpoenaed both his testimony and the nondisclosure agreements he signed. He walks through the money. There are the service payments routed through an Epstein-affiliated Virgin Islands entity. There is $30.5 million in loans tied to an art deal. There are eight-figure donations to an Epstein charity, and a $62.5 million settlement Black paid the U.S. Virgin Islands. He looks at what a law firm hired by Apollo actually found, and what the Senate Finance Committee says it missed. Then he gets into the law underneath it. Why the missing contracts and invoices matter more than the size of the payments. How tax characterization can turn a service fee into real exposure. What Congress can still compel if Black takes the Fifth. So far, this billionaire has faced congressional subpoenas and no indictment, and Ron explains what that tells us., Leon Black Paid Epstein $158 Million. Congress Wants Answers., Criminal Investigations, Criminal Defense, 2026
  • Flock Safety's license plate reader network has spread to over 5,000 cities, tracking vehicles with no warrant required. Federal criminal defense attorney Ron Chapman examines the Flock camera surveillance system, the Fourth Amendment questions surrounding it, and the wave of cities now ripping these cameras out., Flock Cameras: What Your City Isn't Telling You, Civil Rights, Criminal Defense, 2026
  • What began as a memoir controversy has become one of the most stunning reversals in modern Washington. John Bolton—the same man who once said Edward Snowden “ought to swing from a tall oak tree”—now stands indicted on 18 federal counts under the Espionage Act. Prosecutors allege he kept hundreds of Top Secret/SCI pages, shared them with relatives over Gmail, and exposed the United States’ most sensitive intelligence to an Iranian-linked hack. In this episode of Off Air, federal criminal defense attorney and former Marine Prosecutor Ron Chapman breaks down how Bolton’s “book” defense collapsed, why §793(d) and (e) are among the most serious national-security charges short of treason, and how the Iranian cyber-intrusion changed everything. From covert-action details and SIGINT leaks to family “editors” without clearances, this case may redefine what it means to betray America’s secrets., John Bolton Spying? New Evidence Revealed, Criminal Defense, 2025
  • The Department of Justice presented this as one coordinated takedown. A single message. A deterrent. But when you look inside the cases, much of the machinery is Medicare enrollment language, billing certifications, medical necessity standards, and anti-kickback rules that providers struggle to follow. Ron walks through how the Healthcare Fraud Unit's Data Fusion Center combines analytics across HHS, the FBI, and other agencies, and how prosecutors now deploy advanced algorithms inside the CMS data repository. He explains why one Illinois case moved from review to arrest in a timeline that almost never happens in federal prosecutions, and what that speed reveals about how these cases get built. He also examines the wound care prosecutions driving much of this effort, the $906 million case involving terminally ill patients, and the pressure that strips providers of their licenses and billing privileges long before a jury ever hears the evidence. He draws on his own experience handling some of the largest healthcare fraud cases in the country, including matters referenced in the DOJ's own announcements., How the DOJ Turned Billing Data Into a $6.5 Billion Takedown, Healthcare Fraud, Healthcare Law, Criminal Defense, 2024
  • The content is centered on helping healthcare providers prevent, respond to, and defend against allegations of Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud, insurance fraud, kickbacks, false claims, and other federal healthcare crimes. Rather than focusing solely on criminal defense after an investigation begins, the transcript consistently emphasizes compliance programs, internal investigations, self-disclosure, risk mitigation, and early legal intervention as the best strategies for avoiding federal prosecution. It also highlights the importance of experienced healthcare fraud attorneys who understand CMS regulations, healthcare billing requirements, medical necessity standards, federal healthcare programs, and the complexities of defending providers against investigations by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Inspector General (OIG), FBI, and other federal agencies., Health Care Fraud 101, Health Care, Criminal Law, 2020

Educational Background

  • Oakland University, B.A., 2006
  • Naval Justice School, 2010

Scholarly Lectures / Writings

  • Panel discussion surrounding the issue of whether physicians can be convicted for unlawful distribution of Controlled Substances if they believe the drugs they prescribed were prescribed under professional norms., Panelist, Panel Discussion: Xiulu Ruan v. United States of America, American Conference Institute, 2022
  • Letter to the Editor About How the Outcome of Ruan v. United States Will Affect Prescribers., Co-Author, How the U.S. Supreme Court is About to Affect Every Prescriber in America, Journal of Opioid Management 18:3, 2022
  • Presentation at FPA's Annual Law Conference about to handle State and DEA inspections., Presenter, How to Prepare and Respond to State and DEA Inspections and Medicaid Audits, Florida Pharmacy Association, 2021
  • Building, Maintaining, and Evolving in a Highly Regulated Area, Presenter, Building an Ironclad Compliance Program, American Conference Institute, 2021
  • Discuss of Why Prosecutors Choose the Health Care Fraud Statue Again and Again, Presenter, Health Care Fraud Statue vs. False Claims Act, National Alliance of Medical Auditing Specialists, 2021
  • Discussion of pandemic lessons learned in 2020 and provide the practical guidance providers need to move forward. Examine major issues such as the explosion of telemedicine and the latest in hospital mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Dive into cybersecurity and remote practice implications. Plus, get updates on state and federal regulations, fraud and abuse, and Stark., Presenter, Current Trends in Health Care Fraud & Abuse Enforcement, Institute of Continuing Legal Education - Health Law Institute, 2021
  • Tailoring inspection strategies for every link of the supply chain., Presenter, DEA Site Visit Checklist, American Conference Institute, 2020
  • Building and Enhancing an Effective Controlled Substances Compliance Program, Presenter, Compliance Think Tank, American Conference Institute, 2020
  • Introduction to the Fundamentals of Prescribing Controlled Substances., Presenter, Controlled Substances Bootcamp, American Conference Institute, 2018
  • Discussion of Brest Practices, Guidelines, and Regulations., Presenter, Principles for Safe Opioid Prescribing, Michigan State Medical Society, 2017
  • CME Webinar., Presenter, Protect Yourself and Your License: DEA Compliance and Opioid Abuse, Urgent Care Association of America, 2017
  • Author, Defending Hippocrates: Representing Physicians in the Wake of the Opioid Epidemic, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ The Champion, 2017
  • Preparing for and Defending Regulatory Investigations, Michigan Medical Society Spring Conference, 2016
  • Criminal Accusations Cause Health Care Professionals to Face Potentially Debilitating Collateral Consequences, State Appellate Defender Office, Criminal Defense Newsletter, Health Care Law, 2016
  • Interviewee, DEA Is Cracking Down On Physicians Who Overprescribe Pills, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Health Care, 2016
  • Evidence-Based Best Practice for Opioid Prescribing and Monitoring: Medicolegal Pain Management Expert Symposium, International Conference on Opioids, Journal of Opioid Management, Harvard Medical Conference Center, 2016
  • Physician’s Guide to DEA Administrative Inspections, Pain Medicine News, 2016
  • The Black Cloud of a Medical Board Investigation, Medscape, 2015
  • Responsible Opioid Prescribing and Monitoring for Pain Management: Evidence-Based Best Practice, Michigan State Medical Society’s 150th Annual Scientific Meeting, 2015
  • The shifting sands of opioid prescription here in the US and around the globe combined with the pandemic have made it challenging to plan our next conference. That said, we appreciate the daily calls to our office inquiring about this conference. The support is gratifying and it confirms there is definite need for a serious conference on opioids. We need your help. Please take a couple of minutes and jot down three items. First, what concept, skill or theme would you like us to focus our next conference on? Second, where do you see the field of opioid prescription in the next 5 years? Third, would you be interested in joining a conference committee to bring forth the next event?  Please send your notes to the Journal of Opioid Management e-mail box at jom (at) pnpco (dot) com.  Your input is critical and thank you for your dedication., When Prescribing Controlled Substances Becomes Drug Trafficking, Pain Medicine News, Consulting, Therapy, Policy, 2015
  • Top 10 Tips for Physician to Avoid Prosecution for Over Prescribing, AVVO, 2015

Other Outstanding Achievements

  • Navy Achievement Medal
  • Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal

Honors

  • Michigan Rising Star in the area of Health Law, Rising Star - Health Law, Super Lawyers, 2022
  • Michigan Rising Star in the area of Health Law, Rising Star - Health Law, Super Lawyers, 2020
  • Michigan Rising Star in the area of Health Law, Rising Star - Health Law, Super Lawyers, 2021
  • Up & Coming Lawyers, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, 2015
  • Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorney Under 40, National Academy of Criminal Defense Attorneys, 2015
  • Navy Achievement Medal, U.S. Marine Corps, 2013: Ron was awarded the navy achievement medal for his work as an operational law officer for II MEF the expeditionary force occupying the east coast of the U.S. Ron worked on high level Federal investigations, coordinated closely with ICE, NCIS, the FBI, and various narcotics units. Additionally, Ron created a course designed to instruct other Marine Officers regarding operational law issues prior to deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq. 
  • Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, U.S. Marine Corps, 2012: Ron was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps commendation medal for his work in Afghanistan as a battalion judge advocate working with Marines during a highly kinetic counter insurgency campaign. Ron also was the officer in charge of a detention facility that housed suspected insurgents.

Industry Groups

  • All Health Care Professionals:
  • Ambulatory Surgical Centers
  • Chiropractors
  • Correctional Healthcare Providers
  • Dentists
  • Health Care Facilities
  • Home Health Agencies
  • Hospitals
  • Mental Health Professionals
  • Nurses
  • Ophthalmologists
  • Optometrists
  • Pain Clinics
  • Pharmacies
  • Pharmacists
  • Physicians
  • Professional Liability Insurers
  • Skilled Nursing Facilities
  • Veterinarians

Office location for Ron Chapman

456 E Milwaukee St
Detroit, MI 48202

Selections

3 Years Super Lawyers
9 Years Rising Stars
  • Super Lawyers: 2024 - 2026
  • Rising Stars: 2015 - 2023

Additional sources of information about Ron Chapman

Attorney resources for Ron Chapman

Download badge
Update profile
Order online

Find top lawyerswith confidence

The Super Lawyers patented selection process is peer influenced and research driven, selecting the top 5% of attorneys to the Super Lawyers lists each year. We know lawyers and make it easy to connect with them.

Page Generated: 0.029469013214111 sec