[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 231 (Friday, November 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60727-60728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30378]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. 95-11]
Stanley Dubin, D.D.S.; Revocation of Registration
On September 29, 1994, the Deputy Assistant Administrator (then-
Director), Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Stanley Dubin, D.D.S.
(Respondent) of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, notifying him of an
opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should not revoke his DEA
Certificate of Registration, AD5534842, and deny any pending
applications for renewal of such registration as a practitioner, under
21 U.S.C. Secs. 823(f) and 824(a)(5).
By letter dated January 8, 1995, the Respondent, acting pro se,
filed a timely request for a hearing, and following prehearing
procedures, a hearing was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on
December 12, 1995, before Administrative Law Judge Paul A. Tenney. At
the hearing, counsel for DEA presented the testimony of witnesses and
introduced documentary evidence, and Respondent testified on his own
behalf. After the hearing, both parties submitted briefs in support of
their positions. On March 15, 1996, Judge Tenney issued his Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Ruling, recommending that
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked until such time
as he may be reinstated under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1320a-7(a).
Neither party filed exceptions to Judge Tenney's decision, and on
April 17, 1996, the record of these proceedings was transmitted to the
Deputy Administrator.
The Acting Deputy Administrator has considered the record in its
entirety, and pursuant to 21 C.F.R. Sec. 1316.67, hereby issues his
final order based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law as
hereinafter set forth. The Acting Deputy Administrator adopts, in full,
the Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Ruling of
the Administrative Law Judge. His adoption is in no manner diminished
by any recitation of facts, issues and conclusions herein, or of any
failure to mention a matter of fact or law.
The Acting Deputy Administrator finds that Respondent graduated
from Temple University dental school in 1964. In 1996, he bought an
existing dental practice that included a large number of Medical
Assistance patients. Effective January 26, 1977, Respondent was
permanently terminated by the State Office of Medical Programs, Bureau
of Medical Assistance, from participation in the Pennsylvania Medical
Assistance Program, based upon his fraudulent billing of the Medical
Assistance Program and the quality of treatment rendered to his
patients. Respondent was notified of this action by a letter dated
December 27, 1976, which also indicated that he was ``prohibited from
organizing, arranging, rendering, or ordering any service for Medical
Assistance recipients for which [he] may receive payments in the form
of administrative expenses, shared fees or rebates through any group
practice, clinic, medical center or other facility.''
In January 1977, Respondent appealed his termination from the
Medical Assistance Program. On September 10, 1979, Respondent's case
was dismissed based upon his failure to pursue the appeal, and his
termination was affirmed.
In late 1983, the Medicare Fraud Control Unit of the Pennsylvania
Office of Attorney General (Fraud Control Unit) received information
that Respondent was billing the Medical Assistance Program for dental
work performed on Medical Assistance patients. Subsequently, an
undercover agent posing as a Medical Assistance recipient received
dentures from Respondent, for which Respondent billed the Medical
Assistance Program. The Fraud Control Unit also interviewed dentists
who were employed by Respondent, as well as other office personnel. It
was discovered that Respondent did all of the hiring for his dental
practice and that any dentist employed by Respondent had to be enrolled
in the Medical Assistance Program. At the time of the investigation,
Respondent employed three dentists, and had a fifty-fifty fee sharing
arrangement with two of the dentists. For work done by the third
dentist, Respondent received fifty-five percent of the fees paid by the
Medical Assistance Program, and when Respondent treated the Medical
Assistance recipients himself, he received the full reimbursement
amount.
During the course of the investigation, the investigators learned
that the patients needing denture work were treated by Respondent, and
the other patients were treated by his employee dentists. A review of
dental records from 1981 through 1985 revealed that many of the Medical
Assistance invoices for denture work were submitted for payment with
the forged signature and provider identification number of one of the
dentists employed by Respondent. The employee dentists stated that they
had not authorized their signature on work they had not performed. In
addition, records were reviewed from the dental laboratory that filled
denture prescriptions from Respondent's practice. Several of the
prescriptions had the signature of one of the employee dentists, who
indicated that the signatures were not his. The Fraud Control Unit
determined that between 1981 and 1985, Respondent had received at a
minimum approximately $162,000 from the Medical Assistance Program
through the provider numbers of the dentists he employed.
On December 4, 1987, Respondent was indicted by the Fifth Statewide
Investigating Grand Jury for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for
Medical fraud, criminal conspiracy, forgery, and tampering with or
fabricating physical evidence. On May 20, 1991, Respondent pled guilty
to one count of Medicaid fraud, and was sentenced to two years
probation, fined $10,000 and ordered to pay costs of $2,500 and
restitution to the Department of Public Welfare in the amount of
$87,500.
As a result of his conviction, Respondent entered into a Consent
Agreement with the State Board of Dentistry whereby his license to
practice dentistry was suspended for one year, with the suspension
stayed in favor of a three month suspension and a nine month
probationary period. In addition, Respondent was required to pay a
$1,000 fine.
By letter dated April 8, 1992, Respondent was notified by the
United States Department of Health and Human Services of his mandatory
ten year exclusion from the Medicare program pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1320-7(a).
Respondent testified at the hearing before Judge Tenney that he
never received the December 27, 1976 letter notifying him of his
permanent termination from the state Medical Assistance Program. Like
Judge Tenney, the Acting Deputy Administrator does not credit this
testimony, since there is evidence that Respondent appealed this
termination. Respondent denied filing the appeal of the termination and
stated that he does not know who filed the
[[Page 60728]]
appeal on his behalf. However, the Acting Deputy Administrator does not
credit this testimony either, in light of evidence in the record that
Respondent was represented by three successive attorneys in his appeal
before it was dismissed for failure to pursue.
The Deputy Administrator may revoke or suspend a DEA Certificate of
Registration under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 824(a), upon a finding that the
registrant:
(1) Has materially falsified any application filed pursuant to
or required by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter;
(2) Has been convicted of a felony under this subchapter or
subchapter II of this chapter or any other law of the United States,
or of any State relating to any substance defined in this subchapter
as a controlled substance;
(3) Has had his State license or registration suspended,
revoked, or denied by competent State authority and is no longer
authorized by State law to engage in the manufacturing,
distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances or has had the
suspension, revocation, or denial of his registration recommended by
competent State authority;
(4) Has committed such acts as would render his registration
under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public
interest as determined under such section; or
(5) Has been excluded (or directed to be excluded) from
participation in a program pursuant to section 1320a-7(a) of Title
42.
It is undisputed that subsection (5) of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 824(a)
provides the sole basis for the revocation of Respondent's DEA
Certificate of Registration. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1320a-7(a),
Respondent has been excluded from the Medicare program for a ten year
period effective April 28, 1992, and from the Pennsylvania Medical
Assistance Program permanently. Respondent contends that even though
there is a lawful basis, revocation would be unduly harsh, since there
are no allegations that he has misused controlled substances.
Furthermore, Respondent argues that he has been practicing dentistry
for five years since his Medicaid fraud conviction and is in good
standing in the community in which he practices.
The Acting Deputy Administrator finds that the Drug Enforcement
Administration has previously held that misconduct which does not
involve controlled substances may constitute grounds, under 21 U.S.C.
Sec. 824(a)(5), for the revocation of a DEA Certificate of
Registration. See Gilbert L. Franklin, D.D.S., 57 Fed. Reg. 3441
(1992); George D. Osafo, M.D., 58 Fed. Reg. 37,508 (1993); Nelson
Ramirez-Gonzalez, M.D., 58 Fed. Reg. 52,787 (1993).
The Acting Deputy Administrator concludes that revocation is an
appropriate sanction in this case. In 1977, Respondent was permanently
terminated from participation in the Medical Assistance Program for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania based upon fraudulent billing and
inadequate quality of care. Despite this termination, Respondent
continued to treat Medical Assistance recipients at his dental practice
using on the Medical Assistance claims, the names and provider numbers
of his employee dentists without their permission. In addition, in
direct violation of the termination letter, Respondent received a
percentage of the reimbursement fees paid to his employee dentists by
the Medical Assistance Program. The Acting Deputy Administrator concurs
with Judge Tenney that, ``these actions cast substantial doubt on
Respondent's integrity * * *.''
Accordingly, the Acting Deputy Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in him by
21 U.S.C. Secs. 823 and 824, and 28 C.F.R. Secs. 0.100(b) and 0.104,
hereby orders that DEA Certificate of Registration AD5534842, issued to
Stanley Dubin, D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked until such time as
he may be reinstated under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1320a-7(a), and any pending
applications for renewal of such registration, be, and they hereby are,
denied. This order is effective January 28, 1997.
Dated: November 19, 1996.
James S. Milford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-30378 Filed 11-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M