[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 1997)] [Notices] [Pages 14945-14946] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 97-7881] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [Docket No. 95-25] Jesus R. Juarez, M.D. Revocation of Registration On February 27, 1995, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Division Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an Order to Show Cause to Jesus R. Juarez, M.D. (Respondent), of Fresno, California, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration BJ0925290, and deny any pending applications for renewal of such registration as a practitioner under 21 U.S.C. 823(f). The Order to Show Cause alleged as grounds for the proposed action that Respondent's continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), and that pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2), Respondent had been convicted of a controlled substance related felony offense. Respondent, through counsel, filed a timely request for a hearing, and the matter was docketed before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. Following prehearing procedures, a hearing was held on February 27 and 28, 1996, in Fresno, California. After the hearing, both parties submitted proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and argument. On July 24, 1996, while the matter was still pending before Judge Bittner, counsel for the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, alleging that Respondent is currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of California. The motion was supported by a copy of the Proposed Decision of an Administrative Law Judge for the Medical Board of California recommending that Respondent's state license to practice medicine be revoked, and by a copy of the Decision of the Medical Board dated July 10, 1996, adopting the Proposed Decision effective August 9, 1996. Respondent filed a response to the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition on August 15, 1996, stating that the Medical Board's decision was not yet final because Respondent had petitioned for a rehearing, and if unsuccessful, would seek judicial review of the Medical Board's action. Respondent, however, did not deny that he was currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of California. Thereafter, on August 21, 1996, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and Recommended Decision, finding that based upon the evidence before her, Respondent lacked authorization to handle controlled substances in the State of California and therefore, he was not entitled to a DEA registration in that state; granting the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition; and recommending that Respondent's application for DEA registration be denied. Neither party filed exceptions to her opinion, and on September 23, 1996, Judge Bittner transmitted the record of these proceedings to the Deputy Administrator. The Acting 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 Acting Deputy Administrator finds that on June 20, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge for the Medical Board of California recommended that Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of California be revoked. On July 10, 1996, the Medical Board of California adopted the Proposed Decision of the Administrative Law Judge effective August 9, 1996. As Judge Bittner noted, it is reasonable to infer ``that because [Respondent] is not authorized to practice medicine, he is also not authorized to handle controlled substances.'' Respondent argues that the revocation of his license to practice medicine in the State of California is not yet final because he is seeking a rehearing before the Medical Board. However, Respondent does not dispute that he is currently without authority to handle controlled substances in California. The DEA does not have the statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to issue or maintain a registration if the applicant or registrant is without state authority to handle controlled substances in the state in which he conducts business. 21 U.S.C. 801(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been consistently upheld. See Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 Fed. Reg. 51,104 (1993); James H. Nickens, M.D., 57 Fed. Reg. 59,847 (1992); Roy E. Hardman, M.D., 57 Fed. Reg. 49,195 (1992). Accordingly, the Acting Deputy Administrator concurs with Judge Bittner's conclusion that Respondent is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the State of California and therefore is not entitled to a DEA registration in that state. The Acting Deputy Administrator concurs with Judge Bittner's recommendation that Respondent's application be denied, but also finds that Respondent's DEA registration must be revoked based upon his lack of authorization to handle controlled substances in California. The Acting Deputy Administrator finds that Judge Bittner properly granted the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition. Here, the parties did not dispute the fact that Respondent was unauthorized to handle controlled substances in California. 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 Fed. Reg. 32,887 (1983), aff'd sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); NLRB v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977). The Acting Deputy Administrator concludes that because Respondent is not entitled to a DEA registration due to his lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances, it is unnecessary to address whether Respondent's registration should be revoked based upon the grounds alleged in the Order to Show Cause. [[Page 14946]] Accordingly, the Acting 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 BJ0925290, previously issued to Jesus R. Juarez, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Acting Deputy Administrator further orders that any pending applications for the renewal of such registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective April 28, 1997. Dated: March 14, 1997. James S. Milford, Acting Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 97-7881 Filed 3-27-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M