Cases Against Doctors
> Administrative Actions 2003
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).
|