An expert witness testifying against a doctor accused of overprescribing painkillers and a treatment drug from his Clinton Township office was grilled Tuesday about how much money he makes as an expert witness and confronted about two prior cases in which his testimony appeared to have come in question.
Attorney Ronald Chapman, representing retired Dr. Stephen Swetech, cross-examined Dr. Timothy Munzing for three hours in front of Judge Sebastian Lucido in 41B District Court in Clinton Township regarding the state’s criminal case against Swetech.
Munzing told Chapman that prior to him starting to testify three days before, he had earned $40,000 to $50,000 in Swetech’s case and was making $6,000 per day to testify. He said the income prior to his testimony came from reviewing extensive medical records of Swetech’s interactions with patients.
Chapman suggested Munzing has earned $3.5 million over the past 10 years testifying for the U.S. Department of Justice in criminal cases, based on a question posed to Munzing by a defense attorney in another case two years ago that Muzing had reached 326 contracts valued at a total of $3.3 million for his work in criminal cases.
Munzing responded Tuesday the total amount is less because sometimes the contracts are reduced or expired.
“I wish,” he said of the amount, “but I would not agree with it.”
“That may be the amount of the contracts but the actual paid amount is far less,” he testified in the 2022 case.
Munzing, a medical doctor in California, estimated he earned over $100,000 last year for his testimony and said he also sees patients two to four half-days per week and teaches part-time at a rate of $150 per hour.
Munzing testified earlier Tuesday and two prior days that Swetech failed to follow the proper “standard of care” in 2017 when he prescribed drugs to three undercover police officers posing as patients in nine appointments. “Jillian” received suboxone, which is used to treat opioid addiction, in six visits, “Sarah” was prescribed Percocet in two visits and “Renee” prescribed Norco in her single visit.
Swetech failed to conduct a sufficient evaluation of patients before prescribing the drugs.
“Never in the nine visits was there a complete exam conducted,” Munzing testified. “A minimal exam, I believe, was conducted in two or three of the visits.”
Swetech failed to obtain the undercover patients’ medical history, to suggest alternative treatment in lieu of the drugs, to order imaging or counseling, and to conduct drug tests but indicated in the patients’ records that they had been evaluated, according to Munzing. Swetech suggested to patients to accomplish a couple of those things but only if they got health insurance, he said.
In a case brought by the Michigan Attorney General’s Office, he is charged with nine counts of delivery of a controlled substance, punishable by up to seven years in prison.
His state medical license was placed on probation based on the allegations, and he later retired.
In further questioning Munzing, Chapman suggested a conviction in a federal case was overturned due to Munzing’s testimony and his interpretation of Centers for Disease Control guidelines.
“I’m not aware of that,” Munzing testified.
Chapman also suggested Munzing has been nixed as a federal expert witness due to that ruling, noting he did not testify in a case though he had performed work for it.
“”I was informed I was no longer needed, which could be for many different reasons,” Munzing said.
He was removed from another case due to a scheduling conflict, he said.
Chapman also provided an opinion from federal Administrative Law Judge Charles Dorman with the Drug Enforcement Agency in which he criticized Munzing’s testimony, noting he appeared to be “an advocate” for the prosecution. He called Munzing “loquacious,” said he “frequently volunteered information,” and that his “helpful nature was distracting and unnecessarily extended the hearing.”
He noted Munzing later reversed his opinion on an issue, although Munzing said he disagreed with that assessment.
The judge indicated Munzing “was not familiar with all of the facts,” “appeared to be winging it” and “gave contradictory testimony to the testimony offered at this trial,” according to a transcript provided by Swetech’s defense, which also includes attorney Brian Legghio.
Chapman also grilled Munzing about his basis for “standard of care.” Munzing provided four health-care entities from which he used information to establish his standard of care for doctors.
He said it equates to what a “reasonable” and “knowledgeable” physician would do in a specific circ*mstance to gain “substantial compliance.”
Judge Lucido also chimed in, questioning whether Swetech’s medical license was impacted and whether it is common nationally for doctors to be charged criminally for failing to follow a standard of care or for malpractice.
Munzing did not reply after Chapman objected.
Testimony in the case began in April and continued Monday.
The hearing, which determines whether there is probable cause to advance the case to Macomb County Circuit Court, is scheduled to continue next month. At least one undercover officer is expected to testify.
