[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17949]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 25, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. 92-86]

 

Harold S. Stinson, D.O.; Grant of Restricted Registration

    On August 18, 1992, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Harold S. Stinson, D.O. (Respondent), of Key 
Largo, Florida, proposing to deny his pending application for 
registration as a practitioner under 21 U.S.C. 823(f) for reason that 
his registration would be inconsistent with the public interest, as 
that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4).
    Respondent, through counsel, 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. Following prehearing 
procedures, a hearing was held in Miami, Florida on March 11, 1993. On 
January 25, 1994, in her opinion and recommended ruling, findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and decision, the administrative law judge 
recommended that the Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of 
Registration be granted, subject to certain restrictions. No exceptions 
were filed by either party. The Deputy Administrator has carefully 
considered the entire record in this matter and, pursuant to 21 CFR 
1316.67, hereby issues his final order in this matter based upon 
findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter set forth.
    The administrative law judge found that the Respondent received his 
doctor of osteopathy degree from Kirksville College of Osteopathic 
Medicine in 1957 and following a one-year internship, went into 
practice with another physician in Eureka, Missouri. Five years later, 
Respondent established a solo practice which he maintained until about 
1985, and was board certified in family practice in 1974.
    On May 2, 1985, a DEA Special Agent along with local police 
officers, arrested an individual on an outstanding warrant following 
her indictment for forging prescriptions for Dilaudid, a Schedule II 
controlled substance. The individual later informed the Special Agent 
that between 1979 and 1982, she purchased Dilaudid from the Respondent 
approximately 50 times; that between 150 and 200 people received drugs 
illegally from the Respondent; and that she owed Respondent $2,000 for 
the drugs that she had purchased.
    Following her arrest, the individual agreed to attempt to make a 
controlled purchase of Dilaudid from the Respondent. On June 7, 1985, 
the individual attempted without success to purchase Dilaudid from the 
Respondent. During the visit, the individual offered to pay Respondent 
$500 on her outstanding debt, however, Respondent indicated that he did 
not want to have any further dealings with the individual. 
Nevertheless, he agreed to meet with her at a future date, and the 
individual assured the Respondent that she would pay back the $2,000 
debt that she owed him in installments.
    On June 15, 1985, the individual met with Respondent in his car at 
a restaurant, where Respondent sold the individual 100 Dilaudid for 
$2,000. The individual also paid the Respondent an additional $1,000 as 
payment on her prior debt. During the meeting, Respondent admitted to 
the individual that after being audited with respect to his dispensing 
of Dilaudid, he was able to falsify his dispensing records because one 
of his patients failed to keep records of how much Dilaudid she 
received or purchased from Respondent, and therefore, Respondent could 
ascribe drugs to her that he in fact provided to others.
    On June 17, 1985, the individual met Respondent at his office where 
she purchased 100 Dilaudid for $2,000, and paid the final $1,000 of her 
debt. During this meeting, the individual informed the Respondent of a 
friend from Philadelphia that could help make the Respondent's drug 
transactions more profitable. On August 2, 1985, the individual again 
met the Respondent at a restaurant where she purchased 80 Dilaudid for 
$2,000. The individual again mentioned her friend from Philadelphia, 
and Respondent agreed to contact the individual the following week.
    On August 27, 1985, the individual and a DEA Special Agent, posing 
as her friend from Philadelphia, purchased 98 Dilaudid from the 
Respondent for $2,940. During the conversation, Respondent mentioned 
that police officers had come to his house in response to a burglary 
alarm and had seen a military rifle equipped with a silencer.
    In September 1985 a search warrant was executed at Respondent's 
office, in which his records were seized, as well as, a silencer in a 
desk drawer. On January 23, 1986, the Respondent was indicted in the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on 
four counts of unlawful distribution of Dilaudid, three counts of 
making false statements on Federal income tax returns, and one count of 
unlawful possession of a firearm. Following a jury trial, Respondent 
was convicted of the counts pertaining to distribution of Dilaudid and 
possession of an illegal firearm, and was acquitted on the tax counts. 
On October 3, 1986, Respondent was sentenced to six years incarceration 
on each of the drug charges to run concurrently, and two years on the 
firearm charge to run consecutively, for a total of eight years. 
Respondent was further sentenced to serve a special parole term of five 
years and to pay a $40,000 fine, and two of his vehicles were 
forfeited. On December 9, 1986, Respondent surrendered his DEA 
registration.
    At the hearing, Respondent presented the testimony of witnesses as 
to his exemplary abilities as a physician and his favorable reputation 
in the community. Several witnesses, and numerous written statements 
filed on Respondent's behalf, also spoke of his successful efforts 
towards rehabilitation. Included among this evidence was a letter dated 
September 25, 1992, from the Assistant Attorney General of the State of 
Florida and counsel to the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine 
(Board), advising that Respondent had complied with the terms of his 
probation and the Board did not oppose his application for DEA 
registration.
    The Respondent testified regarding his accomplishments while 
incarcerated, including: his organizing of smoking cessation clinics 
for inmates; his conducting counseling and lecture sessions on health 
related issues for inmates, as well as, a continuing education program 
for incarcerated health professionals; and his becoming versed in 
Spanish for the purpose of becoming a medical missionary in Spanish-
speaking areas. The Respondent further testified that in May 1989, he 
was released to a halfway house where he wrote a column on travel 
medicine for a hunting and fishing magazine. On October 20, 1992, the 
director of the halfway house wrote to DEA recommending that Respondent 
be granted DEA registration in light of his satisfactory 
rehabilitation.
    Respondent also presented the testimony of an attorney specializing 
in post-conviction issues, who testified that he represented the 
Respondent at the sentencing phase of the criminal proceeding, as well 
as, before the Parole Commission, and that Respondent was granted 
parole after serving forty months of his eight-year sentence. The 
witness testified that the silencer conviction resulted in imposition 
of a special parole term, but that he successfully sought early 
termination of Respondent's special parole term in light of 
Respondent's exemplary conduct while incarcerated. The witness further 
testified that the institution recommended early termination of 
Respondent's special parole and that the reduction of four years in a 
five year term was highly unusual.
    Prior to, and after moving to the State of Florida in the fall of 
1990, Respondent took continuing education courses, including a course 
in prescribing controlled substances, and on March 26 and 27, 1991, 
Respondent took the State's examination to practice medicine and 
passed. On June 22, 1991, the Board approved the Respondent for 
licensure subject to a two-year probation, with terms including: that 
if and when Respondent obtained a DEA registration, he write Schedule 
II controlled substances prescriptions in triplicate; that he practice 
only under the indirect supervision of another physician; and that the 
monitoring physician file semi-annual reports with the Board regarding 
the level of care provided by the Respondent.
    In late 1991, Respondent was hired as the only full-time medical 
professional at a clinic in Cutler Ridge, a low income area of South 
Miami. The president and chief executive officer of the clinic 
testified at the hearing that Respondent told him about his history and 
lack of DEA registration, and that Respondent was very professional in 
treating mostly welfare patients.
    The witness further testified that when the Cutler Ridge clinic 
building collapsed during Hurricane Andrew in August 1992, and reopened 
in a trailer in late September 1992, Respondent continued to see 40 to 
50 patients per day despite difficult operating conditions. Another 
witness testified at the hearing that after the hurricane and prior to 
the reopening of the clinic, Respondent worked as a volunteer at the 
South Miami Hospital in Homestead, Florida, where he provided good 
medical care despite handling an increased patient load and working 
long hours.
    The Respondent testified, as did witnesses on his behalf, that he 
needed a DEA registration in order to obtain hospital privileges; that 
the lack of a controlled substances registration would adversely impact 
upon Respondent's ability to care for his patients; and that 
Respondent's ability to accept offers of employment at various health 
care facilities was contingent upon his obtaining a DEA Certificate of 
Registration. Respondent testified that his patients that required 
controlled substances were required to see another physician, and that 
the growth of the Cutler Ridge clinic practice required more patients 
to be admitted to hospitals, but that he was unable to apply for 
hospital privileges without a DEA registration.
    Respondent also testified that he did not want to ever again handle 
Dilaudid and that he would be in favor of such restrictions on his DEA 
registration as a prohibition on dispensing, requirements that he use 
triplicate prescriptions, and a blanket agreement to inspections at any 
time. Respondent attributed his misconduct to a mid-life crisis and his 
lack of character, and based on his rehabilitative effort as well as 
the support of his family, such misconduct would not be repeated.
    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the Deputy Administrator may deny an 
application for registration, if he determines that granting the 
registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. In 
determining the public interest, the following factors are considered:
    (1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or 
professional disciplinary authority.
    (2) The applicant's experience in dispensing controlled substances.
    (3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws 
relating to the 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 Deputy Administrator may properly rely on 
the disjunctive, i.e., the Deputy Administrator may properly rely on 
any one or a combination of the factors and give each factor the weight 
he deems appropriate. See Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No. 88-
42, 54 FR 16422 (1989).
    In considering whether grounds exist to deny Respondent's 
application for registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the 
administrative law judge found factors one through five relevant. 
Factor one is relevant in light of the September 25, 1992 letter from 
the counsel to the Board; factor two is applicable in light of 
Respondent's delivery of Dilaudid to the individual; factors three and 
four are relevant in view of Respondent's conviction for unlawfully 
distributing controlled substances; and factor five is relevant based 
upon Respondent's conviction for unlawful possession of a silencer.
    The administrative law judge further found that Respondent's 
practice of medicine was valuable to the community; that Respondent 
needs a DEA registration to fully serve his patients; and that 
Respondent demonstrated remorse for his past misconduct. Therefore, the 
administrative law judge recommended that Respondent's application for 
DEA registration be granted, with the following restrictions: (1) 
Respondent shall not dispense directly or administer any controlled 
substance except in a hospital setting; (2) Respondent shall use 
triplicate forms for all controlled substance prescriptions and shall 
maintain at his registered location one copy of each form and arrange 
for another copy to be received by the Special Agent in Charge of DEA's 
Miami Field Division or his designee; and (3) Respondent shall consent 
to inspections of his registered premises pursuant to notices of 
inspection as described in 21 U.S. C. 880.
    The Deputy Administrator having considered the entire record adopts 
the administrative law judge's findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommended ruling in its entirety. Accordingly, the Deputy 
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the 
authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.1000(b) and 0.104 
(59 FR 23637), hereby orders that the application for DEA registration 
submitted by Harold S. Stinson, D.O., be granted in Schedules II 
through V subject to the restrictions enumerated above. This order is 
effective July 25, 1994.

    Dated: July 18, 1994.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-17949 Filed 7-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M