[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3946-3948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2170]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 95-39]


Edward L.C. Broomes, M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On March 27, 1995, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Edward L.C. Broomes, M.D., (Respondent) of East 
Chicago, Indiana, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to 
why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration, 
AB2703925, under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), and deny any pending applications 
for renewal of such registration as a practitioner under 21 U.S.C. 
823(f). Specifically, the Order to Show Cause alleged that:

    1. Information provided to DEA and the Indiana State Police by 
several confidential informants indicates that since 1989, [the 
Respondent has] written prescriptions for controlled substances to 
numerous individuals for other than legitimate medical purposes. 
These informants stated that a group headed by a James Marshall 
regularly drives to East Chicago, Indiana, from Pennsylvania, 
provides names to [the Respondent] and/or [his] employees to be used 
on prescriptions, obtains the prescriptions from [his] medical 
office, fills the prescriptions at specific pharmacies in Gary, 
Indiana, and sells the controlled substances in Pennsylvania. The 
informants identified the drugs obtained as Desoxyn and Percocet, 
both Schedule II controlled substances. The informants also 
identified some of the names used by James Marshall in this scheme 
as Houston Abbott, David Abbott, Michael Johnson, Jason Brown, 
Beverly Abbott, and Patricia Armstrong.
    2. [The Respondent] continued to write prescriptions for 
controlled substances in the names of at least two (2) individuals, 
Sean Abbott and James Quisenberry, for several years after their 
deaths.
    3. Review of triplicate prescription records maintained by the 
State of Indiana indicates that between September 1989 and April 
1994, [the Respondent] wrote prescriptions totalling over 6,600 
dosage units of Schedule II controlled substances to the six (6) 
individuals identified by the informants. Many of these individuals 
obtained prescriptions for Desoxyn at least once a month for a 
period of over three (3) years.
    4. [The Respondent] prescribed Desoxyn and Percocet on a regular 
basis to at least one (1) drug-addicted individual.
    5. On December 22, 1992, eight (8) prescriptions issued by [the 
Respondent] were filled at a Gary, Indiana, drug store. Each of the 
prescriptions was for 400 dosage units of Dilaudid. None of the 
prescriptions contained a date of issue as required by 21 CFR 
1306.05.
    6. Many prescriptions written by [the Respondent] listed 
nonexistent addresses for the patients. For example, none of the 
addresses provided on the eight (8) prescriptions listed in the 
preceding paragraph was in existence as of October 1994. In 
addition, between January 1, 1993 and July 31, 1993, [the 
Respondent] wrote at least sixteen (16) prescriptions for controlled 
substances, including Percocet and Desoxyn, for James Marshall. The 
address provided on each of the prescriptions, 4930 Alden in East 
Chicago, Indiana, does not exist. Information provided by a 
confidential informant and corroborated by the Pennsylvania Bureau 
of Motor Vehicles indicates that James Marshall is a resident of 
Aliquippa, Pennsylvania.
    7. On October 4, 1994, investigators executed a federal search 
warrant at [the Respondent's] office. The following violations were 
noted:
    a. [The Respondent] had presigned controlled substance 
prescriptions for James Marshall in violation of 21 CFR 1306.05(a).
    b. Patient files indicated that [the Respondent had] maintained 
narcotic addicts on methadone without obtaining a separate 
registration in violation of 21 CFR 1301.22.
    c. Patient files revealed that [the Respondent had] prescribed 
Desoxyn, a Schedule II controlled substance, to treat obesity, in 
violation of Indiana law.

    On May 30, 1995, the Respondent filed a reply to the show cause 
order, but he did not indicate whether he was requesting a hearing. On 
May 31, 1995, the Hearing Clerk sent a letter to the Respondent, 
advising him that he had until June 14, 1995, to request a hearing, and 
on June 30, 1995, Chief Judge Mary Ellen Bittner issued an order 
terminating proceedings before her, noting that the Respondent had 
failed to request a hearing by that date. Accordingly, the Deputy 
Administrator now enters his final order in this matter pursuant to 21 
CFR 1301.54(e) and 1301.57, without a hearing and based on the 
investigative file and the written Reply submitted by the Respondent.
    The Deputy Administrator finds that the Respondent is licensed to 
practice medicine in Indiana, and he has a Certificate of Registration 
with the DEA as a practitioner in Schedules II through V. The 
Respondent's registered location is the Lakeside Medical Clinic in East 
Chicago, Indiana. In February 1992, an investigation was initiated by 
the Indiana State Police because the Respondent had purportedly 
authorized an unusually large number of Schedule II controlled 
substance prescriptions according to information provided by the 
Indiana Health and Professions Bureau. DEA was asked to assist in this 
investigation, and it was found that the Respondent had issued 
prescriptions for Schedule II substances as late as April 1991, to an 
individual who had died on December 9, 1988. In his Reply, the 
Respondent wrote: ``Attention has been drawn to the fact that two of my 
patients were receiving prescriptions of Ritalin although they had been 
dead for some time. I did not know of the demise until reading of it in 
the letter.''
    On October 5, 1994, a federal search warrant was executed at the 
Lakeside Medical Clinic, and presigned controlled substance 
prescriptions were found. Further, patient files indicated that the 
Respondent had maintained narcotic addicts on methadone, even though he 
was not registered to participate in such a program.
    Further, two of the clinic's employees, as well as the Respondent, 
were interviewed during the search of the Respondent's clinic. The 
interviewing officer noted that the Respondent sometimes talked about 
matters unrelated to his questioning. Further, he was concerned when 
the Respondent appeared to fall asleep during the interview, although 
the Respondent assured him that he wished to continue, and the 
interview lasted only approximately one hour. The Respondent stated 
that during 1994 he had been in the hospital in January, August, and 
September, when he had remained for about 10 or 11 days. Further, the 
Respondent admitted to prescribing controlled substances to a known 
drug addict, stating that he 

[[Page 3947]]
would rather have her obtain such substances from him than from someone 
``on the street.'' The Respondent also admitted that he had prescribed 
Desoxyn for appetite control. Desoxyn is a brand name for a product 
containing methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and 
according to the Physicians' Desk Reference, if it is prescribed for 
treatment of obesity, it should be used on a short-term basis. Yet a 
survey of the Respondent's prescriptions revealed that he had issued 
prescriptions for Desoxyn to individuals for a period of time in excess 
of three years.
    A colleague of the Respondent's (Colleague), whose medical license 
was then under probation in Indiana and who was under the Respondent's 
supervision, was also interviewed. He stated that patients were taken 
into the Respondent's office when he could hardly walk, and that it was 
unknown what type of examination, if any, was conducted on these 
patients. in the Colleague's opinion, the Respondent was no longer 
competent to practice medicine and was a danger to his patients.
    Another of the Respondent's employees was interviewed, and she 
stated that a box of approximately 40 patient records were segregated 
in the file room, and office personnel referred to these files as the 
``druggie files.'' She stated that these patients came to the clinic 
solely to get controlled substance prescriptions, specifically Schedule 
II controlled substance prescriptions, for which they paid an 
additional fee. The investigator interviewed another of the 
Respondent's employees who corroborated this information. This second 
employee also reported that the clinic had had several thefts of entire 
stock bottles of controlled substances, which were in the clinic to 
dispense to patients. However, these thefts had not been reported to 
DEA, State, or local police.
    Subsequently, investigators interviewed cooperating individuals who 
had received controlled substance prescriptions from the Respondent. 
Two such individuals reported that on several occasions they had been 
given prescriptions for Schedule II substances of their choice, and 
that no physical examinations had been conducted. After filling these 
prescriptions, they had given the substances to James Marshall, who 
paid them for their participation in his scheme. The individuals were 
told by Mr. Marshall that he sold these controlled substances to 
individuals in another State. On one occasions, an individual assisting 
Mr. Marshall was told to choose a local address from the telephone book 
in the Respondent's office and to give that address for the 
prescription. Following up on this information, investigators noted 
that in numerous instances the addresses appearing on the multiple 
prescription forms signed by the Respondent for Schedule II controlled 
substances, when investigated, did not exist. The Respondent did not 
address these allegations in his Reply.
    In his Reply, the Respondent wrote that he was 81 years old, and 
that he generally denied the allegations in the show cause order. 
Although he described in general his treatment practices, the 
Respondent did not factually refute specific allegations in the order. 
He disputed the evidence providing a numerical analysis of his 
prescribing practices, but he did not rebut the specific allegations 
concerning the conduct by James Marshall or his associates. He merely 
denied that such conduct could occur, given his general office 
procedures. He did not deny (1) prescribing Desoxyn to treat obesity, 
(2) having pre-signed controlled substance prescriptions for James 
Marshall in his clinic, or (3) prescribing methadone to narcotic 
addicted patients.
    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4), the Deputy 
Administrator may revoke the Respondent's DEA Certificate of 
Registration and deny any pending applications, 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.
    (5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health or 
safety.
    These factors are to be considered in the disjunctive; the Deputy 
Administrator may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may 
give each factor the weight he deems appropriate in determining whether 
a registration should be revoked or an application for registration 
denied. See Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No. 88-42, 54 FR 16422 
(1989).
    In this case, factors two, four, and five are relevant in 
determining whether the Respondent's continued registration would be 
inconsistent with the public interest. As to factor two, the 
Respondent's ``experience in dispensing * * * controlled substances,'' 
the Deputy Administrator has previously found that a prescription for a 
controlled substance ``must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose 
by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his 
professional practice.'' 21 CFR 1306.04(a); see also Harlan J. 
Borcherding, D.O, 60 FR 28796, 28798 (1995). Here, the Respondent 
issued prescriptions for Schedule II substances to deceased 
individuals, showing a blatant disregard for the requirement that 
controlled substance prescriptions be issued for a legitimate medical 
purpose. Further, the investigative file contains evidence that the 
Respondent issued controlled substance prescriptions to individuals 
upon their request, to include the substance of their request, without 
performing any physical examinations or other clinical tests. He also 
accepted additional payment for these prescriptions. The Deputy 
Administrator has previously found that prescriptions issued under such 
circumstances were not for a legitimate medical purpose. Ibid.
    As to factor four, the Respondent's ``[c]ompliance with applicable 
State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances,'' 
Indiana passed a statute in 1988 which made it unlawful to prescribe 
controlled substances ``to any person for purposes of weight reduction 
or for control in the treatment of obesity.'' See Indiana Code 25-22.5-
2-7. However, the Respondent admitted that he had prescribed Desoxyn, a 
Schedule II controlled substance, as part of his treatment for his 
obese patients, and the evidence demonstrated that he issued such 
prescriptions through 1994. Further, a separate DEA registration is 
required to treat drug addicted patients with methadone, but the 
Respondent engaged in such treatment without obtaining the required 
registration, in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and its 
implementing regulations. See 21 U.S.C. 823(g); 21 CFR 1301.22. Also, 
the Respondent failed to report to the DEA the theft of large 
quantities of controlled substances from his clinic, despite the 
requirement to do so. See 21 CFR 1301.76(b). Finally, he kept pre-
signed controlled substance prescription forms prepared for James 
Marshall. Such practices violate 21 CFR 1306.05(a), which states in 
relevant part:
    ``(a) All prescriptions for controlled substances shall be dated as 
of, and signed on, the day when issued * * * [and] the prescribing 
practitioner is responsible in case the prescription 

[[Page 3948]]
does not conform in all essential respects to the law and 
regulations.''
    As to factor five, ``[s]uch other conduct which may threaten the 
public health or safety,'' the Deputy Administrator gives some weight 
to the Colleague's opinion concerning the danger the Respondent's 
practices creates for his patients. Although the Colleague had also 
experienced professional difficulties, his observations as to the 
Respondent's impaired abilities to treat his patients were corroborated 
by other office personnel, by interviewing investigators, and by the 
Respondent himself in discussing his health problems in 1994. Such 
impairment, coupled with his past prescribing practices, creates doubt 
as to the Respondent's ability to comply with DEA regulations in 
issuing prescriptions for controlled substances. Also, his failure to 
provide any basis for the Deputy Administrator to believe that his 
professional practices would be altered in the future, weighs heavily 
in favor of revoking the Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration 
at this time.
    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 AB2703925, previously issued to Edward L.C. 
Broomes, 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 March 4, 1996.

    Dated: January 29, 1996.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-2170 Filed 2-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M