[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 35591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12485]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Gary Phillip Venuto, M.D., Revocation of Registration

    On July 6, 2001, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause (OTSC) by certified mail to Gary Phillip Venuto, 
M.D., (Respondent) notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to 
why the DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration, 
AV2928022, and deny any pending applications for renewal, pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4). On August 6, 2001, Respondent filed a 
request for a hearing in this matter.
    On August 29, 2001, the Government filed a Motion for Summary 
Disposition, asserting that Respondent is not currently authorized to 
handle controlled substances in Utah, the state in which he practices. 
Specifically, the Government contends that, on April 23, 2001, 
Respondent entered into a Stipulation and Order with the Utah Division 
of Occupational and Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce 
(Division), pursuant to which the Division revoked Respondent's 
controlled substance license. The Government argues that DEA cannot 
register or maintain a registration of a practitioner who is not duly 
authorized to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or 
she practices.
    Respondent argues that pursuant to the Division's Order, which 
placed his medical license on probation for five years, ``although 
(Respondent) is forbidden from direct contact with controlled 
substances, (he) is still a licensed practitioner who has authority to 
make decisions about his patients' controlled and addictive substance 
intake.'' Respondent argues there is no case law on the issue regarding 
whether a physician who has authority to make decisions about treating 
patients with controlled substances may retain his DEA registration.
    On October 3, 2001, Administrative law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner 
(Judge Bittner) issued her Opinion and Recommended Decision granting 
the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition. The matter was 
thereafter transmitted to the Deputy Administrator for final decision 
on November 19, 2001.
    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 DEA does not have the statutory authority pursuant to the 
Controlled Substances Act to issue or to maintain a registration if the 
applicant or registrant is without state authority to handle controlled 
substances in the state in which he or she practices. See 21 USC 
802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been consistently 
upheld in prior DEA cases. See Graham Travers Schuler, M.D., 65 FR 
50,570 (2000); Romeo J. Perez, M.D., 62 FR 16,193 (1997); Demetris A. 
Green, M.D., 61 FR 60,728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104 
(1993).
    In the instant case, the Deputy Administrator finds the Government 
has presented evidence demonstrating that the Respondent is not 
authorized to handle controlled substances in Utah, the State in which 
he practices, according to the address listed on his DEA Certificate of 
Registration. The Deputy Administrator concurs with Judge Bittner's 
finding that the Division's Stipulation and Order prohibited Respondent 
from exercising independent judgment in determining whether patients 
should be treated with controlled substances, and further that 
Respondent was prohibited from handling controlled substances. The 
Stipulation and Order specifically states that Respondent ``shall not 
be involved in any way regarding the patient's treatment regarding 
controlled substances or addictive medication.'' Thus, there is no 
genuine issue of material fact concerning Respondent's lack of 
authorization to handle controlled substances in the State of Utah.
    The Deputy Administrator concurs with Judge Bittner's finding that 
it is well settled that when there is no question of material fact 
involved, there is not need for a plenary, administrative hearing. 
Congress did not intend for administrative agencies to perform 
meaningless tasks. See Michael G. Dolin, M.D., 65 FR 5,661 (2000); 
Jesus R. Juarez, M.D., 62 FR 14,945 (1997); see also Philip E. Kirk, 
M.D., 48 FR 32,887 (1983), aff'd sub nom. Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 
(6th Cir. 1984).
    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 DEA 
Certificate of Registration AV2928022, previously issued to Gary Philip 
Venuto, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked; and any pending 
applications for renewal or modification of said Certificate be, and 
hereby are, denied. This is effective June 19, 2002.

    Dated: May 6, 2002.
John B. Brown, III,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-12485 Filed 5-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M