[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42987-42988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20236]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 99-18]


Vincent G. Rhoden, D.P.M.; Revocation of Registration

    On January 21, 1999, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Officer of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Vincent G. Rhoden, D.P.M. (Respondent) of 
California, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA 
should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration BR5050860 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), and deny any pending applications for 
renewal of such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason 
that he is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in 
the State of California.
    By letter dated March 1, 1999, Respondent requested a hearing on 
the issues raised by the Order to Show Cause and the matter was 
docketed before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. On March 
8, 1999, Judge Bittner issued an Order for Prehearing Statements. In 
lieu of filing a prehearing statement, the Government filed a Motion 
for Summary Disposition on March 29, 1999, alleging that Respondent is 
currently registered with DEA to handle controlled substances in the 
State of California, however he is currently without state authority to 
handle controlled substances in that state. On April 19, 1999, 
Respondent filed his response to the Government's motion requesting 
that the proceedings be stayed for ``at least 180 days so that [he] may 
explore all available judicial remed[ies] for a questionable decision 
that was rendered against [him]. In addition, Respondent stated that 
there have been no complaints regarding his use of his DEA Certificate 
of Registration and that he intends to return to the practice of 
medicine. However, Respondent did not deny that he was not currently 
authorized to handle controlled substances in California.
    On April 22, 1999, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and Recommended 
Ruling, finding that Respondent lacks authorization to handle 
controlled substances in the State of California; granting the 
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition; and recommending that 
Respondents DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked. Neither party 
filed exceptions to her opinion, and on May 24, 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 the Board of Pediatric 
Medicine, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California, revoked 
Respondent's license to practice podiatric medicine effective January 
14, 1998. Respondent does not deny that his medical license has been 
revoked. As a result, the Deputy Administrator concludes that 
Respondent is not currently authorized to practice medicine in the 
State of California, and therefore, it is reasonable to infer that he 
is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in that 
state.
    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 currently authorized to 
handle controlled substances in the State of California. As a result, 
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. The parties did not 
dispute the fact that Respondent is not currently authorized to handle 
controlled substances in California. Therefore, it is well-settled that 
when no question of fact is involved, or when the material facts are 
agreed upon, a plenary, adversarial proceeding involving evidence and 
cross-examination of witnesses is not required. See Jesus R. Juarez, 
M.D., 62 FR 14945 (1997). The rationale is that Congress does not 
intend administrative agencies to perform meaningless tasks. See Philip 
E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32887 (1983), affd; 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).
    Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

[[Page 42988]]

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 BR5050860, previously issued to Vincent G. 
Rhoden, D.P.M., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator 
further orders that any pending applications for renewal of such 
registration, be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective 
September 7, 1999.

    Dated: July 27, 1999.
Donnie R. Marshall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-20236 Filed 8-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M