[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49822-49823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23668]



[[Page 49822]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 99-19]


William D. Levitt, D.O.; Revocation of Registration

    On February 10, 1999, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an 
Order to Show Cause to William D. Levitt, D.O. (Respondent) of 
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Order to Show Cause notified Respondent of 
an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should not revoke his DEA 
Certificate of Registration BL1242750 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2), 
824(a)(3), and 824(a)(4), and deny any pending applications for renewal 
of such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that he 
has been convicted of a felony involving controlled substances, he is 
not authorized to handle controlled substances in New Mexico, and his 
continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest.
    By letter dated March 26, 1999, Respondent, through counsel, filed 
a request for a hearing and the matter was docketed before 
Administrative Law Judge Gail A. Randall. On March 31, 1999, Judge 
Randall issued an Order for Prehearing Statements. In lieu of filing a 
prehearing statement, the Government filed a Motion for Summary 
Disposition on April 8, 1999, and on April 26, 1999, Respondent filed 
his response to the Government's motion.
    On May 3, 1999, Judge Randall issued her Opinion and Recommended 
Decision, finding that Respondent lacks authorization to handle 
controlled substances in the State of New Mexico; granting the 
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition; and recommending that 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration should be revoked if DEA 
precedent remains viable under the circumstances of this case. Neither 
party filed exceptions to her opinion, and on June 15, 1999, Judge 
Randall 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 finds that the Government alleged in its 
Motion for Summary Disposition that Respondent is currently registered 
with DEA to handle controlled substances in the State of New Mexico, 
however he is currently without state authority to handle controlled 
substances in that state. According to the Government, Respondent's New 
Mexico controlled substance registration expired on March 31, 1998, and 
has not been renewed. As a result, the Government contended that DEA 
cannot maintain Respondent's DEA registration in New Mexico.
    In its response to Government's motion, Respondent argued that 
although his New Mexico controlled substance registration has expired, 
he has filed a renewal application, but the New Mexico Board has failed 
to Act upon the application. Respondent asserted that he has filed a 
civil action in a New Mexico court requesting that the court order the 
New Mexico Board to act upon his application. Accordingly, Respondent 
argued that this administrative proceeding should be stayed pending the 
outcome of the state proceedings. However, Respondent did not deny that 
he was not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in New 
Mexico.
    As Judge Randall noted, DEA has consistently held that it does not 
have the statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to 
issue a registration for a practitioner unless that practitioner is 
authorized by the state in which it practices to handle controlled 
substances. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), DEA is authorized to register 
a practitioner to dispense controlled substances only if the applicant 
is authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the 
state in which it conducts business. Further, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 
802(21), a practitioner is defined as ``a physician * * * or other 
person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United 
States or the jurisdiction in which he practices * * * to distribute, 
[or] dispense * * *. controlled substance[s] in the course of 
professional practice.''
    Judge Randall further noted that DEA has also consistently held 
that a DEA registration may not be maintained if the applicant or 
registration lacks state authority to dispense controlled substances, 
even if such lack of state authorization was a result of the expiration 
of his/her state registration without further action by the state. See, 
e.g., Mark L. Beck, D.D.S., 64 FR 40899 (1999); Gary D. Benke, M.D., 58 
FR 65734 (1993); Carlyle Balgobin, D.D.S., 58 FR 46992 (1993); Charles 
H. Ryan, M.D., 58 FR 14430 (1993); James H. Nickens, M.D., 57 FR 59847 
(1992).
    However, Judge Randall expressed concern regarding the Government's 
reliance on 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) to support the summary revocation of a 
registration if the registrant's state authorization has expired. This 
section states that:

    A registration pursuant to section 823 of this title to * * * 
dispense a controlled substance * * * may be suspended or revoked * 
* * upon a finding that the registration (3) has had his State 
License or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by competent 
State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage 
in the * * * dispensing of controlled substances * * * or has had 
the suspension, revocation, or denial of his registration 
recommended by competent State authority.

21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3).
    As Judge Randall noted, New Mexico has not suspended, revoked, or 
denied Respondent's state authority to handle controlled substances, 
nor is there any evidence that a competent state authority has 
recommended that such action be taken against Respondent's state 
authorization. Rather, Respondent's state controlled substance 
registration has expired, and the state has failed to act upon his 
renewal application. Judge Randall concluded that ``under these 
circumstances, the statutory provisions do not seem to be met.''
    Therefore, Judge Randall stated that:

    [A]lthough contrary to current DEA precedent, I have difficulty 
concluding that the Government has triggered section 824(a)(3) under 
these circumstances. Consistent with the plain language of the 
statute, the more viable resolution would be to deny the 
Government's motion due to the state's failure to act in this case, 
and to order the reinstatement of the Order for Prehearing 
Statements. In that way, this case would continue to hearing on all 
alleged bases for revocation. However, such a resolution would be 
contrary to current DEA precedent. Accordingly, the Deputy 
Administrator would need to intervene and order such an outcome 
here.

    As a result, Judge Randall found that consistent with DEA 
precedent, the only relevant issue is whether Respondent is authorized 
to handle controlled substances in New Mexico; that it is undisputed 
that Respondent is not currently authorized to handle controlled 
substances in New Mexico; and that as a result, a Motion for Summary 
Disposition is properly granted.
    It is well settled that where there is no material question of fact 
involved, or when the facts are agreed upon, there is no need for a 
plenary, administrative hearing. Congress did not intend for 
administrative agencies to perform meaningless tasks. See Gilbert Ross, 
M.D., 61 FR 8664 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993); 
Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32887 (1983), aff'd

[[Page 49823]]

sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984).
    Consequently, Judge Randall recommended that if the Deputy 
Administrator determines that the DEA precedent remains viable, 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration should be revoked.
    The Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge Randall that the plain 
language of U.S.C. 824(a)(3) states that a DEA registration may be 
revoked if a registrant's state authorization is revoked, suspended, or 
denied by competent state authority. However, this leaves DEA in a 
dilemma since pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), DEA can only register a 
practitioner if he is authorized by the state to handle controlled 
substances, and there is no provision in the statute to deal with 
situations where a practitioner is no longer authorized by the state, 
yet his state registration was not revoked, suspended, or denied.
    Since state authorization was clearly intended to be a prerequisite 
to DEA registration, Congress could not have intended for DEA to 
maintain a registration if a registrant is no longer authorized by the 
state in which he practices to handle controlled substances due to the 
expiration of his state license. Therefore, it is reasonable for DEA to 
interpret that 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) would allow for the revocation of a 
DEA Certificate of Registration where, as here, a registrant's state 
authorization has expired.
    Therefore, the Deputy Administrator concludes that Respondent is 
not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in New Mexico, 
and that consistent with DEA precedent, DEA cannot maintain his 
registration in that state.
    Since DEA does not have the authority to maintain Respondent's DEA 
registration because he is not currently authorized to handle 
controlled substances in New Mexico, the Deputy Administrator concludes 
that it is unnecessary to determine whether Respondent's DEA 
registration should be revoked based upon the other grounds alleged in 
the Order to Show Cause.
    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 DEA 
Certificate of Registration BL 1242750, previously issued to William D. 
Levitt, D.O., 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 
October 14, 1999.

    Dated: August 24, 1999.
Donnie R. Marshall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-23668 Filed 9-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M