[Federal Register: September 13, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 176)] [Notices] [Page 49506-49507] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13se99-112] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 99-12] Frank D. Jackson, M.D.; Revocation of Registration On December 17, 1998, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an Order to Show Cause to Frank D. Jackson, M.D. (Respondent) of Boston, Massachusetts, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration AJ8888806 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), and deny any pending applications for renewal of such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. By letter dated January 28, 1999, Respondent requested a hearing on the issues raised by the order to Show Cause and the matter was docketed before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. On February 19, 1999, Judge Bittner issued an Order for Prehearing Statements. The Government filed its prehearing statement on March 10, 1999, but Respondent did not file a prehearing statement. On April 20, 1999, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition and a Motion to Terminate the Proceedings. The Government's motions alleged that (1) Respondent is not currently licensed to handle controlled substances in the state where he is registered with DEA, and (2) Respondent's failure to file a prehearing statement acts as a waiver of his right to a hearing. Respondent was given until May 18, 1999, to file a response to the Government's motions, yet he did not do so. On May 27, 1999, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and Recommended Decision, finding that Respondent lacks authorization to handle controlled substances in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; granting the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition; recommending that [[Page 49507]] Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked; and concluding that having granted the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, it is unnecessary to rule on the Government's Motion to Terminate. Neither party filed exceptions to her opinion, and on June 28, 1999, Judge Bittner transmitted the record of these proceedings to the Deputy Administrator. The Deputy Administrator has considered the record in its entirety, and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby issues his final order based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter set forth. The Deputy Administrator adopts, in full, the Opinion and Recommended Decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The Deputy Administrator finds that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Board of Registration in Medicine suspended Respondent's Massachusetts medical license, effective March 10, 1999. As a result, the Deputy Administrator concludes that Respondent is not currently authorized to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and therefore,it is reasonable to infer that he is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in that state. The DEA does not have the statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to issue or maintain a registration if the applicant or registrant is without state authority to handle controlled substances in the state in which he conducts his business. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been consistently upheld. See Romeo J. Perez, M.D., 62 FR 16,193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D., 61 FR 60,728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993). Here it is clear that Respondent is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where he is registered with DEA. As a result, he is not entitled to a DEA registration in that state. In light of the above, Judge Bittner properly granted the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition. The parties did not dispute the fact that Respondent is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in California. Therefore, it is well-settled that when no question of fact is involved, or when the material facts are agreed upon, a plenary, adversarial proceeding involving evidence and cross-examination of witnesses is not required. See Jesus R. Juarez, M.D., 62 FR 14945 (1997). The rationale is that Congress does not intend administrative agencies to perform meaningless tasks. See Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32887 (1983), aff'd sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); see also NLRB v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977). Since DEA does not have the statutory authority to maintain Respondent's DEA registration because he is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in Massachusetts, the Deputy Administrator concludes that it is unnecessary to determine whether Respondent's continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest, as alleged in the Order to Show Cause. 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 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that DEA Certificate of Registration AJ8888806, previously issued to Frank D. Jackson, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator further orders that any pending applications for renewal of such registration, be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective October 13, 1999. Dated: August 24, 1999. Donnie R. Marshall, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 99-23669 Filed 9-10-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M