[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7883]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 96-42]


Bruce A. Ames, M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On July 22, 1996, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Bruce A. Ames, M.D. (Respondent), of Redding, 
California, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA 
should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration AA5878422, and 
deny any pending applications for registration as a practitioner 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3), for reason that he is not 
currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the State of 
California.
    On August 19, 1996, Respondent filed a timely request for a 
hearing, and the matter was docketed before Administrative Law Judge 
Mary Ellen Bittner. On August 21, 1996, Judge Bittner issued an Order 
for Prehearing Statements. On August 26, 1996, the Government filed a 
Motion for Summary Disposition, alleging that effective May 12, 1995, 
the Medical Board of California (Board) placed Respondent's license to 
practice medicine in the State of California on probation for five 
years, prohibited him from handling controlled substances, and ordered 
him to surrender his DEA Certificate of Registration. In his response 
to the Government's motion, Respondent asserted various defenses. 
However, Respondent did not deny that the Board prohibited him from 
handling controlled substances.
    On October 28, 1996, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and 
Recommended Decision, finding that Respondent lacked authorization to 
handle controlled substances in the State of California; granting the 
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition; and recommending that 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked. Neither party 
filed exceptions to her opinion, and on December 3, 1996, Judge Bittner 
transmitted the record of these proceedings to the Acting Deputy 
Administrator.
    The Acting Deputy Administrator has considered the record in its 
entirety, and pursuant to 21 CFR 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 Opinion and 
Recommended Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
    The Acting Deputy Administrator finds that effective May 12, 1995, 
the Board revoked Respondent's license to practice medicine in the 
State of California, but stayed the revocation and placed Respondent's 
license on probation for five years subject to various terms and 
conditions. One of these terms is that ``Respondent shall not 
prescribe, administer, dispense, order or possess any controlled 
substances as defined in the California Uniform Controlled Substances 
Act.'' In addition, ``Respondent is prohibited from practicing medicine 
until [he] provides documentary proof * * * that [his] DEA permit has 
been surrendered to the Drug Enforcement Administration for 
cancellation * * *.'' Therefore, the Acting Deputy Administrator finds 
that Respondent is not currently authorized to handle controlled 
substances in the State of 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. 802(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). In the instant case, the record indicates that 
Respondent is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances 
in the State of California. As Judge Bittner notes, ``[i]t is equally 
clear that because Respondent lacks this state authority, Respondent 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 
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 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); United States v. 
Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 44 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971).
    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 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders 
that DEA Certificate of Registration AA5878422, previously issued to 
Bruce A. Ames, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Acting Deputy 
Administrator further orders that any pending applications for 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. 97-7883 Filed 3-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M