The Montana Medical Board has been chasing Mark Ibsen for nearly 10 yrs. Their first attempt was a complaint from a Chiropractor who worked in Mark’s “doc in a box” practice. The AG of Montana at the time, I got the impression that he would have been happy if Montana were a “opioid desert”. I am told that the Chiropractor filed a complaint with the board that he was prescribing too many opioids. Many other practices were being raided and shut down, and Mark was trying to help those pts, who had been thrown to the curb. He was trying to lower or wean their doses down, but he found that ~ 20% were ultra-fast metabolizers. Mark spent a lot on legal fees and kept pushing the medical board back. The Medical Board’s aggressive posture cost Mark so much in legal fees that he ended up closing his practice.
A couple of years ago, Mark decided to provide pain management to what he called “opioid refugees”. Using the rules that the DEA created during the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual office visits would be permitted, and prescribers could prescribe controlled medications under those guidelines.
Now the Medical Board has an attorney – probably the State AG to call for a Grand Jury to investigate Mark. The date of this Grand Jury is July 23, 2025. Of course, it is claimed that a Grand Jury could indict a “ham sandwich”. That may be because a Grand Jury is just a judge, a jury, and the prosecuting attorney.
IMO, if this Grand Jury finds “probable cause” that Mark is violating some law by treating these “opioid refuges “, and pulls his medical license. It will be a “death sentence” to all the intractable chronic pain pts that Mark has been trying to manage their intractable chronic pain pts and optimize their QOL.
How many patients will die from being thrown into cold turkey withdrawal, or commit suicide? It is anyone’s guess. But the primary function of all medical boards is to protect the public’s health & safety. Unfortunately, no one is involved in how this all shakes out, will not have any culpability for the adverse outcomes of their decisions.
A grand jury is a legal body primarily responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and whether criminal charges should be brought against a suspect167. It serves two main functions: investigatory and accusatory (charging)125.
Investigatory Function
-
The grand jury can investigate potential criminal conduct by subpoenaing documents and witnesses, reviewing evidence, and hearing sworn testimony25.
-
This investigatory power allows the grand jury to gather information independently of the prosecution, although in practice, the process is usually guided by the prosecutor25.
Accusatory (Charging) Function
-
After reviewing the evidence, the grand jury decides whether there is enough evidence (probable cause) to formally charge a person with a crime. This formal charge is called an indictment13567.
-
If the grand jury finds insufficient evidence, it can issue a “no-bill,” and no charges are brought15.
Additional Features
-
Grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret to encourage witness cooperation, protect the reputation of individuals not indicted, and allow jurors to deliberate without outside influence357.
-
The grand jury does not determine guilt or innocence; it only decides whether there is enough evidence to proceed to trial2710.
-
In the U.S. federal system, a grand jury typically consists of 16 to 23 members, and an indictment requires the agreement of at least 12 jurors56.
-
The grand jury acts as both a “shield” against unfounded or oppressive prosecutions and a “sword” to bring charges where warranted25.
In summary, the grand jury’s function is to review evidence presented by the prosecution, investigate as necessary, and decide whether there is probable cause to formally accuse someone of a crime, thereby protecting citizens from unwarranted criminal charges while enabling legitimate prosecutions to move forward12567.
- https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury
- https://www.mololamken.com/knowledge-What-Exactly-Is-a-Grand-Jury
- https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html
- https://www.santacruzcountyca.gov/grndjury/gjfunction.htm
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury
- https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/jury-service/types-juries
- https://www.nyjuror.gov/pdfs/hb_grand.pdf
- https://courts.ca.gov/courts/jury-service/civil-grand-jury
- https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/grand-jury-where-the-community-meets-the-law/
- https://miamisao.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Florida-Grand-Jury-Handbook.pdf
Filed under: General Problems
I’d love to be involved in this but my state is on the list. What should I do? I’d do almost anything to help Dr. Ibsen but I fear that seeing my address on there will make it worse. How can I help him???
The only filling pharmacy left in my area won’t fill unless you and your Dr are within a 30 mile radius of the pharmacy. This will end up costing me my life sooner than later.
More than 30 miles is a DEA RED FLAG, because the DEA have decided that is what addicts & diverters do… so anyone that does that must be a addict or a diverter. Of course, last year the SCOTUS repealed the Chevron Doctrine which means that federal agencies cannot create new interpretation/regulations from the federal law that they are in charge of enforcing. Creating new interpretations or regulations is the job of Congress.
Sadly there are States that do not allow tel-med from doctors in other states.
Several states restrict or prohibit out-of-state licensed doctors from providing telehealth services, including those involving medication prescriptions, particularly for controlled substances. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, and many others fall into this category.
States that may restrict or prohibit telehealth prescriptions for controlled substances:
Alabama:
Specifically prohibits the prescribing of controlled substances via telemedicine, unless a physician holds a specific Alabama medical license, including a license through the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact or a special purpose license to practice across state lines.
Alaska:
While some limited exceptions exist, generally prohibits telehealth prescriptions for controlled substances except for licensed physicians (including osteopaths and podiatrists), physician assistants, and APRNs who comply with specific state laws and federal law.
Arkansas:
Generally restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
California:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Colorado:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Connecticut:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Hawaii:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Idaho:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Illinois:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Iowa:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Kentucky:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Massachusetts:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Michigan:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Mississippi:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Missouri:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Montana:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Nebraska:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
New Hampshire:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
New Jersey:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
New York:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
North Carolina:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
North Dakota:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Ohio:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Oklahoma:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
Rhode Island:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
South Carolina:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors.
South Dakota:
Restricts or prohibits telehealth services from out-of-state licensed doctors
This is something new, probably a reaction from states because during the COVID-19 pandemic, the DEA removed the restriction of pts seeing practitioners via video office visits to get control meds. The Control Substance Act states that a pt must have a personal exam to prescribe control meds to a pt. Of course those rules were written in 1969. During that person there were a couple of outfits that diagnosed a lot of pts in having ADD/ADHD and the prescribing stimulants for these pts. From what I heard, the pharmas’ production quotas on those meds were quickly depleted. That is also like when a area has a natural disaster, the governor will tell pharmacists in the state that if a pt needs a refill on maintenance med and can’t get a hold of the prescriber, they can use their professional discretion to refill it – EXCEPT they can’t do that for any control meds. I guess those governors – in their infinite wisdom – doesn’t believe that there can be any health issues that require continued medication because the pt is dealing with a chronic on going health issues. It is amazing that politicians more and more use DENIAL as a process to protect us from ourselves, even if the denial could cause harm to the people that they claim they are protecting.
Should I go?
Thank you
I would wear a bullet proof vest
Hi, a bullet proof vest? Is that intended as humor?
Mark and I have been friends for 10 yrs. I have followed the numerous persecution by the MT Medical Board. IMO, the MT medical board primary charge is to protect the general public safety. This Medical Board should be ashamed of what they have done and all the attacks on Mark over the last 10 yrs. I am not sure how many high intensity intractable chronic pain pts – what Mark refers to as “opioid refuges” – will get thrown into cold turkey withdrawal, if the Board gets their way of yanking his license – many will die of that cold turkey withdrawal and other will no longer be able to withstand their high intensity of pain and will commit suicide.