On March 3rd, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the 3rd District ruled that sex-for-drugs played no part in Dr. Rottschaefer's convictions and that Dr. Rottschaefer was convicted of "unlawfully distributing controlled substances outside the course of professional practice." Subsequently, in November 2009, the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled that "The fact that the petitioner was exchanging sex-for-drugs was central to the government's case against him . .. In short the jury believed that petitioner traded controlled substances for sexual favors from these patients. Whether these patients may arguably have a medical use for the controlled substances is, therefore, not depositive." On January 3, 2020 the Court of Appeals denied Dr. Rottschaefer's appeal, by citing that he "failed to present a substantial question."

The questions presented are as follows:

1. May the District Court overrule the previous unanimous Court of Appeals decision in the same case?

2. Does such a reversal constitute a "substantial question"?

3. What crime, if any, has Dr. Rottschaefer committed?

May the District Court overrule the previous unanimous Court of Appeals decision in the same case?