so Patrick helping his dad fix up their house to sell it,, and Langdon hurting his back helping his parents move... Man, he was born to play Langdon. You can’t convince me otherwise.
I just have this feeling that Tanner Langdon is a very old little man. He’s got little kid glasses, and asked for suspenders for his birthday and likes to write songs. He conducts very serious experiments with his mud and sand. His dad once told him what triplicates are, and while he’s a bit too small to quite understand the statistical relevance, he understood that experiments are more valuable if you do the same one three times.
Frank is so worried that he’ll get the whimsy bullied out of him, but refuses to quench any of his enthusiasm early. The world is a tough enough place and he refuses to let his home be a part of that. He’s so proud of his odd little guy, and loves him so much.
*gets out a big megaphone* sanitizing female characters by removing all moral ambiguity and their ability to make complex choices is not any more feminist than demonizing them. you have to learn to appreciate female characters without finding some way to simplify their personhood into either "evil bitch" or "perfect pure girlboss." it is still dehumanizing to view women as virtuous morally pure angels of light who can do no wrong. thats just bog standard benevolent misogyny.
I am a 3L in law school. I have interned for a judge in the criminal division, a federal public defender, and a state attorney general’s office that dealt with license revocation proceedings by regulatory boards; I am familiar with how the system works, how the sentencing guidelines work, etc. Here is an informal version of the memo I would write were I a law clerk or an intern for a judge assigned to Frank Langdon’s case, with modifications for both federal and state court—essentially I did the factual and legal research I would do, and this reflects where it took me, but with none of the framing. The facts I am using based on what we have seen on the show are below; if someone thinks that these are not the facts that should be used for some reason, feel free to say so, but I will be blocking anyone who does so disrespectfully or accuses me of minimizing his conduct towards Santos—all I am dealing with are feasible legal consequences.
-Langdon received legitimate prescriptions to an opioid and a benzodiazepine under the care of a licensed physician (Dr. Hagan) after injuring his back. (In the confrontation with Robby in 1x10, he refers to “pain meds and muscle relaxants.” Only some benzodiazepines are muscle relaxants, and none are used for pain relief; lorazepam is a muscle relaxant, but Librium (chlordiazepoxide) is not. Opioids, on the other hand, are commonly prescribed for pain relief).
-He became chemically dependent on the benzodiazepine. (I am not going to speculate about whether or not he also developed an opioid addiction for these purposes because we haven’t seen him take any or talk about being addicted to both; on what we’ve seen, a prosecutor would have enough to charge on benzos but not opioids. Personally, I believe he became dependent on both and was more easily able to justify staying on the benzos to himself—some are used to treat withdrawal symptoms, at least in alcoholics, and opioids are both more addictive and more notorious than benzos. I think he truly managed to convince himself he was not addicted to the benzos and was only using them to combat an opioid addiction, even though it was not the case).
-He began taking benzodiazepines from work to support this chemical dependency. He would do this in two ways:
-One was to steal portions of prescriptions he wrote for Louie and other frequent flyers in the ER who were resistant to acknowledging they have an alcohol problem or at least to combating it—because they are unlikely to pay attention to how many meds are actually in the prescription or to take the full schedule as directed. I do not think he overprescribed to do so; that would be more likely to draw attention, and Santos was not confused at the 20-pill prescription written for Louie, suggesting it was an appropriate number—she only seemed surprised that half of the script was missing.
-The other was to order extra meds when a case came in that would justify doing so, withdraw a portion of the medication from the extra vial, refill the rest of the vial with saline, use medical glue to reseal the vial, and return the vial to the Pyxis with a note that it had ended up being unnecessary. Again, we saw him do this on Louie’s case, Santos discovered the vial, and the rest is history.
-He was not high while he was at work. Benzodiazepines are central nervous system suppressant (CNS) medications. This is why they are prescribed to treat anxiety, withdrawal symptoms, and used to stop seizures—they make someone calmer or less jittery, not manic. The behavior we see from Langdon on the day of the PittFest shift is more consistent with withdrawal symptoms—he is irritable, has difficulty remaining still and controlling his temper, is (as Mel notes) sweating heavily, and so on. He is exhibiting these symptoms as early as episode 1, and they get more prevalent over the course of the day, not less—like they would if he took either of the medications we know he stole that day. Symptoms like these tend to occur within 1-4 days of discontinuation in someone dependent on benzos. Based on this, Langdon’s most likely pattern of use was to stockpile medication when he had opportunities to do so on shift and use when he got home—which again, is something an addict would have an easier time justifying to himself than using while at work as an emergency medicine doctor. As time went on, he may have reached a point where he used at work and learned how to justify it to himself, but I don’t believe he reached that point, because he very clearly did not have such justification prepared in the confrontation with Robby in 1x10.
-The physical evidence we would have for court from season 1 related to his diverting are: the pills Robby found in his locker that matched the imprint code on Louie’s prescription, a record of his prescribing history (such as how often he would order an extra vial of meds and return it to the Pyxis), and the vial and cap Santos held on to. That’s it. What this means is the only rock-solid case a prosecutor has is for theft of 10 pills of Librium and 2 milliliters of lorazepam; it would be very easy for a defense attorney to create reasonable doubt around his prescribing records. (Personally, I would call Dana as a witness and have her testify to exactly what she told Santos when she was investigating: it happens all the time, to more than just Langdon, it is not indicative of theft every time; then I would enter another doctor’s prescribing history, probably Robby or Abbot’s, and point out how often they drew and returned meds as well).
-Federally, benzodiazepines are a Schedule 4 substance (shoutout @rolandtowen for pointing this out on my other post). Pennsylvania uses the same scheduling system as the federal government.
-At the state level, Langdon could potentially be charged under:
§ 780-113(a)(2), the adulteration or misbranding of any controlled substance, other drug, device, or cosmetic. An adulterated drug or device as defined by § 780-007 includes one that has had any substance “mixed or packed therewith so as to reduce its quality or strength, or[ ]substituted wholly or in part therefor [sic].
This charge is a misdemeanor under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $5000 for a first offense—which this is. If he was criminally charged, he probably would not be going to trial, for reasons I will discuss after listing possible charges.
§ 780-113(a)(12), the acquisition or obtaining of possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge; he was misrepresenting his use of medication in the Pyxis records. He could potentially be hit with multiple charges under this provision, depending on if he was overprescribing meds to Louie and others to take the excess, rather than prescribing appropriately and taking a portion because he knew they would not miss it.
This charge is a felony under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than three years in prison and/or a fine not exceeding $10,000. Again, he would probably not be going to trial.
§ 780-113(a)(16), Pennsylvania’s simple possession with the intent for personal use provision—possession of a controlled substance that was not obtained pursuant to a valid prescription or a manner otherwise authorized in the act.
This charge is a misdemeanor under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $5000 for a first offense. Again, he would probably not be going to trial.
Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substances Act includes a provision (§ 780-142) that a federal conviction or acquittal for the same instance of wrongful conduct would require the state charges to be dropped—even though it’s not technically a Double Jeopardy Clause violation for both state and federal government to prosecute someone for the same act. This means that if Langdon was prosecuted, it would be at either the federal or the state level, not at both.
-At the federal level, Langdon could potentially be charged under:
21 U.S.C. § 331(b), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(2). A first offense is a misdemeanor; if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or fined no more than $1000 under 21 U.S.C. § 333(a)(1).
21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(12). A first offense is a felony; if convicted at trial he could be sentenced to no more than 4 years in prison and/or have to pay a fine, the amount of which the statute directs the judge to decide based on the fines available for sentencing in Title 18—the US criminal code.
21 U.S.C. § 844 (a), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(16). A first offense is a misdemeanor; if convicted at trial, he would be fined at least $1000 and could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail as well—the fine is a required penalty in the statute, the jail time is not.
-Now, all of these are options for charging; there is no definitive way to say, “this is what he would have been charged with if criminal consequences were pursued.” Prosecutors have a lot of discretion on whether or not to charge someone and what to charge them with, as well as whether to offer plea deals and what those plea deals look like.
-The District Attorney for Allegheny County is Stephen Zappala, Jr.; he has held the position since 1998. His bio on the DA’s public website emphasizes his belief in criminal justice reform, leniency for first time offenders, and he created a Drug Court diversionary program in Allegheny County. Drug courts typically offer one of two methods of avoiding jail or prison time: diversion prior to pleading, in which case the charges would be dropped upon successful completion of the program, or a plea deal where a suspended sentence is imposed pending completion of the program, and a defendant who successfully does so avoids jail or prison time and sometimes has their record sealed or expunged as part of the process; Allegheny County’s drug court is the latter (In the FAQ about drug court, one of the questions is "do I have to enter a plea before beginning the drug court program?" and the answer is yes).
-Based on the priorities of the Allegheny County DA, state court proceedings would likely look like this:
-Langdon is charged with one or all of the state offenses. His attorney reaches out to the ADA assigned to the case to discuss a plea deal with completion of drug court rather than a carceral sentence. Langdon pleads guilty to the misdemeanor of simple possession and receives a suspended sentence pending completion of the drug court program, which includes an individualized assessment of how to help him overcome his addiction. If he completes it successfully, he is not going to see jail time. While I can’t find anything as to whether his misdemeanor record is then sealed, expunged, or otherwise affected once he completes drug court in Allegheny County specifically, one of the defining features of drug courts generally is the dismissal of charges or expungement of convictions when successfully completed.
-The ADA would report the plea of guilty to a misdemeanor and participation in drug court to the Board of Medicine; his license would be automatically suspended. The Board of Medicine would then hold a hearing to determine if Langdon is an appropriate candidate for a PHP; if so, they would lift the suspension of his license and direct him to participate in a PHP for a period of 3-5 years. If he successfully completed the PHP, he would retain his license.
-Ten months is long enough for all of this to take place if he pled guilty/accepted the plea agreement when he first appeared before a judge, which does happen; a plea agreement in exchange for participation in drug court is hardly novel.
-Even if he was not criminally reported but was instead only reported for diversion to the Board of Medicine, ten months is long enough for the Board to hold a hearing on his license and decide to place him in the PHP rather than take more severe punitive action. The one thing I am not sure of and cannot find online is whether the Board would be required to report him for criminal proceedings as well if the diversion is reported, but the policy considerations that the state of Pennsylvania has behind offering avenues to let practitioners keep licensure and receive treatment for substance abuse disorder make me think it is unlikely.
-To be clear, both drug court monitoring and PHP monitoring are incredibly invasive; they involve counseling, random drug testing, and community supervision (which means limited privacy in the home not only for himself but for his family, as his assigned supervisory probation officer would not have to meet the usual probable cause requirement to search his home). Drug court participation requires frequent appearances in court, and PHP monitoring often involves mandatory forms of treatment—like attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings, which is a program that relies on religion and belief in a higher power in its process, although it claims to be spiritual rather than religious.
Federal proceedings, on the other hand, would look a little different:
First of all, it is very unlikely he would be charged federally at all. The U.S. Attorney’s website has press releases going back to 2013 dealing with indictments, sentences, convictions, and plea deals deemed significant enough to warrant public notification. This is obviously not indicative of all cases charged and convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania, but it gives a good picture of the federal government’s priorities in prosecution of drug crimes. There is not a single federal case on this page where a doctor was indicted, convicted, or sentenced on simple possession for any schedule of drug, or indeed of any drug crime that did not include illegal distribution of Schedule III or higher meds to others and/or defrauding Medicare or Medicaid. There is a single case under 21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3) that involved illegally obtaining drugs for personal use, but it was by a woman who was forging prescriptions to get meds from pharmacies, not a doctor diverting meds from patients.
-Something else indicative of the unlikelihood of federal pursuit of charges under these circumstances is that there are no published federal criminal cases in LexisNexis (one of the databases for court decisions used by lawyers) against a doctor for diverting or adulterating drugs for personal use, nor for simple possession, in the Western District of Pennsylvania. When and if the federal government bothers to charge doctors in Langdon’s position, their cases are not resulting in opinions or orders by judges.
If Langdon was, for some reason, federally charged, the US Attorney’s office would likely charge him with the felony under 21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3), and then offer to let him plead out to a misdemeanor, whether adulteration or simple possession.
- Even if he was charged with and convicted of all three offenses, under the federal sentencing guidelines, he could be sentenced to a maximum of 6 months in jail, and likely would be sentenced instead to a term of supervised release no longer than three years, with conditions imposed to help him overcome his addiction.
Both of the above paths are what we in the legal field—and I am sure many others—call consequences for Langdon’s actions, even without the imposition of jail or prison time that Robby and Santos seem so sure is the only way that Langdon can face consequences. I have many points in making this post; one is that Robby and Santos have no idea what they are talking about in terms of punishment Langdon would be facing. Another is that jail or prison time is very unlikely, as is loss of licensure. Drug dependency rewires an addict’s brain, and while this does not excuse Langdon diverting drugs or treating Santos in the manner that he did, our court system recognizes that it does explain it.
Santos doesn’t have to forgive him or even accept his apology, but she is wrong when she says he should have gone to prison, and she is cruel, or at least unempathetic, to wish relapse on him—even, perhaps especially, if she doesn’t actually have a problem with him being an addict, as she claims in 2x12. She has spent ten months internalizing her feelings of being an outsider and places the blame for that at Langdon’s feet, which is an unreasonable emotional reaction; it is also understandable, because she is human and humans are flawed. But she has a responsibility to herself and others to learn how to emotionally regulate herself, at the very least at work. I believe she would be much happier if she were to go to therapy and learn skills for coping with self-hating thoughts, self-destructive behaviors, and learning how to hold herself accountable for her actions without condemning herself emotionally. She sees things very black and white, but nothing is only black or white in life.
every day i’m haunted by that scene in season one of the pitt when they’re treating the guy with the concealed carry pistol during the MCI and everyone ducks and hides except for PERLAH WHO THROWS HER BODY OVER HER PATIENT. Perlah Alawi I LOVE YOU
Thinking about c4t Emma/Frank with transmasc Frank. Emma getting to fuck Frank with a strap for the first time, and getting so happy, eager, and overwhelmed that she comes untouched while doing it in the first thirty seconds, and is just so embarrassed and apologetic, hiding her face in Frank's neck and mumbling "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, that was so pathetic" while Frank is laughing softly, petting her hair, telling her it's the hottest thing that's ever happened to him. Emma whines and tries to pull away, but Frank holds her there and says, "No, no, you don't get to run now. You're gonna finish what you started." So she does, slower this time, more deliberate, watching Frank's face fall open beneath her, and realizing that getting to be the one to give him this is maybe the best thing she's ever felt. By the time they're both done, Emma is crying a little, and Frank is wiping her cheeks with his thumbs, and she says, "Can we do that again tomorrow?" and he kisses her forehead and says, "Yeah. And the day after that, too."
Attending Physician Dr. Frank Langdon will never allow anyone to feel abandoned during an absence from work.
He’s meticulous about sending flowers for medical leave and a PTMC branded baby onesie for parental leave. He schedules calls in the week ahead of employees’ return to work so no one ever has to wonder what their first day back will look like.
And there’s always cake or some other little to-do on the day of return. And no the department wouldn’t pay for any of this shit, that’s all coming from his own pocket, and everyone knows it.
baratheonpilled
romaincrisis
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
origamiaround
titsay
areudirty
discoholicmusic
izzy806
