[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19056]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 4, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. 93-4]

 

Timothy H. Reese, M.D. Denial of Application

    On September 29, 1992, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 
of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Timothy H. Reese, M.D. (Respondent), of 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, proposing to deny his application for 
registration as a practitioner. The Order to Show Cause alleged that 
Respondent's registration would be inconsistent with the public 
interest as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
    Respondent, through counsel, requested a hearing on the issues 
raised by the Order to Show Cause, and the matter was placed on the 
docket of Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. Following 
prehearing procedures, a hearing was held in Arlington, Virginia, on 
May 18, 1993. On March 8, 1994, in her findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommended ruling, the administrative law judge recommended 
that Respondent's application for DEA registration be denied. No 
exceptions were filed by either party.
    On April 8, 1994, the administrative law judge transmitted the 
record to the Administrator. 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 is an 
emergency room physician who completed a three-year residency in family 
practice in 1977, and then became affiliated with medical groups that 
provided emergency room coverage for various hospitals. Respondent also 
maintained a small, private practice until April 1989.
    In 1984, an investigator for the Ohio State Medical Board (Board) 
obtained from a pharmacy various prescriptions for controlled 
substances written by Respondent. Most of the prescriptions bore the 
address of Respondent's residence, and were written for members of 
Respondent's family. The investigator interviewed some of Respondent's 
family members that were purportedly issued prescriptions by the 
Respondent, and they denied ever receiving prescriptions for him.
    Thereafter, the Board subpoenaed Respondent's patient records, 
however, Respondent indicated that they had been destroyed. Respondent 
was then requested to appear before the Board to explain why he wrote 
the prescriptions at issue. In his deposition before the Board, 
Respondent states that he did not know what controlled substances were, 
what schedules certain controlled substances were in, and that he wrote 
these prescriptions mainly for weight loss. In 1986, the Board's 
investigation of Respondent concluded with no charges being filed.
    In 1989, a sergeant with the Columbus (Ohio) Police Department, 
Narcotics Bureau (Narcotics Bureau), was informed by local pharmacists 
of their suspicions regarding prescriptions issued by the Respondent. 
The prescriptions were for large quantities of controlled substances, 
typically Dilaudid. The pharmacists were unfamiliar with the patients 
bringing in the prescriptions, and the patients named on the 
prescriptions did not have local addresses.
    The pharmacists further informed the Narcotics Bureau sergeant that 
the physician's telephone number listed on some of the prescriptions 
was disconnected, and that other prescriptions bore telephone numbers 
either at emergency rooms in Pennsylvania, or a residence in 
Westerville, Ohio. A confidential informant later advised the Narcotics 
Bureau that Respondent wrote prescriptions to members of his family and 
friends, and they in turn returned the prescribed drugs to Respondent, 
who used them to treat his wife's heroin addiction. As a result of this 
information, the Narcotics Bureau seized a number of Dilaudid 
prescriptions issued by Respondent from local pharmacies.
    The investigation by the Narcotics Bureau also revealed that: One 
of the individuals that attempted to fill a controlled substance 
prescription was seen by the pharmacist driving a car registered to 
Respondent's address; several of the individuals did not reside at the 
address listed on their prescriptions; an individual stated that she 
used cocaine while in Respondent's home, sold cocaine to Respondent, 
and was offered cocaine by the Respondent to fill a prescription, which 
she refused; Respondent asked the same individual to fill a 
prescription for Dilaudid, and the individual later prepared syringes 
of Dilaudid and water that Respondent's wife injected; all of the 
telephone numbers for Respondent on the prescriptions corresponded to 
emergency rooms in Pennsylvania. Respondent testified at the hearing, 
that someone falsified his signature on the prescriptions found by the 
Narcotics Bureau.
    Respondent testified that after he and his wife separated in April 
1989, and he moved from their Westerville, Ohio residence, he believed 
that his wife continued to live in the residence until her eviction for 
non-payment of rent. Respondent further testified that he left behind 
all of his belongings, including prescription pads printed with the 
address of his residence.
    In August 1989, a DEA diversion investigator observed the wife's 
eviction from Respondent's home. Among the items removed from the home 
and subsequently recovered by DEA, were drug paraphernalia items, 
including a white powder substance in a plastic container and pipes 
containing residue. The items later tested positive for sodium 
bicarbonate, oxycodone, and cocaine. The Narcotics Bureaus sergeant 
testified at the hearing that despite the information disclosed by the 
investigation, the Respondent was not criminally charged because he 
moved out of the State of Ohio.
    Following Respondent's relocation to the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, on October 26, 1989, DEA informed him that he was under 
investigation for diverting Dilaudid. In response to this information, 
Respondent surrendered his DEA registration.
    On March 31, 1991, Respondent executed an application for DEA 
registration, and answered affirmatively, the question regarding 
whether he had ever surrendered a previous registration. DEA then 
initiated a pre-registration investigation of the Respondent. The 
investigation revealed that, in 1990, when Respondent began working for 
a physicians' group that provided medical services, he informed his 
employer that he was registered with DEA, and provided his surrendered 
registration number. DEA later obtained Respondent's application for 
employment at a health care facility in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania, 
where Respondent was associated as an emergency room physician. In 
response to a question on the application for employment regarding his 
registration status, Respondent again stated that he held a current DEA 
registration, and listed his surrendered registration number. DEA also 
discovered numerous prescriptions issued by Respondent in 1990 and 
1991, in which he repeatedly used his surrendered DEA registration 
number.
    Respondent testified that his wife used heroin and cocaine, that 
she was taking methadone, and that she had access to his DEA number. 
Respondent also testified that he has never abused drugs, been charged 
with using drugs, or kept drug paraphernalia in his home. Respondent 
acknowledged however that he never informed his employers of the 
surrender of his DEA registration, because his lack of registration 
would preclude his employment. Respondent further acknowledged that he 
wrote prescriptions for controlled substances after the surrender of 
his DEA registration because his work required him to do so, and that 
he needed his DEA registration to continue his career as an emergency 
room physician.
    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the Deputy Administrator may deny any 
application for such registration, if he determines that the continued 
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 
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 DEA registration, the administrative law judge found 
factors two, four and five relevant in light of evidence regarding 
Respondent's falsification of employment applications, representing 
that he held a DEA registration after he had surrendered the 
registration; and, Respondent's issuing of prescriptions for controlled 
substances using his surrendered DEA registration number.
    The administrative law judge found, that despite Respondent's 
explanations regarding his falsifying employment applications and 
writing prescriptions with a surrendered DEA registration number, 
Respondent showed no remorse, and appeared to consider his actions 
justified by exigent circumstances. The administrative law judge also 
found with respect to the prescriptions for Dilaudid, that Respondent's 
testimony was not responsive nor particularly credible. The 
administrative law judge further found that Respondent's admission that 
other persons, including his wife whom Respondent knew to be a drug 
abuser, had access to his prescription pads, showed that Respondent had 
little respect for the responsibilities of being a DEA registrant.
    Judge Bittner concluded that the preponderance of the credible 
evidence established that it is unlikely that Respondent would 
competently or reliably discharge the obligations inherent in a DEA 
registration, and further concluded that it would not be in the public 
interest to grant his application. Therefore, the administrative law 
judge recommended that Respondent's application for DEA registration be 
denied.
    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 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) 
and 0.104 (59 FR 23637), hereby orders that the application for 
registration, executed by Timothy H. Reese, M.D., be, and it hereby is, 
denied. This order is effective August 4, 1994.

    Dated: July 28, 1994.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-19056 Filed 8-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M