Cases Against Doctors
> Administrative Actions 2007
Administrative Actions 2007
Rose Mary Jacinta Lewis, M.D., Affirmance of Immediate Suspension of
Registration, 72 Fed. Reg. 4035 (January 29, 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.
Gerald E. Dariah, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 72 Fed. Reg. 4031
(January 29, 2007)
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).
Sunil Bhasin, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 72 Fed. Reg. 5082 (February
2, 2007)
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).
Edmund Chein, M.D. Revocation of Registration and Denial of Application for
Exporter’s Registration, 72 Fed. Reg. 6580 (February 12, 2007)
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.
Julian A. Abbey, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 72 Fed. Reg. 10788 (March
9, 2007)
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).
Piyush V. Patel, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 72 Fed. Reg. 18274 (April
11, 2007)
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).
Samuel S. Jackson, D.D.S., Grant of Application for Registration, 72 Fed.
Reg. 23848 (May 1, 2007)
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).
Dale L. Taylor, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 72 Fed. Reg. 30855 (June 4,
2007)
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).
o:062707
|