[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42990-42991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 99-2]


Dietrich A. Stoermer, M.D.; Denial of Application

    On June 5, 1998, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Dietrich A. Stoermer, M.D. (Respondent) of Las 
Vegas, Nevada. The Order to Show Cause notified Dr. Stoermer of an 
opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should not deny his application 
for registration as a practitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 
824(a)(3), based in part on the fact that he is not currently 
authorized to handle controlled substances in Nevada.
    On October 26, 1998, Respondent filed a request for a hearing and 
the matter was docketed before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen 
Bittner. On November 2, 1998, Judge Bittner issued an Order requiring 
Respondent to file a written statement indicating why his more than 
four month delay in filing a request for a hearing should not be 
considered a waiver of his right to a hearing. On November 12, 1998, 
Respondent filed a written statement asserting that he received the 
Order to Show Cause on August 6, 1998, and since it was more than 
thirty days after the Order to Show Cause had been issued he believed 
that he was precluded from responding. Respondent asserted that he 
received a second Order to Show Cause on September 30, 1998, and timely 
filed his request for a hearing on October 26, 1998. The Government did 
not file an objection to Respondent's explanation. Thereafter, on 
November 25, 1998, Judge Bittner issued a Memorandum and Order for 
Prehearing Statements finding that Respondent did not waive his right 
to a hearing.
    In lieu of filing a prehearing statement, the Government filed a 
Motion for Summary Disposition and Request for Stay of Deadline to File 
Prehearing Statement on December 15, 1998, alleging that Respondent is 
not authorized to handle controlled substances in Nevada, where he has 
applied to be registered with DEA. On December 31, 1998, Respondent 
submitted his response to the Government's motion, in which he did not 
deny that he was not currently authorized to handle controlled 
substances in Nevada.
    On February 1, 1999, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and 
Recommended Decision, finding that Respondent lacks authorization to 
handle controlled substances in the State of Nevada; granting the 
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition; and recommending that 
Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of Registration be 
denied. Neither party filed exceptions to her opinion, and on April 6, 
1999, Judge Bittner transmitted the record of these proceedings to the 
Deputy Administrator.
    The 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 Deputy Administrator adopts, in full, the Opinion and Recommended 
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
    The Deputy Administrator finds that attached to the Government's 
Motion for Summary Disposition was a letter dated March 5, 1998, from a 
licensing specialist with the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy (Pharmacy 
Board), which indicated that Respondent's state registration was not 
renewed in October 1994, and that while Respondent reapplied for 
registration in June of 1996, he did not complete the registration 
process. In his response to the Government's motion, Respondent did not 
deny that he was not currently authorized to handle controlled 
substances in Nevada. However, he asserted that when he applied for a 
state registration in June 1996, he was told not to pursue state 
registration ``until the Federal problem is sorted out.'' Subsequently, 
by letter dated January 25, 1999, Respondent forwarded a copy of his 
application dated January 29, 1999, for a controlled substance 
registration filed with the Pharmacy Board.
    The Deputy Administrator finds that Respondent does not dispute 
that he is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in 
Nevada, where he has applied for registration with DEA. However, he 
asserts that the Pharmacy Board will not consider his application for 
state registration until he receives a DEA Certificate of Registration. 
Judge Bittner noted that ''[t]his agency has neither the authority nor 
the obligation to discover why Respondent is not registered with the 
Pharmacy Board, but only to ascertain if Respondent is authorized to 
handle controlled substances in the State of Nevada.'' Therefore, the 
Deputy Administrator concludes that Respondent is not currently 
authorized to handle controlled substances in Nevada.
    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 his business. See 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 FR 16193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D., 
61 FR 60728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993).
    Here it is clear that Respondent is not licensed to handle 
controlled substances in the State of Nevada. Since Respondent lacks 
this authority, he is

[[Page 42991]]

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. The parties did not 
dispute the fact that Respondent is currently unauthorized to handle 
controlled substances in the State of Nevada. 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 Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 
48 FR 32887 (1993), aff'd sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th 
Cir. 1984); see also 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 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 for registration submitted by Dietrich A. Stoemer, M.D., 
be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective August 6, 1999.

    Dated: July 27, 1999.
Donnie R. Marshall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-20235 Filed 8-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M