Administrative Actions 2007

On March 22, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Immediate Suspension to Respondent based on a finding that large amounts of controlled substances ordered using Respondent’s DEA registration were unaccounted for. DEA began investigating Respondent upon notification that Respondent’s registration number was used to order excessive amounts of controlled substances. Respondent requested a hearing, conducted on August 2-3, 2005.

Investigation revealed that Respondent was retired from practice and had vacated her registered location six months earlier. The controlled substances shipped to Respondent’s premises were diverted to International Surplus Medical Products, Inc. (ISMP) at an unregistered location. ISMP was a charitable entity founded to distribute medical supplies to developing nations. After being appointed Associate Medical Director of ISMP, Respondent gave the chairman a copy of her state medical license and her DEA registration to order supplies for the organization. Although she insisted that the chairman only used her registration to purchase AIDS medications, DEA determined that Respondent knew at least as early as May 2003 that her registration was being used to order controlled substances. Respondent failed to take appropriate action to ensure that her registration was not being used illegally until long after she was notified of the activity. In fact, on December 1, 2003, Respondent successfully changed the address of her registered location to the ISMP office.

The Controlled Substances Act does not authorize a registered practitioner to allow persons other than her agent or employees to use her registration number. Furthermore, neither Respondent nor the chairman had an export registration authorizing either of them to export the controlled substances to foreign countries. Respondent’s practice of shipping the controlled substances to her vacated location and subsequently storing them at the ISMP location violated federal law. Over two million dosage units of controlled substances were unaccounted for due to inadequate recordkeeping.

Respondent’s history of violating the Controlled Substances Act, failure to maintain adequate records, and misuse of her DEA registration constituted conduct that threatened public health and safety. Consequently, DEA affirmed the order of immediate suspension of Respondent’s registration because continued registration was inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. § 824.

On October 12, 2005, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his registration should not be revoked on the grounds that his state medical license had been revoked and his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent requested a hearing; however, on April 17, 2006, the Administrative Law Judge disposed of the matter on summary disposition and recommended that DEA revoke Respondent’s registration.

The Order alleged that Respondent was engaged in the practice of pre-signing prescriptions for controlled substances subsequently issued by his staff. On September 21, 2004, the Georgia Board of Medical Examiners suspended Respondent’s medical license. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if a registrant lacks state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked Respondent’s registration because he was without state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 824(a)(3).

On August 4, 2005, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his registration should not be revoked on the ground that he was without state authorization to handle controlled substances. Respondent waived his right to a hearing. Respondent effectively surrendered his state medical license to the Medical Board of California on December 16, 2004. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if a registrant lacks state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked Respondent’s registration because he was without state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 824(a)(3).

In a consolidated proceeding (Practitioner’s and Exporter’s Registrations), on November 7, 2001, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Immediate Suspension to Respondent on the ground that continued registration threatened the public health and safety. DEA issued another Order to Show Cause on May 24, 2002, which proposed to deny Respondent’s application for an exporter’s registration on the ground that registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent requested a hearing, conducted in three stages between January 28 and December 11, 2003. On July 28, 2005, the Administrative Law Judge recommended that DEA revoke Respondent’s practitioner’s registration and deny his application for an exporter’s registration.

The 2001 Order alleged that Respondent purchased controlled substances from illegitimate sources and re-distributed them without a legitimate medical purpose. Undercover operations revealed that Respondent prescribed human growth hormones and testosterone to patients before obtaining the results of necessary blood tests. Execution of a search warrant discovered that Respondent was in possession of numerous controlled substances without the appropriate purchase, use, and inventory records.

On June 29, 1998, the Medical Board of California initiated proceedings against Respondent that resulted in revocation of his state medical license. Once the Board revoked his license, Respondent sold the clinic to his sister, who held a valid registration. Despite the transfer in ownership, Respondent, without a state license, continued to run the clinic and direct employees in the handling and shipping of controlled substances. Respondent’s history of distributing controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and inadequate recordkeeping constituted conduct that threatened public health and safety. Consequently, DEA revoked Respondent’s registration because continued registration was inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 824(a)(4).

The 2002 Order proposed to deny Respondent’s application for an exporter’s license because he had already engaged in exporting behavior illegally. On May 7, 2001, Respondent submitted an application for an exporter’s registration. The "application was not accepted for filing" and the filing fee was refunded. Respondent submitted a second application, which triggered an administrative inspection and investigation.

Respondent’s records indicated that he exported over 300 controlled substances to at least eleven countries without an exporter’s registration. Furthermore, some of the foreign shipments of controlled substances Respondent made violated international treaties. Respondent continued to export controlled substances after DEA notified him that it was illegal and even after receiving the Notice of Immediate Suspension. Respondent also imported two controlled substances from a Mexico pharmacy without an importer’s registration, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 957(a).

Respondent’s history of exporting controlled substances without the appropriate registration and his participation in the diversion of controlled substances constituted conduct that threatened public health and safety. Consequently, DEA denied Respondent’s application for an exporter’s registration as inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. § 958(d).

Respondent claimed the DEA proceeding should be dismissed because the Office of Chief Counsel engaged in misconduct during the proceeding that required replacement with private counsel. Respondent alleged that a DEA employee committed perjury by certifying that she was the Acting Unit Chief of the Registration Unit although she no longer held that position on the day she signed the affidavit regarding the failure to process Respondent’s application. The position of the employee on the date of the declaration is immaterial because she conducted the investigation leading to the non-acceptance of the application and did not have the intent to deceive.

Respondent further alleged that the employee committed perjury by asserting that the first application was not accepted "for an unexplained reason." The first application was refunded because the office mistakenly believed he already had a DEA registration number. There is no mandatory duty to register an applicant and Respondent’s violations of federal law, revealed during investigation for the second application, support a finding that his first application would have been denied. Furthermore, Respondent did not demonstrate that he relied on any act or statement by DEA that would establish the materiality of the allegedly perjurious assertion. Both of Respondent’s challenges were without merit.

On April 17, 2006, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his registration should not be revoked. The Order alleged that Respondent agreed not to practice medicine in Massachusetts beginning July 30, 2004. Respondent was subsequently charged with illegal possession of a class C substance with intent to distribute. Respondent continued to obtain supplies of the controlled substance even after his arrest. On November 9, 2005, the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine suspended Respondent’s state medical license because he posed a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

Respondent’s history of diverting controlled substances constituted conduct that threatened the public health and safety. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if a registrant lacks state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked Respondent’s registration because he was without state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 824(a)(3).

On May 9, 2006, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his registration should not be revoked on the ground that the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners revoked his medical license on August 6, 2005. Respondent also lacked the necessary state registration to dispense controlled substances. Respondent requested a hearing; however, the Administrative Law Judge disposed of the matter on summary disposition and recommended that DEA revoke Respondent’s registration.

DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if a registrant lacks state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked Respondent’s registration because he was without state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 824(a)(3).

On April 21, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his application for registration should not be denied. The Order proposed to deny Respondent’s application on the grounds that he had been convicted of a controlled substances related felony, he had materially falsified his application, and his registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent requested a hearing, conducted on May 3-4, 2005.

Investigation revealed that Respondent agreed to assist a drug trafficker by performing cosmetic dental work in order to change his appearance and avoid the authorities. On July 18, 2000, Respondent was arrested and charged with conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 3, the "accessory after the fact" statute. He pled guilty and received a sentence of 30 months in prison. DEA revoked Respondent’s registration after the Tennessee Department of Health revoked his state medical license because of his criminal behavior. Upon release from prison, the Tennessee Board of Dentistry reinstated Respondent’s license.

Respondent applied for a new DEA registration. On the application, Respondent indicated that he had voluntarily surrendered his DEA registration although it was actually revoked. Respondent also responded that he had never been convicted of a drug-related felony. Although both of these statements were false, DEA found that it did not amount to material falsification. Respondent genuinely believed the statements were accurate and neither of the misrepresentations was material to the decision. There is no material difference between a revoked registration and a surrendered registration. Additionally, the statement in reference to the drug-related felony was immaterial because Respondent proceeded to explain the charges against him.

No evidence was proffered that Respondent ever illegally used or prescribed controlled substances. Respondent accepted responsibility for his criminal actions and cooperated in the investigation. The Government’s evidence was not sufficient to indicate that extending Respondent a DEA registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Consequently, DEA granted Respondent’s application for registration. 21 U.S.C. 823(f).

On February 2, 2007, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his registration should not be revoked and immediately suspended his registration on the ground that continued registration posed a danger to the public health and safety. The Order alleged that beginning in May 2004, Respondent engaged in the distribution of controlled substances over the Internet with three different entities. When asked to surrender his DEA registration, Respondent refused and indicated that he planned to continue to issue prescriptions over the Internet. Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

Respondent reviewed the medical records provided by the patient, talked to the patient on the telephone about his medical needs and prescribed the requested controlled substances. During this transaction, no physical examination was conducted, no medical tests were ordered, and no patient record was established. No doctor-patient relationship was established and, thus, Respondent acted outside the "usual course of professional practice" and without a legitimate medical purpose. Between July 2006 and January 2007, Respondent authorized 6,069 prescriptions for 1,098 persons. Although Respondent was only licensed to practice medicine in Florida, his online prescriptions provided controlled substances to customers in forty-six states and the District of Columbia.

Respondent’s history of dispensing controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and state law, failure to maintain patient records, and drug dealing behavior constituted conduct that threatened public health and safety. Consequently, DEA revoked Respondent’s registration because continued registration was inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f) and 824(a)(4).