[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44283-44284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 98-5]


Michael J. Septer, D.O.; Revocation of Registration

    On October 8, 1997, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Michael J. Septer, D.O. (Respondent) of Grand 
Rapids, Michigan notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to 
why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration 
BS0321430, and deny any pending applications for the renewal of such 
registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824, for reason that he 
is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the 
State of Michigan.
    By letter dated November 3, 1997, Respondent filed a request for a 
hearing, and the matter was docketed before Administrative Law Judge 
Mary Ellen Bittner. On November 12, 1997, the Government filed a Motion 
for Summary Disposition, alleging effective August 18, 1997, the Board 
of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery for the State of Michigan (Michigan 
Board) suspended Respondent's license to practice osteopathic medicine 
and surgery in Michigan for at least six months and one day. The 
Government

[[Page 44284]]

argued that Respondent is therefore not authorized to handle controlled 
substances in that state.
    Respondent submitted a response dated December 15, 1997, to the 
Government's motion arguing that the Board suspended his license in 
Michigan as a ``sister state action'' to the revocation of his Arizona 
license, and that evidence would be presented at a hearing that would 
show that ``the Arizona Osteopathic Board of Medical Examiners acted 
with prejudicial error in there (sic) determination.'' Respondent 
further argued that both the Arizona Osteopathic Board of Medical 
Examiners and the Michigan Board engaged in ``prosecutorial 
indiscretion'' and ``misfeasance.'' However, Respondent did not deny 
that he was not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in 
Michigan.
    On January 23, 1998, Judge Bittner issued a Memorandum to Parties 
and Order noting that Respondent did not indicate in his response to 
the Government's motion ``whether he is pursuing reinstatement of his 
Michigan license upon conclusion of the minimum six month and one day 
suspension period.'' Therefore, Judge Bittner gave Respondent until 
March 12, 1998 to submit documentation that his Michigan license has 
been reinstated. Judge Bittner warned that, (i)f Respondent fails to 
timely submit such documentation, I shall grant the Motion for Summary 
Disposition.'' Respondent did not submit any documentation nor did he 
indicate that he intends to do so in the future.
    On March 24, 1998, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and Recommended 
Decision, finding that Respondent lacked authorization to practice 
medicine in the State of Michigan, and therefore handle controlled 
substances; 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 April 
28, 1998, 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 Administrator Law Judge.
    The Acting Deputy Administrator finds that by a Superseding Final 
Order dated July 18, 1997, the Michigan Board suspended Respondent's 
license to practice osteopathic medicine and surgery effective August 
18, 1997, for six month and one day. The Michigan Board further ordered 
that reinstatement of Respondent's license would not be automatic at 
the conclusion of the suspension period. Respondent did not deny that 
he was not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the 
State of Michigan and he did not offer evidence that he has sought to 
have his Michigan license reinstated.
    The DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled 
Substances Act to issue or maintain a registration if the applicant or 
registrant is without 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 Romeo J. 
Perez, M.D., 62 16,193 (1997), Demetris A. Green, M.D., 61 F.R. 60,728 
(1996); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104(1993).
    Here it is clear that Respondent is not licensed to practice 
osteopathic medicine in Michigan. Consequently, it is reasonable to 
infer that he is not authorized to handle controlled substances in 
Michigan, where he is registered with DEA. Since Respondent lacks this 
state authority, he is not entitled to a DEA registration in that 
state.
    In light of the above, 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 Michigan. Therefore, it is well-settled that when no 
question of material fact is involved, a plenary, adversary 
administrative proceeding involving evidence an cross-examination of 
witness is not obligatory. See Phillip E. Kirk, M.D.,  48 FR 32,887 
(1983), aff'd sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); 
NLRB v. Internatioal 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 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby order that DEA 
Certificate of Registration BS0321430, previously issued to Michael J. 
Septer, 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 September 17, 1998.

    Dated: August 11, 1998.
Donnie R. Marshall,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-22097 Filed 8-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M