Methadone Clinic Doctor Found Liable in Addict’s Car Wreck

A Minnesota doctor and his methadone clinic have admitted responsibility in an $8.5 million settlement over dispensing methadone to a patient with known methadone abuse signs. St. Paul criminal defense attorney Max Keller says that this highlights the challenges many addicts face in recovering from addiction problems.

The lawsuit stems from the case of Vanessa Brigan, a patient at the Pinnacle Methadone Clinic in Brainerd. After being dispensed methadone on the morning of October 1, 2012, Brigan injected the medication, which is used as a treatment for heroine addiction but can also be addictive. Brigan then drove her vehicle while under the influence of the drug. She is currently serving a six year sentence for causing an accident that morning that took the life of two people.

The victims’s families expressed a feeling of justice at receiving the ruling in their favor. Payment stemming from the ruling is being disputed by the clinic and doctor’s insurance underwriters, but even without the settlement money, the families hope that the ruling will help to highlight the dangers of lax prescription drug control. Increasing numbers of prescription pill abusers in the state continue to show weaknesses in the regulation of prescription drugs.

This case marks the first time that a doctor has admitted negligence in a case like this. Dr. John Stroemer’s Pinnacle Methadone Clinic dispensed the drug to their patient despite visible warning signs of addiction. These included needle marks on her arms and other key signs of abuse. Methadone clinics, while centers of treatment for a number of addictions, can also be misused by substance abusers. Weak supervision and dispensing practices can make them easy targets for heroine and opioid abusers.

St. Paul criminal defense attorney Max Keller says that this follows the patterns he sees in his daily experience defending clients accused of drug crimes. “There are many warning signs of addiction that go unnoticed. More often than not, defendants need treatment instead of jail time. We fight for their future so that they can get their lives back.”

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.