Administrative Actions 2003

1. Larry E. Davenport, M.D., Denial of Application for Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 70534 (December 18, 2003)

Following an investigation by State of Tennessee authorities, Respondent’s license to practice medicine was suspended on January 21, 2001, by the State of Tennessee for three months, followed by two years of probation, for self abuse of schedule II and III controlled substances. The Tennessee investigation revealed that Respondent called in prescriptions for himself and his wife using the name and DEA registration number of other physicians without their approval. In addition, employees at his clinic reported that he self abused from stocks maintained there.

During the pendency of the investigation, Respondent’s DEA registration expired. He continued to prescribe controlled substances even after the expiration of his registration. Subsequently, he applied for a new DEA registration. DEA issued an Order to Show Cause on September 21, 2001, as to why Respondent’s application for registration should not be denied on the grounds that his registration would not be in the public interest. After a hearing on the merits, DEA denied the application as inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. § 823(f).

2. Keith Perry, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 67478 (December 2, 2003)

Respondent was convicted of 16 counts of mail fraud (21 U.S.C. § 1341), 2 counts of making false statements on Medi-Cal Group Provider applications (18 U.S.C. § 1001), 15 counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), 4 counts of bankruptcy fraud (18 U.S.C. §152(3)), and 1 count of tax evasion. On April 8, 2002, the Medical Board of California indefinitely suspended his license to practice medicine. DEA issued an Order to Show Cause as to why Respondent’s DEA registration should not be revoked, and 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 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).

3. Jules M. Lusman, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 67476 (December 2, 2003)

On March 15, 2002, the State of California ordered that Respondent be prohibited from handling controlled substances based upon acts of negligence in both patient care and billing practices. DEA issued an Order to Show Cause as to why Respondent’s DEA registration should not be revoked, and 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 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. Anthony D. Dinozzi, D.D.S., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 67475 (December 2, 2003).

Respondent’s Pennsylvania state license to practice medicine expired on March 31, 2001. In addition, he was convicted in Clermont County, Ohio, of tampering with evidence (a third degree felony) and aggravated trafficking in drugs under bulk (a fourth degree felony). DEA issued an Order to Show Cause as to why Respondent’s DEA registration should not be revoked, and 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 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).

5. Karen Joe Smiley, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 48944 (August 15, 2003)

Respondent was licensed to practice medicine in Tennessee. On September 19, 2001, the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners approved an Order of Permanent Revocation of Respondent’s medical license in that state based on charges that Respondent was "guilty of gross malpractice, or a pattern of continued or repeated malpractice, ignorance, negligence or incompetence in the course of medical practice." Specifically, the Board found, among other things, that Respondent violated the Board’s statutes governing dispensing and/or prescribing of controlled substances. DEA issued an Order to Show Cause as to why Respondent’s DEA registration should not be revoked, but Respondent did not reply 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 revoked her registration based on her lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).

6. Kanwaljit S. Serai, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 48943 (August 15, 2003)

DEA issued an Order to Show Cause as to why Respondent’s registration should not be revoked on the grounds that Respondent was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Florida and that his continued registration would not be in the public interest, based in part upon allegations that Respondent was arrested on April 17, 2001, and charged with six counts of delivery of a controlled substance. On August 27, 2001, the State of Florida Department of Health ordered the immediate suspension of Respondent’s license to practice medicine in that state. Respondent did not reply to DEA’s 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 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).

7. Cordell Clark, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 48942 (August 15, 2003)

On September 25, 2000, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners issued an order suspending the Respondent’s license to practice medicine in that state. Subsequently, the Respondent submitted an application to DEA to renew his DEA registration, which was about to expire. He did not disclose the fact that his license to practice medicine in Texas was suspended in his application for renewal.

On July 26, 2002, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Immediate Suspension alleging that he lacked state authorization to practice medicine, that he continued to practice medicine and handle controlled substances in Texas even after having his license suspended and being told by DEA to cease, and that he materially falsified his application for renewal by failing to disclose that his medical license was suspended. Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension 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 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).

8. George Minor Meredith, II, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 45280 (August 1, 2003)

On April 22, 2002, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that, on December 8, 2001, the Board of Healing Arts of the State of Kansas revoked his medical license in that state. Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause. 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 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).

9. Robert A. Kooker, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 26357 (May 15, 2003)

On June 12, 2002, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not licensed to practice medicine in California, the state in which he was registered by DEA. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing. The evidence revealed that, on July 28, 2000, the California Physicians and Surgeon’s Board suspended Respondent’s license to practice medicine in that state and ordered that he could not reapply until July 28, 2003. 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 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).

10. Sankar N. Banerjee, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 26355 (May 15, 2003)

On April 9, 2002, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not licensed to practice medicine in New Hampshire, the state in which he was registered by DEA. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing. The evidence revealed that, on May 25, 2001, the New Hampshire Board of Medicine suspended 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 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).

11. Fereida Walker-Graham, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 24761 (May 8, 2003)

On August 16, 2001, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why her DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that she had been convicted of a felony offense relating to controlled substances by the State of Ohio, that her continued registration was not in the public interest, and that she was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Ohio, the state in which she was registered by DEA. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

The evidence indicated that investigation by Ohio authorities found that Respondent dispensed phentermine, a schedule IV controlled substance, to numerous people (including undercover law enforcement officers) for no legitimate purpose. An audit done by the Ohio State Board of Pharmacy revealed that Respondent could not account for large amounts of phentermine. As a result, on June 14, 2000, the State Medical Board of Ohio entered an order permanently revoking Respondent’s license to practice medicine in that state. Also, on January 10, 2001, Respondent was convicted in Ohio of felony charges related to drug trafficking, the sale of dangerous drugs, and drug possession.

The Controlled Substances Act authorizes DEA to revoke a registration for felony conviction related to controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 824(a). It also authorizes DEA to revoke a registration when that registration is not in the public interest, 21 U.S.C. § 823(f). In this instance, however, it was unnecessary for DEA to reach those grounds. 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).

12. Kenneth S. Nave, M.D., Denial of Application, 68 Fed. Reg. 24761 (May 8, 2003)

On April 10, 2002, 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 a registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On January 3, 2002, the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation to the Director of the State Department of Medical Regulation. Finding "a long history of chemical dependency with several relapses," the Board recommended the indefinite suspension of Respondent’s Physician and Surgeon’s license for a minimum of one year. On March 5, 2002, the Director adopted the Board’s recommendation and ordered the indefinite suspension of the Respondent’s license for a minimum of one year.

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 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. Francis A. Goswitz, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 24759 (May 8, 2003)

On June 24, 2002, 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 Tennessee State medical license had been suspended. The Respondent requested a hearing.

On February 14, 2002, the Tennessee State Board of Medical Examiners suspended the Respondent’s medical license based in part on findings that he engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with a patient and subsequently attempted to influence the patient’s testimony by offering her money. The Board also found that in September 2001, the Respondent dispensed controlled substances to a patient and her husband for no legitimate medical purpose.

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).

14. Michael D. Jackson, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 24760 (May 8, 2003)

On June 8, 2001, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension 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 and Immediate Suspension alleged that Respondent issued numerous schedule II through IV controlled substance prescriptions for no legitimate medical purpose. Respondent requested a hearing.

On June 14, 2001, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control revoked Respondent’s controlled substance license. Also, on June 29, 2001, Respondent surrendered his state medical license. Furthermore, Respondent had an Alabama Controlled Substances Certificate, which expired on December 31, 2001.

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.

15. Jacqueline Cleggett-Lucas, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 24758 (May 8, 2003)

On March 21, 2002, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why her DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that her continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest and that she was not authorized to handle controlled substances in Louisiana, the state of her registration. On April 24, 2002, the Respondent requested a hearing.

In February 2002, the Louisiana Medical Board suspended her medical license based on a finding that she had inappropriately prescribed large amounts of controlled substances to individuals for no legitimate medical purposes. 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.

16. Michael J. Clair, D.D.S., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 24757 (May 8, 2003)

On March 12, 2002, 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 Florida, the state in which he was registered. Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On August 12, 1999, the State of Maryland revoked the Respondent’s dental license in that state. On September 17, 2001, the State of Florida Board of Dentistry, the state in which Respondent sought to renew his DEA registration, similarly revoked his license. This action was based in part on a finding that Respondent had performed unnecessary procedures on patients and had encouraged dentists who worked with him to do the same.

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).

17. James E. Harris, P.A., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 17406 (April 9, 2003)

On November 19, 2002, 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 Nevada, the state in which he was registered. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On March 13, 2002, the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order revoking Respondent’s Physician Assistant license to practice medicine in the State of Nevada. The Board found that Respondent had been tested and found to have used controlled substances, and that his use of controlled substances impaired his ability to practice and endangered his patients.

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).

18. Robert A. Leslie, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 15227 (March 28, 2003)

Respondent applied for a DEA registration in 1999. On May 8, 2000, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent with respect to his 1999 request for a registration. Respondent previously held a DEA registration, which was revoked on August 17, 1990, after having been convicted in California state court of eight counts of unlawfully prescribing, administering, furnishing, or dispensing controlled substances. In February 1992, Respondent applied for a DEA registration, and DEA denied the application after a hearing. The DEA decision was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 1996, he again applied for a registration, and DEA again denied the application. During this proceeding, DEA discovered that a DEA Certificate of Registration was issued to Respondent on February 9, 2000. DEA considered whether Respondent’s continued registration was consistent with the public interest.

Respondent requested and received a hearing. DEA established that Respondent had signed blank prescription forms during the period that he was not registered, which made it possible for prescriptions for controlled substances to be issued in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. DEA also concluded that Respondent’s defense of attacking his criminal conviction and the previous DEA actions against his registration and applications demonstrated that he did not take responsibility for his prior misconduct. Consequently, DEA again revoked his registration.

19. Lazaro Guerra, M.D., Denial of Application for Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 15226 (March 28, 2003)

On March 11, 2001, Respondent applied for a DEA Registration as a researcher to handle schedule I controlled substances. On February 25, 2002, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his application for a DEA Registration should not be denied. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On April 10, 2001, Respondent pled guilty in Federal court to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Respondent and others used fraudulent means to obtain $2.7 million from Medicare between 1990 and January 1997. Respondent was sentenced to 48 months incarceration and $2.7 million in restitution to the Department of Health and Human Services. He also agreed to mandatory permanent exclusion from participation in Medicare. In addition, on July 18, 2001, the Florida Department of Health issued an Order of Emergency Suspension of Respondent’s medical license in that state.

Exclusion from participation in Medicare is an independent basis for denial of a DEA Registration. 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(5). Also, 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, the suspension of Respondent’s medical license also provided a basis for denial of his application. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3). DEA denied Respondent’s application for registration on these grounds.

20. Douglas W. Wooldridge, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 12105 (March 13, 2003)

DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent on March 18, 2002, as to why his registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he lacked state authorization to handle controlled substances in Massachusetts, the state in which he was registered. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause and did not request a hearing.

On June 13, 2001, the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine suspended Respondent’s medical license based on his failure to comply with the terms of a probation agreement he had entered into with the Board on March 3, 1999. 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).

21. Richard J. Clement, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 68 Fed. Reg. 12103 (March 13, 2003)

DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent on November 19, 2002, as to why his registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he lacked state authorization to handle controlled substances in Louisiana, the state in which he was registered. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause and did not request a hearing.

On July 31, 2002, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners indefinitely suspended Respondent’s medical license in that state because of his refusal to undergo inpatient evaluation to determine whether he suffered from "a psychiatric, neruologic [sic] or physical condition which render[ed] him incapable of practicing medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients." 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).