Skip to main content

Mayo Clinic Radiology Tech Pleads Guilty to Spreading Hepatitis C

JACKSONVILLE, FL—United States Attorney Robert E. O’Neill announces today that Steven Beumel (48, Jacksonville) pleaded guilty to one count of tampering with a consumer product resulting in death, four counts of tampering with a consumer product resulting in serious bodily injury, and five counts of stealing Fentanyl by deception. Beumel faces a maximum penalty of life in federal prison. He was arrested by FBI agents on May 24, 2011 and has remained in custody since his arrest. A sentencing date has not been yet scheduled.

According to court documents, Beumel was a radiology technician at Memorial Hospital from May 1992 through October 2004. He worked as a radiology technician at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville from October 2004 through August 2010. Beumel admitted, in court, that he stole syringes of Fentanyl during patients’ procedures and replaced them with syringes of saline contaminated with hepatitis C. Beumel’s tampering occurred from 2006 through 2008 at the Mayo Clinic’s intervetonal radiology unit.

Epidemiologists from the Mayo Clinic, Florida Department of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) worked for more than three years to solve the hepatitis C outbreak at the Mayo Clinic. It was eventually linked to Beumel. The Mayo Clinic immediately fired Buemel and reported his actions to law enforcement. The clinic tested thousands of patients who were potentially put at risk by Beumel’s actions. Two patients from that testing effort were linked to Beumel.

The first patient discovered to have hepatitis C linked to Beumel was a liver transplant patient who received a new liver in September 2006. During a radiology procedure in November 2006, Beumel took this patient’s Fentanyl and infected him with hepatitis C. The patient battled hepatitis C for almost four years. He died from complications related to hepatitis C, never knowing how he got it.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Food and Drug Administration, the Florida Department of Financial Services, and the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office’s Homicide Unit. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Frank Talbot.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...