[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9707]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 22, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 92-53]

 

Vincent D. Bradley, M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On May 6, 1992, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Vincent D. Bradley, M.D. (Respondent), of 
Encinitas, California, proposing to revoke his DEA Certificate of 
Registration, AB4593908, and to deny any pending applications for 
registration as a practitioner. The statutory basis for the Order to 
Show Cause was that Respondent's continued registration would be 
inconsistent with the public interest as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 
823(f), and 824(a)(4), in that on seven occasions during the period 
January 1989 to September 1989, the Respondent prescribed Schedule IV 
controlled substances, Fastin and Valium, to undercover officers for no 
legitimate medical purpose and not in the course of professional 
medical practice; and that on October 24, 1990, he was convicted, under 
State law, of one misdemeanor count of neglecting to preserve records 
of the disposition of dangerous drugs.
    The Respondent, by counsel, responded to the Order to Show Cause 
and requested a hearing. Counsel for the Government filed a motion for 
summary disposition on October 21, 1992, alleging that in July of 1992, 
the Respondent had entered a stipulation with the California Medical 
Board (Board) in which the Respondent agreed to refrain from the 
practice of medicine until he had undergone an independent physical and 
psychiatric examination ordered by the Board. The Government argued 
that Respondent's authority to handle controlled substances had been, 
in effect, surrendered to the California State Medical Board on August 
20, 1992. The respondent filed its opposition to the Government's 
motion, and on January 8, 1993, the administrative law judge denied the 
Government's motion on grounds that there still existed an issue of 
fact to be decided as to the intent of the State stipulation.
    On September 21, 1993, the Government renewed its motion for 
summary disposition alleging that the Respondent no longer held State 
authorization to handle controlled substances for the reason that he 
entered into a Stipulation with the California Medical Board for the 
surrender of his medical license on July 7, 1993. This surrender became 
effective August 9, 1993. The Respondent did not file any response to 
the Government's motion.
    On October 18, 1993, the administrative law judge entered an order 
granting the Government's motion for summary disposition and 
recommended that the Respondent's registration be revoked. No 
exceptions were filed by either party. The administrative law judge 
transmitted the record to the Administrator on January 18, 1994.
    The Administrator has considered the record in its entirety and, 
under the provision of 21 CFR 1316.67, enters his final order in this 
matter, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter 
set forth.
    No evidentiary hearing was held in this case as there were no 
factual issues involved, only a question of law. Judge Tenney found 
that the Respondent had entered into a stipulation with the Medical 
Board of California under which the Respondent is no longer permitted 
to practice as a physician and surgeon in the State of California, the 
jurisdiction in which the Respondent is registered with the DEA. Judge 
Tenney concluded that DEA has no authority to maintain a DEA 
registration, where the registrant is without State authority to handle 
controlled substances.
    The DEA has consistently held that it does not have statutory 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to register a 
practitioner unless that practitioner is authorized by the State to 
handle controlled substances. The Administrator has consistently held 
that termination of a registrant's State authority to handle controlled 
substances requires that DEA revoke the registrant's DEA Certificate of 
Registration. See Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919 (1987); Lawrence R. 
Alexander, M.D., 57 FR 22256 (1992).
    The Administrator adopts the findings and recommendation of the 
administrative law judge. Based on the foregoing, the Administrator 
concludes that the Respondent's registration must be revoked. 21 U.S.C. 
823(a)(3). 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 DEA Certificate of 
Registration, AB4593908, previously issued to Vincent D. Bradley, M.D., 
be, and it hereby is, revoked, and that any pending applications for 
registration, be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective 
on April 22, 1994.

    Dated: April 18, 1994.
Thomas A. Constantine,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-9707 Filed 4-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M