[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5204]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 8, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 92-62]

 

Allan L. Gant, D.O.; Denial of Application

    On June 23, 1992, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Allan L. Gant, D.O. (Respondent), of Richwood, 
West Virginia, proposing to deny his application for DEA registration 
as a practitioner. The statutory basis for seeking the denial of the 
application was that Respondent's registration would be inconsistent 
with the public interest, as set forth in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
    The Order to Show Cause alleged that in May 1990, while employed at 
the Richwood Medical Center, the Respondent admitted diverting to his 
personal use three 20 mg. bottles of injectable Demerol, a Schedule II 
controlled substance, and a bottle of injectable Valium, a Schedule IV 
controlled substance, from the stocks of that medical center; 
Respondent admitted in his personal history provided to a hospital 
treatment center in May 1990 that he had abused Demerol, a Schedule II 
controlled substance, during the period from at least 1984 until at 
least 1988; while in in-patient attendance at a rehabilitation facility 
in April 1990, Respondent self-administered Demerol which he had 
smuggled into that facility; and on June 5, 1990, he voluntarily 
surrendered his DEA Certificate of Registration, AG9806108, for cause.
    Respondent, acting pro se, filed a request for hearing on the 
issues raised by the Order to Show Cause, and the matter was docketed 
before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. Following 
prehearing procedures, a hearing was conducted in Charleston, West 
Virginia, on January 21, 1993.
    On November 4, 1993, the administrative law judge issued her 
opinion and recommended ruling, findings of fact, conclusions of law 
and decision, in which she recommended that the Respondent's 
application for registration be denied. On December 6, 1993, the 
administrative law judge transmitted the record to the Acting 
Administrator. The Respondent subsequently filed exceptions to the 
opinion, which were received by the administrative law judge on 
December 9, 1993, and forwarded to the Acting Administrator on December 
13, 1993. Although not timely filed, the Acting Administrator has 
included the Respondent's exceptions in the record. The Acting 
Administrator has carefully considered the entire record in this matter 
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 administrative law judge found that Respondent is an osteopath 
and is licensed and practices in West Virginia. Respondent is a Vietnam 
veteran, who testified that he sustained severe wounds and suffers from 
post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his war experience. The 
Respondent testified that due to complications from his war wounds 
during 1986 to 1988, he began to self-administer Demerol to a point 
where he was using 300 mg. to 400 mg. two to four times daily.
    The administrative law judge found that testimony and documents 
indicated that in September 1988, the Respondent, after a morphine 
overdose, was admitted to a Charleston hospital, and was subsequently 
treated by physicians at the Veterans Administration Hospital in 
Clarksburg for opiate dependence. In November 1988, he was transferred 
to the Preston Memorial Hospital and was released to the Shawnee Hills 
Outpatient Clinic. Respondent voluntarily discontinued his care in 
January 1989.
    In April 1990, syringes and a bottle containing opiates were found 
in Respondent's personal effects, and while at an in-patient recovery 
center, Respondent self-injected Demerol which he had smuggled into 
that facility. Subsequently, in May 1990, the Chief Administrator of 
Richwood Medical Center, where the Respondent was employed, found three 
20 mg. bottles of injectable Demerol and a bottle of injectable Valium 
missing from stocks. The Respondent admitted to his employer that he 
had taken them for his own use. Respondent was again admitted to 
Preston Memorial Hospital on May 24, 1990, but apparently refused to 
stay in the program and was discharged on June 4, 1990. The Respondent 
surrendered his previous DEA registration on June 5, 1990.
    There was testimony at the administrative hearing that the 
Respondent was regularly ordering non-controlled injectable pain 
medications in his current private practice. The Respondent testified 
that they were the only type of analgesic that were appropriate and 
available for administration to his patients whom he saw both in his 
office setting and in the emergency room.
    The Respondent also testified that he occasionally attended 
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but that he did not belong to Narcotics 
Anonymous or any impaired physician program because they were too far 
away. The Respondent submitted a letter from an addiction specialist 
physician who concluded that there was no medical, legal, or ethical 
reason why the Respondent should not be able to prescribe controlled 
drugs.
    The administrative law judge found that the Secretary for the West 
Virginia Board of Osteopathy (Board), testified on behalf of the Board 
at the administrative hearing, that the Board was aware of the 
Respondent's problem with narcotics abuse and knew he had entered two 
rehabilitative programs but failed to successfully complete either. In 
addition, the Board had written to the Respondent and strongly urged 
him to enter a substance abuse program, and at the time of the hearing 
it was the Board's opinion that the Respondent should not receive a DEA 
Certificate of Registration.
    The Respondent contended that the State licensing board had never 
indicated its opposition to his registration. He also stated that he 
was subject to regular urine testing by the Board and that he had not 
abused controlled substances in three years.
    The Administrator may deny an application for registration if he 
determines that such registration would be inconsistent with the public 
interest. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), ``[i]n determining the public 
interest, the following factors shall be considered: (1) The 
recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or 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.''
    It is well established that these factors are to be considered in 
the disjunctive, i.e., the Administrator may properly rely on any one 
or a combination of factors, and give each factor the weight he deems 
appropriate. Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No. 88-42, 54 FR 16422 
(1989).
    The administrative law judge found factors one, two, four and five 
relevant. Judge Bittner found as to factor one, that the State of West 
Virginia Board of Osteopathy recommended that Respondent not be given a 
DEA registration; as to factor two, the Respondent admitted personal 
use of Demerol and morphine; as to factor four, the Respondent self-
administered controlled substances in violation of State and Federal 
law; and as to factor five, his drug abuse history and the status of 
his recovery were relevant to the public health and safety.
    The administrative law judge found that the Respondent's testimony 
did not indicate that he had admitted or accepted the severity and 
nature of his drug dependency problem. Although the Respondent 
testified that this experience with surrendering his previous DEA 
registration had pushed him into earnest rehabilitation, Judge Bittner 
found that in the absence of evidence that Respondent is prepared and 
able to commit to a more aggressive recovery program, that his risk of 
relapse is substantial. The administrative law judge concluded that the 
Respondent is not yet ready to discharge the responsibilities inherent 
in a DEA registration, and recommended that if Respondent were to 
demonstrate in the future that he has made the requisite commitment, 
that his application for registration should be considered in a more 
favorable light.
    The Respondent, in his December 6, 1993 letter, responding to the 
administrative law judge's opinion, objected to the testimony of the 
Government counsel (apparently a reference to the post-hearing brief 
filed by the Government, since there was no testimony presented by 
counsel); and the lack of weight ostensibly accorded to a letter from 
the addiction specialist submitted on his behalf. The Respondent also 
argued that he could not be a threat to the public since his medical 
practice was under scrutiny and any controlled substances administered 
in his practice would be handled by nurses. The Respondent also alleged 
that a Government witness had committed perjury and that Government 
investigators had lied to him or had engaged in underhanded tactics. 
The Acting Administrator finds nothing that would lend support to any 
of these contentions or allegations by the Respondent.
    The Acting Administrator adopts the opinion and recommended ruling, 
findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision of the administrative 
law judge in its entirety. The Acting Administrator finds that the 
Respondent's registration is inconsistent with the public interest, and 
his pending application for registration must be denied. Accordingly, 
the 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), hereby orders that the application for a DEA Certificate of 
Registration of Allan L. Gant, D.O., be, and it hereby is, denied. This 
order is effective March 8, 1994.

    Dated: March 1, 1994.
Stephen H. Greene,
Acting Administrator of Drug Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 94-5204 Filed 3-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M