[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 14819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8042]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. 95-52]


Stan White; Denial of Application

    On July 20, 1995, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Stan White (Respondent), of Hardwick, 
Massachusetts, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to why 
DEA should not deny his application for a DEA Certificate of 
Registration as a practitioner under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), because he 
lacked authorization to handle controlled substances within the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
    In a letter dated August 17, 1995, the Respondent, acting pro se 
and responding to the Order to Show Cause, requested a hearing, and the 
matter was docketed before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. 
On August 30, 1995, counsel for the Government filed a Motion for 
Summary Disposition, asserting that the Respondent was not duly 
authorized to possess, prescribe, dispense, or otherwise handle 
controlled substances under State law in the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, the jurisdiction in which he proposed to conduct his 
business. Attached to the motion was a copy of the Respondent's 
application for registration and a copy of a letter dated August 28, 
1995, from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human 
Services, denying the Respondent's application to obtain Schedule II 
controlled substances as a researcher.
    The Respondent did not file a response to the Government's motion. 
Further, the Respondent has not filed anything denying his lack of a 
state registration to handle controlled substances.
    On October 3, 1995, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and 
Recommended Decision, finding that the Respondent lacked authorization 
to handle controlled substances in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
and that there was no genuine issue of material fact in that regard. 
Accordingly, Judge Bittner granted the Government's Motion for Summary 
Disposition and recommended that the Respondent's application for a DEA 
Certificate of Registration be denied. Neither party filed exceptions 
to her decision, and on November 6, 1995, Judge Bittner transmitted the 
record of these proceedings and her opinion to the Deputy 
Administrator.
    The Deputy Administrator has considered the record in its entirety, 
and pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1316.67, hereby issues his final order based 
upon findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter set forth. 
The Deputy Administrator adopts, in full, the decision of the 
Administrative Law Judge.
    The DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled 
Substances Act to issue a registration if the applicant is without 
state authority 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 Dominick A. Ricci, 
M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); James H. Nickens, M.D., 57 FR 59,847 (1992); 
Roy E. Hardman, M.D., 57 FR 49,195 (1992); Myong S. Yi, M.D., 54 FR 
30,618 (1989); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988). As Judge Bittner 
correctly noted, ``[i]n the instant case it is clear that [the] 
Respondent is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances 
in Massachusetts. It is equally clear that because [the] Respondent 
lacks this state authority, he is not currently entitled to a DEA 
registration.''
    Judge Bittner also properly granted the Government's Motion for 
Summary Disposition. Here, the parties did not dispute the fact that 
the Respondent was unauthorized to handle controlled substances in 
Massachusetts. Therefore, it is well-settled that when no question of 
material fact is involved, a plenary, adversary administrative 
proceeding involving evidence and cross-examination of witnesses is not 
obligatory. See Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., supra, (finding it well 
settled that where there is no question of material fact involved, a 
plenary, adversarial administrative hearing was not required); see also 
Phillip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32,887 (1983), aff'd sub nom Kirk V. 
Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); Alfred Tennyson Smurthwaite, 
M.D., 43 FR 11,873 (1978); NLRB v. International Association of Bridge, 
Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 
1977).
    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 the 
application submitted by Stan White for a DEA Certificate of 
Registration be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective May 
3, 1996.

    Dated: March 28, 1996.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8042 Filed 4-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M