[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 170 (Friday, September 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52147-52148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14521]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


James Curtis Dilday, M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On June 27, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

[[Page 52148]]

Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to James Curtis Dilday, 
M.D. (Respondent) of Little Rock, Arkansas. The Show Cause Order 
proposed to revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, 
BD1434872, as a practitioner, and to deny any pending applications for 
renewal or modification of the registration, on the grounds that 
Respondent's state medical license had been revoked, see 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(3), and that Respondent had committed acts that rendered his 
registration inconsistent with the public interest. See id. Sec.  
824(a)(4); see also id. Sec.  823(f).
    The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that on numerous 
occasions, Respondent had improperly prescribed controlled substances 
(including Schedule II controlled substances) to ten patients. See Show 
Cause Order at 2-4. The Show Cause Order also alleged that between 
November 28, 2000, and November 12, 2002, Respondent had submitted 
fifteen fraudulent claims to insurers for medical services that were 
not performed. See id. at 4-5. The Show Cause Order further alleged 
that Respondent had pled no contest on behalf of his medical 
corporation in a state criminal proceeding to fifteen counts of 
committing fraudulent insurance acts and fifteen counts of theft. See 
id. at 6. Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that the Arkansas State 
Medical Board had revoked Respondent's state medical license. See id. 
The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of its right to a 
hearing. See id. at 7.
    Respondent, through his counsel, requested a hearing; the case was 
assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner. 
Thereafter, on August 11, 2005, the Government moved for summary 
disposition and to stay the proceeding. The Government's motion for 
summary disposition was based on the fact that on June 21, 2004, the 
Arkansas State Medical Board revoked Respondent's state medical 
license. The Government asserted that as a result of the revocation of 
Respondent's medical license, Respondent was without authority to 
handle controlled substances in Arkansas, the State in which Respondent 
was registered with DEA. Because DEA has consistently interpreted the 
Controlled Substances Act as barring a federal registration if a 
practitioner lacks authority under state law to handle controlled 
substances in the State where he practices, the Government sought a 
ruling from the ALJ recommending the revocation of Respondent's DEA 
registration and terminating the proceeding.
    On August 12, 2005, the ALJ issued a memorandum to counsel offering 
Respondent the opportunity to respond to the Government's motion by 4 
p.m. eastern time on August 29, 2005. By September 23, 2005, when no 
response had been filed, the ALJ issued her Opinion and Recommended 
Decision.
    The ALJ explained that Respondent did not deny that he lacked 
authority under Arkansas law to handle controlled substances in that 
State. ALJ Dec. at 2. Noting that DEA precedents have ``consistently 
held that a person may not hold a DEA registration if he is without 
appropriate authority under the laws of the state in which he does 
business,'' the ALJ concluded that ``[b]ecause Respondent lacks this 
state authority * * * he is not entitled to retain his DEA 
registration.'' Id. (citations omitted). Furthermore, as no material 
fact was in dispute, summary disposition was appropriate. See id. The 
ALJ thus granted the government's motion and recommended that 
Respondent's registration be revoked and any pending applications be 
denied. See id. at 2-3.
    Having considered the record as a whole, I hereby issue this 
decision and final order. I adopt in its entirety the ALJ's opinion and 
recommended decision. Because the facts are straightforward and not in 
dispute, there is no need to elaborate on them. As the ALJ found, 
Respondent is no longer authorized to distribute controlled substances 
under State law. Therefore, under our precedents, Respondent is not 
entitled to maintain his DEA registration. See Sheran Arden Yeates, 
M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 
51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988).

Order

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec.  823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I 
hereby order that DEA Certificate of Registration, BD1434872, issued to 
James Curtis Dilday, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further 
order that any pending application for renewal or modification of such 
registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective 
October 2, 2006.

    Dated: August 22, 2006.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E6-14521 Filed 8-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P