[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67092-67095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33363]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 97-11]
Ronald D. Springel, M.D., Grant of Restricted Registration
On January 28, 1997, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Ronald D. Springel, M.D., (Respondent) of
Spokane, Washington, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as
to why DEA should not deny his application for registration as a
practitioner under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that such registration
would be inconsistent with the public interest.
By letter dated February 24, 1997, Respondent, through counsel,
timely filed a request for a hearing, and following prehearing
procedures, a hearing was held in Seattle, Washington on July 15 and
16, 1997, before Administrative Law Judge Gail A.
[[Page 67093]]
Randall. At the hearing, both parties called witnesses to testify and
introduced documentary evidence. After the hearing, both sides
submitted proposed fundings of fact, conclusions of law and argument.
On October 6, 1997, Judge Randall issued her Opinion and Recommended
Ruling, recommending that Respondent be granted a DEA Certificate of
Registration subject to several restrictions that would remain in
effect for three years from the effective date of the final order. On
October 28, 1997, Respondent's counsel filed exceptions to the
Administrative Law Judge's Opinion and Recommended Ruling, and on
November 6, 1997, Judge Randall transmitted the record of these
proceedings to the Acting Deputy Administrator.
The Acting 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 Acting Deputy Administrator adopts, except as specifically
noted below, the Opinion and Recommended Ruling 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 Acting Deputy Administrator finds that Respondent graduated
from medical school in 1978, and is currently licensed to practice
medicine in the State of Washington. In 1981 or 1982, while practicing
in Pennsylvania, Respondent became addicted to drugs. Respondent
obtained controlled substances for his own use, by having prescriptions
filled that he had issued in names of other than his own. On August 17,
1983, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in the Lehigh County
Court, to three misdemeanor counts of possession of a controlled
substance and three felony counts of prescribing a controlled substance
outside the course of his medical practice in violation of the laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Respondent was placed on probation
without verdict and was ordered to surrender his DEA Certificate of
Registration. Consequently, Respondent surrendered his previous DEA
Certificate of Registration on August 26, 1983.
On July 25, 1984, Respondent was convicted in the United States
District Court for the District of Alaska, following his plea of guilty
to two felony counts of attempting to knowingly acquire possession of a
controlled substance by fraud in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843 and 846,
and three counts of acquiring possession of a controlled substance by
fraud in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843. The court sentenced Respondent to
two years imprisonment with all but 75 days suspended, and then placed
Respondent on probation for five years.
On August 31, 1984, Respondent was convicted in the Superior Court
for the State of Alaska of four felony counts related to the unlawful
handling of controlled substances and one misdemeanor count of making
an unsworn falsification of an application for a temporary permit to
practice medicine in Alaska. Respondent was sentenced to five years
probation. Thereafter, on September 5, 1984, Respondent's application
for a medical license was denied by the Alaska State Medical Board.
In 1984, Respondent underwent approximately 42 days of inpatient
treatment for chemical dependency. Respondent then moved to the State
of Washington, and in 1987, he suffered a relapse of his drug
addiction, using drugs including heroin. During his relapse, Respondent
was employed at a narcotic treatment program, where he unlawfully
acquired approximately 35 milliliters of methadone, a Schedule II
controlled substance. As a result, on August 26, 1988, Respondent was
convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington of one count of unlawful acquisition of a controlled
substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3), and was sentenced to one
year imprisonment to be followed by two years of supervised release. In
light of this conviction, on August 28, 1988, Respondent's probation
based upon his conviction in the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska was revoked and he was sentenced to three years
imprisonment.
As a result of his relapse Respondent's license to practice
medicine in the State of Washington was summarily suspended on March 4,
1988, by the Washington Board of Medical examiners (Washington Board).
Thereafter, on August 1, 1988, the Washington Board revoked
Respondent's Washington medical license and ordered that Respondent not
petition for reinstatement of his license any earlier than 36 months
from the effective date of the summary suspension order; that he
successfully complete an inpatient treatment program; and that he
remain drug and alcohol free for at least 12 months prior to his
reinstatement. In addition, on September 27, 1988, Respondent's license
to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was
automatically suspended by the State Board of Medical Examiners due to
his drug related convictions.
Respondent went to two different treatment facilities, entering the
second facility on March 17, 1988. He has remained drug-free and in
recovery since that date. Respondent testified at the hearing in this
matter that he has developed a strong support system, and that he
continues to regularly attend 12-step self-help group meetings. In
addition, Respondent completed a five year contract with the Washington
Physicians Health Program (WPHP) in 1994, which consisted of five
elements: total abstinence from alcohol and any other addicting
chemical; attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous and/or Narcotics Anonymous
meetings; behavioral monitoring; chemical monitoring; and work site
monitoring for the first five years under contract. After successfully
completing his contract, Respondent has remained in the program on a
voluntary basis, and was asked by the WPHP board to serve on the
advisory committee, representing the rest of the participants in the
program before the board.
In December of 1989, Respondent started a business which provided
services to employers and employees to facilitate, among other things,
compliance with drug-free workplace regulations. Over the years, this
business endeavor has grown into six related enterprises which offer
various services, to include employee assistance programs, occupational
health services, drug-screen collection services, qualified medical
review officers' services, and educational services to train employees
and supervisors about the drug-free workplace regulatory requirements.
The companies currently have approximately 2,000 clients in the Western
United States, including the State of Washington.
On April 18, 1991, the Washington Board reinstated Respondent's
license to practice medicine in the State of Washington with
restrictions, including that he shall not obtain a DEA registration to
handle controlled substances. On November 4, 1994, Respondent was
granted an unrestricted license in the State of Washington, following
the Washington Board's finding that Respondent ``is not a risk to the
public in his practice as a physician. . . .''
At the hearing in this matter, numerous professional and/or
personal associates and clients of Respondent either testified or
submitted affidavits attesting to the high quality of services
performed by Respondent and his companies; to Respondent's
[[Page 67094]]
distinguished reputation and character; and to their belief that the
registration of Respondent to handle controlled substances poses no
risk to the public or his patients. The Director of the WPHP testified
that the chance of Respondent suffering another relapse is ``quite
unlikely'' given that he had been drug-free and in recovery for over
nine years at the time of the hearing.
Respondent testified that he is now seeking a DEA registration
because he cannot fully perform the occupational health aspect of his
businesses without being able to prescribe controlled substances. In
addition, he wants to volunteer as the back-up physician at a local
narcotic treatment program, and would need to be able to handle
controlled substances to effectively perform his duties. Finally, he
believes that being granted a DEA Certificate of Registration would
make him a complete physician and would recognize the fact that he is a
``repaired'' physician.
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
such registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. In
determining the public interest, the following factors are considered:
(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 be
denied. See Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No. 88-42, 54 FR 16,422
(1989).
Regarding factor one, it is undisputed that Respondent's
application for a license to practice medicine in Alaska was denied in
1984, and his medical license in Pennsylvania was suspended in 1988. It
is also undisputed that while Respondent's license to practice medicine
in the State of Washington was revoked in 1988, and then reinstated
subject to restrictions in 1991, Respondent has possessed an
unrestricted medical license in that state since 1994.
Factors two and four, Respondent's experience in dispensing
controlled substances and his compliance with applicable laws relating
to controlled substances, are relevant in this proceeding. Respondent
became addicted to drugs in the early 1980's. Respondent repeatedly
violated both state and Federal laws by fraudulently obtaining
controlled substances for his own use. In the early 1980's, he
prescribed controlled substances using his previous DEA registration to
acquire the drugs. While Respondent did receive extensive treatment in
1984 for his admitted chemical dependency, he suffered a relapse in
1987, abusing various drugs including heroin. In late 1987, Respondent
unlawfully acquired methadone from a narcotic treatment program where
he was working. Therefore, as Judge Randall concluded, ``the Government
has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that in the 1980's, the
Respondent unlawfully acquired, prescribed, and possessed controlled
substances, as well as unlawfully consumed them.'' The Acting Deputy
Administrator notes that there is no evidence in the record that
Respondent ever unlawfully prescribed and/or dispensed controlled
substances for anyone other than himself.
As to factor three, it is undisputed that Respondent has been
convicted on several occasions of controlled substances related
offenses. In August 1983, he pled nolo contendere in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania to three misdemeanor counts of illegal possession of a
controlled substance, and to three felony counts of prescribing
controlled substances outside the course of medical practice. In July
1984, Respondent was convicted in the United States Court for the
District of Alaska of five felony counts of obtaining a controlled
substance by fraud, and in August 1984, Respondent was convicted in an
Alaska state court of four felony counts relating to the unlawful
handling of controlled substances and one misdemeanor count relating to
the falsification of an application for a license to practice medicine
in Alaska. Further, in August 1988, Respondent was convicted in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington of
one count of the unlawful acquisition of a controlled substance. As a
result of these convictions, Respondent was incarcerated for a period
of time.
Finally, regarding factor five, Respondent has admitted to a long
history of substance abuse in the 1980's. He abused his privilege as a
DEA registrant to obtain the drugs, he stole methadone from his
employer, and he abused heroin. Clearly, this conduct posed a threat to
the public safety.
The Acting Deputy Administrator concludes that based upon the
foregoing, the Government has established a prima facie case for the
denial of Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of
Registration. However, all of Respondent's unlawful conduct and his
convictions stemmed from his drug addiction. Respondent testified that
he has been drug-free since March 1988, and there is no evidence in the
record of the contrary. In fact, the evidence presented by Respondent
shows a strong commitment to continued recovery. Respondent continues
to voluntarily participate in the WPHP, and the Director of the program
testified that after over nine years of being drug-free, it is unlikely
that Respondent will suffer a relapse of his drug abuse. Like Judge
Randall, the Acting Deputy Administrator also finds it noteworthy that
Respondent's business enterprises are centered around the detection and
preventing of drug abuse in the workplace. Finally, the Acting Deputy
Administrator finds significant the witness testimony and affidavits,
offered on behalf of Respondent, attesting to his personal and
professional integrity, and to his continued commitment to sobriety.
The Administrative Law Judge recommended granting Respondent's
application for a DEA Certificate of Registration, but also found
persuasive the Government's argument that ``these multiple offenses are
significant [enough] to warrant an extremely close look at any future
registration for Respondent.'' Therefore, Judge Randall recommended
that the following conditions and restrictions be placed upon
Respondent's registration:
``1. That the Respondent maintain a log of all controlled substance
prescriptions he issues. At a minimum, the log should indicate the date
that the prescription was written, the name of the patient for whom it
was written, and the name and dosage of the controlled substance(s)
prescribed. The Respondent should maintain this log for a period of
three years from the effective date of the final order. Upon request by
the Special Agent in Charge of the DEA Field office in Seattle, or his
designee, the Respondent shall submit or otherwise make reasonably
available his prescription log for inspection.
2. For three years after the effective date of the final order, the
Respondent should continue his association with the WPHP, and, if for
any reason the WPHP
[[Page 67095]]
no longer requires random urine screens, the Respondent shall continue
these monthly screens at his own expense. The Respondent shall provide
copies of the reports of the results of the screens upon reasonable
request by DEA personnel.
3. For three years after the effective date of the final order,
regardless of the applicable Washington state law, the Respondent may
not prescribe or dispense controlled substances to himself or to any
members of his family. The only exception to this limitation is that
the Respondent may possess and consume controlled substances which are
medically necessary for his own use, and which he has obtained lawfully
from another duly authorized physician.''
The Acting Deputy Administrator agrees with the Administrative Law
Judge that Respondent should be issued a DEA Certificate of
Registration, but that some restrictions on his registration are
warranted in light of his past substance abuse, and his use of his
previous DEA registration to fraudulently obtain controlled substances.
In his exceptions to Judge Randall's recommended ruling, Respondent
contends that the proposed language of the second condition to be
imposed on Respondent's registration, if granted, is ambiguous, since
it requires that Respondent ``continue these monthly screens'' and he
is not currently undergoing ``monthly'' urine screens. Respondent
argues that he is currently participating in Phase III of the WPHP,
which provides for random toxicology testing, but does not provide for
monthly testing. Consequently, Respondent purposes that the restriction
be rewritten to require that he continue his participation in Phase III
of the WPHP, which includes random urine screens, for three years after
the effective date of the final order. The Acting Deputy Administrator
agrees with Respondent since the record does not indicate that
Respondent is currently required to undergo monthly urine screens.
Therefore, the Acting Deputy Administrator concludes that
Respondent should be granted a DEA Certificate of Registration subject
to the conditions as recommended by Judge Randall with slight
modifications. Respondent's registration shall be subject to the
following conditions for three years from the date of issuance of the
registration:
(1) Respondent shall maintain a log of all controlled substances
that he prescribes. At a minimum, the log shall include the name of the
patient, the date that the controlled substance was prescribed, and the
name, dosage and quantity of the controlled substance prescribed. Upon
request by the Special Agent in Charge of the Seattle DEA office, or
his designee, Respondent shall submit or otherwise make available this
prescription log for inspection.
(2) Respondent shall continue his participation in Phase III of the
Washington Physicians Health Program, including such random urine
screens, meetings, and other requirements as mandated by the program.
Respondent shall immediately notify the Special Agent in Charge of the
Seattle DEA office, or his designee, of any urine screens found to be
positive for the presence of controlled substances.
(3) Respondent shall not prescribe or dispense any controlled
substances to himself or to any members of his family, and shall only
administer to himself those controlled substances legitimately
dispensed or prescribed to him by another duly authorized practitioner.
Accordingly, the Acting Deputy Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in him by
21 U.S.C. 823 and 824, and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders
that the application for a DEA Certificate of Registration submitted by
Ronald D. Springel, M.D., be, and it hereby is granted, subject to the
above described restrictions. This order is effective January 22, 1998.
Dated: December 15, 1997.
James S. Milford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-33363 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
