[Federal Register: August 6, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 151)]
[Notices]               
[Page 42988-42989]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06au99-98]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 99-17]

 
Clarence J. Sketch, D.D.S.; Denial of Application

    On February 2, 1999, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an Order 
to Show Cause to Clarence Sketch, D.D.S. (Respondent) of Costa Mesa, 
California, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA 
should not deny his application for registration as a practitioner 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that such registration would 
be inconsistent with the public interest. In a letter to DEA dated 
February 25, 1999, Respondent admitted that he abused his previous DEA 
Certificate of Registration,

[[Page 42989]]

indicated that he would not abuse his privileges in the future, stated 
that he needs a DEA registration in his practice of dentistry, and 
asked that his registration be reinstated. However, Respondent did not 
request a hearing on the issues raised by the Order to Show Cause.
    Thereafter, the matter was docketed before Administrative Law Judge 
Gail A. Randall. By letter dated March 15, 1999, Judge Randall advised 
Respondent that he did not request a hearing in his February 25, 1999 
letter. Nonetheless, Judge Randall told Respondent that he had until 
March 31, 1999, to request a hearing, and that failure to request a 
hearing by that date, would be deemed a waiver of his right to a 
hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d).
    On April 13, 1999, Judge Randall issued an Order; Notice of Waiver 
of Hearing advising that she had not received a response to her letter 
to Respondent dated March 15, 1999. As a result, Respondent was deemed 
to have waived his opportunity for a hearing and Judge Randall 
terminated the proceedings before her.
    Subsequently the mater was transmitted to the Deputy Administrator 
for issuance of a final agency decision. After considering material 
from the investigative file in this matter, the Deputy Administrator 
now enters his final order without a hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 
1301.43(d) and (e) and 1301.46
    The Deputy Administrator finds that DEA initiated an investigation 
of Respondent in May 1996 after receiving reports that Respondent had 
purchased large quantities of Schedule III through V controlled 
substances from a single distributor. A review of the distributor's 
invoices revealed that Respondent purchased over 58,000 dosage units of 
Schedule III through V controlled substances from this distributor 
between May 28, 1994 and April 23, 1996.
    On May 2, 1996, during an interview with investigators, Respondent 
admitted that he ordered and received controlled substances, but 
claimed that he dispensed them to his patients. When asked for records 
of receipt and dispensation, Respondent stated that he did not maintain 
any records, except what was noted in the patient charts. It was also 
discovered that Respondent did not have any controlled substances on 
hand as of the date of the interview. Upon further questioning, 
Respondent admitted that the controlled substances were not given to 
his patients, but instead, he sold them on a monthly basis for two to 
three dollars per pill to a Mexican national. Respondent indicated that 
he was experiencing financial difficulties at the time. On May 6, 1996, 
Respondent surrendered his previous DEA Certificate of Registration.
    Respondent then submitted a new application for registration with 
DEA dated July 15, 1998. He indicated on this application that he 
surrendered his previous DEA registration because ``[a]t that time I 
was not doing a proper job at keeping records.''
    On October 13, 1998, a DEA investigator had a conversation with 
Respondent regarding his application for registration. During this 
conversation, Respondent indicated that he needs limited controlled 
substance privileges for the treatment of his patients; that he needs a 
DEA registration in order to be accepted as a provider by insurance 
companies; that he has no contact with the Mexican national; and that 
his financial problems have been resolved through bankruptcy 
proceedings.
    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the Deputy Administrator may deny an 
application for a DEA Certificate of Registration, if he determines 
that the registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. 
Section 823(f) requires that the following factors be considered in 
determining the public interest:
    (1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or 
professional disciplinary authority.
    (2) The applicant's experience in dispensing, or conducting 
research with respect to controlled substances.
    (3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws 
relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled 
substances.
    (4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws 
relating to controlled substances.
    (5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and 
safety.
    These factors are to be considered in the disjunctive; the Deputy 
Administrator may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may 
give each factor the weight he deems appropriate in determining whether 
a registration should be revoked or an application for registration 
denied. See Henry J. Schwartz, Jr., M.D. 54 FR 16422 (1989).
    The Deputy Administrator finds that there is no evidence in the 
investigative file regarding factors one and three. However factors two 
and four, Respondent's experience in dispensing controlled substances 
and his compliance with applicable controlled substance laws, are 
clearly relevant in determining whether Respondent's registration with 
DEA would be in the public interest. By Respondent's own admission in 
1996, he ordered controlled substances and then sold them to a Mexican 
national for no legitimate medical purpose. This is clearly a violation 
of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). In addition, Respondent failed to keep complete 
and accurate records of his controlled substance handling as required 
by 21 U.S.C. 827. Therefore, the evidence supports a finding that 
Respondent diverted over 58,000 dosage units of controlled substances 
between May 1994 and April 1996.
    As to factor five, the Deputy Administrator finds it particularly 
troubling that Respondent was less than forthcoming on his application 
for registration dated July 15, 1998. Respondent indicated on the 
application that he surrendered his previous DEA registration based 
upon his failure to keep proper records. Respondent does not mention 
the fact that he illegally sold controlled substances to a Mexican 
national.
    The Deputy Administrator concludes that there is substantial 
evidence in the record to support a conclusion that Respondent's 
registration with DEA would be inconsistent with the public interest. 
The Deputy Administrator recognizes that Respondent has indicated that 
he needs to be able to handle controlled substances in order to 
adequately treat his patients; however, the Deputy Administrator is not 
convinced based upon the evidence in the record that Respondent can be 
trusted to responsibly handle controlled substances.
    Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 
823 and 824 and CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that the 
application for registration submitted by Clearance J. Sketch, D.D.S. 
on July 15, 1998, be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective 
August 6, 1999.

    Dated: July 27, 1999.
Donnie R. Marshall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-20233 Filed 8-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M