> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Could ‘Park Doctrine’ be Overturned?
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/could-park-doctrine-be-overturned/
- Published: 2017-01-24T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T22:02:27.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: Drugs, Devices, #legacy-id-D5137803

A case being appealed to the Supreme Court says the court should overturn two earlier decisions that are the foundation of what has come to be known as the “Park Doctrine” or the responsible corporate officer doctrine. Attorney **Jennifer Thomas** (Hyman, Phelps & McNamara) [writes](http://www.fdalawblog.net/fda%5Flaw%5Fblog%5Fhyman%5Fphelps/2017/01/update-on-the-decosters-case-here-comes-the-us-supreme-court.html?ref=fdaweb.com) in her firm’s *FDA Law Blog* that the court has held that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) imposes criminal liability on individuals whose corporate position affords them the power to prevent or correct violations of the act, even without knowledge of or personal participation in the violations.

The case being appealed from the 8th Circuit Appeals Court involves father and son **Austin** and **Peter DeCoster**, former executives of Quality Egg. They are appealing a three-month prison sentence for misdemeanor violations of the FFDCA involving distribution of egg products.

The DeCosters pleaded guilty as responsible corporate officers, but denied any knowledge of the violations committed by the company. Thomas says that in asking the high court to hear the case, they argue that their conviction as responsible corporate officers under the Park doctrine represents vicarious liability (liability for the acts of others) because they did not know of or participate in the violations at issue. They further argue that federal precedent dictates that imprisonment would violate due process, she says.

The DeCosters did not ask the 8th Circuit to overturn the previous Supreme Court decisions establishing the doctrine because it has no legal ability to do so, the blog post says. “The case presents a difficult question that the Supreme Court may well be inclined to address,” according to Thomas. “Specifically, can the government tie the DeCoster’s Park doctrine jail sentences to a degree of negligence, thereby preserving the specter of prison sentences for future individual defendants under a Park theory? If the answer is no, will the government retain its ability to apply strict liability to individual corporate officers under the Park doctrine without jail being an available remedy? Will the government’s effort to expand the Park doctrine ultimately destroy it? Will the Park doctrine as we know it survive?”