Administrative Actions 2005

1. Donley D. Siddel, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 76868 (December 28, 2005)

On June 28, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Immediate Suspension to Respondent, suspending his registration and requesting him to show cause as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest and that he was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Tennessee, the state of his registration. Respondent requested a hearing.

On January 7, 2004, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners revoked Respondent’s license to practice medicine in that state. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA’s motion for summary judgment on these grounds was granted, and DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3). Because Respondent had no authority to handle controlled substances under state law, it was not necessary to determine whether Respondent’s registration should be revoked on public interest grounds, as well.

2. Robert A. Smith, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 33207 (June 7, 2005)

On September 29, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Immediate Suspension to Respondent, suspending his registration and requesting him to show cause as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

DEA’s investigation into Respondent’s practices was based on complaints received by area pharmacies that they were encountering large numbers of young, seemingly healthy people seeking to fill prescriptions issued by Respondent for schedule II controlled substances, including OxyContin and Percocet. These individuals apparently were traveling long distances in order to obtain and fill these prescriptions.

Investigation by Independence Blue Cross disclosed several individuals who had prescriptions issued in their names by Respondent, but who had never met or heard of him and who had never received any prescription. Investigation by DEA and state and local law enforcement individuals disclosed multiple patients of Respondent who admitted to obtaining multiple prescriptions from him on a weekly basis, often in the names of other people or fictitious people, for schedule II controlled substances including OxyContin, Percocet, and Xanax. Investigation also disclosed that Respondent was aware that some of these people were selling the medication he prescribed on the street. One individual who received prescriptions from Respondent died of a drug overdose.

After reviewing the record, DEA revoked Respondent’s registration on the grounds that his continued registration was not in the public interest.

3. Roger A. Rodriguez, M.D., Denial of Application for Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 33206 (June 7, 2005)

On October 8, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his application for DEA registration should not be denied on the grounds that his registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. The Order to Show Cause alleged that Respondent had issued prescriptions and dispensed controlled substances to undercover law enforcement officers on multiple occasions without adequate physical examinations or bona fide medical reasons, had failed to maintain required controlled substance records; and had surrendered a prior DEA registration on June 19, 2003 and then used another practitioner’s DEA registration number to write a prescription for controlled substances. Respondent requested a hearing.

While the matter was pending, on December 20, 2004, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Professional Registration, suspended Respondent’s state medical license and state controlled substances registration, pending further proceedings. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA’s motion for summary judgment on these grounds was granted, and DEA revoked his registration based on his lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

4. Felix K. Prakasam, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 33203 (June 7, 2005)

A DEA audit of Respondent’s offices in California, which was generated by reports that Respondent seemed to be purchasing excessive quantities of controlled substances, revealed a number of discrepancies in Respondent’s controlled substance inventories. Consequently, on March 10, 1997, Respondent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with DEA in which he agreed to address his record keeping deficiencies and provide effective controls against diversion.

Subsequently, on February 11, 1998, the California Medical Board suspended his California medical license, but then stayed that suspension and put his medical license on probation for three years, with conditions. On February 2, 2001, Respondent agreed to an indefinite suspension of his Louisiana medical license with the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners.

Respondent submitted applications to renew his DEA registrations on February 25 and 28, 1998, and again on February 27 and 28, 2001. On each occasion, Respondent did not truthfully respond to the question printed on the application concerning any revocation or suspension of a state professional license. Consequently, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked. He requested a hearing on the matter. After the hearing, DEA concluded that Respondent’s continued registration was not in the public interest, and revoked his registration.

5. Kennard Kobrin, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 33199 (June 7, 2005)

On June 28, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked, on the grounds that Respondent had been convicted by the State of Massachusetts of three felony counts involving the illegal prescribing of controlled substances and Medicaid fraud. As part of the sentence, the court ordered the Respondent to cease prescribing any medications for two years, effective August 28, 2003. Accordingly, the Order alleged that Respondent was without authority to handle controlled substances in the state of his registration. Respondent requested a hearing.

While the matter was pending, on December 17, 2004, the Massachusetts Board of Registry of Medicine revoked Respondent’s license to practice medicine in that state. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA’s motion for summary judgment on these grounds was granted, and DEA revoked his registration based on his lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

6. Carlin Paul Graham, Jr., M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 33194 (June 7, 2005

On November 8, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that Respondent’s Alabama State medical license had been suspended. The Respondent requested a hearing.

On October 30, 2003, the Medical Licensure Commission of Alabama indefinitely suspended Respondent’s medical license based on a determination that Respondent had engaged in unprofessional conduct; had had his staff privileges terminated, revoked or restricted by a hospital; and was "unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of illness or as a result of a mental or physical condition." Respondent requested a hearing.

DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA’s motion for summary judgment on these grounds was granted, and DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

7. Robert M. Canon, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 33194 (June 7, 2004)

On February 11, 2005, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA Registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he lacked state authorization to handle controlled substances in Tennessee, the state in which he was registered. Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On March 1, 2004, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners suspended Respondent’s license to practice medicine after Respondent was convicted in U.S. District Court of 95 felony counts of false statements relating to a healthcare matter and health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1035 and 1347. Respondent was sentenced to 41 months imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, and to pay over $3 million in restitution.

DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

8. Stuart A. Bergman, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 33193 (June 7, 2005)

On September 16, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that Respondent’s Texas State medical license had been suspended; Respondent had issued prescriptions to a Physician’s Assistant for non-therapeutic reasons and failed to keep medical records on that individual; Respondent had failed to respond to inquiries from pharmacies and the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners about these prescriptions; and Respondent had purchased excessive quantities of controlled substances and told investigators he distributed them to family members without keeping medical charts on those individuals. Respondent requested a hearing.

Respondent’s state medical license was suspended pending formal disciplinary proceedings by the State of Texas. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA’s motion for summary judgment on these grounds was granted, and DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

9. Katarzyna Rygiel, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 28580 (May 18, 2005)

On September 3, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why her DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that Respondent’s California State medical license had been suspended and she therefore lacked state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which she was registered. The Respondent requested a hearing.

On March 16, 2004, the Division of Medical Quality, Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, revoked Respondent’s Physician’s and Surgeon’s license in the State of California. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA’s motion for summary judgment on these grounds was granted, and DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

10. Lance L. Gooberman, M.D., Denial of Application for Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 28579 (May 18, 2005)

Respondent had a DEA Registration in New Jersey. One week before the registration was to expire, Respondent applied for a modification of his registration to move his practice to Pennsylvania. On March 10, 2003, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners suspended Respondent’s license to practice medicine for two years, effective June 19, 2003. On July 14, 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of State, State Board of Medicine suspended Respondent’s medical license based on the action by the State of New Jersey.

On March 15, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked and any pending applications denied on the grounds that Respondent’s state medical licenses had been suspended and he therefore lacked state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he was registered. Respondent requested a hearing.

DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA’s motion for summary judgment on these grounds was granted. Respondent’s New Jersey DEA Registration had expired, and DEA denied Respondent’s request for a registration in Pennsylvania, based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

11. Salvatore DeFrank, D.P.M., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 28575 (May 18, 2005)

On October 28, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Immediate Suspension to Respondent, suspending his registration and requesting him to show cause as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

Investigation by DEA revealed that Respondent was engaged in an Internet scheme in which, in response to a questionnaire filled out on-line, Respondent and others would issue prescriptions for controlled substances. Respondent, licensed as a podiatrist in Texas, worked out of a Florida clinic writing prescriptions based on on-line questionnaires. DEA advised him that, as his license was in Texas, he was not authorized to write prescriptions in Florida. He ignored this advice and continued the practice.

As of December 1999, Texas law permitted licensed podiatrists to prescribe controlled substances only for foot ailments. The prescriptions Respondent issued were not for such conditions. Furthermore, Texas law requires that physicians must verify the identification of persons requesting medication; must establish a diagnosis with accepted medical practices such as patient history, mental status examinations, physical examinations, and appropriate diagnostic and laboratory testing; must discuss with patients the diagnosis and evidence of the complaint and the risks and benefits of treatment options; and must ensure the availability of follow up care. Respondent’s Internet practice was in violation of these Texas requirements.

Based on the investigation, DEA concluded, "Blindly motivated by financial gain, [Respondent] demonstrated a cavalier disregard for controlled substance laws and regulations and a disturbing indifference to the health and safety of individuals purchasing dangerous drugs through the Internet. Such lack of character and flaunting of the responsibilities inherent with a DEA registration show, in no uncertain terms, that [Respondent’s] continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest."

12. Robert A. Burkich, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 28574 (May 18, 2005)

On August 23, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA Registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he lacked state authorization to handle controlled substances in Tennessee, the state in which he was registered. Respondent waived his right to a hearing and submitted a written statement for consideration.

On March 17, 2004, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners suspended Respondent’s license to practice medicine after Respondent was convicted in U.S. District Court of mail fraud and because the Georgia Composite State Board of Medical Examiners had revoked Respondent’s medical license in that state. In his written statement, Respondent admitted that he had pled guilty, but claimed that he had received ineffective legal assistance and asserted that he was seeking to have the matter overturned.

DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

13. John S. Poulter, D.D.S., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 24628 (May 10, 2005)

On October 6, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA Registration should not be revoked on the grounds that his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. The Order to Show Cause alleged that Respondent had been arrested and convicted of several offenses relating to unlawful possession and use of controlled substances, had been subject to disciplinary action by the Utah state licensing board, and had violated DEA recordkeeping requirements.

On October 29, 2001, Respondent was seen by witnesses in the parking lot of a convenience store injecting himself with an unknown substance. Local law enforcement officials were summoned, and Respondent was subsequently found to have injected himself with Demerol. He was charged in Utah court with unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

While these charges were pending, Respondent entered into a diversion agreement with Utah authorities based on several instances of improper use of Fentanyl and Demerol unrelated to the October 29, 2001, incident. This agreement was conditioned upon the Respondent conducting himself properly for five years.

On February 11, 2002, Respondent pled guilty to third degree felony possession of a controlled substance, related to the October 29, 2001, incident. The sentence was held in abeyance for 36 months, conditioned upon Respondent conducting himself properly.

On September 30, 2003, Respondent was involved in a single-car accident. He was found to be incoherent and confused, and was in possession of a syringe containing Demerol and Fentanyl. He had visible needle marks in his arm, and toxicology testing revealed the presence of Demerol and Fentanyl in his system. This offense, plus the violation of his prior agreements, resulted in the entry of findings of guilt and incarceration for the Respondent. Similarly, in December 2003, Respondent admitted to the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing investigators that he had committed multiple recordkeeping violations.

On March 20, 2004, the State of Utah revoked Respondent’s license to handle controlled substances and his medical license. The state stayed this Order for a period of five years, however, conditioned upon Respondent seeking treatment and conducting himself properly.

Based on these facts, however, DEA determined that Respondent’s continued registration was not in the public interest, and revoked his DEA registration.

14. Thomas J. Mulhearn, III, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 24625 (May 10, 2005)

On August 20, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent, requesting him to show cause why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Louisiana, the state of his registration. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On November 29, 2003, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners revoked Respondent’s license to practice medicine in that state. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if a registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

15. Michael J. Millette, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 24622 (May 10, 2005)

On May 17, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration to Respondent, suspending his registration and requesting him to show cause as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent requested a hearing, but failed to file a prehearing statement. As a result, he was deemed to have waived his right to a hearing.

Investigation by DEA revealed that Respondent was engaged in an Internet scheme in which, in response to a questionnaire filled out on-line, Respondent and others would issue prescriptions for controlled substances despite having no personal physician-patient contact. These prescriptions were not issued "in the usual course of professional treatment" and violated 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). This scheme was discovered through a nationwide DEA enforcement operations titled Operation Pharmnet.

Based on the investigation, DEA concluded that Respondent did not establish valid physician-patient relationships. Respondent knowingly participated in this "radical departure from the normal course of professional practice." Because of Respondent’s "cavalier disregard for controlled substance laws and regulations and a disturbing indifference to the health and safety of individuals purchasing dangerous drugs through the internet," DEA determined that continuing Respondent’s registration would be inconsistent with the public interest and revoked his registration.

16. Stephen K . Jones, M.D., Denial of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 35705 (May 10, 2005)

On November 10, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his pending application for DEA registration should not be denied on the grounds that he was not license to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in Utah, the state in which he was seeking registration. He also had been disciplined in Iowa, where he was residing and practicing, for personal drug abuse, fraudulent prescription writing, and diversion of controlled substances. He did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA denied this application for registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

17. James Marvin Goodrich, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 24619 (May 10, 2005)

On October 24, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent, requesting him to show cause as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Illinois, the state of his registration. Respondent requested a hearing.

Respondent’s controlled substance license expired on July 31, 2002, and there was no evidence in the record indicating that it had been renewed or reinstated. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA’s motion for summary judgment on these grounds was granted, and DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

18. Jay D. Angeluzzi, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 24614 (May 10, 2005)

On August 23, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent, requesting him to show cause why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Connecticut, the state of his registration. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On April 16, 2004, the Connecticut Department of Public Health, Department of Healthcare Systems, accepted Respondent’s voluntary surrender of his state medical license. Therefore, Respondent was not authorized to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in Connecticut. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if a registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

19. Orlando Ortega-Ortiz, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 15122 (March 24, 2005)

On February 20, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent, requesting him to show cause why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he had been mandatorily excluded from participating in federal health programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1320-7(a). Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

Respondent was convicted of 11 counts of conspiring to solicit and receive kickbacks in relation to Medicare referrals, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. As a result, the Department of Health and Human Services notified Respondent of his five-year mandatory exclusion from participation in the Medicare program.

Exclusion from Medicare is an independent ground for revoking a DEA registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(5). Accordingly, DEA revoked Respondent’s registration.

20. Margaret Melinda Sprague, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 12727 (March 15, 2005)

On September 8, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent, requesting her to show cause why her DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that she was not authorized to handle controlled substances in California, the state of her registration. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On December 3, 2003, the Medical Board of California issued an order immediately suspending Respondent’s Physician and Surgeon’s Certificate based upon the Board’s conclusion that Respondent was unable to safely practice medicine due to a mental or physical condition. Therefore, Respondent was not authorized to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in California. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if a registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked her registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

21. Glenn Anthony Routhouska, D.O., Denial of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 12725 (March 15, 2005)

On April 29, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent proposing to deny his application for DEA registration as being inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent filed a belated request for hearing, which DEA opposed. Because Respondent did not show good cause for the belated filing, the request for hearing was denied.

On February 21, 2002, Respondent surrendered his DEA registration and Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) controlled substances registration, for cause. On January 27, 2003, he submitted the application that was the subject of this proceeding.

In February 2002, information from a local pharmacy prompted DEA and the Texas DPS to investigate whether Respondent was diverting hydrocodone. The investigation revealed that on several occasions, Respondent prescribed hydrocodone to patients, then stole the hydrocodone back from those patients. He also purchased 1000 dosage units of hydrocodone between May 2000 and July 2000. Even after surrendering his DEA and Texas DPS registrations, Respondent continued to steal hydrocodone from patients. On March 24, 2002, Respondent entered a drug treatment program. On July 3, 2002, he pled guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

Respondent entered into an Agreement Order with the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners in August 2003. The Order reprimanded Respondent and placed him on probation. On July 2, 2003, Texas DPS reissued Respondent a state controlled substance registration for Schedules IIN, IIIN, IV, and V.

Despite Respondent’s efforts to seek drug treatment and follow-up drug testing, the egregious nature of his conduct indicated that granting his application for registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Accordingly, DEA denied his application. 21 U.S.C. § 823.

22. James S. Bischoff, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 12734 (March 15, 2005)

On June 28, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration to Respondent, suspending his registration and requesting him to show cause as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. The Order to Show Cause alleged that Respondent diverted controlled substances through larceny and fraudulent prescriptions, failed to maintain proper records, could not account for large numbers of controlled substances dosage units, and dispensed controlled substances to individuals without an established physician-patient relationship. He did not request a hearing.

The investigative file contained extensive evidence that Respondent unlawfully distributed, prescribed, and diverted controlled substances over an extensive period. His failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements and to account for numerous dosage units were also demonstrated through the DEA investigation. As a result, DEA determined that his "cavalier disregard for the law and regulations governing controlled substances and the abandonment of his responsibilities as a physician and registrant cannot be tolerated." Therefore, because his continued registration would not be in the public interest, DEA revoked his registration.

23. Samuel Lee Steel, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 11698 (March 9 2005)

On August 20, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent, requesting him to show cause why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not authorized to handle controlled substances in California, the state of his registration. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On May 3, 2004, the Medical Board of California revoked Respondent’s medical license. Therefore, Respondent was not authorized to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in California. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if a registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

24. Mario Avello, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 11695 (March 9, 2005)

On May 17, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration to Respondent, suspending his registration and requesting him to show cause as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

Investigation by DEA revealed that Respondent was engaged in an Internet scheme in which, in response to a questionnaire filled out on-line, Respondent and others would issue prescriptions for controlled substances despite having no personal physician-patient contact. These prescriptions were not issued "in the usual course of professional treatment" and violated 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). This scheme was discovered through a nationwide DEA enforcement operation titled Operation Pharmnet.

Based on the investigation, DEA concluded that Respondent did not establish valid physician-patient relationships. Respondent knowingly participated in this "radical departure from the normal course of professional practice." Because of Respondent’s "cavalier disregard for controlled substance laws and regulations and a disturbing indifference to the health and safety of individuals who purchased dangerous drugs through the Internet," DEA determined that continuing Respondent’s registration would be inconsistent with the public interest and revoked his registration.

25. Ray V. Surapaneni, D.O., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 3563 (January 25, 2005)

On April 29, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent, requesting him to show cause why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Missouri, the state of his registration. Respondent waived his right to a hearing and submitted a written statement for consideration by DEA.

On December 9, 2003, the Missouri Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs notified Respondent that his controlled substances registration had been cancelled. Therefore, Respondent was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Missouri. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if a registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

26. James E. Thomas, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 70 Fed. Reg. 3564 (January 25, 2005)

On April 29, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent, requesting him to show cause why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Alabama the state of his registration. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On June 16, 2003, the Alabama Medical Licensure Commission issued an Order revoking Respondent’s license to practice medicine in Alabama. Therefore, Respondent was not authorized to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in Alabama. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if a registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked this registration based on Respondent’s lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).