A follow-up on the case of the dentist convicted of improperly accessing prescription monitoring database: the dentist responds

On October 16, PHIprivacy.net published a post concerning Dr. Fred S. Glick, a dentist in Ohio who pleaded guilty to misusing the state’s prescription monitoring database. In that post, I included statements from the patient whose data were accessed, but had not been able to reach Dr. Glick to get a statement from him. As a result, the post gave the victim’s side of the story but not his.

PHIprivacy.net has received a statement from Dr. Glick that I am reproducing below as submitted:

I am responding because “Mellissa’s” statements contain certain factually inaccurate and misleading information with respect to the court’s ultimate dispensation of this matter.

In fact, during the course of the proceedings the prosecutor was shown evidence that;

A. for many months after she was asked to leave the doctor’s private residence, “Mellissa” continued to initiate and maintain contact with the doctor by e-mail, by text message and in person, on multiple occasions, and for both personal and for professional reasons, (and in particular after an accident in which she damaged her lip and teeth and about which she asked for a prescription) and thereby continued to establish herself as a legitimate patient; and

B. contrary to “Melissa’s” protestations and speculations, the prosecutor was shown evidence that “Melissa’s” residential address was listed in multiple locations on the internet including the Attorney Directory on the web site of the Ohio Supreme Court and would have had nothing to do with why the doctor consulted the OARRS database; and

C. that the doctor had reason to suspect that his DEA license to prescribe controlled medications might be compromised by the additional persons about whom he inquired on the OARRS database.

Ultimately in setting the parameters of the plea arrangement the court determined that the rules governing OARRS access indicate that regardless of any evidence or suspicion he or she may have, a doctor should technically only order an OARRS report on an active or prospective patient, such as Melissa. The doctor therefore conceded that he should have referred the remaining matter to law enforcement to investigate rather than attempting to so himself.

Both parties have now had a chance to tell their side of the story. The take-home message, however, should be that no matter what the motivation or rationalization, covered entities need to adhere to the access and usage rules of prescription monitoring databases, and it remains to be seen what, if anything, the Ohio Dental Board will do with this matter.

Note: given the personally contentious nature of the dispute between the parties,  any comments submitted on this post should be confined to the data security and privacy issues and not include personal attacks on either of the parties.  Comments that violate that standard will not be approved by the moderator. 

About the author: Dissent

Comments are closed.