Administrative Actions 2006

On May 17, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Immediate Suspension to Respondent based on a finding that Respondent diverted large amounts of controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose. Respondent requested a hearing, conducted on October 26-27, 2004. Although Respondent’s registration expired on March 31, 2006, without a pending renewal application, the proceeding was not moot because of the possibility that Respondent would apply for a new registration and the collateral consequences of an immediate suspension.

DEA investigation revealed that Respondent was involved in an Internet pharmacy operation that distributed controlled substances in response to request forms. Upon receipt of a request, Respondent had a brief telephone conversation with the potential customer. Respondent then issued prescriptions pursuant to the customer’s request for a particular dosage of a controlled substance. During this transaction, no physical examination was conducted, no medical history was taken, no medical tests were ordered, no patient record was established, and no discussion was had regarding side effects, possible alternatives, or other medications being used. No doctor-patient relationship was established and, thus, Respondent acted outside the "usual course of professional practice" and without a legitimate medical purpose.

Although only registered in New Jersey and New York, Respondent conducted his business in association with the Internet pharmacy from his Florida residence. In addition to lacking registration in Florida, Respondent did not have a Florida state license to practice medicine. From his Florida location, Respondent prescribed controlled substances to customers across the country. Respondent issued over 350 prescriptions for controlled substances on a single day, an extraordinary quantity in a legitimate medical practice.

Respondent’s history of prescribing controlled substances in violation of federal law, failure to maintain patient records, and drug dealing behavior 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 June 27, 2005, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his application should not be denied on the ground that registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent waived his right to a hearing.

DEA investigation revealed that Respondent participated in an Internet operation, in which he prescribed medications based on online questionnaires. During the period between March 2003 and September 12, 2003, Respondent issued over twenty thousand prescriptions, some of which were for controlled substances, without conducting physical examinations. Without a physical exam or a doctor-patient relationship, no legitimate medical purpose existed for the distribution of the controlled substances. In addition, Respondent did not have authorization under state law to practice medicine due to an emergency suspension of his license issued by the Florida Department of Health on May 17, 2006. Consequently, DEA denied Respondent’s application for registration as inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. § 823(f).

On November 22, 2002, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his application for registration should not be denied on the ground that registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. The Order further alleged that Respondent’s current registration should be revoked on the ground that his state license was suspended. Respondent requested a hearing, conducted on November 4-6, 2003, and May 11, 2004.

Respondent was registered as a veterinary practitioner in San Diego, California and sought registration in Portland, Oregon. An on-site inspection revealed that Respondent was in possession of two different controlled substances at the Portland site. Storage of these controlled substances at the proposed location violated 21 CFR 1301.12, which mandates that each location be registered with DEA. Investigation also revealed that Respondent was in the practice of having controlled substances delivered to his San Diego location and then shipped to unregistered locations.

On October 27, 2001, paramedic response discovered Respondent and his wife unconscious, with traces of a Schedule III controlled substance in their system. A police search of the residence revealed a variety of improperly stored controlled substances and needles without any logbooks documenting the purchase, use and inventory of the substances. On December 20, 2001, the California Veterinary Board suspended Respondent’s license temporarily due to his abuse of a controlled substance.

The proceeding to revoke Respondent’s San Diego registration was moot because the registration expired on December 31, 2003, without a pending renewal application. Despite evidence that Respondent was rehabilitated and unlikely to re-abuse controlled substances, the record showed a history of non-compliance with federal laws and refusal to accept responsibility for those violations. Consequently, DEA denied Respondent’s application for registration as inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. § 823(f).

On October 17, 2002, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why her DEA registration should not be revoked on the ground that continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Respondent requested a hearing, conducted on July 1-2, and August 5-6, 2003. On April 15, 2005, the Administrative Law Judge recommended that DEA revoke Respondent’s registration. Respondent took exception to the recommendation, claiming "(1) [t]hat DEA's pursuit of this proceeding violates the pre-trial diversion agreement, (2) that DEA should be estopped from contending that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest because of assertions the Government purportedly made in the criminal proceeding, and (3) that the DEA proceeding is a vindictive and retaliatory prosecution in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution."

In September 1998, DEA initiated investigations after records revealed that Respondent issued an extraordinary number of prescriptions for controlled substances during the previous 12 months. On three occasions between May 24, 1999 and June 24, 1999, Respondent prescribed controlled substances to undercover operatives without conducting physical examinations and after the operatives admitted to not being in pain but wanting the drugs to "function" and "feel good." On a fourth occasion, a registered nurse, without authorization to dispense controlled substances, used pre-signed prescriptions to prescribe three controlled substances. In each case, Respondent manufactured records to justify the prescriptions.

On June 21, 2000, Respondent was indicted on five counts of illegal distribution of controlled substances "outside the usual course of medical practice, and without a legitimate medical purpose," in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The U.S. Attorney dismissed the indictment following the successful completion of the medical supervision period required by a diversion agreement. Respondent’s claim that the DEA proceeding violates the diversion agreement is without merit because she only bargained for dismissal of the federal indictment and the U.S. Attorney cannot bind DEA from revoking a registration. Respondent’s estoppel challenge is similarly without merit because there is no evidence that the boilerplate language of the agreement amounted to a finding that continued registration was consistent with the public interest, reliance on such a representation would have been unreasonable, and there was no detrimental reliance.

Respondent’s challenge to the DEA proceedings as vindictive prosecution is without merit because there was probable cause that she violated the Controlled Substances Act and no evidence that DEA initiated the proceedings as retaliation for submitting a complaint against a DEA employee. Respondent’s history of distributing controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and falsification of medical records constituted conduct that threatened public health and safety. Furthermore, Respondent refused to accept responsibility for her misconduct. 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).

On June 27, 2005, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the ground that the Arkansas State Medical Board revoked his state medical license on June 21, 2004. The Order alleged that Respondent improperly distributed controlled substances and submitted numerous fraudulent insurance claims. Respondent requested a hearing. 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 15, 2005, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the ground that continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. DEA also immediately suspended Respondent’s registration because of the danger posed by the substantial likelihood that he would continue to distribute controlled substances to unauthorized persons. Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing.

On May 5, 2005, Respondent submitted an application for renewal, indicating that his state license had not been revoked, suspended or placed on probation. However, DEA investigation revealed that the Medical Board of California placed Respondent on probation following three separate disciplinary proceedings. Respondent’s answer regarding his disciplinary status amounted to material falsification and grounds for the suspension or revocation of his registration. 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(1). On three occasions a DEA Special Agent, assisted by a cooperating source, observed Respondent dispense large amounts of controlled substances without any physical examination or legitimate medical purpose. Respondent’s drug dealing behavior constituted conduct that threatened public health and safety, and provided independent grounds for the revocation of his registration. 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(4). 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).

Sheran Arden Yates, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 39130 (July 11, 2006)

On October 21, 2004, DEA issue an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not authorized to handle controlled substances in the State of Tennessee, the state in which he was registered by DEA. Respondent requested a hearing.

An undated, notarized letter from the Tennessee Department of Health explained that Respondent’s medical license had been summarily suspended by the State of Tennessee on May 21, 2004, and that Respondent failed to renew his medical license before July 31, 2004, which rendered his license inactive and prevented Respondent from practicing medicine in the State of Tennessee. Further, additional investigation by DEA revealed that the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners permanently revoked Respondent’s medical license on October 12, 2005. 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).

William G. Hamilton, Jr., M.D., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 39129 (July 11, 2006)

On July 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, on March 3, 2004, the Medical Board of California suspended his state medical license. Respondent did not respond 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 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).

John H. Kennedy, M.D., Denial of Application for Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 35705 (June 21, 2006)

An investigation by State of Tennessee law enforcement authorities revealed that Respondent unlawfully distributed controlled substances and unlawfully possessed marijuana. An individual arrested for selling Valium (Diazepam) admitted to Tennessee authorities that Respondent was her source for the drugs. She began cooperating, and agreed to wear a wire during meetings and telephone conversations with Respondent. Those recordings corroborated her claim that Respondent prescribed medication for her knowing that she would sell it and return some of the profits to him. Search warrants executed at Respondent’s home and office by Tennessee law enforcement authorities and DEA found marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and also revealed that Respondent kept no record or inventories concerning receipt or distribution of controlled substances.

Consequently, on June 19, 2000, Respondent pled guilty in Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee to one count of unlawful distribution of diazepam and one count of unlawful possession of marijuana. The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners revoked his medical license on May 9, 2000, and, on June 15, 2000, Respondent voluntarily surrendered his DEA registration.

Subsequently, after the State of Tennessee restored his medical license, Respondent applied for a new DEA registration. DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent proposing to deny his application for registration, and Respondent requested a hearing. During the hearing, respondent admitted to having violated the law leading to his conviction. Also, although he denied recent use, he also admitted to abuse of marijuana, Quaaludes, and cocaine while a practicing physician. After a review of the entire record, DEA determined that Respondent’s registration would not be in the public interest, and denied his application.

Mark C. Evans, D.D.S., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 35704 (June 21, 2006)

On June 24, 2004, 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 18, 2002, the Dental Board of California revoked his dental license in that state. Respondent did not respond 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 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).

Kevin Dean Brockbank, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 30167 (May 25, 2006)

On October 14, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension to Respondent, which suspended his DEA registration and directed him to show cause as to why DEA should not revoke his registration. The Order alleged that Respondent had issued prescriptions to a large number of people without examinations, medical tests or evaluations, and without a legitimate medical purpose. Over a 13-month period, Respondent had issued prescriptions for an estimated 690,000 dosage units of controlled substances, which local pharmacies were either refusing to fill or drastically reducing in quantity due to their suspicious nature. In addition, Respondent had also issued controlled substance prescriptions for no valid medical reason to six undercover law enforcement officers posing as patients. At least one individual died from an overdose of controlled substances obtained from one of Respondent’s patients.

On October 18, 2004, Respondent entered into a consent agreement with the Arizona Medical Board to surrender his medical license. In the Order, he admitted to prescribing controlled substances to two female patients without proper examinations and in violation of the standard of care. He also admitted to making sexual advances to two female patients after making "house calls" and injecting them with schedule II controlled substances.

Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension, nor did he 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, despite the Respondent’s egregious prescribing activities and grossly inappropriate conduct with female patients, the revocation of his state medical license was dispositive of this matter, and it was unnecessary for DEA to resolve the public interest grounds for revocation. 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).

Sidney S. Loxley, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 30172 (May 25, 2006)

On January 25, 2005, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension to Respondent, which suspended his DEA registration and directed him to show cause as to why DEA should not revoke his registration. The Order noted that Respondent had two prior disciplinary actions by the Virginia Board of Medicine: a sixteen-month suspension of his medical license in 1993 for a sexual relationship with a minor; a three-year probation in October 2003 for prescribing controlled substances to his wife, who was chemically dependent; and controlled substance recordkeeping violations reflecting gross incompetence. The Order also alleged that Respondent was writing prescriptions for large amounts of controlled substances to people without the physical examinations, testing or evaluations that are consistent with a legitimate doctor-patient relationship. Between October 2003 and May 2004, DEA undercover Special Agents and cooperating sources posing as patients obtained multiple prescriptions, and audits of pharmacies between August and December 2004 revealed that Respondent was continually prescribing large quantities of narcotic controlled substances without apparent legitimate medical reasons. Four patients died under Respondent’s care as a possible result of overprescribing. Respondent was indicted on 91 felony counts related to unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose.

Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause and did not request a hearing. While the Order to Show Cause was pending, however, in May 2005, Respondent entered into a consent agreement with the Virginia Medical Board in which he agreed to surrender his state medical license pending the outcome of his criminal trial.

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, despite the Respondent’s egregious prescribing activities, the revocation of his state medical license was dispositive of this matter, and it was unnecessary for DEA to resolve the public interest grounds for revocation. 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).

Worth S. Wilkinson, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 30173 (May 25, 2006)

On March 1, 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 was not licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana, 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 October 29, 2004, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners revoked Respondent’s license to practice medicine in that state based on the Board’s conclusion that Respondent was in need of testing and evaluation for alcohol abuse and apparent physical and mental inability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to 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 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).