[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12568]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 24, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. 93-31]

 

Steven W. Patwell, M.D.; Continuation of Registration

    On January 28, 1993, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Steven W. Patwell, M.D., (Respondent), 866 
Plumas Street, suite B, Yuba City, California 95991. The Order to Show 
Cause sought to revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, 
BP0597508, and deny any pending applications for renewal of such 
registration. The Order to Show Cause alleged 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).
    More specifically, the Order to Show Cause asserted that on 
November 7, 1990, a search warrant was executed at Respondent's 
residence. During the execution of the warrant, police officers found 
one and one-half pounds of marijuana, trace amounts of cocaine and 
methamphetamine, and assorted drug paraphernalia. The Order to Show 
Cause referred to Respondent's February 15, 1991, plea in the Superior 
Court of California, County of Placer, of nolo contendere to a 
misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana. The Order to Show Cause 
further pointed to the action of the Division of Medical Quality of the 
Medical Board of California (Board.) On June 22, 1992, the Board 
accepted a Stipulation in Settlement staying revocation of Respondent's 
physician and surgeon certificate and placing said certificate on 
probation for a period of five years.
    Respondent, through counsel, requested a hearing on the allegations 
raised in the Order to Show Cause and the matter was placed on the 
docket of Administrative Law Judge Paul A. Tenney. On August 18, 1993, 
a hearing was held in Sacramento, California. On September 29, 1993, 
the administrative law judge issued his opinion, recommended ruling, 
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Neither the Government nor 
Respondent filed exceptions to the recommended ruling. On October 29, 
1993, the administrative law judge transmitted the record in this 
proceeding to the Administrator. Having considered the record in its 
entirety, and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, the Deputy Administrator 
hereby issues his final order in this matter based upon the findings of 
fact and conclusions of law set forth below.
    Testimony provided at the hearing by a Roseville Police officer 
revealed that during the execution of a search warrant at Respondent's 
residence, officers found 81 individually wrapped plastic baggies 
containing marijuana, approximately one and one-half pounds in total. 
In addition, the officers found drug paraphernalia, including roach 
clips, pipes and bongs, a green powder sifter containing trace amounts 
of cocaine, a small glass vial containing methamphetamine, ephedrine 
tablets, an Ohaus triple beam scale, a grooved mirror with the image of 
a $100 bill which also contained trace amounts of cocaine and assorted 
prescription bottles.
    At the hearing, Mrs. Patwell testified that, with the exception of 
the prescription bottles, all of the contraband found at the Patwell 
residence during execution of the search warrant belonged to her. She 
stated that she had had a drug problem since age 14 but that she had 
been drug-free since November 1990. Mrs. Patwell further explained that 
she packaged the marijuana in small plastic baggies in order to limit 
her daily consumption and hid her use of drugs from her husband.
    Respondent testified that he was not aware that his wife had been 
storing marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine in their house. While he 
knew that his wife used marijuana, Respondent explained that he usually 
chose to ignore the situation and chose not to confront his wife about 
her drug use. With respect to the Ohaus triple beam scale found in his 
house, Respondent stated that he was a scale collector and that the 
scale was simply one of many scales in his collection. According to 
Respondent, the prescription bottles found by the police were 
mistakenly brought home by him after patients from the office gave them 
to him.
    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4), the Deputy 
Administrator may revoke a DEA Certificate of Registration or deny any 
application for registration if he determines that the continued 
registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Section 
823(f) requires that the following factors be considered: (1) The 
recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional 
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; and, (5) such other conduct which may threaten 
the public health and safety.
    The Deputy Administrator may rely on any one or any combination of 
these factors when determining whether an application should be denied 
or a registration revoked. See Neveille H. Williams, D.D.S., 51 FR 
17556 (1986); Anne L Hendricks, M.D., 51 FR 41030 (1986). The 
administrative law judge correctly noted that factors (4) and (5) were 
relevant to a determination of whether Respondent's continued 
registration would be in the public interest.
    With respect to factor (4), the administrative law judge found that 
Respondent's nolo contendere plea to a misdemeanor charge of possession 
of marijuana was not intended as an admission of guilt. Rather, the 
plea was entered in an effort to resolve the case without submitting to 
the risks of litigation. The administrative law judge found the 
explanations regarding the marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine of 
both Mrs. Patwell and Respondent to be credible. With respect to the 
prescription bottles found in the Patwell residence, the administrative 
law judge noted that such storage was in violation of DEA regulations. 
The administrative law judge, however, found convincing Respondent's 
explanation and concluded that the violation was inadvertent.
    Turning his attention to factor (5), the administrative law judge 
noted that regardless of Respondent's lack of wrongdoing with respect 
to the marijuana, the fact remains that approximately one and one-half 
pounds of marijuana were found in his home, as were trace amounts of 
other drugs and drug paraphernalia. The administrative law judge 
commented that greater diligence on the part of Respondent should be 
expected. Consequently, the administrative law judge recommended that 
three conditions be applied to the continuation of Respondent's 
registration. First, Respondent shall not allow any controlled 
substances, other than those prescribed by a doctor other than 
Respondent for a legitimate medical need, to be kept in his home. 
Second, Respondent must report to the local DEA office and appropriate 
law enforcement authorities any illegal use of controlled substances by 
any individual. Third, Respondent must report to the local DEA office 
and appropriate law enforcement authorities any controlled substances, 
except those prescribed by a doctor for a legitimate medical need, 
found in his home. The Deputy Administrator agrees with the 
administrative law judge that Respondent's registration should not be 
revoked and adopts his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended ruling in its entirety.
    While the Deputy Administrator finds the recommendation of the 
administrative law judge to be appropriate, this decision should in no 
way be interpreted as an endorsement of the past behavior of either 
Mrs. Patwell or Respondent. Respondent's testimony indicates that he 
recognizes that his failure to take action in the face of his wife's 
drug abuse was both unprofessional and unacceptable. Respondent's 
remorse for his past inaction and his apparent commitment to a more 
responsible future lead to the conclusion that revocation would not be 
appropriate.
    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 Steven W. 
Patwell, M.D.'s DEA Certificate of Registration, BP0597508, be, and it 
hereby is, continued. This order is effective May 24, 1994.

    Dated: May 17, 1994.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-12568 Filed 5-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M