[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31406]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 22, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 94-64]
Robert C. Davis, M.D., Revocation of Registration
On June 27, 1994, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued to
Robert C. Davis, M.D. (Respondent), an Order to Show Cause proposing to
revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, AD2917182, and to
deny any pending applications for renewal of such registration. 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), based upon
criminal convictions in the United States District Court, District of
Utah. These criminal convictions included Medicaid, insurance and mail
fraud counts, as well as some counts pertaining to prescribing
controlled substances not for a legitimate medical purpose and not in
the course of professional practice. The proposed action was also based
upon Respondent's lack of state authorization to handle controlled
substances in the State of Utah. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3).
The Order to Show Cause was sent to Respondent by registered mail
and was received by him on July 5, 1994. Respondent 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. On
August 3, 1994, the Government filed a motion for summary disposition
based upon an order of the State of Utah, Department of Commerce,
Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (Licensing Board)
which revoked Respondent's medical license and authority to handle
controlled substances for an indefinite period, effective July 7, 1993.
In his response to the Government's motion, Respondent argued that a
hearing on this matter should be held because Respondent was appealing
the criminal convictions on which the Licensing Board's revocation
order was based and that Respondent would reapply for a medical license
in the State of Utah if his convictions were overturned on appeal.
On August 19, 1994, in her opinion and recommended decision, the
administrative law judge granted the Government's motion for summary
disposition and recommended that Respondent's DEA Certificate of
Registration, issued to him in Utah, be revoked based upon Respondent's
current lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances in
Utah. Neither party filed exceptions to the recommended decision.
On September 22, 1994, the administrative law judge transmitted the
record to the Deputy 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 Deputy Administrator finds that on July 7, 1994, the State of
Utah, Department of Commerce, Division of Occupational and Professional
Licensing issued an order revoking Respondent's medical license. As a
result, he is not currently authorized by Utah to handle controlled
substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration cannot register or
maintain the registration of a practitioner who is not duly authorized
to handle controlled substances in the state in which he conducts his
business. 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite
has been consistently upheld. See James H. NIckens, M.D., 57 FR 59847
(1992); Elliott F. Monroe, M.D., 57 FR 23246 (1992); Bobby Watts, M.D.,
53 FR 11919 (1988).
The administrative law judge granted the Government's motion for
summary disposition. It is well-settled that when no question of fact
is involved, or when the facts are agreed upon, a plenary, adversary
administrative proceeding involving evidence and cross-examination of
witnesses is not obligatory. The rationale is that Congress does not
intend administrative agencies to perform meaningless tasks. Philip E.
Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32887 (1983); aff'd. sub nom Kirk v. Mullen 749 F.2d
297 (6th Cir. 1984); Alfred Tennyson Smurthwaite, N.D., 43 FR 11873
(1978); see also, NLRB v. International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir.
1977); United States v. Consolidated Mines and Smelting Co., Ltd., 455
F.2d 432, 453 (9th Cir. 1971).
Respondent argues that the criminal convictions, which he maintains
were the only basis of the Licensing Board's revocation order, could be
overturned on appeal and that Respondent then would reapply and obtain
his state medical license. This scenario is only speculation. Until the
Licensing Board reinstates Respondent's medical license, the DEA does
not have the statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to
continue the registration of a practitioner unless that practitioner is
currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the state where
he is registered with the DEA.
The Deputy Administrator, having considered the entire record,
adopts the administration law judge's opinion and recommended decision
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, hereby orders that
DEA Certificate of Registration, AD2917182, previously issued to Robert
C. Davis, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked and that any pending
applications for renewal of such registration be, and they hereby are,
denied. This order is effective December 12, 1994.
Dated: December 16, 1994.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-31406 Filed 12-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M