Court of Appeals Gives Caro, Michigan-Based Doctor Back $6 Million After Being Charged in Alleged ‘Pill Mill’ Scheme

Joseph E. Oesterling, M.D., gets back six million dollars.
Chapman Law Group attorney Robert Andretz (from left), Joseph E. Osterling, M.D., and Chapman Law Group attorney Ronald W. Chapman II. |

After Feds Assert He Was Running a ‘Pill Mill,’ Caro Physician Joseph E. Oesterling, M.D., is Victorious in His Appeal

Caro, Michigan-based physician Joseph E. Oesterling, M.D., represented by Ronald W. Chapman II and Robert J. Andretz of Chapman Law Group, won an appeal in January 2017 that had been filed by the Tuscola County Prosecutor and the Thumb Narcotics Unit last year.

The ‘Pill Mill’ Accusation

In October 2017, Dr. Oesterling was acquitted by a jury of his peers of all federal criminal charges brought against him and his medical practice, Caro Medical Group, a Caro-based family practice. The prosecution argued at trial that Dr. Oesterling was running a “pill mill.” However, after a nearly monthlong trial, a jury did not buy the prosecution’s claims.

After Dr. Oesterling was acquitted, attorneys Chapman and Andretz filed a motion demanding the government release the property and money seized during its investigation of Caro Medical Group. The government maintained it had a right to Dr. Oesterling’s seized assets even after a jury acquitted him of any wrongdoing. After a hearing, the trial court granted Dr. Oesterling’s motion and ordered the government to return Dr. Oesterling’s property.

Government Appeals

The government appealed the trial court’s ruling maintaining that the property taken from Dr. Oesterling was derived from illegal activity. For a third time, a court disagreed with the government. In January 2019, the Court of Appeals struck down the government’s appeal, stating that the government did not cite any evidence that the amount of money that Dr. Oesterling had in his accounts could not be legitimately explained. The court also noted in its opinion that a DEA agent even testified that it was impossible to say whether the seized property were proceeds from illegal activity.

“Dr. Oesterling is finally looking forward to moving on from the government’s continued efforts to prove a wrong where one did not exist. Property is only subject to forfeiture if there is a substantial connection between property and illegal activity. There was no connection here,” said attorney, Ronald W. Chapman II.

Other Case Sources

Need an Attorney? Contact us now!
or Call us at: 1 (877) 234-5911

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Related Attorney

Recent Posts

Related Posts

Chapman Law Group Favicon

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.

Send this to a friend