99-28602. City Drug Co.; Denial of Application  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 1999)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 59212-59214]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-28602]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    
    Drug Enforcement Administration
    [Docket No. 98-20]
    
    
    City Drug Co.; Denial of Application
    
        On February 24, 1998, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
    Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an 
    Order to Show Cause to City Drug Company (Respondent) of Opp, Alabama, 
    notifying it of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should not 
    deny its application for registration as a retail pharmacy under 21 
    U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that such registration would be inconsistent 
    with the public interest.
        By letter received by DEA on March 30, 1998, Respondent requested a 
    hearing on the issues raised by the Order to Show Cause. Following 
    prehearing procedures, a hearing was held in Mobile, Alabama on October 
    28, 1998, before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. At the 
    hearing, both parties called witnesses to testify and introduced 
    documentary evidence. After the hearing, both parties submitted 
    proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and argument. On June 
    30, 1999, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and Recommended Ruling, 
    Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision, recommending that 
    Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of Registration be 
    denied. Neither party filed exceptions to Judge Bittner's opinion and 
    on August 10, 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 
    Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of the 
    Administrative Law Judge. His adoption is in no manner diminished by 
    any recitation of facts, issues and conclusions herein, or of any 
    failure to mention a matter of fact or law.
        The Deputy Administrator finds that Respondent is a pharmacy that 
    is located in Opp, Alabama. Joseph Grimes was Respondent's owner and 
    pharmacist in charge until November 12, 1997. Respondent previously 
    possessed DEA Certificate of Registration AC5430450, which was revoked, 
    following a hearing, by the then-Acting Deputy Administrator in a final 
    order dated October 7, 1997, and effective November 13, 1997. See 62 FR 
    53338 (October 14, 1997).
        In revoking Respondent's previous DEA registration, the then-Acting 
    Deputy Administrator concluded that a 1992 investigation revealed that 
    between January 1990 and January 1992, Respondent violated 21 U.S.C. 
    829 and 21 CFR 1306.04 by dispensing over 25,000 dosage units of 
    controlled substances without a physician's authorization. The then-
    Acting Deputy Administrator based this conclusion on affidavits 
    submitted by 11 physicians who reviewed prescriptions found at 
    Respondent that were attributed to them, compared these prescriptions 
    to their patient charts, and then swore that they had not authorized 
    the prescriptions. The then-Acting Deputy Administrator found 
    unpersuasive Respondent's argument that the physicians had forgotten to 
    note the issuance of the prescriptions in the patient charts, stating 
    that it was ``highly unlikely that eleven different physicians forgot 
    to note numerous prescriptions in the patient charts which accounted 
    for the dispensing of over 25,000 dosage units of controlled 
    substances.'' The then-Acting Deputy Administrator also found that the 
    patients' affidavits submitted by Respondent were less reliable than 
    the physicians' affidavits since the physicians' affidavits were 
    ``based upon a review of [their] patient records which were prepared 
    and maintained during the relevant time period, whereas the patients' 
    affidavits [were] based upon their recollection more than six years 
    after the event.''
        The then-Acting Deputy Administrator further concluded that 
    Respondent violated 21 U.S.C. 827, by failing to maintain complete and 
    accurate records of controlled substances, as evidenced by Respondent's 
    inability to account for more than 80,000 dosage units of Schedule III 
    and IV substances, and to explain an overage of 859 dosage units of 
    oxycodone 5 mg., the only Schedule II controlled substance that was 
    audited.
        In revoking Respondent's previous DEA Certificate of Registration, 
    the then-Acting Deputy Administrator states that:
    
        (Joseph) Grimes has failed to acknowledge that he and his 
    pharmacy have done anything improper. An unexplained shortage of 
    80,000 dosage units and the unauthorized dispensation of over 25,000 
    dosage units of controlled substances are not merely minor technical 
    violations. The egregious nature of the violations in this matter 
    demonstrate that Respondent has failed miserably in its 
    responsibility as a DEA registrant to protect against the diversion 
    of controlled substances from the legitimate chain of distribution.
    
    Id. at 53343.
        On November 12, 1997, the day before the effective date of the 
    revocation of Respondent's previous DEA Certificate of Registration, 
    Joseph Grimes executed a Bill of Sale that transferred, ``in 
    consideration of ten dollars and other good and valuable 
    consideration,'' a life estate in Respondent to Louie Grimes. Louie 
    Grimes is Joseph Grimes' nephew and is also a pharmacist. The ``other 
    good and valuable consideration'' noted in the Bill of Sale was an oral 
    agreement that Joseph Grimes would continue to work at Respondent two 
    days per week in return for $1,500 per month, and that he would also 
    receive rent of $1,500 per month on the building in which the pharmacy 
    is located. According to the attorney who drafted and notarized the 
    Bill of Sale, Louie Grimes may transfer his life estate in Respondent 
    but that the pharmacy would revert back to Joseph Grimes upon his 
    nephew's death.
        Louie Grimes testified that when he took over operation of 
    Respondent he withdrew the funds from the pharmacy's bank account and 
    used those funds to open a new account in a different bank in 
    Respondent's name. The utilities and business license fees are paid 
    from this account, and Joseph Grimes is not authorized to sign any 
    business check for Respondent. However, Louie Grimes was unaware that 
    the utilities for the property where Respondent is located are listed 
    in Joseph Grimes' name.
        On November 13, 1997, Louie Grimes executed the application that is 
    the subject of these proceedings on behalf of Repondent. On the 
    application, Louie Grimes answered ``No'' to a question which asked 
    whether ``the applicant ever surrendered or had a Federal controlled 
    substance registration revoked.''
    
    [[Page 59213]]
    
        At the hearing regarding Respondent's pending application for 
    registration, evidence was presented from the 1992 investigation 
    concerning Louie Grimes' involvement in the operation of Respondent at 
    that time. During the execution of the search warrant at Respondent on 
    March 2, 1992, Joseph Grimes indicated that Louie Grimes worked part-
    time at Respondent as a pharmacist. According to Louie Grimes, he 
    worked three days a week and Joseph Grimes worked three days a week 
    during the relevant time period. As discussed above prescription 
    records were seized from Respondent and DEA investigations generated a 
    computer report with information from these prescriptions, including 
    the initials of the dispensing pharmacist. This information was later 
    shown to eleven physicians who allegedly authorized a number of the 
    prescriptions. Each of these physicians, after reviewing their patient 
    charts, swore in written declarations that they did not prescribe most 
    of the controlled substances attributed to them. The declarations of 
    two of the physicians indicated that Louie Grimes dispensed 870 dosage 
    units of controlled substances that they had not authorized. In 
    addition, the declarations revealed eight instances, when Louie Grimes 
    refilled controlled substance prescriptions more than five times or 
    more than six months after issuance of the original prescription in 
    violation of 21 U.S.C. 829(b), for a total of 550 dosage units.
        Louie Grimes testified at the hearing that he never dispensed a 
    controlled substance without a physician's authorization and that he 
    never refilled a controlled substance prescription more than five times 
    or after six months from its being issued. In an effort to refute the 
    physicians' declarations, Louie Grimes argued that nurses frequently 
    telephone in prescriptions for physicians to pharmacies and in these 
    instinces probably failed to note them in the patient charts. This 
    explanation was rejected by the then-Acting Deputy Administrator in 
    revoking Respondent's previous DEA registration as unlikely given the 
    volume of authorized dispensation.
        Louie Grimes also argued that another possible explanation for his 
    initials appearing next to the unauthorized prescriptions is that 
    Respondent uses (and used during the relevant time period) a pharmacy 
    software program to track prescriptions that requires the pharmacist on 
    duty to enter his initials into the computer when he begins work. 
    According to Louie Grimes, these initials remain in the system until 
    the user exits the program or a pharmacist affirmatively changes the 
    initials. Therefore if two pharmacists were on duty at the same time, 
    one could not be absolutely sure which pharmacist filled a particular 
    prescription.
        However, the Government entered into evidence a ``Daily Transaction 
    Report'' created by Respondent for May 22, 1991, which lists orginal 
    prescriptions in the order that they were dispensed at the pharmacy and 
    the initials of the pharmacist that allegedly filled each prescription. 
    This report indicates that Louie Grimes dispensed ten original 
    prescriptions, Joseph Grimes then dispensed three original 
    prescriptions, Louie Grimes then dispensed another four original 
    prescriptions, and finally Joseph Grimes dispensed another ten original 
    prescriptions.
        Louie Grimes testified at the hearing that although the Alabama 
    State Board of Pharmacy required pharmacies to maintain a Daily 
    Transaction Report on which the dispensing pharmacist for each 
    prescription is identified by his initials, he could not be completely 
    sure which pharmacist dispensed controlled substances at any given 
    time. However, he also testified that ``we could pretty much go by 
    initials,'' and that he believed that during the relevant time period, 
    Respondent complied with 21 CFR 1304.24 and 1306.22, which required a 
    pharmacy to maintain certain information, including the initials of the 
    pharmacist who dispenses or refills a controlled prescription.
        After receiving Respondent's November 12, 1997 application for 
    registration, DEA investigated whether ownership of Respondent had in 
    fact been transferred. Louie Grimes produced documents pertaining to 
    the transfer of ownership and a copy of his State pharmacy permit. As 
    of November 13, 1997, Respondent has not been authorized to dispense 
    controlled substances. Louie Grimes works as the pharmacist at 
    Respondent four days per week and Joseph Grimes is the pharmacist two 
    days per week. However, should Respondent become registered with DEA, 
    Respondent would need a waiver of 21 CFR 1306.04(a) to continue to 
    employ Joseph Grimes with access to controlled substances, in light of 
    the earlier revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration.
        Louie Grimes testified at the hearing in this matter that he has 
    taken certain measures to ensure that no prescription drugs are 
    dispensed without a prescription authorized by a physician. 
    Specifically, he testified that for oral prescriptions, he notes the 
    person who called in the prescription and the time of the call. 
    Further, Respondent no longer uses doctors' prescription pads to reduce 
    oral prescriptions to writing.
        A DEA investigator testified at the hearing that she had not 
    received any complaints regarding Louie Grimes from physicians or the 
    general public. Louie Grimes testified that he has never been charged 
    with a crime and has never had any action taken against him by DEA or 
    the State of Alabama. He further testified that he has never received 
    any complaints from customers or anyone else regarding his conduct as a 
    pharmacist.
        Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the Deputy Administrator may deny an 
    application for a DEA Certificate of Registration if he determines that 
    the granting of a registration would be inconsistent with the public 
    interest. Section 823(f) requires that the following factors be 
    considered in determining the public interest:
        (1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or 
    professional disciplinary authority.
        (2) The applicant's experience in dispensing, or conducting 
    research with respect to controlled substances.
        (3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or state laws 
    relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled 
    substances.
        (4) Compliance with applicable state, federal or local laws 
    relating to controlled substances.
        (5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and 
    safety. These factors are to be considered in the disjunctive; the 
    Deputy Administrator may rely on any one or a combination of factors 
    and may give each factor the weight he deems appropriate in determining 
    whether a registration should be revoked or an application for 
    registration denied. See Henry J. Schwartz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422 
    (1989).
        Regarding factor one, it is undisputed that Respondent is currently 
    licensed to handle controlled substances in Alabama. But as Judge 
    Bittner noted, ``inasmuch as State licensure is a necessary but not 
    sufficient condition for a DEA registration, * * * this factor is not 
    determinative.''
        Factors two and four, Respondent's experience in the dispensing of 
    controlled substances and its compliance with applicable laws, are 
    clearly relevant in this matter in determining the public interest. 
    Respondent's previous DEA registration was revoked based upon the then-
    Acting Deputy Administrator's findings that Respondent could not 
    account for over 80,000 dosage units of controlled substances and that 
    the Respondent had
    
    [[Page 59214]]
    
    dispensed more than 25,000 dosage units of controlled substances 
    without a physician's authorization. The then-Acting Deputy 
    Administrator did not find Respondent's explanation persuasive 
    regarding the unauthorized dispensing of controlled substances. The 
    then-Acting Deputy Administrator's findings regarding the previous 
    revocation are res judicata for purposes of this proceeding. See 
    Stanley Alan Azen, M.D., 61 FR 57893 (1996), Liberty Discount Drugs, 
    Inc., 57 FR 2788 (1992).
        Louie Grimes is now the owner of Respondent. However, Louis Grimes 
    was also a pharmacist at Respondent, working three days a week, during 
    1990 to 1992, when the above violations occurred. Louie Grimes insists 
    that he never dispensed a controlled substance in violation of Federal 
    laws and regulations. But, the Government presented evidence that Louie 
    Grimes was responsible for the unlawful dispensation of approximately 
    1,400 dosage units of controlled substances.
        Louie Grimes' contention that the physicians were mistaken and that 
    they had in fact authorized the prescriptions in question was rejected 
    by the then-Acting Deputy Administrator, and his conclusions are 
    binding for purposes of this proceeding.
        Louie Grimes' other contention that his initials appeared next to 
    unauthorized dispensations because changes were not made in the 
    computer is also rejected by the Deputy Administrator. The Daily 
    Transaction Report generated by Respondent for May 22, 1991, shows 
    that, at least on that day, the pharmacist's initials were changed 
    throughout the day. Further, Louie Grimes' own testimony at the hearing 
    was contradictory. On the one hand, he maintained that Respondent's 
    computer program made it impossible to be certain who dispensed a 
    controlled substance prescription when two pharmacists were on duty at 
    the same time. But, he also testified that he was ``a hundred percent'' 
    certain that he was always in compliance with State and Federal laws 
    requiring that the dispensing pharmacist's initials appear next to each 
    dispensation in the pharmacy's records.
        As Judge Bittner noted, this explanation was first raised at that 
    hearing. Judge Bittner concluded that ``Louie Grimes' testimony 
    regarding Respondent's computer program was a last-ditch attempt at 
    avoiding responsibility for his actions during the relevant time period 
    and that Louie Grimes did in fact on numerous occasions dispense 
    controlled substances without a physician's authorization, or refill a 
    prescription more than five times or after six months from its original 
    issuance.''
        Regarding factor three, there is no evidence that Respondent or its 
    owner or employees have ever been convicted under State of Federal laws 
    relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled 
    substances.
        As to factor five, the Government contends that the legitimacy of 
    the transfer of Respondent from Joseph Grimes to Louie Grimes and also 
    the role that Joseph Grimes will play in Respondent's future management 
    should be considered. ``The [Deputy] Administrator has long held that 
    applications for registration should be denied where there is a 
    likelihood that a transfer of ownership or control of business is 
    actually an attempt to contravene the effects of a revocation.'' 
    Hilltop Pharmacy, 53 FR 35936 (1988) (citing Darrow Drug, Inc., 49 FR 
    39246 (1984) ). Similarly, the Deputy Administrator may look to who 
    exerts influence over the registrant; sometimes the bonds linking the 
    former owner to the new owner are too close to ensure that the former 
    owner will have no influence over the operation of the pharmacy. See 
    Monk's Pharmacy, 52 FR 8988 (1987), Carriage Apothecary, 52 FR 27599 
    (1987).
        Judge Bittner did not make findings regarding the legitimacy of the 
    transfer of ownership since the Government did not pursue this issue 
    but instead focused on the immediate and potential future effect of the 
    transfer. The then-Acting Deputy Administrator found that during the 
    time that Joseph Grimes was Respondent's owner and managing pharmacist, 
    Respondent ``failed miserably in its responsibility as a DEA 
    registrant.'' Joseph Grimes continues to receive employment, salary and 
    rent from Respondent. In addition, he holds a reversionary interest in 
    Respondent. Therefore the Deputy Administrator concludes that Joseph 
    Grimes continues to derive a benefit from Respondent's operation. The 
    Deputy Administrator agrees with judge Bittner that `'Joseph Grimes' 
    continued interest in Respondent, considered in conjunction with the 
    Grimes' familial relationship and the nominal consideration for the 
    life estate, lead * * * to the conclusion that the bonds linking Joseph 
    Grimes with Louie Grimes and Respondent are too close to ensure that 
    Joseph Grimes will have no influence in the operation of Respondent.''
        The Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge Bittner's conclusion 
    that Respondent's registration would be inconsistent with the public 
    interest. From 1990 to 1992, Respondent could not account for over 
    80,000 dosage units of controlled substances and dispensed more than 
    25,000 dosage units of controlled substances without a physician's 
    authorization. During that time, Louie Grimes worked three days a week 
    as a pharmacist at Respondent and some of the unauthorized 
    dispensations are attributable to Louie Grimes. Yet Louie Grimes 
    continues to lay blame elsewhere, with the physicians or the computer 
    program, rather than accept responsibility for his actions. In 
    addition, Respondent did not present any persuasive evidence of 
    meaningful procedural changes since 1992 that would ensure that it will 
    not again fail to account for controlled substances or dispense 
    controlled substances without authorization. Further, the Deputy 
    Administrator is troubled by Joseph Grimes' continued involvement with 
    Respondent and his reversionary interest in Respondent.
        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, executed by Respondent, be, and it hereby 
    is , denied. This order is effective November 2, 1999.
    
        Dated: October 25, 1999.
    Donnie R. Marshall,
    Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 99-28602 Filed 11-1-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
11/02/1999
Department:
Drug Enforcement Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
99-28602
Pages:
59212-59214 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 98-20
PDF File:
99-28602.pdf