[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 175 (Monday, September 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47182-47183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22400]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 95-31]


Charles L. Novosad, Jr., M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On March 14, 1995, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Charles L. Novosad, Jr., M.D. (Respondent), of 
Pojoaque, New Mexico. The Order to Show Cause proposed to revoke 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, AN5283697, under 21 
U.S.C. 824(a)(3), and deny any pending applications for renewal of such 
registration under 21 U.S.C. 823(f). The Order to Show Cause alleged 
that Respondent is not currently authorized to handle controlled 
substances in the State of New Mexico.
    Respondent filed a request for a hearing on the issues raised by 
the Order to Show Cause, and the matter was docketed before 
Administrative Law Judge Paul A. Tenney. On May 2, 1995, the Government 
filed a motion for summary disposition, which was accompanied by a 
Decision and Order of the New Mexico Board of Pharmacy dated September 
15, 1994. The Board of Pharmacy ordered the revocation of Respondent's 
state registration to handle controlled substances based upon the May 
20, 1994, revocation of his state medical license. As a result, the 
Government contended that Respondent is not authorized to handle 
controlled substances in the State of New Mexico.
    On May 9, 1995, the Respondent filed a response to the Government's 
motion. In his response, Respondent argued in part, that due process 
required a hearing in this matter.
    On May 10, 1995, in his opinion and recommended decision, the 
administrative law judge found that Respondent lacks authorization to 
handle controlled substances in the State of New Mexico. The 
administrative law judge therefore granted the Government's motion for 
summary disposition and recommended that Respondent's DEA Certificate 
of Registration be revoked.
    On June 5, 1995, the Respondent filed a letter with the 
administrative law judge requesting that the latter stay any dismissal 
of his DEA registration without a hearing. On June 6, 1995, the 
administrative law judge issued an order in which he interpreted the 
Respondent's letter as a motion for reconsideration of his ruling on 
the Government's motion for summary disposition. The administrative law 
judge found that Respondent failed to provide any new information 
regarding the revocation of his state medical license, and accordingly, 
denied Respondent's motion for reconsideration.
    On June 12, 1995, Respondent filed exceptions to the administrative 
law judge's opinion and recommended ruling. The Respondent presented 
arguments pertaining to actions taken by the New Mexico Board of 
Medical Examiners and the New Mexico Board of Pharmacy. 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.

[[Page 47183]]

    The Deputy Administrator adopts the opinion and recommended 
decision of the administrative law judge in its entirety. 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 Monroe, 
M.D., 57 FR 23246 (1992); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919 (1988).
    The administrative law judge properly 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. Phillip 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).
    In his exceptions to the opinion and recommended decision of the 
administrative law judge, the Respondent argued, inter alia, that 
actions taken by the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners and the New 
Mexico Board of Pharmacy, which resulted in the revocation of his state 
license to handle controlled substances, were improper. However, 
Respondent presented no evidence to contradict the fact that he is 
currently without authorization to handle controlled substances in the 
State of New Mexico.
    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), hereby orders that DEA Certificate of 
Registration, AN5283697, previously issued to Charles L. Novosad, Jr., 
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 October 11, 1995.

    Dated: September 5, 1995.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-22400 Filed 9-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M